Don't Crash U.S. Auto Market by Forcing Us to Buy EVs

[Rangers09]

On 7/14/2023 at 12:56 PM, rperez817 said:

 

Interesting. J.D. Power 2023 U.S. Electric Vehicle Consideration (EVC) Study whose results were released a month ago indicated that "the percentage of shoppers who say they are “overall likely” to consider purchasing an EV increases to 61% from 59% in 2022". Certain groups had even higher levels of being "overall likely" to consider an EV, for example Californians at 73% and Generation Y at 72%. 2023 U.S. Electric Vehicle Consideration (EVC) Study | J.D. Power (jdpower.com)

 

A totally irrelevant statistic. I would hope most vehicle purchasers complete a needs analysis and then compare their needs to what is available in the market. If purchasers thoroughly researched the market, I would expect the percentage for that question to be in the 90's.

 

Since we ordered a new vehicle in both 2021 and 2022, we compared our needs with ICE, Hybrid and BEV's options, where available. So in both cases we would answer in the affirmative for considering a BEV purchase, so would be included in the 61 & 59%.

 

However, if the question asked regarding our probability of purchasing a BEV, it would have got a different response, as after considering our needs, the probability is zero.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

A totally irrelevant statistic. 

You expected something different? 

[rperez817]

On 7/15/2023 at 4:22 PM, Rangers09 said:

A totally irrelevant statistic

 

Not at all. J.D. Power claims that the data gathered in its EVC Study provides insight into the following.

• Which BEV models do people know about – or not?
• Which BEV models are people considering – or not? Why?
• Which are they cross-shopping the most?
• What specifically is preventing people from considering BEVs?
• What actions can be taken to address reasons for avoiding BEVs?
• How can BEVs best be marketed to unique customer segments?
• Where and how are people shopping and informing choices about vehicles?
• How are different information resources influencing people’s consideration of BEVs?

[Rangers09]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Not at all. J.D. Power claims that the data gathered in its EVC Study provides insight into the following.

• Which BEV models do people know about – or not?
• Which BEV models are people considering – or not? Why?
• Which are they cross-shopping the most?
• What specifically is preventing people from considering BEVs?
• What actions can be taken to address reasons for avoiding BEVs?
• How can BEVs best be marketed to unique customer segments?
• Where and how are people shopping and informing choices about vehicles?
• How are different information resources influencing people’s consideration of BEVs?

 

The data you listed comes from the study, which I had no interest in reading, so did not comment on the relevance of the data derived during the study. My response was entirely based on the statistic you included, which is a piece of numeric data derived from the study.

 

As I explained, based on my recent 2 vehicle purchases, the statistic you included provides no indication how many recent purchasers have a reasonable probability of actually purchasing a BEV.  As the statistic was worded, I expected an well over 90% of purchasers would at least consider a BEV. I certainly did, but current limitations prevent us from purchasing one at this time, as they don't meet any of our needs.

[Footballfan]

On 7/15/2023 at 7:31 AM, silvrsvt said:

How is this any different then a ICE powered vehicle if there is no power for the pumps? Oh I can pour gas-that might be two or three years old and bad too. 
 

Come on people. 
 

You don’t need to charge every night just like you don’t have to keep the tank in your ICE full all the time. 
 

 

Gas pumps do not use as much electricity per fillup as a BEV does per charge.  You canprobably gas up 100 vehicles with the electricity it takes to charge one BEV

[Footballfan]

This EV push reminds me of the early 1980s when V-8s and large vehicles were "going" to be extinct.  The Taurus, Sable, and what was to become the FWD Continental of 1988, were supposed to be Ford's largest cars.  Remember the Probe started out as a FWD replacement for the Mustang?  The Ranger was supposed to be the mainstream pickup.  However customers demanded that Ford keep the vehicles they want. Thus, the Mustang remained  in the lineup and was revamped in MY 1994 instead of being dropped.  The Panther-body cars lived on another 20+  years, and the F-Series became the dominant vehicle for Ford.  Over at GM, they went full steam ahead with downsizing and their top-of-the-line luxury cars bombed.  It is a shame that these car companies cannot learn from the mistakes of the past and continue to use this myopic thinking.

