Auto Execs Are Coming Clean, EVs Are Just Not Working...

[silvrsvt]

19 hours ago, tbone said:

It’s primarily going to be charging at home.  At best, employers in my area might have two chargers, most which are not fast chargers.  

 

Well here is the thing about that-average commute to work is about 20 miles one way. 

That is where the mind set change has to happen-you don't need to keep your car at 80-100% charge all the time and if your going "short" distances, charging at a level two charger for an hour or two (if that) will get that range back-if needed. 

 

Basically the point is that you don't have to wait till you get to less then 5% to charge again...which takes a long time to do with a level 2 charger. 

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 Many EVs don't look good because they have funky areo designs. But EVs with more conventional designs have worse areo, meaning they need larger, more expensive batteries to put up respectable range numbers. Those EVs cost more to cover the cost of the larger, more expensive battery. Those more expensive vehicles struggle to sell, so the brand's try to cut costs, which leads to use smaller designs, which need those areo focused designs to do well. 

 

I've said it before, but it seems like Ford should try this funky styling EV trend on a more affordable model. People would be more forgiving of the styling, and something futuristic looking could actually appeal to people looking at more affordable cars, considering most affordable cars tend to look very generic and bland. 

Aerodynamics affects more than just the battery size and cost, which is often the way it is oversimplified.  You’re correct that less aero vehicle would need higher energy capacity battery, which means larger, heavier, and more expensive, but that added size and especially extra battery weight (mass) adversely affects vehicle design.  To achieve same acceleration, vehicle now needs larger more powerful electric motor, that in turn requires higher-capacity inverter, cables need to be larger, switches/contactors need higher current capacity, etc.  All this extra weight/mass that started due to higher aerodynamic drag then requires larger and heavier  tires, brakes, springs, etc.  Because of all this added weight/mass, the vehicle now needs even larger battery, and the cycle repeats.

 

There is a reason most BEV manufacturers from Tesla, Lucid, Mercedes, etc. have done as much as possible to lower combination of frontal area and coefficient of drag.  If buyers want vehicles that can drive at least close to 300 miles on a charge, present battery technology requires attention to aerodynamics, or else the vehicle will end up much heavier and costly.  Weight/mass and associated cost quickly spiral out of control.

 

Someone mentioned Nissan Leaf, and in reality early versions were not all that aero, and in combination with small battery, makes it more of a city car due to limited real-world highway range.  Reported Cd for Leaf was even higher than that of Mach-E.  In my opinion a high Cd and or frontal area will lead to much higher cost vehicle assuming everything else (acceleration, range, etc) is similar.

[.I.]

I can’t imagine what will Ford do in Europe.  Ford killed everything from the Fiesta to Mondeo. All electric line up for 2030 is not possible right now, because the people doesn’t want to buy them. 
 

[mackinaw]

2 hours ago, .I. said:

I can’t imagine what will Ford do in Europe.  Ford killed everything from the Fiesta to Mondeo. All electric line up for 2030 is not possible right now, because the people doesn’t want to buy them. 

 

Vans, especially commercial, are Ford's strong point in Europe.

[blazerdude20]

2 hours ago, .I. said:

I can’t imagine what will Ford do in Europe.  Ford killed everything from the Fiesta to Mondeo. All electric line up for 2030 is not possible right now, because the people doesn’t want to buy them. 
 

Assuming regulatory requirements don’t force fully BEV lineup, Ford still has all of the plans and specs from previous models. Worst to worst they will put the ICE vehicles back/continue production. Perhaps with emergency refreshes.  
 

My guess is if there is a large scale pullback on BEV production timelines, the entire industry will have this same query. So it won’t be as detrimental for competitiveness. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

Assuming regulatory requirements don’t force fully BEV lineup, Ford still has all of the plans and specs from previous models. Worst to worst they will put the ICE vehicles back/continue production. Perhaps with emergency refreshes.  
 

My guess is if there is a large scale pullback on BEV production timelines, the entire industry will have this same query. So it won’t be as detrimental for competitiveness. 

