America Is Divided: Let China's Automakers Build Here, Or Not?

[morgan20]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

I don’t think that’s enough to solve the problem.

 

When the Chinese automakers bring their appealing, low cost, high tech EV to the U.S., or partner with U.S. companies, or build them in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, a lot of American consumers won't consider that a problem

Edited August 23 by morgan20

[BarneyFord]

They are working toward it.  
 

https://media.polestar.com/global/en/media/pressreleases/683156/the-first-polestar-manufactured-in-the-usa-production-of-polestar-3-starts-in-south-carolina

 

Volvo also is building an EV in South Carolina.  

Edited August 23 by BarneyFord

[morgan20]

2 hours ago, BarneyFord said:

They are working toward it.  
 

https://media.polestar.com/global/en/media/pressreleases/683156/the-first-polestar-manufactured-in-the-usa-production-of-polestar-3-starts-in-south-carolina

 

Volvo also is building an EV in South Carolina.  

 

Yea, good example. Volvo Cars has been a Chinese automaker for over 15 years. Geely Holding calls the shots for Volvo Cars and Polestar

[morgan20]

Ford's head honcho and the other big shots are scared as shit on how good them Chinese automakers are

 

The WSJ explains that the Chinese have managed to overturn the pecking order with “elegant, low-cost engineering” and by “using a low-cost supply base to undercut the competition on price,” namely the competition from Western automakers whose brand cache is no longer competitive against Chinese brands selling cheaper, well-made cars while “moving at light speed". And other Ford executives agree, admitting to Farley that Chinese EVs are, indeed, ahead of Ford and other domestic automakers in America.

 

Farley considers them an “immediate threat in Europe and other overseas markets, and a long-term risk in Ford’s profit engine of North America, regardless of protectionist measures.” Whereas global carmakers once hardly saw the Chinese as a threat, they are now gasping to catch up. That’s why Ford is paying more attention to its Chinese partners and rivals, and is no longer taking them for granted.

[tbone]

8 hours ago, morgan20 said:

Ford's head honcho and the other big shots are scared as shit on how good them Chinese automakers are

 

The WSJ explains that the Chinese have managed to overturn the pecking order with “elegant, low-cost engineering” and by “using a low-cost supply base to undercut the competition on price,” namely the competition from Western automakers whose brand cache is no longer competitive against Chinese brands selling cheaper, well-made cars while “moving at light speed". And other Ford executives agree, admitting to Farley that Chinese EVs are, indeed, ahead of Ford and other domestic automakers in America.

 

Farley considers them an “immediate threat in Europe and other overseas markets, and a long-term risk in Ford’s profit engine of North America, regardless of protectionist measures.” Whereas global carmakers once hardly saw the Chinese as a threat, they are now gasping to catch up. That’s why Ford is paying more attention to its Chinese partners and rivals, and is no longer taking them for granted.

Perhaps the American manufacturers shouldn’t have allowed their technology transfer when they originally entered the Chinese market and partnered with Chinese companies as required by the Chinese government in order to do so. Much easier to focus on developing one aspect of a vehicle, when you don’t have to focus on developing any other aspect of it, because you stole the rest of the technology.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. 

[Chrisgb]

8 hours ago, tbone said:

Perhaps the American manufacturers shouldn’t have allowed their technology transfer when they originally entered the Chinese market and partnered with Chinese companies as required by the Chinese government in order to do so. Much easier to focus on developing one aspect of a vehicle, when you don’t have to focus on developing any other aspect of it, because you stole the rest of the technology.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. 

I think the US auto industry looks at China's 1.4 billion population and that ~5% of Americans buy new vehicles each year and figured that China would eventually get to the same point, and got starry eyed. Thank Goodness that China didn't require a reciprocal 50% ownership in foreign mfrs.

Edited September 21 by Chrisgb

[morgan20]

18 hours ago, tbone said:

Perhaps the American manufacturers shouldn’t have allowed their technology transfer when they originally entered the Chinese market and partnered with Chinese companies as required by the Chinese government in order to do so.

 

Yea, that was a dumb move by U.S. automakers. It's done and ain't gonna be reversed though. From now on, the head honchos at U.S. automakers best realize that the biggest advantage of Chinese automakers isn't cheap labor as someone incorrectly mentioned here. It's better technology and faster pace of change

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, that was a dumb move by U.S. automakers. It's done and ain't gonna be reversed though. From now on, the head honchos at U.S. automakers best realize that the biggest advantage of Chinese automakers isn't cheap labor as someone incorrectly mentioned here. It's better technology and faster pace of change

The students out grew the masters.