[Gurgeh]

2 hours ago, Footballfan said:

This EV push reminds me of the early 1980s when V-8s and large vehicles were "going" to be extinct.  The Taurus, Sable, and what was to become the FWD Continental of 1988, were supposed to be Ford's largest cars.  Remember the Probe started out as a FWD replacement for the Mustang?  The Ranger was supposed to be the mainstream pickup.  However customers demanded that Ford keep the vehicles they want. Thus, the Mustang remained  in the lineup and was revamped in MY 1994 instead of being dropped.  The Panther-body cars lived on another 20+  years, and the F-Series became the dominant vehicle for Ford.  Over at GM, they went full steam ahead with downsizing and their top-of-the-line luxury cars bombed.  It is a shame that these car companies cannot learn from the mistakes of the past and continue to use this myopic thinking.

As I've noted before, this assumes that governments will permit automakers to continue making vehicles that their customers might prefer. The way auto laws and regulations are going here and in Europe, that seems unlikely. It looks like our near future is electric, whether that is what everyone wants or not (and I say this expecting that my next vehicle after the 2024 hybrid Nautilus I have on order will be an EV -- not because of government mandates but because at that point I think it will be my preferred vehicle). 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Footballfan said:

This EV push reminds me of the early 1980s when V-8s and large vehicles were "going" to be extinct. It is a shame that these car companies cannot learn from the mistakes of the past and continue to use this myopic thinking.

 

You have no clue do you-this myopic thinking is due to need to meet CAFE/Emissions requirements requirements which are forcing their hands into making EVs that can meet the requirements without suffering huge fines. That is why there was a huge downsizing by all the players in the market in the late 1970s into the 1980s.

 

Those same regulations also helped bring about the 800-1000HP cars we have today, due to the technological improvements engines needed to have to meet those standards. It also means that there is no magical thing coming that will save ICE either.

 

Also auto manufactures have also discovered that EVs will be easier to design and produce leading to higher average profits then ICE products, which is also why they are going this route.

 

[silvrsvt]

7 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

As I've noted before, this assumes that governments will permit automakers to continue making vehicles that their customers might prefer. The way auto laws and regulations are going here and in Europe, that seems unlikely. It looks like our near future is electric, whether that is what everyone wants or not (and I say this expecting that my next vehicle after the 2024 hybrid Nautilus I have on order will be an EV -- not because of government mandates but because at that point I think it will be my preferred vehicle). 

 

I saw something that Germany wanted the EU to add an eFuel stipulation to the 2035 EV requirement, which I'm guessing is directly aimed at Porsche. But eFuels will be a non starter for the mass market due to limited availability and costs. Perfectly fine for taking your ICE to Cars and Coffee in 2040 and to the track, but I wouldn't want to be commuting with it. 

 

The other thing people aren't taking into consideration is that once EV sales are like 50% of the market, manufactures will stop making ICE products (within reason-things like HD trucks will take the longest to move away from ICE) because it makes no sense or is profitable for them to do so. The US Government would like 50% EV sales by the end of the decade, but we'll see if that happens. 

 

To make this easier for people to understand, I'll use cell phones-we are currently at the Motorola Startac phase of cell phones-a good/decent phone, but not much in the way of options. We still haven't gotten to the iPhone stage (which was roughly 10 years after the Startac came out), which would make EVs affordable and more useful for the vast majority of people. 

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

You have no clue do you-this myopic thinking is due to need to meet CAFE/Emissions requirements requirements which are forcing their hands into making EVs that can meet the requirements without suffering huge fines. That is why there was a huge downsizing by all the players in the market in the late 1970s into the 1980s.

 

Those same regulations also helped bring about the 800-1000HP cars we have today, due to the technological improvements engines needed to have to meet those standards. It also means that there is no magical thing coming that will save ICE either.

 

Also auto manufactures have also discovered that EVs will be easier to design and produce leading to higher average profits then ICE products, which is also why they are going this route.

 

Nevertheless, the free market and customer preference won out over regulations.  YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING THEY DO NOT WANT!   

 

I as a customer could care less about the company's profit margins or if the vehicle is easy to build. Only thing I care about is if the vehicle meets my needs and wants.  If Ford does not make it some other automaker will. 

 

  The Regan administration loosened CAFE requirements to meet the wishes of the market. I'm sure if we get a  a new admin in 2025, it will roll back a lot of the regs.