Exactly, customer demand for mass rollout of BEVs is just not there. The only exception is Tesla which is doing great with two compact BEVs but adding affordable models above and below will be a tough order for them. Tesla S and  X are both old and expensive, renewing both of them will cost a packet with much fewer sales projected. I don’t see Tesla breaking out of compact BEV in the near future.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly, customer demand for mass rollout of BEVs is just not there. The only exception is Tesla which is doing great with two compact BEVs but adding affordable models above and below will be a tough order for them. Tesla S and  X are both old and expensive, renewing both of them will cost a packet with much fewer sales projected. I don’t see Tesla breaking out of compact BEV in the near future.

Tesla has made it clear that they are working on a compact smaller “utilitarian” BEV below the Model 3 and Y.  It is also interesting that Tesla is increasing investment, not cutting back.

 

A smaller Tesla seems very likely, almost a given, but a new model above Model 3 and Y makes little sense considering how poor Model S and X sales are doing.

 

“Tesla produced 430,488 vehicles globally in the third quarter and delivered 435,059, of which 419,074 were Model 3s and Model Ys. The EV-maker’s volume target of 1.8 million is unchanged.“

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a45583668/tesla-q3-earnings-cybertruck-2025/
 

 

With so many clamoring for the smaller Tesla 2, it’s a wonder no company like Ford tried to beat Tesla to market with similar vehicle design.

 

 

 

[jpd80]

28 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Tesla has made it clear that they are working on a compact smaller “utilitarian” BEV below the Model 3 and Y.  It is also interesting that Tesla is increasing investment, not cutting back.

 

A smaller Tesla seems very likely, almost a given, but a new model above Model 3 and Y makes little sense considering how poor Model S and X sales are doing.

well remember that until recently, the S and X were nearly double the price of the 3 and Y but now I’m seeing some reductions.

Tesla is working on a”2” below the the 3/Y and that will be important in places like China and Europe.

Musk says that the efficiencies achieved will make it profitable and people want to believe that but even if it’s low profit vehicle, the “2” could be a sales king, ending a lot of sales for  European and Japanese brands because a subcompact is right in those buyers’ wheelhouse and exactly what they want.

 

 

Quote

 

“Tesla produced 430,488 vehicles globally in the third quarter and delivered 435,059, of which 419,074 were Model 3s and Model Ys. The EV-maker’s volume target of 1.8 million is unchanged.“

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a45583668/tesla-q3-earnings-cybertruck-2025/
 

 

With so many clamoring for the smaller Tesla 2, it’s a wonder no company like Ford tried to beat Tesla to market with similar vehicle design.

 

Because they have no profitable way of producing such a vehicle, they can’t even produce an affordable compact BEV

It’s more than just having a smart design, it’s also about sufficient maturity in production experience - that can’t be rushed.

Edited October 29, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

27 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Because they have no profitable way of producing such a vehicle, they can’t even produce an affordable compact BEV

It’s more than just having a smart design, it’s also about sufficient maturity in production experience - that can’t be rushed.

You’d think GM at least should have the necessary experience to develop and build a Model 2 competitor.  GM has been working on compact efficient electric vehicles (and gas too) for about 30 years or longer, since EV1.  Excluding vehicles from China, perhaps Hyundai/Kia will challenge Tesla first in that space.  In fairness, the Bolt may not be that far from Tesla Model 2, depending on what that ends up being.

[jpd80]

17 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

You’d think GM at least should have the necessary experience to develop and build a Model 2 competitor.  GM has been working on compact efficient electric vehicles (and gas too) for about 30 years or longer, since EV1.  Excluding vehicles from China, perhaps Hyundai/Kia will challenge Tesla first in that space.  In fairness, the Bolt may not be that far from Tesla Model 2, depending on what that ends up being.

The bolt is as close as GM come to an affordable subcompact, it tells us that making small subcompacts

is not their aim, larger more profitable vehicles are.

 

Mind you, a Bolt BEV for $27,00 is pretty good value…..

Edited October 29, 2023 by jpd80

[tbone]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:56 PM, T-dubz said:

I think that’s true in some cases, but then you have cars like the model 3 which has a more traditional silhouette, looks decent (subjective), is affordable, and maintains a high level of aero. I think that’s part of the reason why it’s a best seller. 

