What happened to EVs? The sudden slowdown in electric car sales is a symptom of a much uglier problem

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Yeah, most buyers see a small hatchback, they expect a small price to correspond with it. Unfortunately, mini and fiat don't seem to understand this, mini especially. 

Exactly.  I was referring to small and compact vehicles accompanied by a low price that could make the vehicle an “addition” to the family, not necessarily a replacement for an existing ICE vehicle already in the family.  The Fiat 500e is more expensive than a gasoline Corolla, Civic or similar, so has stiff competition from onset based on price.  I don’t expect Fiat will sell that many.

 

For enough buyers to look past a “city-type” BEV’s limited size, range, and performance limitations, IMO price would have to drop below $20,000.  Tesla plans on Model “2” around $25k, but with about 250 miles of range.  That’s a “real” car that can replace an ICE family vehicle (I’m not expecting Tesla will make $25k price target anyway).  As far as I know, Chinese manufacturers are only companies building such affordable city cars in < $20k price range.

 

Anyway, now that BEV prices have come down some, I would like to see manufacturers focus more on entry-level EVs for the masses rather than just on expensive SUVs and pickups.

[AM222]

17 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

The Territory sold in Mexico works out to about 35K USD, which is supposed to be a cheap product for that market. 

It's just a cheaper alternative to the non-hybrid Escape which is not offered in Mexico. The entire Territory range is positioned below the Escape Hybrid range which starts at $45K USD in Mexico for the base Active trim.

The mid-trim Territory Trend 1.8 EB (like an SE/SEL) starts at $39,947 USD in Mexico, just a bit less than a Maverick XLT 2.0 EB FWD which starts at $40,476 USD in Mexico (starts at $26,315 in the USA). Now you have an idea how it's positioned in Ford's range in Mexico.

*The Maverick's base XL trim is not offered in Mexico.

In the Philippines, the top trim Territory Titanium X 1.5 EB is priced at the equivalent of $28,775 USD.

Edited January 5 by AM222
Added info

[dmpaul]

https://fordauthority.com/2024/01/ev-sales-in-the-uk-stall-automakers-ask-for-incentives/

 

Another article about EV sales slowing down. This line stood out to me: " As is the case in the U.S., there are many obstacles in the way of EV adoption in the UK, including a lack of incentives and inadequate infrastructure, which has automakers like Ford facing possible fines over low EV market share".

So, auto makers can be fined because nobody wants to buy electric cars? It's almost like regulators want to kill the automotive industry.

 

[Rick73]

Europe appears to be working on electrification of A-segment as means to create affordable BEVs.  Granted, A-Segment is a small percentage of their vehicles, but allows pursuit of efficiency as a means to lower costs.  In this case energy efficiency is inherent in smaller size and lower mass.

 

Language used in one of the articles caught my attention:  The next generation Renault Twingo will be a "fit-for-purpose urban vehicle."  Like executive said, “it doesn't make sense to use a 2.5-ton car to move a single person in the city”.

 

Obviously, A-Segment vehicles are too small for significant mass-adoption in US, but perhaps similar approach with compact sedans could work here.  The US version of a "fit-for-purpose urban vehicle” may have to be considerably larger than a Fiat 500e or Renault Twingo for idea to gain traction, but concept of manufacturers focusing on more affordable vehicles may have merit.
 

https://insideevs.com/news/696437/2026-renault-twingo-is-hyper-efficient-ev-comeback-under-22000-usd/
 

 

P.S. — That’s first reference I’ve seen of a manufacturer targeting 100 kilometers of range per 10 kWh of battery capacity, a number I suggested a while back could make small BEVs much more affordable.  It will be interesting to see how close Renault come to achieving goal, as well as how Tesla Model 2 compares.  Time will tell.

[jpd80]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:38 AM, Rick73 said:

Europe appears to be working on electrification of A-segment as means to create affordable BEVs.  Granted, A-Segment is a small percentage of their vehicles, but allows pursuit of efficiency as a means to lower costs.  In this case energy efficiency is inherent in smaller size and lower mass.

 

Language used in one of the articles caught my attention:  The next generation Renault Twingo will be a "fit-for-purpose urban vehicle."  Like executive said, “it doesn't make sense to use a 2.5-ton car to move a single person in the city”.