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Also auto manufactures have also discovered that EVs will be easier to design and produce leading to higher average profits then ICE products, which is also why they are going this route.

 

Those "higher average profits than ICE products" will only materialize for incumbent automakers if they embrace totally different approaches to design, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing for BEV. That underscores the importance for Ford to make the transition from the "old world" of the automotive industry to the "new world" as soon as possible and beat its competitors in doing so.

[Rangers09]

3 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

As I've noted before, this assumes that governments will permit automakers to continue making vehicles that their customers might prefer. The way auto laws and regulations are going here and in Europe, that seems unlikely. It looks like our near future is electric, whether that is what everyone wants or not (and I say this expecting that my next vehicle after the 2024 hybrid Nautilus I have on order will be an EV -- not because of government mandates but because at that point I think it will be my preferred vehicle). 

 

I'll suggest that we have all experienced times where Governments have changed priorities.

 

Classic examples is as recently as 10-years ago, our Provincial Govt paid significant grants to rip our electric heating systems and install natural gas systems. Now they are offering the same money to rip out gas systems and replace with electric heat. Ten years ago the issue was approvals to build more dams for hydro, now it is GHG, so restricting power growth is no longer an issue. As a result, we have a new 1,100 MW dam, which will probably be our last new dam, coming online in 2025, which is projected to be at capacity by 2028. Since EV's are driving some of the increased usage, could our Govt change direction again - possibly.

 

The issue of building new dams has not gone away, our Govt just changed priorities by jumping on the GHG bandwagon, with no regard to long term power supply. In 10-12 yrs, another issue may arise and receive priority over GHG. Not saying it will with EV's, but when Govt is forcing the change, not the consumer, it is always a possibility.

 

Personally, I will only purchase an EV when the technology has improved to where it meets our needs, at time of purchase. I don't expect to see an EV equivalent of the F-450 in my lifetime, so that probably won't happen. For DW's car, if they get the range resolved, have an extensive charging station network and can re-charge in the same time as an ICE vehicle, then we will consider them. Until then, we will continue purchasing PHEV's.

[Rick73]

18 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

I'll suggest that we have all experienced times where Governments have changed priorities.

A big change that comes to mind is nuclear power in 1970s or thereabouts.  It was to get us off dependence on imported energy and not to reduce GHGs, but regardless the government changed priority when population (voters) resisted due to safety concerns.

 

It is easy for some to forget that we the voters are the government.  The “government” some keep referring to as an all-powerful entity is us.  From my perspective the reason we often change direction is that we don’t see consequences, risks, costs, etc. clearly enough in advance to make wise choices.  Then when we have an accident like Three Mile Island that we can actually relate to, perceptions change instantly.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Footballfan said:

Nevertheless, the free market and customer preference won out over regulations.  YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING THEY DO NOT WANT!   

 

I as a customer could care less about the company's profit margins or if the vehicle is easy to build. Only thing I care about is if the vehicle meets my needs and wants.  If Ford does not make it some other automaker will. 

 

The Regan administration loosened CAFE requirements to meet the wishes of the market. I'm sure if we get a  a new admin in 2025, it will roll back a lot of the regs.

But the thing is it didnt you idiot-we still have CAFE and its something like 50 MPG average by 2025 or so and not 25 MPG as it was in the mid 1980s.

 

You might care less, but at the same time post 2035 you won't be able to buy a new gas power car. This isn't about you and your wants, your not that important. 

 

And those loosened Regan requirements where a whopping 1-1.5 MPG average.

 

Not to mention other countries forcing the issue in their markets and as a business, why develop 2-3 products to meet different requirements when only maybe 1-2 are needed?

 

[silvrsvt]

23 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It is easy for some to forget that we the voters are the government.  The “government” some keep referring to as an all-powerful entity is us.  From my perspective the reason we often change direction is that we don’t see consequences, risks, costs, etc. clearly enough in advance to make wise choices.  Then when we have an accident like Three Mile Island that we can actually relate to, perceptions change instantly.

 

You make that sound so much easier then it is. The US political system is a fucking shitshow devoved down to two different sides that can't compromise on the stupidest of things. 