It’s like the automakers think they either have to go full aero or full brick (in the case of trucks or SUVs), and there’s no in between. It’s that in between area they need to explore more. 

 

 

Besides the fact that Tesla is the most recognized and mainstream BEV, most people I know consider Tesla as a luxury vehicle.  Whether everyone thinks that or not, I believe it is another factor that helps Tesla sell vehicles.  

[jpd80]

21 minutes ago, tbone said:

Besides the fact that Tesla is the most recognized and mainstream BEV, most people I know consider Tesla as a luxury vehicle.  Whether everyone thinks that or not, I believe it is another factor that helps Tesla sell vehicles.  

If not a luxury vehicle, Tesla is considered the gold standard for electric vehicles and that kinda makes it a premium vehicle in most people’s estimations. Heck, it’s cutting a big hole in VW’s premium European market sales and rattling BMW & MB’s cages too.

[tbone]

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Basically the point is that you don't have to wait till you get to less then 5% to charge again...which takes a long time to do with a level 2 charger. 

That’s not exactly my situation. My Mach E is a work car that I have to charge publicly by company policy, so I am unable to charge at home.  I get the full experience of the public charging environment, which in my area is far from adequate, and that is what lead to my charge being that low since I had to travel extra distance to get to the fast charger.  

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The bolt is as close as GM come to an affordable subcompact, it tells us that making small subcompacts

is not their aim, larger more profitable vehicles are.

 

Mind you, a Bolt BEV for $27,00 is pretty good value…..

Devil is in the details

 

For example, Bolt range is good for the price, but looking closer at highway rating, range is much lower due to tall boxy non-aero shape.  When tested by Car and Driver under common highway conditions of 75 MPH, range was even lower.  To make matters worse, its fast charging rate isn’t that fast, only gaining about 100 miles every 30 minutes.  If taken on a long highway trip, limiting range between 10~80% battery capacity, it would travel about 2 hours and then need about 45 minutes to charge back to 80%.  Most drivers would not stand for that in my opinion.  That assumes good weather.  In cold winter conditions range performance would be lower.

 

As a second family car or one that remains local and charges at home overnight, the Bolt may meet some buyer expectations quite well.  I wonder though how many buyers would purchase or lease a vehicle knowing that taking road trips would be a hassle, even if they don’t actually plan to take such trips regularly?  I probably wouldn’t, which is reason I would only consider a Tesla Model 3 at this time, even though cost is higher.  It’s not ideal for long road trips, but good enough to manage occasionally.

 

You're correct that Tesla is the “premium” EV even if not considered a luxury brand.  When actually needed on the road, function matters most to me and I expect most buyers, and Tesla is rated and tests best performing EV for the price.  If BEVs are not working, maybe legacy Auto Execs need to rethink priorities and adjust marketing accordingly.

[2005Explorer]

On 10/28/2023 at 7:25 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

Well here is the thing about that-average commute to work is about 20 miles one way. 

That is where the mind set change has to happen-you don't need to keep your car at 80-100% charge all the time and if your going "short" distances, charging at a level two charger for an hour or two (if that) will get that range back-if needed. 

 

Basically the point is that you don't have to wait till you get to less then 5% to charge again...which takes a long time to do with a level 2 charger. 

Maybe you don't need to keep it at 80-100%, but if you're a person that lives anywhere in a rural area and an unforeseen emergency arises it's not a 5 minute fill-up at a 24 hour credit card gas station either. There are a lot of people that want their vehicle ready to go in a moments notice and a charge that's too low in an BEV isn't a quick fix like an ICE or hybrid.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Devil is in the details

 

For example, Bolt range is good for the price, but looking closer at highway rating, range is much lower due to tall boxy non-aero shape.  When tested by Car and Driver under common highway conditions of 75 MPH, range was even lower.  To make matters worse, its fast charging rate isn’t that fast, only gaining about 100 miles every 30 minutes.  If taken on a long highway trip, limiting range between 10~80% battery capacity, it would travel about 2 hours and then need about 45 minutes to charge back to 80%.  Most drivers would not stand for that in my opinion.  That assumes good weather.  In cold winter conditions range performance would be lower.

one of the realities of packaging a subcompact vehicle is that due to their short length and need to package human passengers, they have to be somewhat boxy to do that effectively- the Bolt does have a reasonably aero front. Many of the range issues you mention are part and parcel of smaller BEVs used in a certain way but yeas, I have a feeling that Tesla will do a much better job with the “2”.

