Electric Vehicles

[Junction65]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This is why the current US direction towards isolationism in the auto industry is a dangerous long term path.

Bovine excrement

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Junction65

Bovine excrement

Exactly.

[Devstrike]

The Automakers have the ability to make the vehicles the US consumer want and also for what other markets want. If an automaker chooses to just focus on the US in an Isolation type of way then it is on them which I should have included in my earlier post as well. I am sure the politicians hate me I have not bought an EV and there isn't even one on my Radar right now. My wife through her work has a charging station but that lease knowledge was not readily available at the time for us to consider when she bought her Subaru.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

The Automakers have the ability to make the vehicles the US consumer want and also for what other markets want. If an automaker chooses to just focus on the US in an Isolation type of way then it is on them which I should have included in my earlier post as well. I am sure the politicians hate me I have not bought an EV and there isn't even one on my Radar right now. My wife through her work has a charging station but that lease knowledge was not readily available at the time for us to consider when she bought her Subaru.

You think the politicians hate you?

I have always owned a manual transmission since 1997 and that ain’t never changing, and I’ll NEVER own anything less than a naturally aspirated V6 with NO hybrid or turbos.

If GM gets their zhit together on the L87 I ifully intend on buying a new Tahoe 6.2 to go with the Camaro.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This is why the current US direction towards isolationism in the auto industry is a dangerous long term path. ...

Originally Posted by Devstrike

I do not put this blame on just the Automakers. The US Consumer (which to be fair this is not to fault them but they provide demand) politics and the Automakers. I still believe to this day that if California didn't put in the EV mandate then we probably would not be in this situation and there would be more consumer demand. I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS POLITICAL. I am just saying if things were allowed to naturally happen we would live in a US where ICE and EV would co exist more freely without the resistance you see now.

At the end of the day that is where we will be. The issue I have is that things are being done now in an overt attempt to prevent the US automakers from leading in development of EV technology. By the time EVs really take off, domestic manufacturers will be far behind.

Originally Posted by bigd1276

"Isolationism". Is that a globalist term for giving U.S. customers what they want?
Asking for a friend.

Originally Posted by Junction65

Bovine excrement

Originally Posted by olrocker

Exactly.

So... when's the last time I had this sort of conversation with this sort of response?...lemme think....lemme think...

Ahh! I remember. Late '70s early '80s when Japanese imports started to take off. "Nobody's gonna buy those little $#!t-boxes" Until they did. "They can't compete with US auto". Until the plants started closing and Americans started getting laid off.

All the signs are there for a repeat, with the additional knowledge that we are already seeing the play being run in Europe and South America. There are also already plays being signaled by Chinese automakers to build cars in Mexico, the US and Canada. Sorta like VW and Honda did early in the '80s, with all the Japanese manufacturers and some of the Germans following them soon after. It's all right there in front of our eyes, should we choose to open them.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Since you’re the “expert” with so much more “insider knowledge” than the rest of us you of all people should understand the US car market is DIFFERENT from the rest of the world.


It always has been and it always will be. Even 50 years from now.

The only thing that is truly different is the full size truck market and that's why it is protected (chicken tax). If another OEM is able to crack that nut, all bets are off. That's why Ford (Lightning) and GM (Hummer / Silverado EV / Sierra EV) over-reacted to Tesla's Cybertruck. If that thing had lived up to Elon's claims it could have put a serious dent in part of the full-size truck market and would not have been subject to the chicken tax. Thankfully, it didn't. But who's to say future attempts, especially with REEV technology, won't do that at some point in the future.

Originally Posted by olrocker

In America we have long, smooth, wide expansive highways that other than a few bits and pieces of Europe are NOTHING - and most Americans daily commute is on one of these long expansive highways to work and back.

I drive 25 miles each way. Mostly I-480 and I71 through the Cleveland area. If I’m not going at least 70+ I’m getting cussed out, brights flashed at, or worse. So I usually set my cruise at 75 and I’m good. In 60 mph zones mind you.

Americans have NEVER wanted, nor will they EVER want, the small efficient tiny cars you see in the rest of the world.

You know what else does very well on smooth, wide, expansive highways? Seven-passenger SUVs built in Georgia by S. Korean automakers. Take your pick, gas, hybrid or electric. Or maybe you'd prefer large Japanese or German sedans built in Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio or Canada. The ones that outsell by a mile the last couple of sedans made by US manufacturers (CT5 and Charger). Again, gas, hybrid or electric. Pick your poison.

