Ford (F) reports a huge loss on every EV. Sales are down 20 percent holding the losses to $1.3 billion.
My tongue in cheek “good news” comment aside, Ford Just Reported a Massive Loss on Every Electric Vehicle it Sold.
Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall.
Ford, like most automakers, has announced plans to shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to EVs in coming years. But it is the only traditional automaker to break out results of its retail EV sales. And the results it reported Wednesday show another sign of the profit pressures on the EV business at Ford and other automakers.
The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.
The losses go far beyond the cost of building and selling those 10,000 cars, according to Ford. Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off. And that means this is not the end of the losses in the unit – Ford said it expects Model e will have EBIT losses of $5 billion for the full year.
Ford rival General Motors reported earlier this week that it remains on track to have its North American EV business turn profitable in the second half of this year, while Stellantis, which makes cars and trucks in North America under the Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler brands, said its European EV business was already profitable last year.
On Tuesday Tesla, the world’s largest EV maker, reported that its adjusted earnings plunged 48% in the first quarter as revenue fell 9%, after it reported the first year-over-year drop in sales since the pandemic.
These losses are despite huge tax incentives and subsidies. GM is on track for profits counting on subsidies.
Ford is more dependent on truck buyers than GM, and truck buyers have shown little interest in electric trucks.
G.M. Reports Big Jump in Profit on Gasoline Car Sales
The New York Times reports G.M. Reports Big Jump in Profit on Gasoline Car Sales
General Motors on Tuesday reported a big jump in profits for the first three months of the year, based on the strength of its gasoline vehicle business, and raised its outlook for the rest of the year.
“We’re maximizing the strength of our ICE business. We’re growing our E.V. business and improving profitability,” G.M.’s chief financial officer, Paul Jacobson, said in a conference call with reporters, using the shorthand for internal combustion engine.
G.M. made all of its profit in North America and lost money in the rest of the world, including a $106 million loss in China; a year earlier, the company reported an $83 million profit in that country.
This year, the company plans to add several new electric vehicles that use the new Ultium batteries. They include a GMC Sierra pickup truck that is supposed to have maximum range of 440 miles and a Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle that G.M. said would have a starting price of $34,995 and a range of up to 319 miles.
The irony on that title is stunning. Let’s see if starting prices at $35,000 entice buyers and if GM can make a profit on them.
I sense a bit of overoptimism.
Tesla’s Deliveries Drop for First Time Since 2020
Tesla’s (TSLA) quarterly deliveries in the first quarter of 2024, are down 8.5% from a year earlier. It’s the first quarterly decline since 2020.
Tesla blames production setbacks for the Decline in Quarterly Deliveries, but falling demand is the bigger issue.
On April 2, I commented Tesla’s Deliveries Drop for First Time Since 2020, It’s Demand Not Supply
Elon Musk Fires 10 Percent of Tesla Workforce
On April 15, I noted Elon Musk Fires 10 Percent of Tesla Workforce, Prepares for “Next Phase of Growth”
In preparation for more growth, Musk issues a memo announcing an workforce cut of 10 percent and two top Tesla (TSLA) executives resign.
One does not prepare for growth by firing staff, pausing construction of the giga semi factory, and repeating the same hollow lies every year since 2016.
Tesla Rebounds On Musk Promises With No Details, It Won’t Stick
For a Tesla roundup, please see Tesla Rebounds On Musk Promises With No Details, It Won’t Stick
Sounds like a bloodbath
Compare the losses to the Model T profit margin of 50 -70%, according to the Model T Club.
The auto industry (not just EV’s) have the potential to bring down our entire economy. There is a large population that can’t afford to buy a car (new, used or EV). They don’t have the money to pay cash and can’t afford to finance. The cost of cars along with high interest rates prohibits a lot of people from qualifying for auto loans. Interest rates are higher on used cars and those that don’t have excellent credit.
Maybe that was the progressive’s plan all along.
tell those who cant afford to go shop around- dealers LOVE to finance higher priced cars at 12% for people w no money – drive it for few months make zero payments , be careful to park around corner from you house! – prob get 810 months b4 gets repossessed
or 3-4 months in just park on any city street leave keys in it, and it will disappear! then collect the ins!
“Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced”
It’s hard to make that loss up on volume, especially if they aren’t selling.