 

Obviously, A-Segment vehicles are too small for significant mass-adoption in US, but perhaps similar approach with compact sedans could work here.  The US version of a "fit-for-purpose urban vehicle” may have to be considerably larger than a Fiat 500e or Renault Twingo for idea to gain traction, but concept of manufacturers focusing on more affordable vehicles may have merit.
 

https://insideevs.com/news/696437/2026-renault-twingo-is-hyper-efficient-ev-comeback-under-22000-usd/
 

 

P.S. — That’s first reference I’ve seen of a manufacturer targeting 100 kilometers of range per 10 kWh of battery capacity, a number I suggested a while back could make small BEVs much more affordable.  It will be interesting to see how close Renault come to achieving goal, as well as how Tesla Model 2 compares.  Time will tell.

While your proposals make a lot of sense, I think that you can’t make US consumers like a different type of vehicle just because that’s the most affordable BEV to produce. A better plan would be to look at what it is exactly that US consumers actually want and the answer still remain many and varied vehicles. There’s no real sweet spot to speak of which is why the BEV message is not hitting home.

[Rick73]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:05 PM, jpd80 said:

While your proposals make a lot of sense, I think that you can’t make US consumers like a different type of vehicle just because that’s the most affordable BEV to produce. A better plan would be to look at what it is exactly that US consumers actually want and the answer still remain many and varied vehicles. There’s no real sweet spot to speak of which is why the BEV message is not hitting home.

 

Completely agree we need more electric vehicle choices, not fewer; but suggest they should include more at the bottom end of cost spectrum. 

 

People don’t always “want” what they need or is good for them, or what’s possible, and in fact often choose things that are bad for them (smoking, drugs, overeating, etc.).  I understand what you are saying, but the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me.  Convincing (influencing) buyers to want vehicles they can actually afford, enjoy owning, etc. even if it means attracting a much smaller pool of buyers initially may be more effective.  Tesla’s original vehicle, a 2-seater roadster, was never meant to sell in volume, but accomplished goal of selling BEV viability.

 

Electrification is struggling in my opinion in large part because Americans “want” to have their cake and eat it too, and that’s just not possible.  We can’t have affordable large electric SUVs and trucks with long driving range, and somehow also have enough cheap clean electricity to quickly charge them, all without incurring more costs than we can presently afford as a society.  We can make them more affordable through subsidies but tax payers will pick up the bill.  Electrification expectations from beginning were not realistic.  Obviously some (mostly rich) buyers are not deterred by high costs, but for mass adoption we need lower-cost vehicles too.

 

Unfortunately, given present state of technology and costs, the only way to profitably manufacture affordable BEVs for average-income buyers is to make them small “and” efficient.  It’s not ideal but a reality nonetheless.

 

Tesla has been working on such a vehicle, Model 2, but face a problem Ford doesn’t have.  If smaller and more urban-oriented Model 2 comes in under $30k, it will undoubtedly cannibalize Model 3 and Y sales, so to increase earnings, will need to sell far more units.  Analyst believe that is possible because there are more buyers in that price range.  Ford only has Mach-E in US so not as much to cannibalize by comparison to Tesla.  I get that Ford may not be able to build any small vehicle profitably, but then they are not doing great with large BEVs either.

[Harley Lover]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me

 

LOL. Please think about that comment for a moment.

[Deanh]

sidebar...we just had a PHEV Escape come in MSRP $48950..........

[tbone]

19 minutes ago, Deanh said:

sidebar...we just had a PHEV Escape come in MSRP $48950..........

For an Escape!!

[tbone]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

People don’t always “want” what they need or is good for them, or what’s possible, and in fact often choose things that are bad for them (smoking, drugs, overeating, etc.).  

 

Electrification is struggling in my opinion in large part because Americans “want” to have their cake and eat it too, and that’s just not possible.  

That’s why we have to get the central planners in here to fix the situation for everybody. We can’t be empowered with decision making!

[Deanh]

24 minutes ago, tbone said:

For an Escape!!

my thoughts exactly...

[HotRunrGuy]

46 minutes ago, Deanh said:

sidebar...we just had a PHEV Escape come in MSRP $48950..........

 

well shucks, the base price for the plug-in Escape is $40,500  add the Premium package and Vista moonroof and it starts adding up,,,,,

 

HRG

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

LOL. Please think about that comment for a moment.

I did, and assume no matter what anyone writes there’s always someone that will take a comment completely out of context.  It’s just part of internet communication.

 

So yeah, you ask a bunch of morons that have no clue whatsoever about the reality and limitations of what is actually possible or affordable, and they will describe a dream vehicle that will solve all Global Warming problems yet can’t be built at a reasonable price.  Some of the best CEOs  create new products that buyers didn’t even know they needed, but rush to get anyway.  Asking people what color they like best is one thing, but this is different.  