 

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

As a second family car or one that remains local and charges at home overnight, the Bolt may meet some buyer expectations quite well.  I wonder though how many buyers would purchase or lease a vehicle knowing that taking road trips would be a hassle, even if they don’t actually plan to take such trips regularly?  I probably wouldn’t, which is reason I would only consider a Tesla Model 3 at this time, even though cost is higher.  It’s not ideal for long road trips, but good enough to manage occasionally.

keep in mind that the Tesla 3 is a lot more expensive but yeah, in order to get a less compromised BEV, going up a size is the pathway, paying $16,000 more, over 50% extra.

 

 

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

You're correct that Tesla is the “premium” EV even if not considered a luxury brand.  When actually needed on the road, function matters most to me and I expect most buyers, and Tesla is rated and tests best performing EV for the price.  If BEVs are not working, maybe legacy Auto Execs need to rethink priorities and adjust marketing accordingly.

But there’s the rub, an existing and established product like Tesla 3/Y that occupies a dominant sales position, sometimes no matter how good a competing vehicle may be, it get shaded by the more popular and successful vehicle.Getting buyers to look at your vehicle (VW and others) is just so hard…

[Rick73]

46 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

But there’s the rub, an existing and established product like Tesla 3/Y that occupies a dominant sales position, sometimes no matter how good a competing vehicle may be, it get shaded by the more popular and successful vehicle.Getting buyers to look at your vehicle (VW and others) is just so hard…

Agree 100%.  Rather than designing BEVs that replace ICE vehicles for the masses, a slower and deliberate transition may be required (assuming government allows it, and I think they will).  Much like Prius, the first successful modern hybrid did not appeal to the masses, yet lead the way to hybrid acceptance years later, we may need a couple of additional high-volume BEVs even if they only appeal to a minority of buyers.
 

It will be interesting to see what Tesla can actually accomplish towards a $25,000 BEV.  But even if it were $30,000 and sales are lower, who cares as long as it makes a profit?  Tesla do have reputation for over-promising, but concept of Model 2 seems solid.  Lucid CEO stated he would like to see a highly-efficient Tesla 2 type of car, but that Lucid didn’t have the resources and funds to bring to market.  Too bad Ford can’t hire the man. ? 

[Oac98]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:11 PM, T-dubz said:

If they think demand is going down now, just wait until that $7500 from the government disappears.
 

Someone mentioned smaller, more affordable evs not selling well too. I think a big part of that is the design. Some of the early entries just weren’t very good looking, like the leaf and bolt. If they had actually tried to make these vehicles look good instead of focusing on aero, they probably would have sold a bit better. I think ford is going to repeat this mistake again with their 3 row wedge shaped EV.

Yup I have ZERO confidence in Fords 3 row EV plan. Cancel the Edge and Nautilus for likely ugly low selling crap. I see lots of downtime in my future. 

[jcartwright99]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:38 PM, blwnsmoke said:

 

My passat tdi was in for service.. battling an ongoing emissions issue.  I average about 42mpg and travel about 700 miles a week.

 

I was given a Jetta as a loaner vehicle.  2023 with their 1.5T motor...   it's peppy and I averaged 46-47mpg with it.. I couldn't believe it.  And they are about $23k brand new.  If I focused in mpg, I'm confident I could get close to 50mpg.

 

At $23k and almost 50mpg on 87 octane, I wouldn't go EV.

My buddy just bought one of these with a MSRP of 25k. I was thoroughly impressed. Rode well and was surprisingly quiet. Excellent MPG.

[Rick73]

0.219 Cd doesn’t have to be ugly, though that’s subjective.  Makes for lowest absolute drag of any Tesla.  MPGe highway of 126 for 2023 MY;  below 2024 should be higher.  Aero look not for everyone, but gets job done.

 

[jpd80]

16 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

0.219 Cd doesn’t have to be ugly, though that’s subjective.  Makes for lowest absolute drag of any Tesla.  MPGe highway of 126 for 2023 MY;  below 2024 should be higher.  Aero look not for everyone, but gets job done.