Just one more, counter productive, stupid government program. Joe Biden needs 4 more years to finish the job: the total destruction of the US.
Herz has 30,000 EV’s to sell you. Parked once. Never driven.
Hertz definitely jumped the gun. I am somewhat pro EV, but on a recent trip I avoided renting a Tesla because of the charging issue and because I didn’t want to have to monkey around with the screen and unfamiliar instrumentation.
Claim that Chinese EVs can undercut US by 50-70% when they feel like it. They’re just taking profits on exports for now.
link to m-economictimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Should Ford invest to try to compete, roll over and die, or hope that consumers will stick with higher cost lower performance gas engines forever?
Ford will simply start to produce more PHEVs. They can’t compete very well on straight EVs.
I think both Trump and Biden will ban Chinese EV imports. Another salvo in the trade war. It would be more productive if they do shift to something that is more profitable and will sell. The Chinese EV import ban will only raise car prices in the US. Free market capitalism not at work.
A US ban on Chinese EV imports is likely. However, the Chinese will still sell EVs and PHEVs everywhere else in the world. They were clever enough to figure out that the world needs more renewable energy and EVs; and they want to be the dominant player in those spaces.
And sales of EVs and PHEVs (combined) will continue to grow.
Yeah!
Competing with Chinese makes is that simple! Just like simple do it!
Ford can’t currently compete against Asian manufacturers making any vehicle. Living off of tariff walled Pickup trucks, is all they can compete at.
Now; substitute 90+ and rising% of US manufacturers for Ford; and you’re getting somewhere in the ballpark of reality.
Higher cost, lower performance gas engines… LOL. What a rube.
The car companies are aware of this and that is why you see them now making pronouncements about a “shift” to hybrids, even by relatively ‘successful’ EV legacy automakers like Hyundai/Kia. Then they’ll wait it out on massive EV transition until solid state battery technology is mature enough, which should happen in the next decade. This BTW has been Toyota’s strategy pretty much from day one.
Take for example a PHEV with around a 40 mile of electric range. The typical driver driving that vehicle will probably end up with 85-90% of their annual driving be electric. They also don’t even need a special car charger at home. They should be able to replenish their battery by connecting to a typical household outlet and charge their vehicle overnight. This said, the EV advocates would argue that given the relatively high price car makers are charging for PHEVs nowadays, folks might as well purchase a current-generation full EV. The one advantage PHEVs have though in this respect is that they completely eliminate range anxiety.
Completely agree. I’ve been saying the same thing here for years now. PHEVs are the logical way to transition our road transportation to more electric over the rest of this century. Auto makers will be producing far more PHEVs than EVs within a few years. And all the ICE advocates should be cheering for this. More EVs and PHEVs will help reduce demand for gasoline and help keep gas prices lower than they would otherwise be (other than taxes) going forward.
I bought a hybrid. The PHEV verson of the same vehicle was 7k more and raised the price from 35k to 42k. Why pay 7k more for a plug. Do the companies shoot themselves in the foot or do they want to sell more hybrids?
The difference between Ford and GM EV sales / profit can be traced back 15 years ago when Obama bailed out GM and Ford refused financial assistance. Pundits gave GM the moniker “Government Motors”.
But they make it up on volume. :>)
So your saying Mish that they had revenue of $100,000,000 on 10,000 cars? Is that not $10,000 per car sold? Something seems off with that math?
Screw EV’s, we need to worry more about this climate emergency BS coming and how it all ties in cbdc’s and the criminals wonderful climate footprint crap. I literally sold off a lot of crap and invested in more kinetic projectile devices. Our govt can rot in hell. All these Bill Gates types got them all bought off and have big plans for us. It’s not crazy talk anymore. We’d be better off taking our chances with ww3 which looks to be happening at the moment anyhow. The lunatics just can’t get enough.
What is a cbdc?
Central Bank Digital Currency
Mish,
You stated that this was the first quarterly decline in deliveries for Tesla since 2020. Maybe I’m not reading your chart correctly, but your chart seems to indicate that there was a quarterly decline from 2Q to 3Q last year and a quarterly decline from 1Q to 2Q the year before.
I imagine he means year over year. There is some seasonality in auto sales so sequential differences aren’t always relevant.
