[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Very well said. Honestly, once all the other OEMs start pumping out EV’s, I think it would be smart for Tesla to pivot and focus solely on charging infrastructure. They do that better than anyone right now, and their cars will soon be outclassed by companies that have decades more experience in making vehicles.

So far all the oem's have proven is scaling EV production is quite difficult and they won't turn profit for years. GM will be net negative on EVs at minimum until 2025. I am actually starting to believe they are purposely slow rolling production scaling, EV production costs have only gone up the last year+. Why sell EVs at volume and lose money? Keep those ICE profits rolling, they are what keeps the lights on.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by M3WC

So far all the oem's have proven is scaling EV production is quite difficult and they won't turn profit for years. GM will be net negative on EVs at minimum until 2025. I am actually starting to believe they are purposely slow rolling production scaling, EV production costs have only gone up the last year+. Why sell EVs at volume and lose money? Keep those ICE profits rolling, they are what keeps the lights on.

It took Tesla 17 years to turn a profit, though to their credit they started from scratch.

I think 2025 is optimistic, that it may be several more years after that before they truly find their groove and profit from this great transition. It would be foolish to go into it too quickly, and some have chosen to be fools, which is their right.

I hope tesla survives, but they will have to be nimble and innovative to do so long term.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It took Tesla 17 years to turn a profit, though to their credit they started from scratch.

I think 2025 is optimistic, that it may be several more years after that before they truly find their groove and profit from this great transition. It would be foolish to go into it too quickly, and some have chosen to be fools, which is their right.

I hope tesla survives, but they will have to be nimble and innovative to do so long term.

I mean Space X is benefiting from a distracted CEO so maybe Tesla will benefit from his distracted state now?
https://www-businessinsider-com.cdn....ew=1&cap=swipe

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by M3WC

So far all the oem's have proven is scaling EV production is quite difficult and they won't turn profit for years. GM will be net negative on EVs at minimum until 2025. I am actually starting to believe they are purposely slow rolling production scaling, EV production costs have only gone up the last year+. Why sell EVs at volume and lose money? Keep those ICE profits rolling, they are what keeps the lights on.

Yeah, this is kinda not right. e.g., GM was easily producing zillions of bolts volts and whatever the fuck their compliance cars were, as were all other OEMs

Scaling EV production isn't at all difficult for any of the OEMs; the challenge they've had is supply chain, which also drastically affected scaled ICE production:
My 2021-produced X5 doesn't have the cargo area rear seat pulls or wireless charging, is BMW bad at ICE production scaling? No.

The hard part for legacy OEMs is making a product your dealers want to sell, to a customer who wants to buy BEVs, DURING supply chain horrors.

Said differently, the OEMs were standing up BEV supply chains during the greatest supply chain crisis in modern times whereas Tesla had already done it because they only sell BEVs.

That said, Tesla did remind OEMs that telling your 1st tier suppliers to figure out volumes themselves then tell the 2nd & 3rd tiers isn't a great recipe for business continuity.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Yeah, this is kinda not right. e.g., GM was easily producing zillions of bolts volts and whatever the fuck their compliance cars were, as were all other OEMs

Scaling EV production isn't at all difficult for any of the OEMs; the challenge they've had is supply chain, which also drastically affected scaled ICE production:
My 2021-produced X5 doesn't have the cargo area rear seat pulls or wireless charging, is BMW bad at ICE production scaling? No.

The hard part for legacy OEMs is making a product your dealers want to sell, to a customer who wants to buy BEVs, DURING supply chain horrors.

Said differently, the OEMs were standing up BEV supply chains during the greatest supply chain crisis in modern times whereas Tesla had already done it because they only sell BEVs.

That said, Tesla did remind OEMs that telling your 1st tier suppliers to figure out volumes themselves then tell the 2nd & 3rd tiers isn't a great recipe for business continuity.

Exactly. I’m tired of explaining how the auto industry works to people, so I didn’t even respond haha.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Exactly. I’m tired of explaining how the auto industry works to people, so I didn’t even respond haha.

like people don't get that for 2021 OEM 1st tier suppliers simply extrapolated 2020 depressed covid volumes from IHS Markit because the OEMs never tell them shit because over the last 3 decades they've gotten used to pushing the surplus inventory risk onto them.