Originally Posted by olrocker

The F150 is STILL one of if not THE best selling vehicle in America. Silverado, Ram Trucks, and Sierra are all top 5.

They’re today’s version of the ‘72 Caprice your Grandather drove.

And right up there with them are Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Tesla Model Y.

Originally Posted by olrocker

The American market is for big, roomy, comfortable trucks or cars that have V8 engines, run on gas, get 15 mpg, and can refill 30 gallons in 5 minutes.

Sure there’s”blips” over the years where “efficient” cars were the in thing.]

A large part of the US market is exactly that. But there is a large and growing part of the market that is midsized and compact utilities that are NOT protected by the chicken tax. Foreign manufacturers are dominating this space with both imported and in-country build of vehicles that fit that mold. Add to that the idea that for most EV buyers, they don't even need the 5 minutes to fill up 30 gallons, since they wake up every morning with a full tank. And for those that do "fill up" on the road, every improvement in battery tech shortens the time spent charging. The times I've had to spend charging away from home I've never gone beyond 30 minutes and the car is usually done charging by the time I come back from the rest room or buying food.

Originally Posted by olrocker

But let’s be honest: the only people who actually wanted EVs to begin with are tech geeks with pocket protectors and horn-rimmed glasses and Green Peace tree huggers who shower maybe once a month and their other hygiene is suspect at best.

For the rest of us normal, hard working, every day Americans we Weill continue to buy cars and trucks that simply don’t even fit down half the streets in Italy or Japan.

That was true for early adopters. We're way past that phase now. EV drivers are a lot more diverse than you give credit for.

Originally Posted by olrocker

So if manufacturers want to make REAL money in America, they’re going to make big cars and trucks with big gasoline V8 engines, and to make MORE money and INCREASE profits they can now remove all the expensive crap technology (auto start/stop, cylinder deactivation, direct injection, active grille radiator louvers, and half the O2 sensors) they’ve had to put on over the last 15 years and cut the price and STILL make more money.

They can still build the EVs and hybrids for the hippies and let THEM pay 3x the price since THEY want it so bad.

For the majority of Americans just give us the cars and trucks we want.

I trust that all automakers want to focus on providing what buyers want. But as buyers are presented with different options that can do everything their current vehicle can do and even more, the "what buyers want" element shifts. Buyers used to want big sedans. Try to find one now. Especially domestic. Buyers used to want muscle cars. I'll just let that one sit. Again, I'll ask you to look at what happened with Japanese cars coming to the market in the '70s / '80s. Nobody was supposed to want them. Then Honda Accord and Toyota Camry topped the sales list year after year. Then the Korean automakers came in in the '90s / 2000s. Cheap crap that always broke down. How are they selling now? They're not selling cheap crap any more. They're selling high end sedans and utilities. US automakers need to be in position to provide whatever the buyer wants now AND next. That's the only way to sustain a business.

[Junction65]

You make the following statement:

"the current US direction towards isolationism in the auto industry"

and then proceed to debunk your own statement in follow up posts.

Enabling domestic auto manufacturers to compete with foreign auto manufacturers on a level playing field is not an "isolationist" position. As you yourself state, foreign auto manufacturers can still build and/or sell their vehicles stateside. IF that choice is taken away then it would be a problem.

Consumers should have a choice between ICE, HEV or EV vehicles regardless of who builds them, not have limited options due to EPA/CAFE restrictions or zero emission mandates.

Level the playing field and let consumers drive demand.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Junction65

You make the following statement:

"the current US direction towards isolationism in the auto industry"

and then proceed to debunk your own statement in follow up posts.

Enabling domestic auto manufacturers to compete with foreign auto manufacturers on a level playing field is not an "isolationist" position. As you yourself state, foreign auto manufacturers can still build and/or sell their vehicles stateside. IF that choice is taken away then it would be a problem.

Consumers should have a choice between ICE, HEV or EV vehicles regardless of who builds them, not have limited options due to EPA/CAFE restrictions or zero emission mandates.

Level the playing field and let consumers drive demand.

I think you must be misinterpreting something I said. It is NOT allowing US automakers to compete on a level playing field because US automakers are already behind on developing new vehicle technology. The playing field is NOT level today and will become even more lopsided over the next few years. In the meantime, foreign automakers who are already ahead in many aspects can also avoid tariffs by building product here. That includes Chinese automakers.