I thought the same thing at first, but the chart clearly shows YoY sales have increased and have never been lower YoY.
Arguing over ICE vs EV is a waste of time. It’s better to have multiple modes of transport that work well for each individual depending on their situation. Whether that is ICE (gas, diesel, natgas), EV, PHEV, or a hydrogen fuel cell (FCV).
Personally, I think that the big growth area over the next decade will be PHEV, though we need ALL types of vehicles.
It’s the same with energy. We shouldn’t be arguing about which type of energy is best because we need ALL types of energy; Oil, gas, coal hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and other renewables. Trying to rely on a single energy type is foolish. They all have drawbacks. If we have to try to eliminate one type of energy, it should be coal. Though not until we are certain that we no longer need it.
Economic growth requires ever more energy. Growing populations require more energy. Improved living standards require more energy.
Fossil fuels still supply 80% of ALL our energy needs. It has taken 20 years of renewable build out to lower it 1%, from 81% to 80%.
Got oil?
100% accurate
Energy scarcity can and will decimate the economy like it did to British pubs, some open for 100’s of years permanently closed due to energy cost.
link to independent.co.uk
Energy costs are destroying German heavy industries and chemical production.
The last thing we want is running out energy.
Yep. Energy is life. And eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. What will we replace them with? Nuclear and renewables.
– Arguing over ICE vs EV is a waste of time. It’s better to have multiple modes of transport that work well for each individual depending on their situation. Whether that is ICE (gas, diesel, natgas), EV, PHEV, or a hydrogen fuel cell (FCV). > While I agree 100%, as EV’s in their current state of technology, are good for short range (inner city) and warmer climates for example.
I am not arguing which to use or if we should use at all, but merely looking for the most common sense approach for us to be spending our Tax-dollars on. The Government keeps taking our hard earned income tax dollars and tossing them down the drain and then asking for more! It’s the Politicians that wish to subsidize their investment strategy programs. The common folk (Us) just want affordable transportation (GV’s are at the moment), that operates on an affordable source (Gas is the most abundant, available, and cheapest form of energy choice we have at this moment). The Politicians are heavily invested in “Green” initiatives as well, but the Windmill/Solar boondoggle is the same as EV’s at the moment. We don’t make the parts (Ex. EV Batteries) for Windmills and they are too expensive, don’t do as claimed, and look hideous on the landscape, and kill our wildlife. Oh, and they don’t actually do much to “save the planet” just as EV’s don’t, but Shh…. Same with Solar Panels, but I digress.
– We shouldn’t be arguing about which type of energy is best because we need ALL types of energy. Oil, gas, coal hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and other renewables. > Yes we should be. The U.S. has Gas & NG galore, but our current Politicians won’t allow us to access it. We have the cheapest forms of energy, that is the most abundant of all sources, and we leave it in the ground to spend more $ than necessary on “alternatives” for the Public. WHY?
– Trying to rely on a single energy type is foolish. > 100% agree, but utilize the lower cost energy, if or until, we can bring the cost down through technology to make sense to utilize it.
– Economic growth requires ever Fossil fuels still supply 80% of ALL our energy needs. It has taken 20 years of renewable build out to lower it 1%, from 81% to 80%. > You’re making my point.
Yep. Agree with most of your points. However the entire topic is incredibly complex and too politically charged.
Yes. The US has abundant natgas, and decent amounts of oil. In fact we have become the world’s largest producer and exporter in the last 3 years. And exports will increase a lot more in the next 5 years (particularly LNG). However, shale oil is peaking and bound to decline over the rest of this decade and into the future. Eventually, we will need a replacement form of energy.
And the rest of the world is not as lucky as us. Ten countries export oil and 185 countries import oil. As demand grows and supply shrinks, oil will get very expensive. Which is why I remain heavily invested in oil.
Thank goodness we have started adding more renewable energy to the mix. We are going to need it as other sources dry up. And fortunately, since solar, and battery storage are high tech, their prices keep coming down while oil prices will keep going up. Solar is already the cheapest energy source thanks to the tech advances. But it’s a long process to build out solar (and other renewables). It’s going to take many decades. Best to start now.
In addition, we also need to start building out our electrical grids to handle the incredible increase in electricity demand that is occurring due to EVs, AI, Crypto, and general economic growth.
