European Car Industry: Owning a Car is now only for the Rich

[mackinaw]

This article by Henry Payne, of the Detroit News, is mainly about driving a Cadillac EV in Paris, but his insight on the state of the European car industry is interesting.  Some snippets:

 

“With the electric mandates, small cars are going away. Cars are something for the rich,” said President Emeritus of the World Car of the Year awards and veteran writer Jen Meiners, who splits his time between Europe and the United States. “People are being pushed into public transportation. Even Smart cars and VWs have become unaffordable with the regulations.”

 

“If (EU regulators)) aren’t careful, they will kill the industry,” she said in an interview. “Europe is a massive problem. EVs are more expensive, residual values are worse, and total cost of ownership is worse, so it’s double whammy after double whammy. It’s a rich person’s thing, and therefore the answer is there are going to be (gas cars) on the road for much longer than 2035.”

 

"Planet Europe also differs from the United States in that the majority (about 60%) of vehicles are purchased not by consumers but by companies that then distribute them to employees as perks of the job. Cadillac’s biggest customers, for example, are insurance and infrastructure companies, said Cadillac France Communications Director Isabelle Weitz."

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/07/01/an-american-ev-in-paris-driving-planet-europes-regulated-byways/84431995007/

 

 

[morgan20]

Yea, as Henry Payne said, Europe is a different planet when it comes to cars.

 

Another example: The new MME GT I purchased for my wife last month here in the USA had a pricetag less than $50k before taxes and fees. The same MME GT goes for almost $89,000 in Germany:

 

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, as Henry Payne said, Europe is a different planet when it comes to cars.

 

Another example: The new MME GT I purchased for my wife last month here in the USA had a pricetag less than $50k before taxes and fees. The same MME GT goes for almost $89,000 in Germany:

 

Well gotta pay for that "free" Healthcare some how LOL 

[twintornados]

Lets not forget all the cheap-o cars that BYD and other Chinese firms are currently dumping in the EU.....

[Rick73]

If enough people value personal mobility enough, they will force the auto industry to design and manufacture lower-cost vehicles.  What I don’t understand is why government officials keep repeating the industry’s claimed premise that electrification will preclude affordability, when the opposite should occur.  The industry obviously benefits from more expensive vehicles, which explains their position, but that won’t stop interest in cheaper vehicles and or transportation in general.  At far opposite extreme, electrification has allowed micro-mobility to become more practical than ever possible before when relying on tiny internal combustion engines.  The same technical arguments can be applied to very cheap EVs, particularly for city use.  Electrification makes downsizing easier, not harder.  IMO safety is major technical hurdle to overcome for those who want extreme affordability, but realistically safety is no worse than for the many riding E-bikes and E-scooters in traffic already.  Asian manufacturers have prototypes of mini electric vehicles already, so it comes down to demand given safety risks, not whether they can be built at lower costs.  Options should not be limited to micro cars because there is a middle ground.  Affordable cars like BYD Seagull may test just how small buyers are willing to accept if price is low enough.

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

If enough people value personal mobility enough, they will force the auto industry to design and manufacture lower-cost vehicles.  What I don’t understand is why government officials keep repeating the industry’s claimed premise that electrification will preclude affordability, when the opposite should occur.  The industry obviously benefits from more expensive vehicles, which explains their position, but that won’t stop interest in cheaper vehicles and or transportation in general.  At far opposite extreme, electrification has allowed micro-mobility to become more practical than ever possible before when relying on tiny internal combustion engines.  The same technical arguments can be applied to very cheap EVs, particularly for city use.  Electrification makes downsizing easier, not harder.  IMO safety is major technical hurdle to overcome for those who want extreme affordability, but realistically safety is no worse than for the many riding E-bikes and E-scooters in traffic already.  Asian manufacturers have prototypes of mini electric vehicles already, so it comes down to demand given safety risks, not whether they can be built at lower costs.  Options should not be limited to micro cars because there is a middle ground.  Affordable cars like BYD Seagull may test just how small buyers are willing to accept if price is low enough.

 

The problem you have is with expectations-If your used to driving say a Focus or Fiesta sized vehicle in the EU...going to something smaller like what the Ka was is going to be a non-starter.

 

The other issue is that EV are "expensive" to manufacture because they don't have the benefit of 80+ years of improvements that ICE engines have had. Its hard to make money on EVs when there isn't enough manufacturing capacity for cells for batteries, when an ICE engine can be built for say $1500 net price. 

