Electric Vehicles

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by olrocker

They’ll have lots of EVs and no one to buy them lol

I'd bet $100 that their EV sales will drop now that the new admin is eliminating EV credits.

[Realist]

Blazer SS EV $10k more compared to Model Y performance, that’s 20% more. Blazer made in Mexico compared to a model Y made in the USA. The Y cost less (value) and supports more USA jobs (patriotic), choose wisely when comparing.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Realist

Blazer SS EV $10k more compared to Model Y performance, that’s 20% more. Blazer made in Mexico compared to a model Y made in the USA. The Y cost less (value) and supports more USA jobs (patriotic), choose wisely when comparing.

It’s never been hard for me. I only look at the manufacturing data tag in the door jam to know if I’m buying that car or not. If final assembly isn’t the United States I don’t buy. Never have.

Suffice to say, tariffs aren’t scaring me a bit.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Realist

Blazer SS EV $10k more compared to Model Y performance, that’s 20% more. Blazer made in Mexico compared to a model Y made in the USA. The Y cost less (value) and supports more USA jobs (patriotic), choose wisely when comparing.

That was true with the original Y. The new Y is priced significantly higher. Plus the Y is more a direct competitor with the Equinox EV which costs pretty much the same trim for trim. Blazer has significantly more content. There is no Equinox EV SS to compete with the Model Y Performance though, so the decision is whether or not the additional content on Blazer EV gives it an advantage over a similarly priced new Model Y or over a lower priced original Model Y Performance.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by olrocker

It’s never been hard for me. I only look at the manufacturing data tag in the door jam to know if I’m buying that car or not. If final assembly isn’t the United States I don’t buy. Never have.

Suffice to say, tariffs aren’t scaring me a bit.

Make sure you're looking at content as well. For example, in 2024 Telsa had the top 4 spots. It's more than final assembly. The most "American" GM vehicle, it's the midsize twins Colorado/Canyon at 7 on the list.

How sad is this statement btw: "As shown in the table, VW, Toyota, Nissan and Honda all increased their US content while GM, Ford and Stellantis witnessed drops in domestic sourcing."

https://kogod.american.edu/autoindex/2024

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Make sure you're looking at content as well. For example, in 2024 Telsa had the top 4 spots. It's more than final assembly. The most "American" GM vehicle, it's the midsize twins Colorado/Canyon at 7 on the list.

How sad is this statement btw: "As shown in the table, VW, Toyota, Nissan and Honda all increased their US content while GM, Ford and Stellantis witnessed drops in domestic sourcing."

https://kogod.american.edu/autoindex/2024

Yes percentage of US content is important too.

[90503]

Meanwhile, in California..

Today's LA Times:

EV demand stalls out in California as automakers face zero-emission sales mandate
Story by Russ Mitchell • 4h • 4 min read

Early adopters have bought their EVs, but flat-growth sales figures show mainstream consumers have yet to come around.
Demand for new electric vehicles has flatlined in California, new sales figures show, raising questions as to whether automobile manufacturers can meet ambitious state mandates for zero-emission vehicle sales.

Aside from Tesla, which sells only EVs, no other major manufacturer will meet the state’s 35% threshold for zero-emission vehicles in the upcoming 2026 model year, said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn.

“The data don’t lie,” Maas said. “The demand doesn’t match what the mandate requires. It’s just that simple.”

New sales figures from the dealers trade group show 387,368 zero-emission vehicles were registered in California in 2024, or roughly one out of four new cars sold.

Even so, that represents just a 1% increase over previous year figures, when EV sales soared 46%. Total California new car sales for 2024 were also flat, at 1.75 million vehicles.

There are potentially severe implications for automakers. Failing to meet the 35% mandate, according to Maas, means either paying penalties of $20,000 for every noncompliant vehicle sold, or restricting gasoline and diesel inventory in California so the percentage can be met.

Automakers can also reduce fines by buying state-issued emission credits from automakers who hold a surplus of them. The vast majority are held by Tesla.

Automakers "won't pay the fines," Maas said, but instead will opt for inventory control — for example, limiting sales of gas- and diesel-powered pickup trucks.

"Arizona and Nevada dealers could be flooded with internal combustion vehicles,” he said, while Californians struggle to find the car they want. And, he said, California prices would likely rise.

Maas said his group has begun pushing for a pause in the mandate. Asked for a response, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office had no comment, but deferred to state agency spokespeople.

The California Energy Commission said it remains "committed to helping transform the market and confident in our ability to deliver cleaner air to all Californians."

"California is proud to lead the country in zero-emission vehicle sales as the global market continues to innovate and surge," the statement said. "The rapid pace of EV adoption worldwide has become a building block of a new industrial policy that is shaping California's future economy with more than 50 manufacturers of zero-emission vehicle components calling our state home."

The California Air Resources Board said it's "premature to say the target will not be met and that manufacturers planning is inadequate to continue to grow the market. Yes, some may need to buy credits, but that’s always been an option to provide manufacturer flexibility."