[rmc523]

6 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I saw something that Germany wanted the EU to add an eFuel stipulation to the 2035 EV requirement, which I'm guessing is directly aimed at Porsche. But eFuels will be a non starter for the mass market due to limited availability and costs. Perfectly fine for taking your ICE to Cars and Coffee in 2040 and to the track, but I wouldn't want to be commuting with it. 

 

The other thing people aren't taking into consideration is that once EV sales are like 50% of the market, manufactures will stop making ICE products (within reason-things like HD trucks will take the longest to move away from ICE) because it makes no sense or is profitable for them to do so. The US Government would like 50% EV sales by the end of the decade, but we'll see if that happens. 

 

To make this easier for people to understand, I'll use cell phones-we are currently at the Motorola Startac phase of cell phones-a good/decent phone, but not much in the way of options. We still haven't gotten to the iPhone stage (which was roughly 10 years after the Startac came out), which would make EVs affordable and more useful for the vast majority of people. 

 

One thing worth saying to be fair is that if we can use the "battery tech will become cheaper and easier to get" argument for EVs, the same could be said of "e-fuels" as time goes on (ignoring political/governmental mandates) - that it could theoretically have the same path of getting cheaper over time.

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

One thing worth saying to be fair is that if we can use the "battery tech will become cheaper and easier to get" argument for EVs, the same could be said of "e-fuels" as time goes on (ignoring political/governmental mandates) - that it could theoretically have the same path of getting cheaper over time.

Any option other than 100% EV is bad and all the current issues with widespread EV adoption will be magically fixed in the next 7 years.

[GearheadGrrrl]

With this uncertainty, the only thing certain is that Ford needs to be ready to build whatever mix of competitive EV, PHEV, and IC vehicles the market demands. 

[Footballfan]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

But the thing is it didnt you idiot-we still have CAFE and its something like 50 MPG average by 2025 or so and not 25 MPG as it was in the mid 1980s.

 

You might care less, but at the same time post 2035 you won't be able to buy a new gas power car. This isn't about you and your wants, your not that important. 

 

And those loosened Regan requirements where a whopping 1-1.5 MPG average.

 

Not to mention other countries forcing the issue in their markets and as a business, why develop 2-3 products to meet different requirements when only maybe 1-2 are needed?

 

Classy.......Someone doesn't agree with you you resort to name calling.  Very mature. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Footballfan

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

One thing worth saying to be fair is that if we can use the "battery tech will become cheaper and easier to get" argument for EVs, the same could be said of "e-fuels" as time goes on (ignoring political/governmental mandates) - that it could theoretically have the same path of getting cheaper over time.

Shhhh.  Don't preach common sense to someone who doesn't have any. 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

One thing worth saying to be fair is that if we can use the "battery tech will become cheaper and easier to get" argument for EVs, the same could be said of "e-fuels" as time goes on (ignoring political/governmental mandates) - that it could theoretically have the same path of getting cheaper over time.

Arguing this point-if it could be done easily enough it would have been done already. The problem is that making efuels (as explained already here) is that the electricity used to generate it would be far better off used to charge a battery instead, since an electric motor is far more efficient than an ICE. If the end result is CO2 reduction.....

 

5 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Shhhh.  Don't preach common sense to someone who doesn't have any. 

 

And you'll be on a vacation soon too if you don't watch yourself. 

[silvrsvt]

25 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Classy.......Someone doesn't agree with you you resort to name calling.  Very mature. 

 

Maybe you had some common sense, it wouldn't be necessary to call you out either. But nope its just easier to keep going down your path, damn the torpedoes. 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Any option other than 100% EV is bad and all the current issues with widespread EV adoption will be magically fixed in the next 7 years.

 

So is that supposed to be directed at me?

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

And you'll be on a vacation soon too if you don't watch yourself. 

Then don't start name calling contests. As a moderator you're supposed to set the tone for civility and be an example- not call people names who disagree with you. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Footballfan

[ehaase]

19 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Then don't start pissing contests. As a moderator you're supposed to set the tone for civility and be an example- not call people names who disagree with you. 

 

Silvrsvt ruins every thread he posts in and needs to be dropped as a moderator ASAP. And I don't care if he puts me on a vacation, as this is the first time in six months I signed in here. He is an unpleasant, New Jersey bully, not unlike his former governor Chris Christie.