 

The Chinese can sell cheap because they are getting subsidized by the CCP  

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

The problem you have is with expectations-If your used to driving say a Focus or Fiesta sized vehicle in the EU...going to something smaller like what the Ka was is going to be a non-starter.

For many, yes, but not all.  IMO that’s how change probably has to happen in this case.  Adoption rate in the affordable segment could start slow and build from there.  I agree that large-car owners are less likely to downsize a huge amount so not worth pursuing them, but I believe a significant segment of the population, including those who enjoy riding motorcycles, scooters and bikes may try them, especially the young and those who can afford one as a pseudo toy and or extra city-car vehicle.  If cars prove fun, low-cost, and safe enough for the price, other buyers should follow.  Key IMO is to make them feel cool/desirable to own, not because they’re cheap.

[Joe771476]

73 % of Americans say they can't afford a new car. Car loan defaults are at record highs. How can the automotive industry survive if only 27 % of the buying public is able to afford a NEW car?  Well you have to charge more money for the cars that are being sold!  Just like these fire truck mfrs. They only sell a relatively few trucks, so they ask ridiculous amounts of money for them, strangling the taxpayer. I don't care how much diamond plate, steel, aluminum, electronics or hydraulics is in these trucks, they're not worth a million dollars or more!  The balloon is filling up with air. Every once in a while the powers that be untie the balloon in the form of easing interest rates etc. because they don't want the balloon to pop. Now you have the govt. shutdown.  The United States and many states are broke!  The balloon will pop. Get ready for it. Oh but wait. Never mind.  AI -- as in Skynet from the Terminator movies --  will become self-aware and will take over our entire lives including our military defense systems and life on this planet will just about be wiped out. So you won't have to worry about money. The book 1984 written back 60 or so years ago predicted Big Brother as in big business/govt. will know every move you make.  Of course that came true.  And so will the Terminator prediction.  Have a nice day now!

Edited November 10, 2025 by Joe771476

[Biker16]

On 11/10/2025 at 6:24 AM, Joe771476 said:

73 % of Americans say they can't afford a new car. Car loan defaults are at record highs. How can the automotive industry survive if only 27 % of the buying public is able to afford a NEW car?  Well you have to charge more money for the cars that are being sold!  Just like these fire truck mfrs. They only sell a relatively few trucks, so they ask ridiculous amounts of money for them, strangling the taxpayer. I don't care how much diamond plate, steel, aluminum, electronics or hydraulics is in these trucks, they're not worth a million dollars or more!  The balloon is filling up with air. Every once in a while the powers that be untie the balloon in the form of easing interest rates etc. because they don't want the balloon to pop. Now you have the govt. shutdown.  The United States and many states are broke!  The balloon will pop. Get ready for it. Oh but wait. Never mind.  AI -- as in Skynet from the Terminator movies --  will become self-aware and will take over our entire lives including our military defense systems and life on this planet will just about be wiped out. So you won't have to worry about money. The book 1984 written back 60 or so years ago predicted Big Brother as in big business/govt. will know every move you make.  Of course that came true.  And so will the Terminator prediction.  Have a nice day now!

 
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/car-sales-rich-vehicles.html

 

Edited November 11, 2025 by Biker16

[Biker16]

On 7/7/2025 at 2:03 PM, Sherminator98 said:

 

The problem you have is with expectations-If your used to driving say a Focus or Fiesta sized vehicle in the EU...going to something smaller like what the Ka was is going to be a non-starter.

I think people will buy what's available; consumer choices are a myth. Buyers will buy what the automakers build.

  

On 7/7/2025 at 2:03 PM, Sherminator98 said:

The other issue is that EV are "expensive" to manufacture because they don't have the benefit of 80+ years of improvements that ICE engines have had. Its hard to make money on EVs when there isn't enough manufacturing capacity for cells for batteries, when an ICE engine can be built for say $1500 net price. 

  
Nope

https://insideevs.com/news/778532/battery-capacity-outpacing-demand/

• Capacity to build EV batteries far outstrips demand globally, a new report says.
• It's worst in China, but the overcapacity issue exists in every major market and poses financial risks for battery makers.
• Material and production costs are still high, which means EVs often aren't cheaper than gas cars, reducing demand.

On 7/7/2025 at 2:03 PM, Sherminator98 said:

The Chinese can sell cheap because they are getting subsidized by the CCP  

This is irrelevant; Chinese EV tech is world-class, and legacy makers can only make excuses for their uncompetitiveness for so long. 