The "isolationist" position of which I speak is tilting the regulations to reward the manufacture of "old tech" at the expense of (as opposed to in addition to) new tech. As if the US auto market is an island and as long as we are the best on the island we're all good. Fact is, everyone else is competing globally and bringing their best products here to compete against our outdated products. Just like the Japanese did in the '70s and '80s.

It's not just EV technology, but also telematics technology and anything requiring semiconductors. Everything in modern cars requires semiconductors these days. What the automobile-relevant parts of the Inflation Reduction Act did was to provide incentive for domestic automakers to invest in battery technology, minerals refinement, semiconductor technology and other technologies to get caught up to where the rest of the world, particularly China, S. Korea, and Japan are with respect to new vehicle technology. It also provided incentives for building plants to produce relevant components in the US (jobs). The US does not need to catch up with relation to engine technology. GM and Ford are both in great position there. Just look at Corvette and Mustang. But most other portions of the vehicle, like feature technologies (semi-conductors, rare earth materials) and some assembly technologies, the US is behind. IRA was a path to getting caught up.

[Junction65]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I think you must be misinterpreting something I said. It is NOT allowing US automakers to compete on a level playing field because US automakers are already behind on developing new vehicle technology. The playing field is NOT level today and will become even more lopsided over the next few years. In the meantime, foreign automakers who are already ahead in many aspects can also avoid tariffs by building product here. That includes Chinese automakers.

Can you provide any links/evidence where any new policies prevent domestic manufacturers from building HEVs/EVs or prevent development of battery or other new technologies? Can you at least give some specifics to substantiate your claims?

The "isolationist" position of which I speak is tilting the regulations to reward the manufacture of "old tech" at the expense of (as opposed to in addition to) new tech. As if the US auto market is an island and as long as we are the best on the island we're all good. Fact is, everyone else is competing globally and bringing their best products here to compete against our outdated products. Just like the Japanese did in the '70s and '80s.

Previous policies rewarded "new tech" at the expense of (as opposed to in addition to) "old tech". My garage, my choice, wouldn't you agree?

Also can't domestic auto manufacturers build and sell their vehicles globally?

Didn't the '80s bring about domestic auto manufacturers innovating new technologies such as OBD, fuel injection systems(cross fire, tuned port, multi port), turbos and smaller displacement engines as a response to the Japanese autos you mention? Innovation has always been one of America's strengths and the current situation is pretty "Pro-American".

It's not just EV technology, but also telematics technology and anything requiring semiconductors. Everything in modern cars requires semiconductors these days. What the automobile-relevant parts of the Inflation Reduction Act did was to provide incentive for domestic automakers to invest in battery technology, minerals refinement, semiconductor technology and other technologies to get caught up to where the rest of the world, particularly China, S. Korea, and Japan are with respect to new vehicle technology. It also provided incentives for building plants to produce relevant components in the US (jobs). The US does not need to catch up with relation to engine technology. GM and Ford are both in great position there. Just look at Corvette and Mustang. But most other portions of the vehicle, like feature technologies (semi-conductors, rare earth materials) and some assembly technologies, the US is behind. IRA was a path to getting caught up.

Let's be honest here, the previous IRA policy had nothing to do with "inflation". That was just a Orwellian name game so that if someone questioned it, they could be shamed in media sound bites while lining the pockets and coffers of certain individuals and groups. What does automotive design and innovation have to do with inflation and the cost of groceries? Last time I checked, you can't eat semiconductors, minerals, solar panels and windmills.

Also current policies provide even more incentives(reinstates 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying business assets, 100% deduction for qualified production property, etc) for building plants here to produce relevant components among other things in the US. Consider funding, stock piling, tax credits and loan programs for boosting rare earth production as well.

A big, beautiful future for the domestic automotive industry, all right there in front of our eyes, should we choose to open them.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Junction65

Can you provide any links/evidence where any new policies prevent domestic manufacturers from building HEVs/EVs or prevent development of battery or other new technologies? Can you at least give some specifics to substantiate your claims?

No, because it isn't done by statute. It's done by making it more attractive to continue making cylinder blocks and and stereo head units than electric motors and integrated infotainment systems. Just like I've said all along that there was no federal mandate to force anyone to make or buy EVs. There were programs put in place to promote the development of new technology in order to keep the US auto industry competitive. There is no mandate that says "don't make EVs or other advanced tech", just like there were no federal "mandates" that said "you must make EVs and invest in other tech".