I do agree that shale is going to be a problem, unless extraction methods get a whole lot better and quickly.
Are we using the most abundant and accessible form of energy we have in NG? I think maybe more effort into that possibility is needed and way before we spend anymore money on Windmills.
Solar Panels do seem to have a place too, but again, it’s the ability and cost to store the energy that’s crippling it. In many cases they are no longer paying for excess like they said they would. Too costly! Again we need technology advances still to make it a viable source of reliable energy.
Right now we should “Drill baby Drill” for ALL the oil we can muster. It will never go bad, we will definitely use it all, it’s fairly cheap, and currently abundant, and once GV’s and the like start disappearing, it won’t be as needed or wanted. Right now we could sell, sell, sell it around the Globe!!!
We currently have a huge surplus of NG. That’s why we export 13 bcf a day. And it’s going up to 18 bcf over the next 4 years.
We can certainly replace more US coal with cheaper, cleaner NG.
Oil and gas firms are not going to “drill baby drill”. They are going to be disciplined and only drill where it is profitable. There is no point trying to flood the markets and reduce the prices they sell for. That is self-defeating.
Drill baby drill – until the marginal cost of drilling exceeds the marginal price.
That was 10 years ago. Today, it’s cash flow and profits baby. Oil companies got tired of ruining their own businesses with over production.
Then I would prefer, if the Government insist on taking tax dollars and subsidizing an industry, that it be the Gas/Oil industry.
That would allow them to drill, drill, drill, and Americans would pay way, way, way less per gallon of gas. They can sell of the rest for profit from other countries citizens. We have it after all, so we should be paying the least for it!
We don’t need to be subsidizing EV’s which right now anyway, are a losing proposition that’s flushing our tax dollars away. Same with Windmills and Solar.
Let’s face it, the U.S. “Jumped The Shark” on new energy forms long before our Country was ready, and the Citizens, and the Banks etc.
Now with so much already spent/wasted on such BS they are trying to save face, make back lost investments, turn it around quickly, and still against the will of the people.
We need cost savings NOW in this Country, and NOT investments for the future with the Citizens Tax dollars. Not only do the Citizens not have the money, but neither does our Government, as they get their $$$ from US!!!
Why don’t we just give it to Ukraine then? Oh, never mind, of course we are doing that too…
Make the entire body out of solar panels, a compost bin under the back seat and and auto covid breathalizer and it will sell like hotcakes.
Mish, thanks for the “hide” button. Now you need to fix the feature that automatically sends a comment to spam after editing it. I just added an apostrophe, fer chrissakes, and the whole comment vanished.
Tesla’s coal-powered cars and trucks
Tesla’s mission is “to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible,” wrote Elon Musk in The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan.
The large-scale shift from internal combustion engine powered automobiles to electric vehicles (EVs) is a crucial part of this ‘sustainability’ mission. Governments around the world have bought into electric cars as a way to lower their countries’ carbon emissions and have coughed up the generous subsidies electric car makers need to make themselves competitive (but note: the current versions of the U.S. Senate and House tax bills end these subsidies).
But in many countries, internal combustion engine-powered compact cars like the Mitsubishi Mirage have a smaller total carbon footprint than electric cars. How is this possible? There are two main sources of EVs’ hidden carbon footprint: first, carbon-intensive manufacturing processes including aluminum and copper extraction and refinement and second, the dirty electric grids charging the cars’ batteries.
Electric carmakers prefer lightweight aluminum over steel to maximize range: Tesla builds the body and chassis of its Model S almost entirely from about 410 lbs (190 kg) of aluminum. Average total aluminum content per car is expected to grow from roughly 397 lbs per car in 2015 to 565 lbs by 2028.
The highly energy-intensive processes involved in aluminum production mean that a car’s worth of aluminum costs about 30% more in emitted CO2 than a car’s worth of steel. In China, the world’s leading manufacturer of EVs, 14 tons of CO2 is emitted for every ton of aluminum produced, three times more than the CO2 emitted by Alcoa, the U.S.’s largest aluminum producer. China now worries that their dirty smelting operations mean that switching to electric cars will actually make their smog problem worse.
“If the USA had 10% more petrol cars by 2020, air pollution would claim 870 more lives. A similar increase in electric ones would cause 1,617 more deaths a year, mostly because of the coal burned,” said Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg.