 

 

[rmc523]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Completely agree we need more electric vehicle choices, not fewer; but suggest they should include more at the bottom end of cost spectrum. 

 

People don’t always “want” what they need or is good for them, or what’s possible, and in fact often choose things that are bad for them (smoking, drugs, overeating, etc.).  I understand what you are saying, but the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me.  Convincing (influencing) buyers to want vehicles they can actually afford, enjoy owning, etc. even if it means attracting a much smaller pool of buyers initially may be more effective.  Tesla’s original vehicle, a 2-seater roadster, was never meant to sell in volume, but accomplished goal of selling BEV viability.

 

Electrification is struggling in my opinion in large part because Americans “want” to have their cake and eat it too, and that’s just not possible.  We can’t have affordable large electric SUVs and trucks with long driving range, and somehow also have enough cheap clean electricity to quickly charge them, all without incurring more costs than we can presently afford as a society.  We can make them more affordable through subsidies but tax payers will pick up the bill.  Electrification expectations from beginning were not realistic.  Obviously some (mostly rich) buyers are not deterred by high costs, but for mass adoption we need lower-cost vehicles too.

 

Unfortunately, given present state of technology and costs, the only way to profitably manufacture affordable BEVs for average-income buyers is to make them small “and” efficient.  It’s not ideal but a reality nonetheless.

 

Tesla has been working on such a vehicle, Model 2, but face a problem Ford doesn’t have.  If smaller and more urban-oriented Model 2 comes in under $30k, it will undoubtedly cannibalize Model 3 and Y sales, so to increase earnings, will need to sell far more units.  Analyst believe that is possible because there are more buyers in that price range.  Ford only has Mach-E in US so not as much to cannibalize by comparison to Tesla.  I get that Ford may not be able to build any small vehicle profitably, but then they are not doing great with large BEVs either.

 

Yes.  Since not giving the customer what they want is a good strategy.....

 

 

....also....your solution to jump to profitability on vehicle types that struggle to be profitable at already higher price (right now with setup costs) is to.......build a low cost model?  How does that make any sense?

[tbone]

41 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I did, and assume no matter what anyone writes there’s always someone that will take a comment completely out of context.  It’s just part of internet communication.

 

So yeah, you ask a bunch of morons that have no clue whatsoever about the reality and limitations of what is actually possible or affordable, and they will describe a dream vehicle that will solve all Global Warming problems yet can’t be built at a reasonable price.  Some of the best CEOs  create new products that buyers didn’t even know they needed, but rush to get anyway.  Asking people what color they like best is one thing, but this is different.  

 

 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that low cost BEVs are necessary to get substantial adoption, but that is a difficult proposition in this day and age with the cost of virtually every component necessary to build the vehicle being higher. I honestly don’t know how they are going to get there even with some type of minimalist urban vehicle.  The

 

Regardimg creating vehicles that people didn’t know they wanted, the Maverick fits in that category, however i think it is successful because it offers a lot of utility for the money.  If it were a BEV, how much do you think it would cost compared to its ICE or hybrid counterpart?  If it was substantially more expensive, I’m guessing people’s willingness to compromise would diminish since there would be better ICE or hybrid alternatives at that price point.  
 

It’s an incredibly challenging situation. Perhaps if wages catch up, the vehicles won’t look as expensive. 

[Rick73]

28 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yes.  Since not giving the customer what they want is a good strategy.....

 

 

....also....your solution to jump to profitability on vehicle types that struggle to be profitable at already higher price (right now with setup costs) is to.......build a low cost model?  How does that make any sense?

I won’t discuss points out of context again.
 

It makes sense to build lower cost vehicles because if you build expensive ones very few people can or will buy them, not unless you drop price and lose even more money per vehicle.  GM Hummer is a good example.  What good was building a vehicle that most people can’t afford?  And let’s also consider damage its excesses have done to electrification’s long-term goals.
 

Opposite happened with Tesla.  When they came out with more-affordable Models 3 and Y, buyers overwhelmingly preferred them over Models S and X.  One report stated lower-cost Models 3 and Y now account for 97% of their sales.  

 

If a manufacturer can’t build vehicles at a profit that people can actually buy, whether large or small,, then maybe they shouldn’t build them at all (obviously unless they have no other choice in order to meet government mandates in order to stay in business).

[LSchicago]

On 1/3/2024 at 9:35 AM, Roland said:

This just central planners talking about what they want to happen.  Pushing the unwashed masses out of personal transportation into busses and trains has always been the goal.  Making transportation too expensive is part of the process and "climate crisis" is the excuse.