Originally Posted by Junction65

Previous policies rewarded "new tech" at the expense of (as opposed to in addition to) "old tech". My garage, my choice, wouldn't you agree?

Not really. California aside, and I've been very clear on my thoughts about California's mandates, the policies promoted both technology groups but promoted EV technology more. But not at the expense of existing tech. If it did, Stellantis would have been under water a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Junction65

Also can't domestic auto manufacturers build and sell their vehicles globally?

Remember the part about making things people want to buy? The rest of the world doesn't want our full-size trucks. For that matter, they don't want most of what is produced in North America. That's my point about it being an island. But North American customers are very much in favor of buying vehicles that are mainstream in other countries and regions. This provides more of an advantage for foreign companies who can sell the same products they sell in their home markets here in the US. But for the most part, the domestic automakers are relegated to selling what they make in North America in North America. Then they have to invest in entirely different products in other countries. Look at GM portfolios in China and South America or Ford portfolios in China and Europe.

Originally Posted by Junction65

Didn't the '80s bring about domestic auto manufacturers innovating new technologies such as OBD, fuel injection systems(cross fire, tuned port, multi port), turbos and smaller displacement engines as a response to the Japanese autos you mention? Innovation has always been one of America's strengths and the current situation is pretty "Pro-American".

It absolutely did. But primarily in "catch up" mode. And how much market share was bled out by the time that happened? I was working in Flint when Buick City was built as a state of the art manufacturing campus. Positioned to beat the Japanese at their own game. Wanna know what Buick City is now? Flat land (not to be confused with flat earth ). Turned out beating the Japanese at their own game with a decade and a half late start didn't work out too well. Playing catch-up doesn't usually work out great. That's where we are headed when more companies start offering vehicles like the Xiaomi S7 at prices below the average price of vehicles sold in the US.

Originally Posted by Junction65

Let's be honest here, the previous IRA policy had nothing to do with "inflation". That was just a Orwellian name game so that if someone questioned it, they could be shamed in media sound bites while lining the pockets and coffers of certain individuals and groups. What does automotive design and innovation have to do with inflation and the cost of groceries? Last time I checked, you can't eat semiconductors, minerals, solar panels and windmills.

Have you actually READ the IRA? I have. The automotive related part is a very small part of the IRA. Basically, the fluffy tail of the very large dog. It was structured to provide incentives for companies to invest in the development of emerging technologies where the United States is trailing the rest of the world and also providing incentives for adding manufacturing capacity for those same technologies. Not just automotive, but several key industries. That's the inflation reduction part. Putting more tax-paying citizens to work. It was also focused on reducing costs of key medications for people with chronic illnesses. In other words, leaving more money in peoples pockets to buy things other than the drugs that save their lives.

Originally Posted by Junction65

Also current policies provide even more incentives(reinstates 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying business assets, 100% deduction for qualified production property, etc) for building plants here to produce relevant components among other things in the US. Consider funding, stock piling, tax credits and loan programs for boosting rare earth production as well.

If this is true that would be a good thing. What I have seen though is the government pushing for abandoning of projects where companies were already partially invested in adding manufacturing capacity and jobs. I'll be receptive to anything I see that bears this out.

Originally Posted by Junction65

A big, beautiful future for the domestic automotive industry, all right there in front of our eyes, should we choose to open them.

Agree to disagree.

[Junction65]

I can rebut several points in your post albeit this discussion is quickly drifting away from automotive technology/innovation and headed more toward political policy.

Agree to disagree.

In the interest of not violating board policy, we can leave it there.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Junction65

I can rebut several points in your post albeit this discussion is quickly drifting away from automotive technology/innovation and headed more toward political policy. .

The whole EV issue is purely 100% political and the policies of this forum Prevent completely honest discussion about it.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Junction65

I can rebut several points in your post albeit this discussion is quickly drifting away from automotive technology/innovation and headed more toward political policy.



In the interest of not violating board policy, we can leave it there.

All good. You make some really good points and aren't just spouting <pick your favorite wing> politics and I respect that. I typically enjoy having these types of discussions f2f with people who think rather than proselytize.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

The whole EV issue is purely 100% political and the policies of this forum Prevent completely honest discussion about it.

So American politics is responsible for technology that is happening on the other side of the world and spreading this way?