EVs’ intensive copper use—an electric car uses about 6 km of copper wire weighing 45 kg, compared to a conventional auto’s 20 kg of copper—also poses a carbon emissions problem. In the mid-1800s, copper ore contained about 10% usable copper, but over the course of the twentieth century, that purity has decreased to less than 1%, making the mining and production of copper extremely energy- and carbon-intensive.
The energy used to smelt copper increases exponentially as the ore grade falls below 1%. The new copper mines being constructed to meet increased demand have to be factored into the carbon footprint of electric vehicles—and in general, new copper ore stocks being developed are deeper and require more energy to exploit than currently productive reserves.
What about the power grids that charge EVs’ batteries? Energy sources vary wildly by country. Globally, in 2014, 66% of global energy came from coal (29%), oil (22%), and gas (5%). China, the country with the largest number of EVs on the road, got 72% of its energy from coal alone in 2014; the United States produced 68% of its energy from fossil fuels, including coal (38%) and gas (30%) in 2014. Coal use in the United States is trending downward as a proportion of overall energy use, partially due to the new shale gas deposits being exploited by fracking.
Shifting the energy burden of the American transportation industry from gasoline and diesel fuels to the power grid will result in enormous increases in electricity demand. In temperate places like San Francisco, plugging an electric car into a dedicated circuit like Tesla’s PowerWall is the equivalent of adding between 5 and 10 houses to the grid.
The supercharging stations required to charge Tesla’s Semis will require surge capacities far beyond anything the American grid was designed to handle. Finally, to get EVs closer to being considered ‘carbon-neutral’—because of their raw materials they never truly will be—the American energy system will have to go green.
But it’s an open question as to whether solar and wind plants can generate enough power to not only replace fossil fuel plants but also match the increased demand for electricity as hundreds of millions of vehicles start plugging in.
The largest, most powerful solar plant in the United States is the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert, which generates 392 MW; the largest wind plant in the United States is the Alta Wind Energy Center in California’s Tehachapi Pass, which generates 1,547 MW; by comparison, the largest coal plant in the United States, Plant Scherer in Georgia, generates 3,389 MW.
Ironically, Tesla’s electric cars and trucks may end up prolonging America’s reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity, because renewable sources cannot yet meet rising demand.
link to freightwaves.com
It’s like Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants and having to import lignite.
Question:
What will we do for entertainment when Tesla goes to zero (because what makes no sense – will stop) and Jeff Green is carted off to the insane asylum?
And when will the EV cult members start blaming Exxon for the collapse of Tesla?
Note: Epoch Times reports the number somewhat smaller, taking into account EV’s made and sold for other company segments…but still *huge* losses…
“According to company data, Ford sold 20,223 electric vehicles in the first quarter. As such, the $1.32 billion loss equals over $65,000 lost per vehicle. In 2023, the Model e segment had registered a net loss of $4.7 billion. The 20,223 electric vehicle sales included 9,589 Mustang Mach-E SUVs, 7,743 F-150 Lightning trucks, and 2,891 Ford E-Transit electric vans.”
If Robert McNamara had stayed on at Ford working on the Falcon, instead of ramping up the Vietnam War …
Just say where you want to go, and Tesla FSD 12.3.5 will take you there
link to youtube.com
Tesla is headed for bankruptcy hahahaha…..
NZ Herald – first year the value of a Tesla drops 40% – then another 40% off of that in year two.
Fast Eddy – if you are aware of that — and you still buy a Tesla — you are mentally ill and should seek help
Tesla Just ENDED All Other Auto Makers–And No One Noticed!
link to youtube.com
It’s going to be interesting.
China is gushing low-priced subsidized e-cars.
Tesla is making smart driving robots.
Old line auto manufacturers are dragging their feet.
They are not dragging their feat rather they understand that demand for EVs is limited brain dead cult members… and that is not a viable business plan.
All New FSD Info from $TSLA Earnings
link to youtube.com
“Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced…”
^^^the Green Economy in a nutshell.^^^
Sorry! FORD is miserably uncompetitive.
Going to bankrupt soon.
The same issues that plagued EVs over a hundred years ago are the same today. They are weak vehicles, especially for anything work-related. Ladies loved EVs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of the ease of driving around town, not getting dirty filing and cranking the cars. But that is it. Outside of doing errands or going to work, EVs are unreliable, not tough enough, finicky to weather conditions, and expensive.