90% of US citizens could not use Trains or Busses to get to work. I am in a major metropolitan area and I couldn't. 

[Deanh]

18 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I won’t discuss points out of context again.
 

It makes sense to build lower cost vehicles because if you build expensive ones very few people can or will buy them, not unless you drop price and lose even more money per vehicle.  GM Hummer is a good example.  What good was building a vehicle that most people can’t afford?  And let’s also consider damage its excesses have done to electrification’s long-term goals.
 

Opposite happened with Tesla.  When they came out with more-affordable Models 3 and Y, buyers overwhelmingly preferred them over Models S and X.  One report stated lower-cost Models 3 and Y now account for 97% of their sales.  

 

If a manufacturer can’t build vehicles at a profit that people can actually buy, whether large or small,, then maybe they shouldn’t build them at all (obviously unless they have no other choice in order to meet government mandates in order to stay in business).

catch 22, you may sell more less expensive vehicles ( Maverick for instance, although they arent exactly produced in copious amounts ) but can profitability be sustained ?...ugly truth right there

[Rick73]

33 minutes ago, tbone said:

Regardimg creating vehicles that people didn’t know they wanted, the Maverick fits in that category, however i think it is successful because it offers a lot of utility for the money.  If it were a BEV, how much do you think it would cost compared to its ICE or hybrid counterpart?  If it was substantially more expensive, I’m guessing people’s willingness to compromise would diminish since there would be better ICE or hybrid alternatives at that price point.  

Maverick is a good example. ? 

 

Agree success is partly due to value and low cost.  I like the size and looks too.  To your point, I don’t know if Ford manufactured an electric Maverick, to what extend it would affect Maverick sales.  I think it’s a given cost would be higher than ICE or Hybrid variants, but I would guess that proportionally it wouldn’t be much worse than Lightning is to ICE/Hybrid F-150.  That’s not saying much though because Lightning sales are a small fraction of total F-150.  Also, Maverick sales are much fewer, so an electric variant would not have the numbers to absorb development costs as easily as Lightning.

 

For now I like hybrids over BEVs, and Maverick Hybrid is one of few Ford vehicles I would consider buying.

[akirby]

The problem is vast majority of EV buyers are charging at home.  The kind of people who can afford home chargers don’t want cheap econo boxes. The ones most likely to buy cheap EVs live in apartments or older homes and need public charging.

 

You can’t force people to buy vehicles they don’t want.  They’ll keep what they have or buy used.  I’ve said repeatedly that current EV sales will plateau until the infrastructure is improved and we see next gen cheaper smaller batteries.

[Joe771476]

On 1/3/2024 at 11:44 AM, rmc523 said:

Public transportation isn't a realistic option unless you're in a big city, and even then, that depends on the city.

What percentage of the public do these bureaucrats want to use mass transit? 20%? 50%? At some point the auto industry will take a huge hit and the economy will come to a screeching halt!  Let's wake up!

[jpd80]

On 1/9/2024 at 10:54 AM, akirby said:

The problem is vast majority of EV buyers are charging at home.  The kind of people who can afford home chargers don’t want cheap econo boxes. The ones most likely to buy cheap EVs live in apartments or older homes and need public charging.

 

You can’t force people to buy vehicles they don’t want.  They’ll keep what they have or buy used.  I’ve said repeatedly that current EV sales will plateau until the infrastructure is improved and we see next gen cheaper smaller batteries.

Until recently, the Tesla X was nearly double the price of a Tesla Y but mercifully, the price is now just under $80,000. It shows us that  Tesla is not serious about increasing the volume of the X, an Edge sized vehicle  and that  other manufacturers have time to develop vehicles that are better priced. There’s no magic bullet size for BEVs but better choices to begin with may overcome some of the resistance.

Edited January 10 by jpd80

[Rick73]

Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in single-family detached houses.  No doubt inconvenient charging may limit BEV buyer pool, but that still leaves a lot of houses without BEVs due to many other reasons.  My subdivision, as example, is 100% houses, 100% of them with minimum of 2-car garages, and yet relatively few vehicles on roads/streets are BEV.  I’m not even sure it’s strictly an affordability issue because there are plenty of expensive cars and SUVs around that cost more than a Tesla 3 or Y.  I’m guessing that since BEVs cost more (assuming otherwise similar vehicles), most buyers simply choose ICE over BEV because they get more value.

