smk4565

We will find out in September at the debut what the motor options are.

The EQS has been shown in production trim and specs released, it goes on sale late summer. Nothing need be assumed, we know what it is. The Lyriq has a smaller battery, weighs more and is less aerodynamic so it will have less range, but I think 300 miles is adequate. More range is just more battery to haul around. I could have a cell phone with a battery that lasts 2 weeks if I want it to weigh 7 pounds because it has a huge battery.

There are EQ GLE and GLS planned for 2023 model year on the EQS chassis. So they will have a Lyriq competitor at the same time and a full size electric SUV which no one has. They have electric GLA and GLB already released although those are ICE conversions mainly for Europe emissions regulations.

I forgot about the Model S claimed 520 mile range because the current car was like 409 miles. EQE assuming the same battery/motor as the EQS will have longer range since it will weigh less and will be faster too.

Really the EQE is the Model S competitor, the EQS is a much bigger car than the Model S and much more luxurious. There are also AMG and Maybach versions of EQS coming, it isn't like Mercedes is done. And EQE will get an AMG trim, so we'll see how that matches up against Tesla. Tesla will be hard to beat sales-wise, Mercedes will have to be on their A-game for years. Also as I said, range is over rated and will be more so over rated as charge times drop. No one buys a gasoline car and compares the range on a Camry to the range on a Sonata and picks the one with longer range. I am curious how it sells. And also how quickly people copy it. When Mercedes did the CLS in 2004, everyone wanted a 4-door coupe. BMW and Mercedes made SUV coupes and everyone said they are ugly, then a dozen manufacturers had coupe SUV's. Mercedes could make a car that looked like a shoe box and at least 5 other luxury brands would copy them.

It has the longest range of any EV, the best interior of any EV, biggest screen of any car. They got a lot right. Personally I am not a fan of the rounded off exterior styling, it doesn't have classic Mercedes proportions which I prefer.

Gen 1 CTS and the XLR are the 2 best looking Cadillacs of the past 20 years. GM design since Ed Welburn left has gone downhill. I think the Lyric is over styled in back, the front half looks fine, but a lot of car companies try to make EV’s look overly modern and that isn’t what sells and that is why a lot of EVs have had bad sales numbers.

It goes on sale this summer, so EQS is not vaporware. S-class doesn't look boring, especially in Maybach trim with the 2-tone paint. But they on purpose use a conservative design because it ages better than bold, outrageous designs that look dated really fast. If you look at Cadillac, the Gen 1 CTS has aged the best because it had the most simple design, it still looks better today than the Gen 2 or 3 CTS or something ungainly like the XTS. The downside to the EV revolution is weight, hopefully they can find a way to make these EV's lighter over time.

The largest battery in any current EV and the most aerodynamic production car ever. It will have the longest range, the WLTP cycle may be optimistic, but it it should still do 400 miles per charge easily. Although I think EV range is over rated, people aren't driving 300-400 miles per day 5-7 days a week, which would be 100,000 miles a year. 95% of people would be fine everyday with a 100 mile range.

I am not a fan of the EQS styling, too much tear drop in the name of aerodynamics. The S-class is a much better looking car, and a more expensive looking car, I think Mercedes should stick with their 3-box design look and sacrifice .03 cD in the name of styling. The EQS has an amazing interior though, and the range is the best there is, and their battery can do multiple acceleration runs without over heating, unlike Tesla. I am hoping EQE and the SUVs look better because the battery/motor combo is strong.

I think the styling looks good in the front half, that rear end and around that D pillar is way too busy and just a mess. $60k is a good price this model, most SUV buyers will expect all wheel drive though, so I wonder what the price jump will be to the dual motor and what that horsepower jump is, because 325 hp is fine, but that isn't going to excite anyone. The interior doesn't seem anything special, I'd have to see that in person, too hard to tell the quality by the photos. They need more than Silver and Black as the only interior and exterior colors. Need more choices than that, it is a luxury product, have to offer customization, such as multiple types of wood, metal, carbon fiber interior trim, etc.

Could be, but the running gear under a Santa Cruz is no less capable than what is under a Cherokee, Rav4, CR-V, Subaru, Equinox or whatever else and the small-mid crossover market is several million units a year. The majority of pick up buyers don't tow 10,000 pounds or haul a lot of payload, they overbuy capability they won't ever use. So I think this Santa Cruz will find a lot of buyers because there isn't anything else like it on market. 48 volt mild hybrid everything. While ICE lasts.

Looks pretty good, and good to see more EV options out there.