Tesla came around in 2016/17 and started locking up their supply chain with discrete orders and forecasting and all OEMs laughed and laughed at how stupid they were ...

and then BOOM, suddenly OEMs have their asses hanging out, scrambling for inventory from suppliers.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Yeah, this is kinda not right. e.g., GM was easily producing zillions of bolts volts and whatever the fuck their compliance cars were, as were all other OEMs

Scaling EV production isn't at all difficult for any of the OEMs; the challenge they've had is supply chain, which also drastically affected scaled ICE production:

The most Bolts sold for the US market in one year was 23k, not exactly zillions. It isn't EV scaling in general they are have an issue with, it is scaling Ultium battery production(the main component of an EV). Bolt's don't run on the Ultium platform. They can't even feed the the Hummer EV, Lyriq, and Brightdrop lines. How the hell are they going to add the Silverado EV, Equinox EV, and Blaze EV? They shut down the Hummer EV line in November, so they could get some Lyriq's out the door. The battery production issues have been blamed for pushing back EV production goals by 6 months. I expect more delays will be announced. Along with the announcement today, one of the planned Ultium plant builds has now been cancelled. I have very early Silverado EV reservation, I am not expecting this thing for years and the $40k starting price is going to be vaporware.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by M3WC

It isn't EV scaling in general they are have an issue with, it is scaling Ultium battery production

OEMs don't have a BEV production scaling problem, they have a supplier problem (including for ICE) & a motivation problem (no rush to make BEVs).

Ford, for example, has increased 2023 Lightning production by 275% over their original 2023 (and increase prices by 40% )

So how did Ford accomplish this, super duper hard scaling feat???

They added a 3rd shift to their Dearborn plant.

You gotta stop reading the Muskateer propaganda; it's destroying your critical thinking ability.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

OEMs don't have a BEV production scaling problem, they have a supplier problem (including for ICE) & a motivation problem (no rush to make BEVs)

What I said in my original post. They have no incentive(motivation) to address scaling, there is no rush when they currently make no profit on EVs. The new IRA guidance due in March will only make it more costly to produce batteries. All these new models coming out and their Ultium production isn't anywhere near capacity to supply these new model lines.

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Ford, for example, has increased 2023 Lightning production by 275% over their original 2023 (and increase prices by 40% )

So how did Ford accomplish this, super duper hard scaling feat???

Ford built just 15k Lightnings in 2022, lets see how many they produce in 2023. My guess is they won't meet optimistic production goals that are rattled off for earnings calls. Ford isn't GM. Ford also isn't trying to be ambitious and produce an all new pouch style battery. They went simple and offer EVs with some of the most basic tech on the market, allowing them to be first of US legacy brands to the market. Second highest US market share at 7%.

Originally Posted by GrussGott

You gotta stop reading the Muskateer propaganda; it's destroying your critical thinking ability.

I have a Silverado EV reservation, not Cybertruck. I just don't trust GM's already delayed production goals and have little faith in them actually selling a $40k WT trim.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by M3WC

They have no incentive(motivation) to address scaling, there is no rush when they currently make no profit on EVs.

IT'S THE DEALERS!

December 6, 2022 <- that's, like, a month ago!

Ford CEO Jim Farley, announced today that 1,920 of Ford's 2,968 US dealerships (~65%) agreed to become Model e certified dealers and accepted the strict terms that Ford laid out in order to continue selling fully electric vehicles. That still leaves about one-third of its dealer network without the ability to sell a single fully electric Ford vehicle from January 1st, 2024 to at least January 1st, 2027

Even the signed-on dealers aren't going to be trained, ready, and willing for at least 6 months and it'll probably be much longer before they're effective especially given the "no haggle" pricing.

None of the OEMs are in any rush to push out BEVs because their dealers don't want to - and aren't prepared - to sell them!

GM isn't much different.

Let's say your Silverado shows up tomorrow; will your salesperson be able to tell you about it? Will they even know how to turn it on?

It's the sales model that the OEMs can't scale yet.