Clearly you DON’T know what you’re talking about. EV semis are MUCH faster / have more instant Torque than regular diesel semi’s. WAY cleaner and cheaper to operate…and that is ALL that the operators of Semis, Vans and Delivery Trucks will care about in the long run.
Same for the equivalent sized trucks and SUVs on the passenger side. You’ve been huffing too much Diesel fumes to understand that the Late 19th Century is NOTHING like the 2020’s. The ENTIRE country is NOW wired for Electricity. It wasn’t in the late 1800’s. Solar energy is rapidly increasing every year and so is Battery Storage on Personal, Community and GRID Level Storage. Nobody needs to huff poison fumes and cancer causing particulates out of their tailpipes.
The Cybertruck is Bullet Proof Body and would crunch an F-150 or other similar sized truck head to head. There are still people who like killing brain cells by breathing in Diesel Fumes…fortunately they’re all dying off, for obvious reasons.
That bullet-proof cyber truck should be a big winner in Chicago this summer. Meanwhile Mayor Conehead is having CPD ride bicycles around the convention area in August, which is great for the environment, and strategically proximate to the Crook County Morgue.
Have you factored in the weight of the battery and how that impacts how much can be hauled? Oh – and how the haulage fees would have to dramatically increase — meaning you pay double for stuff you purchase at Walmart? Duh of course you did not.
This is a symptom of Tesla ownership. Duh
EVs falter when loaded
link to motortrend.com
I would be pissed if I was a shareholder. Everyone on Ford’s board should be sued and fired for allowing this EV fiasco to get this out of hand.
GM and Ford will BOTH die if they don’t make the transition. The Koreans, Tesla and eventually the Chinese will take their market share if they can’t get EVs right. Other automakers ALREADY have done so…being profitable on EVs. Time to either get it right…or beg for another bailout or BK (AGAIN in GMs case).
What part of demand for EVs is collapsing do you not understand?
I sure hope you are not running a business… cuz you are not qualified to operate a lemonade stand.
I can see it now — you borrow 20 grand off of your granny… and buy a tractor trailer full of lemons… and hire 20 people to juice them… believing you are about to hit the big time….
And over the weekend 8 people buy your lemonade… cuz they feel sorry for you… and you the juice spoils… and granny is stuck with the bill.
link to news24.com
link to cleantechnica.com
Hahahahahahahaha…. Laugh with me… hahahahaha…
Both GM and Ford have proven that they are not capable. They should die but will be put on life support by the US government.
Did anyone ever suggest a program to exclusively make EVs for Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam? Put up solar panels and save on fossil fuels. Very important for island economies.
And it rarely gets near freezing on any of those islands. Even if you go to the top of Mauna Kea, you can coast back down.
EVs make a whole lot of sense for tropical islands, even with the current liquid electrolyte batteries. Solar is less promising than you imagine.
Honda is obviously not the brightest of the Auto Manufacturers. So they are increasing plans to build more, while most others are dumping what they can and as quickly as they can. They can’t even rent the damn things…
A big problem, amongst so many, with EV’s is the fact that they are New Technology Vehicles. With that comes constant changes and with that come massive losses. If you don’t sell every vehicle made, before the technology upgrades, then they are not sellable vehicles any longer (outdated). Not to mention that the ones that can be upgraded, are enormously expensive to do so, plus your disposal fees where it applies.
This is causing a massive pause on EV purchasing, because who wants the old technology, when the new technology is far superior in most categories that are important.
So they will waste a lot more Taxpayer Money (ie Subsidies) trying to solve the issues, and to get rid of the old stock, IF they can. Lose a bundle while doing so, adding layoffs and a big stock drop into the mix. Stuck with inventory they can’t give away in the end and in debt beyond what they ever imagined.
EV’s are done for now. They have far too many insurmountable hills to climb, while others are already way ahead of them. By the time they can make it work, if ever, they will be useless, as GV’s will be getting 100 MPG by then, and Hybrids are already eating their lunch!!
Honda may not survive this, and it will be all on them…
Honda and Toyota have both been focused on improving gasoline engines – only a year ago both were being ridiculed for their refusal to bow before Greta the Eco-terrorist.