 

In my opinion BEVs will have greater challenges competing with ICE vehicles at the larger and higher-cost end of vehicle choices.  If government mandates eliminate ICE altogether then it levels the competitive playing field, but if BEV slowdown is a sign we will return more towards free market competition, I think manufacturers should focus on smaller BEVs first.  And by that I mean smaller like Focus, Civic, or Corolla in interior volume/space, not a return to Ford’s urban city car, the THINK.  Extremes don’t work at either end.  Too small like THINK, Smart EV or even Fiat 500e or Mini Cooper won’t attract enough buyers for mass market success.  I would look at space below Mach-E but above Fiat or Mini.  Granted, there will be competition from Chevy BOLT, VW, Nissan LEAF, and various Hyundai/Kia.

[rmc523]

On 1/8/2024 at 4:51 PM, Rick73 said:

Maverick is a good example. ? 

 

Agree success is partly due to value and low cost.  I like the size and looks too.  To your point, I don’t know if Ford manufactured an electric Maverick, to what extend it would affect Maverick sales.  I think it’s a given cost would be higher than ICE or Hybrid variants, but I would guess that proportionally it wouldn’t be much worse than Lightning is to ICE/Hybrid F-150.  That’s not saying much though because Lightning sales are a small fraction of total F-150.  Also, Maverick sales are much fewer, so an electric variant would not have the numbers to absorb development costs as easily as Lightning.

 

For now I like hybrids over BEVs, and Maverick Hybrid is one of few Ford vehicles I would consider buying.

 

They've increased prices and made the hybrid no longer standard, likely because they weren't making enough on the hybrid.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 4:29 PM, Rick73 said:

I won’t discuss points out of context again.
 

It makes sense to build lower cost vehicles because if you build expensive ones very few people can or will buy them, not unless you drop price and lose even more money per vehicle.  GM Hummer is a good example.  What good was building a vehicle that most people can’t afford?  And let’s also consider damage its excesses have done to electrification’s long-term goals.
 

Opposite happened with Tesla.  When they came out with more-affordable Models 3 and Y, buyers overwhelmingly preferred them over Models S and X.  One report stated lower-cost Models 3 and Y now account for 97% of their sales.  

 

If a manufacturer can’t build vehicles at a profit that people can actually buy, whether large or small,, then maybe they shouldn’t build them at all (obviously unless they have no other choice in order to meet government mandates in order to stay in business).

 

Not sure how it's "out of context" when you literally say "the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me." .  But ok....

 

The problem is that just about everyone aside from Tesla hasn't figured out how to make the BEVs profitable at "reasonable" prices yet, because they're working on getting their infrastructures up and running and improving battery tech.

 

Down the road (ideally sooner than later), sure, it'd be great to have smaller models at good prices.  But right now for most manufacturers, that's not a thing, like it or not.  Expecting companies to just charge low prices and lose money NOW just to get BEVs going doesn't make sense.

 

Naturally you're going to have a larger customer pool at a lower pricepoint - that applies to any product.  It also doesn't help that the S and X haven't received meaningful design changes....ever.

 

 

 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

The problem is that just about everyone aside from Tesla hasn't figured out how to make the BEVs profitable at "reasonable" prices yet, because they're working on getting their infrastructures up and running and improving battery tech.

 

Down the road (ideally sooner than later), sure, it'd be great to have smaller models at good prices.  But right now for most manufacturers, that's not a thing, like it or not.  Expecting companies to just charge low prices and lose money NOW just to get BEVs going doesn't make sense.

 

Naturally you're going to have a larger customer pool at a lower pricepoint - that applies to any product.  It also doesn't help that the S and X haven't received meaningful design changes....ever.

Well, it should get interesting in that Tesla just today started taking orders for 2024 Model 3 Highland at same price.  I thought some buyers may have delayed buying Model 3s waiting for upgrade, and if that’s the case, it may hurt Mach-E sales somewhat over next few months.  Starting price for Model 3 is still +/- $40k.

 

There is speculation (fancy word for guessing) that Tesla’s new smaller car (Model 2) will be about 15% shorter, 30% lighter, and with about 25% smaller battery.  Analyst estimate COGS about 37% lower, roughly half from size-related savings and other half on more-efficient assembly if I recall correctly.  That’s how the analyst roughly projects $25k as a reasonable target.  I think even at $30k a smaller Tesla could interest a lot of buyers.  It would me.

 

I guess my question to you would be that if Mach-E had been made a little smaller, would Ford have loss any more per car, and would sales have been that much lower?  Not suggesting Mach-E is wrong size, just questioning if smaller and lower-cost would have been any worse.