Camping, tailgating, over landing, and all the other “active lifestyle” stuff is what the appeal is with the Santa Cruz.

I think this will sell well. It looks good, being a Hyundai I assume it will be competitively priced and it doesn’t have a direct competitor. There must be 20+ small to mid-size SUVs out there selling a combined millions per year. Even if 5% of that market gets this, Hyundai could sell 100k a year. And it makes sense for hauling anything dirty that you wouldn’t want to haul in the back of your Tucson or Escape.

Mach-E and Model Y are much better. VW should have done more here, or else priced this more like the Bolt EUV, because this is more a Bolt level performance and range and interior, although it is bigger than a Bolt. Also unless you get the upper trim, the only colors are white, gray and black. I think there are better EV's than this out there now, and in a year or 2 when the market is flooded, the id4 will be way lost in the shuffle, sort of how the Passat is lost in the mid-size sedan segment because there are about 8 better options to pick from and the Passat doesn't stand out.

10 rides per day at $10 per ride average cost is $100 per day, $36,500 per year. Double that to $70k if they can get get $20 average ride faire. Also Tesla could sell advertising on the inside of the car that is giving rides and also sell that data, so even with a $36,500 ride revenue, they could make up another $13,500 with ad sales to get them to $50k per year. The money is there if the car drives itself. Investors will pump money into Tesla because of this. When the car is self driving is the issue, and how quickly they can get there. The 2022 S-class has level 3 autonomy, with the hardware built in for level 4, it will be level 4 in this decade, if they can do it, I don't see why Tesla can't.

They can make $50-70 grand per year on a level 5 car. Tesla will never have drivers. Uber is another company that loses money, but is worth more than Ford and GM because of the prospect of driverless cars, and then that is where the money is.

Tesla would own the car and sell the rides. Basically they could earn $350,000 of revenue over 5 years out of a Model 3 rather than sell one for $50,000 and be one and done with the revenue stream. And most of that is revenue is all profit, they would just pay maintenance of the vehicle, setting up possibly a $250,000 profit margin on a Model 3.

Uber had 6.9 billion rides in 2019. What if half that many get done by a driverless Tesla at $20 per ride, that is $70 billion of revenue for them. Subscription programs failed because they cost too much and the car isn’t shared. A driverless car could serve 5-10 people per day, meaning it could be cheaper to be driven around in a Model S than to buy a Chevy Trax.

But a company like Lucid, that will be lucky to sell 10k vehicles a year, is worth more than Ford selling 4 million a year. If the Mach-E is positive influence on share price, and even if you say the Mach-E is just as impactful to investors as the Lucid Air is, then the rest of Ford Motor Company has a negative value. I think GM will dive in hard on EV's, they have said that is their mission, that is what investors want, that is what they are going to do. This will push the price of cars up, will probably reduce sales, I don't know if consumers want a flood of EV's, but that is what they are going to build. In reference to the Corvette, I predict the C8 will be the last Corvette with a gas engine. Also Tesla will not be easy to beat. Amazon barely turned profit from 1996 to 2016, and yet they are the most valuable company in the world now. I actually don't think Tesla needs to turn much profit, as long as they aren't sustaining losses, investors will buy. Tesla will be able to do more in self drive, ride share, subscriptions, selling insurance, etc that GM and Ford won't get into. GM and Ford sell a product get revenue once and it is over, Tesla will find ways to monetize a vehicle for years and have higher revenue streams.

Right, every car company is going to push EV, regardless of whether consumers want them or ask for them, because shareholders want EVs, and self driving.

Sure it is cocktails and dreams. But CEO's of most companies are compensated in stock, and get bonuses based on stock price gains. 10% of Marry Barra's pay is salary, 90% is stock and bonus, so what is her top priority? Drive the stock price. She got $15.6 million in stock in 2019, if that stock price goes up, her net worth goes up. Investors don't care about ICE vehicles, they want EV's and self driving. Case in point, Lucid Motors is expected to be worth $57 billion at their IPO, while they haven't even sold (or at least not delivered) a single car yet. Meanwhile Ford is worth $49 billion, because Ford is the past, not the future, and investors put money on the future.

Tesla net income in 2020 was $721 million and they are worth $645 billion. GM net income in 2020 was $6.25 billion and they are worth $85 billion. And GM's stock price is probably up because they are saying they are going to be an EV company and changed their logo.

I don't think they will find a million sales either, but they have to blow smoke to Wall Street. They also aren't going to find it with delivery trucks or driverless Uber vehicles, that self drive tech won't be ready for prime time by 2025.