Both Honda and Toyota have a long history of selling smaller gas vehicles, motorbikes, mopeds/scooters, etc. They have continued to invest in improving MPG. Both small vehicles / bikes and better MPG make Honda and Toyota winners in developing economies.
In G7 economies… the verdict is more mixed. The ability for bankrupt western consumers to buy $70K vehicles is not. That absurdity is over. G7 consumers are now financially not much different than developing economy consumers – except the G7 ones are moving down, the developing consumers are moving up… either way, Honda and Toyota have a long history of transportation vehicles in developing countries.
US government motors and Ford are likely to go the way of all the British car companies (more subsidies and bailouts, until eventually their patron government has to address its own balance sheet)
Toyota Vs. Honda is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Toyota sells 3X as many vehicles EV & GV as Honda. They are way better positioned for the transition to their own Solid State Batteries as well. Not sure if Honda is working on Battery development and such. Have owned 3 Toyota Tacomas over 40 years (35K-50K left?) and still have #3.going strong!
30 years…
I was at the Lexus dealer in March – he told me that they have not sold a single EV in 2024… Hybrids are doing well though
Toyota is very well positioned in that space, and Hybrids have advanced along with EV alone as well, so I am not surprised.
Bahahahahaha! Gas vehicles HAD their chance. They should have gone to 100 MPG a long time ago…but they went the WRONG Way. Oversized Monster Pickups and SUVs to avoid the CAFE standards are a death sentence for the Auto Industry.
GM is LOSING money in China…the LARGEST market in the WORLD by FAR, because they can’t make EVs profitably.
It doesn’t matter what they do, if they can’t make EVs because GM will shrink in HALF without them. China is ALREADY at nearly 50% EVs and will continue to grow…it’s almost TWICE the size of the US market…and where GM made a LOT of profits until just recently.
As Gas Vehicles (ICE) continue to plummet in sales Globally, the ENTIRE supply chain (much of it IN China) will collapse for ICE vehicles.
No more new parts for new ICE Vehicles as those suppliers go under. The US only represents about 20% of the Global Auto Market…NOT enough to survive on its own as EVs spread Globally.
Too bad for BIG OIL and BIG ICE AUTO…
Whew…time for the ignore button
Posts like that are useful… it is a reminder of just how incompetent most people are
That is how millions if not billions of humans think
Doc Brown in Back To The Future would have been better off inventing a car which burned federal reserve notes.
Seek help
The Achilles Heel of EVs is battery energy density. The current liquid electrolyte technology doesn’t provide enough range. Fix that either through the develoment of solid state batteries with 3 to 4x the energy density, or flow fuel cells, and ICEVs will go the way of the kerosene lamp, the cathode ray tube, and the incandescent lightbulb.
But we are not there yet, and given the past hype surrounding this or that battery breakthrough, it pays to be cautious for now.
I agree with you, although I don’t think a 3x-4x increase in battery density is required to make full battery electric be the default motive technology for cars. 2x-3x should get it there in my opinion and the promising ongoing research indicates that should be possible in the next decade or so. Until that happens, EVs will remain a niche product in many parts of the world.
The multiple is unknown, but I think it would need to be quite large. Electrics suffer greatly in cold weather, on hills, and when loaded (towing and hauling.) These are not generally show stoppers for the urban second sedan market, but will keep the liquid electrolyte BEVs from replacing ICEVs.
In theory anyway, what would really solve all of this would be flow fuel cells with nanotechnology liquid. God help me. The first couple times I looked into it I pretty much barfed at the buzzword bullshit bingo, but there actually might be something to it. If that turns out to be real, meaning works at a competitive cost, ICEVs really will be toast.
Shorter term, it looks like lithium solid state is going to start in small numbers within 5 or so years and be commercially feasible in 10 or 15 years. That would be a huge leap; if the energy density multiple is big enough, ICEVs will be gone. In the meantime, I think BEVs remain in their urban second car niche. BEV pickup trucks with liquid electrolyte lithium batteries are jewelry on wheels.