While the Chinese market fell in love with western brands, the domestic Chinese brands served their apprenticeship and learned everything about ICE and hybrid PHEV manufacturing. All of that thanks to Legacy brands desperate to earn easy billions from China, never realising that they were creating their biggest competitor that could kill them all in their sleep.

 

Fast forward to 2024 and legacy brands are struggling to build even the basics of a decent mass production

 commodity BEV. Oh no, please European and American governments, save us form our own incompetence by

blocking out a much better competitor, it’s in your best interests to do so……what a holy crap moment.

Edited September 22 by jpd80
D’Oh fix Autotext typos

[Rick73]

On 8/12/2024 at 2:40 PM, Biker16 said:

 

That is indeed an extremely low price, but isn’t most of it due to how basic the vehicle is, not the technology or manufacturing behind it?  It provides everything that is required and not much more — in China anyway, since US version may require safety upgrades.

 

It’s tiny, 4 seater, light at well under 3,000 pounds, battery under 40 kWh, only 55 kW FWD motor, etc.  They even have only one windshield wiper and none for rear, not that there is anything wrong with that if marketing to the right group.  As a second or third car in family for students or just short local trips, it meets many “needs”, though maybe not wants.

 

Anyway, if Tesla as low-cost domestic EV manufacturer built a similar vehicle, what would it cost?  A lot more than $11,500 I’d bet, but likely well under $25,000.  The problem isn’t lack of technology in my opinion, it’s more that US manufacturers would include a lot more content like self-driving capabilities, larger battery, more power, and so on.  For an entry level EV I like the Seagull concept because if most EV trips are short, how much space and comfort are really needed?  I wouldn’t buy Chinese, but would love to see others market a similar affordable barebones vehicle a step or two above a four-wheel motorcycle.  Agree with you technology isn’t the main problem, at least with Seagull and similar ultra affordable choices.

[Biker16]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:42 AM, Rick73 said:

That is indeed an extremely low price, but isn’t most of it due to how basic the vehicle is, not the technology or manufacturing behind it?  It provides everything that is required and not much more — in China anyway, since US version may require safety upgrades.

 

It’s tiny, 4 seater, light at well under 3,000 pounds, battery under 40 kWh, only 55 kW FWD motor, etc.  They even have only one windshield wiper and none for rear, not that there is anything wrong with that if marketing to the right group.  As a second or third car in family for students or just short local trips, it meets many “needs”, though maybe not wants.

 

Anyway, if Tesla as low-cost domestic EV manufacturer built a similar vehicle, what would it cost?  A lot more than $11,500 I’d bet, but likely well under $25,000.  The problem isn’t lack of technology in my opinion, it’s more that US manufacturers would include a lot more content like self-driving capabilities, larger battery, more power, and so on.  For an entry level EV I like the Seagull concept because if most EV trips are short, how much space and comfort are really needed?  I wouldn’t buy Chinese, but would love to see others market a similar affordable barebones vehicle a step or two above a four-wheel motorcycle.  Agree with you technology isn’t the main problem, at least with Seagull and similar ultra affordable choices.

If this is a free country with a free market, why aren't affordable cars available anymore?

I would like to have more vehicle choices in our auto market. 
 

[akirby]

25 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

If this is a free country with a free market, why aren't affordable cars available anymore?

I would like to have more vehicle choices in our auto market. 
 

Because companies are far more profit conscious and not volume driven after the 2008 collapse.

[HotRunrGuy]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Because companies are far more profit conscious and not volume driven after the 2008 collapse.

 

As well they should.  You OK, or running on a generator?

 

HRG

[akirby]

2 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

As well they should.  You OK, or running on a generator?

 

HRG

No damage at all.  Dodged a big bullet.  Family in South Ga got hammered.

[Rick73]

21 hours ago, Biker16 said:

If this is a free country with a free market, why aren't affordable cars available anymore?

I would like to have more vehicle choices in our auto market. 
 

There are a lot of reasons in my opinion, many of which are complex and controversial.  It’s not just one thing.  We have free markets but often highly regulated which in my opinion can have a snowball effect on prices.  Chances of a small EV the size of Seagull seem remote to me, in large part because of safety concerns when there are so many larger vehicles sharing the road.

 

For what it’s worth, there are some low-cost new cars available, but sell in very small numbers.