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

This is irrelevant; Chinese EV tech is world-class, and legacy makers can only make excuses for their uncompetitiveness for so long. 

 

Yea, exactly. Sure, the Commies act like Commies in Red China. But the bottom line is what you mentioned: Chinese EV tech is world-class. Americans and Europeans can complain all we want about "subsidized by the CCP", but that ain't going to do jack shit to dent China's technological lead.

 

No tariff, export/import ban, or any other government action will prevent them Chinese from delivering products and services that fulfill American and European EV customer desires. If European and American automakers are to clinch those customers, there's no substitute for innovation and great design.

 

Ford's head honcho said about competition from BYD for example, The only way we can beat it was with innovation 

[Biker16]

I think the largest Gap between us and them is knowledge. 

 

The Chinese have created a marketplace where change happens so fast that few people or corporations can keep up. Catl is on their 5th generation lithium iron phosphate batteries. Fifth. From nothing to majority in less than 3 years. I don't know how many LFP battery factors are actually producing in 2025, The vast majority of those sales are being made in China. And they keep innovating making them better, and lowering the cost. 

 

I think the Achilles heel of the American automotive industry is their fear of failure. The Chinese got where they are because they make a lot of mistakes and they learn from them. Whereas US automakers seem to be focused on not making a mistake, they miss the opportunity to learn and grow. Unfortunately, I think this goes beyond our manufacturing culture but to American culture as a whole. 

 

CATL Robin Zeng: Mass Production for 5th Generation Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Products Begins

https://www.aastocks.com/share/news/usq/NOW.1483159?ntype=1&lang=eng&ns=HK6

[morgan20]

14 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

I think the largest Gap between us and them is knowledge. 

 

The Chinese have created a marketplace where change happens so fast that few people or corporations can keep up. Catl is on their 5th generation lithium iron phosphate batteries. Fifth. From nothing to majority in less than 3 years. I don't know how many LFP battery factors are actually producing in 2025, The vast majority of those sales are being made in China. And they keep innovating making them better, and lowering the cost. 

 

I think the Achilles heel of the American automotive industry is their fear of failure. The Chinese got where they are because they make a lot of mistakes and they learn from them. Whereas US automakers seem to be focused on not making a mistake, they miss the opportunity to learn and grow. Unfortunately, I think this goes beyond our manufacturing culture but to American culture as a whole. 

 

CATL Robin Zeng: Mass Production for 5th Generation Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Products Begins

https://www.aastocks.com/share/news/usq/NOW.1483159?ntype=1&lang=eng&ns=HK6

 

A bunch of U.S. auto industry big shots got together at a SAE Detroit Section conference last year and arrived at many of the same conclusions as you did. See attached document for a summary. IMO much of what's in that document is relevant to European automakers as well.

 

"Government policies alone are not going to save the automotive industry. There are significant changes it needs to make itself if it is to make a successful transition to selling more electric vehicles and be able to compete with the Chinese automotive industry."

 

"One traditional supplier, working collaboratively with a Chinese OEM, was surprised at how fast it completed the project. One reason things went so quickly was that the Chinese automaker provided it with only 50 pages of specifications compared to the 4,000 pages it can get from traditional automakers. Chinese OEMs are better at telling suppliers how
they want a component to perform and letting them figure out how to achieve it, instead of trying to dictate all the steps a supplier must follow."

 

"The Chinese do not worry if their early design is not perfect, they just try to get it to work, and then they begin optimizing it with an eye to getting it into production quickly. They also continue to make improvements after a vehicle is in production.Their on-going design changes can also be used to reduce cost and introduce modern technology more quickly."

 

 

24-GLC-White-Paper.pdf

[akirby]

All that is true but it was enabled by government policies pushing buyers to purchase more EVs combined with government subsidizing battery R&D and production.

 

You can’t do that in a private free market.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

I think the Achilles heel of the American automotive industry is their fear of failure. The Chinese got where they are because they make a lot of mistakes and they learn from them. Whereas US automakers seem to be focused on not making a mistake, they miss the opportunity to learn and grow. Unfortunately, I think this goes beyond our manufacturing culture but to American culture as a whole. 

 

Why do you think there is no fear? Because the government is propping them up. 

 

The CCCP has repeatedly done this in many different sectors that makes it almost impossible for companies that actually have to answer for their failures to stakeholders. See the "Rare" Earths and Solar industries for examples of this. 