1
2024 TOYOTA PRIUS
2
2024 HYUNDAI ELANTRA
3
2024 HYUNDAI SONATA
4
2025 TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID
5
2024 TOYOTA COROLLA
6
2024 HONDA ACCORD / ACCORD HYBRID
7
2024 LEXUS ES
8
2024 TOYOTA CROWN
9
2024 MITSUBISHI MIRAGE
10
2024 MITSUBISHI MIRAGE G4
i think that’s how much the USPostal system loses every year, per address delivering junk-mail
Just another example of how sucking up to Biden is bad for business. Sadly, they would be in a much better financial position if they focused on economics instead of politics.
Or just learned to make profitable EVs instead of intentionally sandbagging.
So you think Ford intentionally loses money on EVs? Are you that far out to lunch?
Meanwhile in Canada, Honda just announced a 15 billion dollar investment to build EV’s.
What’s interesting is that they are going to get 5 billion in subsidies from federal and provincial (state) governments. When you look at the jobs aspect, it’s slated to save 4200 jobs (ICE vehicles going away possibly) and create 1000 new ones. That means it’s going to cost the Canadian taxpayer 1 million dollars a job! All essentially to preserve fading auto makers and hold off the Chinese.
This is not recipe for long term economic success and Canada might have been better off just paying those workers Welfare for the rest of their lives and importing Chinese vehicles.
link to driving.ca
The automakers perfected the fine art of shaking down the governments for taxpayer money. Perhaps only sport franchises do it better.
To Honda’s credit, it doesn’t pay execs outrageous salaries, at least not in Japan.
Hey, debt doesn’t matter after a certain point. Off to the cliff faster.
Canada is in third place in total debt outstanding, right after Japan and Greece.
Of course it’s well hidden being distributed among different levels of government, and who needs math to add it all up.
Intriguing. I looked up some of the numbers. They don’t seem to match your post.
Apparently, total Canadian Government debt (Federal, Provincial and Local) is $2.9 trillion Canadian, or $2.1 trillion US. Which is $54,000 US per individual Canadian.
In comparison, US Federal Debt is $35 trillion. Which is $105,000 per US citizen. Almost double the Canadian amount.
In addition, Canada has a well funded federal pension plan. While the US has a $27 trillion Social Security Unfunded Liability. Which is another $81,000 per citizen.
And Canada has a national health care system. While the US has an unfunded Medicare Liability of $41 trillion, or $123,000 per us citizen.
Looking at the US Debt clock, it says that we have total unfunded liabilities of $215 trillion or $638,000 per US citizen.
Somehow, I think Canada is better off debt wise than we are!
Again, there is nothing I can do about US debt levels. All I can do is keep growing my wealth, and focusing on my health and family. Another great week on markets.
The keyword is total debt outstanding, i.e. federal+provincial+private. The federal seem moderate, until you count provincial. The private debt is off the chart, a feature of the housing bubble.
The US is just behind Canada.
I did count Canadian Provincial AND Local government debt, in addition to Federal. Way less than in the US!
And I doubt if per capita Private debt is any different between the US and Canada.
What numbers do you have?
From bondvigilantes.com, but don’t have a link.
Ok. Doesn’t sound right to me though.
Honda got $5 billion in taxpayer money. Canada is still stuck with Trudeau. Seems like Honda got the better end of that deal.
The so-called EV factory won’t be finished while Trudeau is in office. Once he is gone, Honda and the auto unions will lobby to have the factory repurposed to what they wanted in the first place. Trudeau’s replacement will be glad to write off a bad deal and justly blame Trudeau. Canadian taxpayers will be out $5 billion though
NOPE. Losing YET another industry to China is a fools game.
So you think it’s a good idea to pay 1 million a job. Then have that very job staffed by a union worker who is getting over paid by average salary standards. All so that the country can then have a $40000 EV instead of a $25000 EV?
This is why other people who are working at say 7-11 or McDonalds or are cashiers at Walmart and so on are unable to make a living wage or afford a home. That’s because they are subsidizing these 1 million jobs + higher than average salaries though their tax dollars. Those union jobs exist on the backs of those worker tax dollars. They’d all be WAY better off if the jobs disappeared, the workers went on Welfare for the rest of their lives and they bought $25000 EVs.
I like that typo, hilarious.
GM got the big bailout a number of years back, it was Government Motors while Ford toed the line itself. Ford gets sucked into pie in the sky re-imagineering and is bleeding cash while GM is selling Chevy Corvettes. Go figure.