(congrats on the Silverado BTW, it sounds pretty awesome! So does the new [mythical?] Ram)

[Bc2005]

My Dad worked for a small Ford dealer in the 60s through the 80s, and even then it was hard for a small dealer to accommodate new models and luxury vehicles. If the Ford dealer wanted to sell a specific model or a range of models (e.g., Lincoln) Ford required the dealer to buy a complete set of special tools for that set of vehicles each year, and to send mechanics to the necessary training.

Most of the special tools and test equipment and were only used for troubleshooting unique features of Lincoln luxury cars, so they were not general purpose tool sets. It was way too expensive if you only expected to sell a small number of vehicles each year. The tool purchase and training requirement never went away if you wanted to keep being able to order Lincoln vehicles.

[________]

Originally Posted by Bc2005

My Dad worked for a small Ford dealer in the 60s through the 80s, and even then it was hard for a small dealer to accommodate new models and luxury vehicles. If the Ford dealer wanted to sell a specific model or a range of models (e.g., Lincoln) Ford required the dealer to buy a complete set of special tools for that set of vehicles each year, and to send mechanics to the necessary training.

Most of the special tools and test equipment and were only used for troubleshooting unique features of Lincoln luxury cars, so they were not general purpose tool sets. It was way too expensive if you only expected to sell a small number of vehicles each year. The tool purchase and training requirement never went away if you wanted to keep being able to order Lincoln vehicles.

As it should. Nothing wrong here. What was your main point?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

As it should. Nothing wrong here. What was your main point?

Not speaking for Bc2005 here, but mandates that are not economically viable aren't good for a business economically speaking. It's a burdon that not all can carry.

A lot of Cadillac dealers recently disappeared for these same reasons, and there was a class action with Hyundai/Genesis and dealers over similar mandate issues, mandates that would have bankrupted many of them. The dealers won. At least Cadillac offered dealers buyouts to sell their right to carry the brand.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

my small dealership, which was was a classic small standalone family-owned Ford franchise (started in 1928) sold out to a larger, still family-owned, multi-brand/multi location franchise corporation.

That's a 10 year trend with The Bigs going on mind-blowing acquisition tears, buying 80-100 dealerships / year

For example, between 2011 & 2021 the top 10 dealer groups went from owning ~13% of the market to 24%, or an 85% 10 year growth rate.

Further, these are publicly traded companies:

* AutoNation
* Lithia Motors
* Group 1 Automotive
* Sonic Automotive
* Penske
* Asbury Automotive Group

And Lithia specifically specializes in buying rural dealerships.

Publicly traded companies growing marketshare 85% over the last decade via massive acquisition isn't wokism, it's capitalism.

Sadly, any Ma & Pa shop is dumb for not selling out right now.

[________]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Not speaking for Bc2005 here, but mandates that are not economically viable aren't good for a business economically speaking. It's a burdon that not all can carry.

A lot of Cadillac dealers recently disappeared for these same reasons, and there was a class action with Hyundai/Genesis and dealers over similar mandate issues, mandates that would have bankrupted many of them. The dealers won. At least Cadillac offered dealers buyouts to sell their right to carry the brand.

If you can’t carry the burden you shouldn’t be in that line of business. It’s pretty simple.

Not all shops will service a Veyron, and that’s ok.

It seems to me if you want to sell a BMW you should be able to service it.
Imagine you bought your car and took it to the dealer and they tell you they can’t service it because they agreed with some form of “there was a mandate that didn’t make business sense to us”? Can’t service the cars can’t sell them. Sell them, service them. Doesn’t seem too out of whack to me.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

If you can’t carry the burden you shouldn’t be in that line of business. It’s pretty simple.

Not all shops will service a Veyron, and that’s ok.

It seems to me if you want to sell a BMW you should be able to service it.

Imagine BMW decided to sell and service Bentleys in every store, and had to buy a million in tools and training and floor 6 million in inventory at every store, and they are in a market where no one wants or can afford a Bentley, those dealers should just fuck off and die I guess.

The choice to exist is being forced, and for what?