 

Its hard to compete against that. 

[morgan20]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

All that is true but it was enabled by government policies pushing buyers to purchase more EVs combined with government subsidizing battery R&D and production.

 

You can’t do that in a private free market.

Yea, I like private free markets as much as the other guy but government policies like you described are in place in Europe and the U.S. too, it ain’t only them Chinese Commies. And as the American automaker big shots said at the conference, government policies alone aren’t going to save the car industry.

Contrary to what the Jen Meiners dude said in the article, government policies alone aren’t going to kill the car industry either. That applies to Europe, America, and Red China.

[Texasota]

22 hours ago, Biker16 said:

I think people will buy what's available; consumer choices are a myth. Buyers will buy what the automakers build.

Guess that explains why EVs are selling like hot cakes.

[Biker16]

20 hours ago, akirby said:

All that is true but it was enabled by government policies pushing buyers to purchase more EVs combined with government subsidizing battery R&D and production.

 

You can’t do that in a private free market.

 

Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the state of our free market. 

 

For the record, the United States developed and pioneered the lithium-ion battery that is driving the electrification of the entire planet. 

 

We invented it! 

 

The federal government of these United States funded that. 

 

On the other hand, the United States economy is built on the petrodollar system, which replaced the gold standard as the backing for the United States currency. 

The petrodollar incentivizes policies and investments in fossil fuels and the industry to support the United States dollar's strength. 

 

The idea that the Chinese government subsidizes EVS's success ignores the fact that the United States has invested trillions of dollars in fossil fuel production over the last hundred years. And the main reason EVs are not taken off the market in the United States is marketing by legacy automakers and oil companies that sow doubt in customers' minds about the viability of electrification as a whole. 

 

Fossil fuel producers have funded multiple political campaigns. To continue subsidizing the production of fossil fuels, as well as to reduce environmental permitting requirements, is necessary to continue producing them. 

 

And we are at a point in this country where they have so much control over the regulatory process that we are being left behind in the electrification revolution. Not because we don't have this technology, but because our politics won't allow us to change. 

 

EVS are cheaper to run than gas vehicles. All the world's fastest-growing markets have seen explosive electric vehicle growth, but not here. 

 

There's a reason for that. 

 

 

[Biker16]

17 hours ago, Texasota said:

Guess that explains why EVs are selling like hot cakes.

 

I see you have doubts. 

 

The question is, why don't we have vehicle choice anymore? 

 

20 years ago. You could buy a full-size pickup and a city car from General Motors. 

 

There were buyers for compact cars, and every automaker had an entrant in the compact and midsize sedan market. 

 

 Do you genuinely believe that the evolution towards crossovers happened through osmosis and not through a concerted marketing campaign by automakers to sell the most profitable vehicle they could?

 

People like me who bought a 2012 Focus. 

All 300,000 of us didn't just disappear from the marketplace. Essentially, we were forced to buy a different vehicle because it was no longer being produced, primarily because of the automaker's profitability goals, not because of our actual choice. 

 

If the automakers had their way, they would only sell vehicles that generated the most profit. It is not in their interest to sell vehicles that minimize the opportunity for profits. And to this end, they have used public policy and marketing to shape buyer preferences, as well as simply not selling vehicles people want and selling the cars they want people to buy. 

 

 

[morgan20]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

The question is, why don't we have vehicle choice anymore? 

 

The answer is not "EV mandates" or regulations in general in Planet Europe, Planet America, or Planet Red China

Edited November 13, 2025 by morgan20

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

People like me who bought a 2012 Focus. 

All 300,000 of us didn't just disappear from the marketplace. Essentially, we were forced to buy a different vehicle because it was no longer being produced, primarily because of the automaker's profitability goals, not because of our actual choice. 

 

If the automakers had their way, they would only sell vehicles that generated the most profit. It is not in their interest to sell vehicles that minimize the opportunity for profits. And to this end, they have used public policy and marketing to shape buyer preferences, as well as simply not selling vehicles people want and selling the cars they want people to buy. 

 

They sold 300-420K Ford Escorts in the 1980s, and its primary purpose was to be a CAFE offset to larger cars. 

 

Your missing the whole point-Companies EXIST to generate a profit for their stakeholders, not to be altruistic to the market.

 

If you have limited resources, why are you going to focus on product that doesn't make money for you just to chase sales targets? Ask GM how well that worked out for them over the past 30 years.  

