smk4565

Tesla has sold 300,000 Model 3/Y so far on 2022 in the USA. EV6 and Ioniq5 combined for 36,000. I wouldn’t say Hyundai/Kia are doing well when getting outsold 9 to 1 and Hyundai just lost the tax credit and Tesla is about to get it back.

I agree that we haven’t seen true competition yet but buyers are spending $50k on small Hyundai and VW crossovers and I suspect they never will. Do either they need to get the iD4 and Ioniq 5 down under $35,000 like the Equinox EV or they are screwed. Mercedes EQB, EQS,EQS SUV are available at dealers now, EQE by the end of the year and EQE SUV early next year. That will be 5 EV’s on sale, they are moving as fast or faster than anyone else.

What I am wondering is if any of the mainstream brands can top Tesla, or if Tesla will eventually bring out some cheaper models and just put several legacy car companies out of business. So far in 2022 the Model Y and Model 3 each outsell any product from Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda or Subaru. The Model Y is outselling the Explorer and Wrangler and is on pace with the Equinox. And the Model Y is like a $60,000 car. We've seen how pitiful the sales volumes are on stuff like the iD4, the EV6 and Ionic 5 are pretty low and slowing in sales already, Nissan Ariya is a bust waiting to happen. So how do those companies survive when they are EV only? They are going to need cars like the Ionic 5 selling 200,000 units a year, and they are struggling to hit 25k units a year.

The ICE cars look better than the EV's. I think most car companies feel they need to make EV's look futuristic or different so early adopters buy them or they scream EV. But people like how the S-class looks, they like the GLE, just make the electric versions look like that. I think Ford did that well with the Lightning, the F150 formula works, no need to mess it up, they know buyers like the F150, you don't have to reinvent it.

I think the EQ look works better on the SUVs than it does the sedans. I sort of like the regular screen more than the hyper screen because you get wood trim on the dash and actual materials, just not a mega screen. I do like having buttons and things to touch and not having all the controls in a screen like Tesla does. Although the piano black in the center console of non-hyper screen cars is lame, piano black sucks in all cars, it looks bad and attracts fingerprints, they should have an option to replace that with wood trim like in the hyper screen car.

I mean 5 years is a long time to buy "up to 175,000 cars." Not sure if that is because Hertz only buys so many cars a year or GM can't produce that many that fast. But GM should be able to make million EV's a year soon and if they are going to be mostly EV by 2030, that is like 5 million a year.

5 years is a long time.

Tesla will produce 500k units in Q4, so that puts them at a 2 million per year rate. 2 years from now that could be 3 million per year. If they get caught up with their own demand and get the Cybertruck, Roadster and Semi done, maybe in 2025 they start looking at a cheaper model. The tax credit for American made EV’s is what might save the automakers that currently build here. Without that China would for sure bring cheaper EV’s and undercut everyone in price and I suspect they would sell if a Hyundai Ioniq 5 is $50k and the Chinese knockoff is $30k.

Tesla and the Chinese car companies already have battery production ramped up and growing. The question is how fast GM and Ford can get there. Then can GM keep the promise in the Equinox price, and does Tesla bring out a cheaper model to grow even more volume.

The Tesla Model Y is on pace to surpass the Corolla as the number 1 selling vehicle in the world in 2023. EV demand is massive. Ford should have the Mach E outselling the Mustang coupe 10 to 1 right now.

The grille looks like it belongs on a Toyota Tacoma. This thing looks too squared off, it looks worse than the current car I think, but I am not in the market for a Mustang so doesn't matter to me really. Could have made AWD an option on the Mustang and 0-60 would have dropped more than from a power upgrade to the engine.

The average gasoline car has a 300 mile range, and I don't know a single person that fills their tank every day, 7 days a week. And if you did, assuming a $70 fill up, 7 days a week, that's $490 a week, and $25,480 per year spent on gasoline, in which case it is all the more motivation to buy an EV.

GM has to scale up faster than any of their rivals. I don't count Tesla as a Chevy rival due to the price difference, no one else is scaled up yet in EV production, if GM can be the first big mover they might be able to get ahead and hold an advantage, assuming these EV's are good and people come back for a 2nd.

I get that the purpose of the buy outs is not to build cars in China, but it is more a function of the majority of Buick sales are in China, and also China is pushing for all EV's so Buick USA is basically going to get product that is either from Buick of China, thus mostly EV's. Or Buick will get a version of an Chevy/GMC. The buy outs of Cadillac and Buick dealers is basically because they have to upgrade to EV or go away, and the Cadillac and Buick brands aren't growing, they need to trim some fat anyway.