[silvrsvt]

On 9/28/2024 at 11:00 AM, Rick73 said:

For what it’s worth, there are some low-cost new cars available, but sell in very small numbers.

 

Because people want everything and eat their cake too. 

[morgan20]

On 8/12/2024 at 12:42 PM, Biker16 said:

We don't want Chinese vehicles; we want their technology.

 

The head honcho big shot at some battery company in Israel says that American, European, South Korean, Japanese automakers shouldn't try to copy Chinese technology. They have to out-innovate them Chinese

 

Moshiel Biton, CEO of Israeli battery materials company Addionics, which plans a $400 million U.S. factory for cathode materials, said legacy automakers must develop better EVs to compete instead of simply embracing Chinese technology.

"If they just try to do copy and paste, they can't compete with the Chinese on cost," Biton said. "Innovation is mandatory or they face a dead end."

Edited Wednesday at 06:02 PM by morgan20

[akirby]

Do they have better technology or are they just applying it faster and wider?

[Rick73]

Chinese can gamble on risky capital investments in ways American private companies will not; and/or should not.

[morgan20]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

Do they have better technology or are they just applying it faster and wider?

 

Them Chinese? All of the above

[Biker16]

On 9/28/2024 at 11:00 AM, Rick73 said:

There are a lot of reasons in my opinion, many of which are complex and controversial.  It’s not just one thing.  We have free markets but often highly regulated which in my opinion can have a snowball effect on prices.  Chances of a small EV the size of Seagull seem remote to me, in large part because of safety concerns when there are so many larger vehicles sharing the road.

 

For what it’s worth, there are some low-cost new cars available, but sell in very small numbers.

 

Agreed, IMO Trade barriers are the only thing keeping US automakers in business. 

Could Ford survive without the Chicken Tax preventing low-cost trucks and vans from being imported? 

As mentioned earlier, the pervasiveness of large trucks deters some from buying small cars. The doubling and tripling down of more profitable large vehicles created an arms race for larger and larger vehicles, incentivized by trade protections and CAFE. 

[akirby]

55 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Could Ford survive without the Chicken Tax preventing low-cost trucks and vans from being imported? 
 

They compete well against domestically produced foreign brands already.  We don’t need products made with slave labor or government subsidies.

[morgan20]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

Could Ford survive without the Chicken Tax preventing low-cost trucks and vans from being imported?

 

Dunno. In the 20 years I worked for Ford, their business model was to rake in as much profit as possible from products protected by Chicken Tax (F-Series, E-Series, Transit) and make most other products loss leaders.

 

Ford shot themselves in the foot with that model. Not only by becoming less competitive with products not protected by Chicken Tax, but also by engaging in bullshit shenanigans trying to evade that same Chicken Tax for Transit Connect imported to the U.S.

 

Ford Motor Company has agreed to pay the United States $365 million to resolve allegations that it violated the Tariff Act of 1930 by misclassifying and understating the value of hundreds of thousands of its Transit Connect vehicles.

 

Ford devised a scheme to avoid higher duties by misclassifying cargo vans. Specifically, the government alleged that from April 2009 to March 2013, Ford imported Transit Connect cargo vans from Turkey into the United States and presented them to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with sham rear seats and other temporary features to make the vans appear to be passenger vehicles. These temporary rear seats were never intended to be, and never were, used to carry passengers. Rather, the government alleged, Ford included these seats and features to avoid paying the 25% duty rate applicable to cargo vehicles. By classifying the vans as vehicles for the transport of passengers, Ford instead paid a duty rate of just 2.5%

 

 

[Biker16]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

They compete well against domestically produced foreign brands already.  We don’t need products made with slave labor or government subsidies.

I estimate that Ford N.A. makes 70-90% of its profits on vehicles protected by the Chicken Tax. 

Economics 101 says that the profitability of those segments are driven not by consumer preferences but by a lack of competition able to drive prices down closer to costs. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:59 PM by Biker16

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

Economics 101 says that the profitability of those segments are driven not by consumer preferences but by a lack of competition able to drive prices down closer to costs. 

 

How is it competitive when competition has a 20-30% built in advantage when it comes to labor costs or whatever?  

[morgan20]

9 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

How is it competitive when competition has a 20-30% built in advantage when it comes to labor costs or whatever?  

 

Labor costs don't contribute much built in advantage or disadvantage for automakers. The biggest costs are in processes associated with market research, design, engineering, manufacturing, procurement/supplier relations, sales and service, etc.

 

Companies that are the most efficient and agile in those areas like the best Chinese companies have a major advantage over their competitors