[________]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Imagine BMW decided to sell and service Bentleys in every store, and had to buy a million in tools and training and floor 6 million in inventory at every store, and they are in a market where no one wants or can afford a Bentley, those dealers should just fuck off and die I guess.

The choice to exist is being forced, and for what?

The choice to sell Bentleys was the dealer’s. Not BMW forcing it. Your argument is a strawman, I was only replying to what the poster above you said. Which is my first sentence in this post.

And I think you meant to say Rolls Royce, as Bentley is a VW.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

The choice to sell Bentleys was the dealer’s. Not BMW forcing it. Your argument is a strawman, I was only replying to what the poster above you said. Which is my first sentence in this post.

And I think you meant to say Rolls Royce, as Bentley is a VW.

OK, so my choice of product is confusing you, let's change it to ferrari. BMW dealers are forced to carry Ferraris, and if they refuse, they can close. Or instead, lets say they have to sell BMW branded jet aircraft. It doesn't matter what you call it, being forced out of a market by the supplier that wants you to carry something you can't sell, or can't afford to sell, is not good for the consumer or the retailer.

Cable companies do something similar to this this with package stuffing. Want channel X, guess what? You have to buy this whole package of shit you don't want, and you have to pay more for it because it's so many channels. It's not good for the consumer.

Mandating seatbelts and air bags adds 1-2% more cost to cars to save lives in car crashes..

Mandating EV's adds 30-40% more cost to a car to reduce our national CO2 by what, 5%? Transportation is only 15% of total national C02, and shifting that load to the grid will still cause a lot of C02 to be generated.

We reduced more CO2 by covid lockdowns, why not just switch to work from home until we can get this EV stuff to work better? Just use a mandate, those are fun. There are better ways to get C02 reduction if that is the actual goal when you are good with mandating your way there.

[________]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

OK, so my choice of product is confusing you, let's change it to ferrari. BMW dealers are forced to carry Ferraris, and if they refuse, they can close. Or instead, lets say they have to sell BMW branded jet aircraft. It doesn't matter what you call it, being forced out of a market by the supplier that wants you to carry something you can't sell, or can't afford to sell, is not good for the consumer or the retailer.

Cable companies do something similar to this this with package stuffing. Want channel X, guess what? You have to buy this whole package of shit you don't want, and you have to pay more for it because it's so many channels. It's not good for the consumer.

Mandating seatbelts and air bags adds 1-2% more cost to cars to save lives in car crashes..

Mandating EV's adds 30-40% more cost to a car to reduce our national CO2 by what, 5%? Transportation is only 15% of total national C02, and shifting that load to the grid will still cause a lot of C02 to be generated.

We reduced more CO2 by covid lockdowns, why not just switch to work from home until we can get this EV stuff to work better? Just use a mandate, those are fun. There are better ways to get C02 reduction if that is the actual goal when you are good with mandating your way there.

Dude, I can even agree with what you’re saying, it’s just that I couldn’t read it. I’m not sure what rampage you’re on… the poster said “if a dealer wanted to sell a Lincoln, they had to buy tools”. Anything else is beside the point, I’m really confused by your rant.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

dealership and franchise because he didn't feel like fucking with it. Our county doesn't even have annual emissions testing mandates, so who gives a crap about LEED.

Well having done a few buildings I can give you about 5 great reasons of the top of my head, but it's off topic and you seem pretty emotionally committed to your narrative & villains so, yeah, blah blah jingo terms Jerry veddy veddy bad man.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

que sera sera

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

That's a 10 year trend with The Bigs going on mind-blowing acquisition tears, buying 80-100 dealerships / year

For example, between 2011 & 2021 the top 10 dealer groups went from owning ~13% of the market to 24%, or an 85% 10 year growth rate.

Further, these are publicly traded companies:

* AutoNation
* Lithia Motors
* Group 1 Automotive
* Sonic Automotive
* Penske
* Asbury Automotive Group

And Lithia specifically specializes in buying rural dealerships.

Publicly traded companies growing marketshare 85% over the last decade via massive acquisition isn't wokism, it's capitalism.

Sadly, any Ma & Pa shop is dumb for not selling out right now.

Ah yes... a truly competitive dealership business model