 

Just spit balling here,

It might be easier to lengthen and widen the current 3 and Y to become new mid sized versions of the X and a new midsized car below the S.

 

The 2 remains an enigma with claims of huge cost savings - maybe more of the car is made up of gigacastings that allow quick manufacturing through the body shop. Something really special is on the way with construction……

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The 2 remains an enigma with claims of huge cost savings

 

Good description, but it were easy, we would have seen it already, right?

 

The cost part of the puzzle I can see easier because there is a lot Tesla could eliminate and still be competitive with ICE in that price range.  Musk recently said the new compact Tesla (Model 2) would be “cool” and “beautiful” but also “utilitarian”, and who knows what that actually means?

 

Most ICE cars in $25,000 range don’t have vegan leather, powered seats, 14 speakers, powered tailgate, etc. so relative to a Model 3/Y, I can imagine Tesla could build a Civic or Corolla competitor, just powered by electricity.  Whether Tesla will dilute the brand by building basic transportation is a different question altogether.

 

The technical side of puzzle must also be a tough one for Tesla to solve.  Press has been reporting that the Model 2 will have a 53 kWh battery, based on a government filing IIRC, which is a little smaller than Model 3 at +/- 60 kWh nominal.

 

To achieve same highway range but with smaller battery than RWD Model 3, they will have to improve efficiency from 126 to ~140 MPGe, needing to match the very best highway rating of the Lucid Air Pure.  It should be possible given a Tesla Model 2 is expected to be smaller and lighter than the Lucid; however, the Lucid Air Pure has an exceptional Cd of only 0.197.  A Tesla Model 2 could have less frontal area and weigh much less, so maybe can get by with higher Cd.  

 

For reference, Nissan Leaf MPGe Highway is only 99, and Chevy Bolt is 109, so getting up to 140 MPGe Highway with an aero shape people will find appealing enough to buy is probably not an easy task.

 

 

P.S. — I emphasized highway driving range above because it doesn’t seem to me many American buyers will embrace BEVs limited primarily to city use.  A car you can’t take on a road trip appears to be a deal breaker for many.

[akirby]

15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

P.S. — I emphasized highway driving range above because it doesn’t seem to me many American buyers will embrace BEVs limited primarily to city use.  A car you can’t take on a road trip appears to be a deal breaker for many.

You have that backwards.  Because road trips are a deal breaker most BEV use cases are local driving/short range commutes.

[Rick73]

47 minutes ago, akirby said:

You have that backwards.  Because road trips are a deal breaker most BEV use cases are local driving/short range commutes.

And hence why people are not buying BEVs in large quantities with two exceptions.  What exactly is backwards about my opinion? 

 

The most popular BEVs by far are the Tesla Y and 3, and both also happen to be most capable for highway trips today.  Combination of highway driving range, fast charging, and charger availability makes it so at present.  I believe their road trip capabilities (whether used or not) plays a major role in their sales success.  It adds to perceived value.

 

IMO any vehicle that only excels around town or city won’t appeal to enough buyers even if it meets over 95% of their needs.  People today don’t like to compromise or be inconvenienced even if only the other 5% of time.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

And hence why people are not buying BEVs in large quantities with two exceptions.  What exactly is backwards about my opinion? 

 

The most popular BEVs by far are the Tesla Y and 3, and both also happen to be most capable for highway trips today.  Combination of highway driving range, fast charging, and charger availability makes it so at present.  I believe their road trip capabilities (whether used or not) plays a major role in their sales success.  It adds to perceived value.

 

IMO any vehicle that only excels around town or city won’t appeal to enough buyers even if it meets over 95% of their needs.  People today don’t like to compromise or be inconvenienced even if only the other 5% of time.

All people care about is range and there is no practical difference between 300 and 320 mile range when it comes to long trips.  Only a few buyers are 100% BEV and they are most likely buying Teslas.  The rest are using them mostly as a second or 3rd vehicle limited to daily commutes.  I don’t think most buyers know or care how aerodynamics affects their highway range. 
 

For me personally I would rather drive a Lightning on a road trip than a Tesla.