GM is offering buyouts to Buick dealers in the USA, so clearly the focus in on China.

Right but the $80k price cap doesn't start until January, so the EQS SUV qualifies right now, but I don't think they are even to dealers yet, so there is only going to be a 2-3 month window they get that tax break. EQB isn't built in the USA. I am saying Mercedes would be better off making EQB's in the USA to get the tax credit on them, and if there isn't enough capacity in Alabama to make GLE, GLS, EQE SUVs, EQS SUV, GLB, etc then move production of the EQS SUV to Germany since it is not credit eligible. Really this new law is industrial policy, which I happen to like. It isn't so much about giving car buyers a tax rebate, it is about forcing the car companies to bring battery production to the USA and the free trade allies and out of China. And all the car companies will come to the USA because you don't want to be Honda selling your electric CRV for $7500 more than Chevy's electric Equinox because in the mass market segments you are dead in the water if you are priced 20% higher than a rival in the same segment. This is also a buffer to block the Chinese brands form coming, because they will start importing cheaper Chinese made EV's.

Electric cars needing to reduce vehicle height to improve range is all that will save us from crossover SUV everything.

I don't like SUVs either. But if you ask most car companies what they see as a good product mix, they would rather have 8 SUVs and 0 cars than 5 SUVs and 3 cars.

Get them now before the $7500 tax credit goes away in January. The Alabama battery plant really only needs to serve demand for EQE SUV and EQS SUV. That's all they are making there although it would make sense to make their lower end cars there so consumers can get the tax credit on them, because the $80,000 price cap is going to disqualify EQS and maybe all EQE trims. They actually need to build the A-C class vehicles in Alabama, build the EQB there for example, it starts at $56,000, get the tax credit to $48,500 and then all of a sudden that looks like a good deal.

Once the inflation reduction act passed, it seems like the flood gates opened on these companies bringing battery production to North America. In addition to that Volkswagen and Mercedes have a deal with Canada to mine lithium and battery materials there. This is great news because we should be making this stuff in North America, not having to rely on China, who is currently making about 70% of EV batteries.

Crossover coupe! In 2030, all vehicles will be crossover coupes.

Sure, but Chrysler got the LX cars and the WK Grand Cherokee (thus Durango, Commander) from Mercedes, plus the Crossfire, plus they sold Sprinters for a little bit. Outside of the Ram pickup and Wrangler, I don't know how many platforms Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep Ram have come up with in the past 25 years. Almost every product has been a hand me down from another car company. A google search says the Giorgio platform cost $1.07 billion dollars. Mercedes spent $1 billion on the W212 E-class refresh. The Giorgio platform didn't take all the money out of the company, they should have had at least a $5 billion annual R&D budget. FCA spent many billions on product. Although they do have very little to show for it because the cars it produced weren't as good as BMW's. They may have nothing to show for the Tonale and Hornet.

Alfa Romeo got 2 products on the same platform, which is now used for Jeep's #1 selling product. That didn't starve CDJR of product. The Alfa 4C was around before the merger as were the other cars you mentioned. Jeep got the Renegade, a replacement for that awful gen 1 Compass, the Cherokee, Dodge got the Dart, Chrysler the 200, Ram the Promaster and Promaster City. Fiat gave CDJR 7 new products.

If CDJR was so profitable, why was it that Fiat bought them and not the other way around? It was Fiat and Marchionne that bought CDJR. And it was Peugeot (PSA) who bought FCA. IF CDJR was such a powerhouse, they wouldn't have been taking over by a struggling company that was later taken over.

Stellantis didn't "steal money from American nameplates" Stellantis owns all these brands. Stellantis is a Netherlands based company trading on the French and Italian stock exchanges. Stellantis gives these brands a budget, pays the employees, etc. And Stellantis could wipe out half their brands without a single person losing their job, because they don't have Dodge employees, or Fiat employees, or Opel employees, they have Stellantis employees. And we already know Stellantis gave all these brands a budget and time to see which ones stick and which won't be needed. As Tesla takes more and more market share around the world, I predict a major reorganization (similar to GM 2008 minus the bankruptcy) happens at Stellantis. A lot of these brands will go away and they'll have a value brand, a luxury brand, an off road brand (Jeep) and a performance brand. This might be a 4 brand company in 2030.