 

I like EVs but also realize that you have decades of people doing something and asking them to do something different just because is going to run into resistance. I work in the IT industry and I see reactions from people/family to minor changes that cause major reactions that I find incredulous, so I can just imagine how some of these people are reacting to EVs.

 

Making EVs more affordable or roughly equivalent to their ICE contemporaries will go a long way in helping people change their minds.   

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

On 11/11/2025 at 2:39 PM, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, exactly. Sure, the Commies act like Commies in Red China. But the bottom line is what you mentioned: Chinese EV tech is world-class. Americans and Europeans can complain all we want about "subsidized by the CCP", but that ain't going to do jack shit to dent China's technological lead.

 

No tariff, export/import ban, or any other government action will prevent them Chinese from delivering products and services that fulfill American and European EV customer desires. If European and American automakers are to clinch those customers, there's no substitute for innovation and great design.

 

Ford's head honcho said about competition from BYD for example, The only way we can beat it was with innovation 

This is why I have so much respect for Farley openly admitting his respect for Chinese affordable EVs. Those cars are gonna be the best affordable EVs currently on sale regardless of if Farley acknowledged them or not. He could either plus his ears and deny Ford needs to improve, or humble himself and take steps to move in the right direction. I'm happy to see he's doing the later. 

[Texasota]

5 hours ago, Biker16 said:

If the automakers had their way, they would only sell vehicles that generated the most profit. It is not in their interest to sell vehicles that minimize the opportunity for profits.

Good grief. That is capitalism at its best and exactly how the system should and must work. It would be suicidal if an auto maker focused on vehicles that minimize profits. I believe you are serious with the above statement and that is simply stunning.

[Biker16]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Good grief. That is capitalism at its best and exactly how the system should and must work. It would be suicidal if an auto maker focused on vehicles that minimize profits. I believe you are serious with the above statement and that is simply stunning.

Ideal capitalism means both parties benefit equally from the Exchange of goods and Services. Profit, on the other hand, is a symptom of an imbalance of benefits rather than of balance. 

The gap between the buyer's and the seller's benefits is due to the seller's monopolistic or cartelistic behavior. I.E., Automakers have extraordinary control over prices, and barriers to prevent new entrants into the market. 

Honestly, Electric vehicles were likely the only way Chinese Automakers could overcome the advantages of legacy automakers. Similar to Tesla, it developed new technology to build cars that bypassed the barriers to entry. 

What Adam Smith said:
 

Quote

“In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest.

Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

 

 

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

They sold 300-420K Ford Escorts in the 1980s, and its primary purpose was to be a CAFE offset to larger cars. 

 

This is an interesting example. 

CAFE was a political compromise between Automakers and politicians. Instead of increasing demand for fuel-efficient vehicles by raising fuel prices, CAFE regulated what was sold through a complex formula of vehicle types, standards, and penalties.  

Over time, automakers lobbied for changes to the program to maximize profitability. (See Lawsuits against CARB)

Without CAFE, we would have more, not fewer, vehicle choices to buy. 
 

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Your missing the whole point-Companies EXIST to generate a profit for their stakeholders, not to be altruistic to the market.

 

If you have limited resources, why are you going to focus on product that doesn't make money for you just to chase sales targets? Ask GM how well that worked out for them over the past 30 years.  

 

See above: Capitalism was about the fair exchange of goods and services. Corporatism is about maximizing power to control market outcomes.  

 

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

I like EVs but also realize that you have decades of people doing something and asking them to do something different just because is going to run into resistance. I work in the IT industry and I see reactions from people/family to minor changes that cause major reactions that I find incredulous, so I can just imagine how some of these people are reacting to EVs.

 

Making EVs more affordable or roughly equivalent to their ICE contemporaries will go a long way in helping people change their minds.   

 

Why would someone prefer going to a smelly gas station rather than filling their vehicle at a lower cost?

Because........

Threatened by EVs, Oil Companies Employ Disinformation Tactics in Massachusetts - Union of Concerned Scientists

Unplugged, or unhinged: Big Oil's ad campaign against electric vehicles

Unmasking Anti-EV Forces: A Deep Dive into the Electric Vehicle Resistance
 

BTW, without barriers to entry like tariffs and Import restrictions, EVs would already be cheaper than ICE vehicles.

 

[akirby]

Anyone who thinks automakers FORCED buyers to buy crossovers because they were more profitable cannot be taken seriously.