The state mandate comes in the form of a program called Advanced Clean Cars II, run by the California Air Resources Board. Crucially, the rules require automakers to sell EVs, but do not require consumers to buy them. Newsom announced the EV phaseout in 2020. The state Air Resources Board set the rules in 2022, and in December, the Biden administration approved a waiver allowing the state to set the standards, as required under the federal Clean Air Act.

But flagging consumer interest has caused automakers to pull back on their EV ambitions. While declaring commitment to the EV market, major automakers have been canceling some EV projects and extending timelines for others, and pulling out of deals to build battery factories in the U.S.

Japanese car companies, which were slow to move into the EV market, are suddenly on a roll with their hybrid cars, which posted a 32% gain in California sales for 2024, and a total market share increase from 11.1% to 14.7%. (Plug-in hybrids, which the state includes in its definition of zero-emission vehicles, even though they are equipped with an internal combustion engine, posted virtually flat sales: 60,800 cars and light trucks in 2024, up from 59,506.)

Elon Musk's Tesla was hit especially hard in California last year, with an 11.6% drop in new car registrations, to 203,221 cars. Tesla remains by far the state’s EV market share leader, with 52.5% of the new car market, but that dropped 7.6 points from 60.1%.

Industry analysts say several factors may be behind Tesla's decline in sales growth here, including lack of new models, increased competition from other automakers and displeasure among liberals with Musk's emergence as a key ally of President Trump.


Whatever the reason, Tesla’s once-brilliant California star is beginning to fade. Rivian has emerged as a strong Tesla competitor, with 2024 California sales up 17%, albeit from a small base — in 2024, it sold 10,277 vehicles in California.

Even if Tesla sales continue to fall, though, the company could still score big from lagging EV sales because of state policies that intentionally favor Tesla over traditional automakers under state regulations intended to punish sales of gasoline cars. Tesla has earned billions in profit over the years by selling state-issued emission credits.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

[Martinjlm]

@90503, good stuff. The only thing I would caution people on running too far with is the growth in hybrid “demand”. It’s less a growth in demand and more a strategy implementation for Toyota. Every year Toyota is adding nameplates to its “all trims are hybrid” approach. It’s more an issue of availability than it is demand. Camry demand is pretty much level year to year. But now all Camrys are hybrid. Period. Same for Sienna. Same for Crown / Venza. Soon to be the same for RAV4. The “demand growth” for hybrids is almost single-handedly driven by Toyota offering only hybrids on their most popular nameplates.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Notice how many times the LA Times article uses the word "mandate"

[90503]

Hopefully the madness of states setting their own mandates can be stopped. This shows how one state, which sells the most vehicles and influences what manufacturers are "allowed" to sell, can skew the free market system and punish everyone nation-wide for not buying what the government wants, state or otherwise.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

@90503, good stuff. The only thing I would caution people on running too far with is the growth in hybrid “demand”. It’s less a growth in demand and more a strategy implementation for Toyota. Every year Toyota is adding nameplates to its “all trims are hybrid” approach. It’s more an issue of availability than it is demand. Camry demand is pretty much level year to year. But now all Camrys are hybrid. Period. Same for Sienna. Same for Crown / Venza. Soon to be the same for RAV4. The “demand growth” for hybrids is almost single-handedly driven by Toyota offering only hybrids on their most popular nameplates.

Isn't this the same case for the whole EV vs ICE situation since day one? Eliminate the availability of ICE and magically EV demand increases?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Notice how many times the LA Times article uses the word "mandate"

Yup. And rightfully so. For California it IS a MANDATE. And I’ve always said that. As opposed to the fictional FEDERAL MANDATE. I’ve always said that too and have yet to be proven wrong. There is also a CANADA MANDATE. I’ve always said that.

One other thing I’ve always said… The California and Canada Mandates are unachievable and will likely be adjusted several times between now and 2035. The article 90503 posted hits most of the major points I’ve referenced in saying that California and Canada Mandates are unachievable.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Isn't this the same case for the whole EV vs ICE situation since day one? Eliminate the availability of ICE and magically EV demand increases?

Not really. It is actually the most effective pushback to the idea of California’s Mandate. Toyota has been saying since day one that if everybody just made hybrids 100% of their portfolio emissions would be reduced enough to meet the Federal standards and California should be good with that. California responds with “Zero means zero, not less. It means none.” So Toyota is now focused on significantly increasing their hybrid volume to close to 100% by making their most popular models available as hybrid only. You want a Camry, you’re buying a hybrid whether you want a hybrid or not.

Decisions to maintain or eliminate ICE are made in each OEMs Planning Centers and confirmed in their Board Rooms. GM has decided they plan to go EV only. Other OEMs not so much. Toyota has focused on mostly hybrid and they will build EVs to satisfy the California market, although I think that they likely agree with my perspective that California will back down on the 100% Zero Emissions for New Vehicle Sales by 2035 and they will continue to slow-walk EV while they push hybrid. Toyota’s cost advantage on hybrids is similar to Tesla’s cost advantage on EVs. And neither wants to play in the other’s space if they don’t have to.

[olrocker]

By either SCOTUS or Congress, all individual state’s emission regs will once and for all be eliminated in the next couple of years.

Edit:

This news just broke - you’re gonna be able to buy a big old V8 in California 20 years from now.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/16A...ibextid=wwXIfr