Electric Vehicles

[90503]

Meanwhile, at the charging station...

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/02/03/...ng-rated-2023/

[90503]

And in the dead horse department, a nice article about Plug-in hybrids....

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/3-reaso...ybrid-over-ev/

While the automotive industry continues to focus on electric vehicles, environmental concerns and costs are keeping many buyers on the sidelines. However, a good alternative to a full-EV could be the plug-in hybrid. With more flexibility, lower costs, and smaller battery packs, a PHEV might just be the ideal bridge to electrifying America’s cars.

Another good PHEV article..https://www.motorbiscuit.com/a-plug-...as-we-know-it/

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

University of Michigan MBA. Same place as Patrick Anderson, the author of the report you linked to. Why do you ask?

I have an MBA as well, but that's not a degree in economics, not even close.

No offense, but when you ignore the fact that the subsidy is nonrefundable in conjunction with ignoring the fact that median income people don't pay enough taxes to make use of a $7,500 non refundable tax credit I conclude you have a dog in this fight, or you don't understand some basic economic concepts.

The same is true when you ignore the impact of government regulations on business decisions, particularly CAFE standards on auto manufacturers.

If you are even somewhat proficient in economics then you would agree that a HUGE part of the push into EVs is driven by the government.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I have an MBA as well, but that's not a degree in economics, not even close.

No offense, but when you ignore the fact that the subsidy is nonrefundable in conjunction with ignoring the fact that median income people don't pay enough taxes to make use of a $7,500 non refundable tax credit I conclude you have a dog in this fight, or you don't understand some basic economic concepts.

It’s not that I’m ignoring the non refundable part it’s simply that it hasn’t come up. The way that works out is if a vehicle is eligible for $3,750 or $7,500, that part can be reduced from the buyer’s tax liability. It can be applied to the year they purchase the vehicle or the prior year if the prior year’s AGI is less. If the amount of the buyer’s tax liability is less than the qualified incentive, they only get to claim the lower amount. But they would still get some amount of incentive beyond what they would experience buying a non-electric car. Whether that’s enough incentive to sway the purchase decision or not is an individual measure. I think it would be safe to say that if someone’s tax liability is lower than $7,500 they probably don’t have sufficient income to buy a new car, electric or otherwise, so the point would be moot. FWIW, I do just fine with basic economic concepts as well as some of the more advanced concepts. Thanks for caring.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

The same is true when you ignore the impact of government regulations on business decisions, particularly CAFE standards on auto manufacturers.

For the record I don’t ignore the impact of government regulations on business decisions. I spent a good portion of my career at GM either managing or advising on those impacts. This is part of the reason I have the position in my current company. My ability to combine a deep understanding of corporate strategy, relevant legislation, and economic impact of new and trending technologies on the dynamics of the auto industry. For instance, for several years it was my team that provided GM with the appropriate cadence of vehicles to offer FlexFuel in order to maximize GM’s use of E85 credits and minimize the overall cost of implementation. Basically, pick the right vehicles to generate enough volume to get maximum credit, but not build one more vehicle with FlexFuel capability than absolutely necessary since it was a cost that could not be priced for when selling the vehicle. That required a complete understanding of the E85 credit scheme as well as an understanding of some fairly complex economic realities (to your earlier point). What I have said and will continue to say is that government regulations are less of an issue with the shift to BEV and that this is evidenced by the fact that major commitments, including tens of billions of dollars of investment, happened before any of the legislation that is impacting the shift. For once, the industry is ahead of the government in regulating itself. The IRA incentives are focused on doing two things:

1. Pushing automakers to build their vehicles and batteries in the US to promote US jobs and US investment in the technology.
2. Push the market towards more mainstream BEV offerings by capping the price of vehicles eligible for incentives. At the same time, capping the income level of buyers in order to end the previous practice of giving a financial break to the affluent who really didn’t need it.

One caveat with respect to regulation… part of the reason some automakers are making the push to BEV is because they have pretty much exhausted the portfolio of lower cost fuel economy and emissions technologies. So rather than “thou shalt build only Zero Emissions Vehicles” being the driving force, it is a more economics based decision (there I go again ). Driven by the fact that the high cost to develop new engines and transmissions that meet the next wave of ICE emissions regulations in many cases exceeds the cost of just focusing on electric vehicles is no doubt a driving factor.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

If you are even somewhat proficient in economics then you would agree that a HUGE part of the push into EVs is driven by the government.

Strike through the word “HUGE” and we’re probably not too far off of some level of agreement. It’s part of the push, but the push would be happening even without the regulations and incentives. It had already started before the regulations and before the IRA.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

It was BS how if you bought a 5 seater Model Y it was classified as a car. But the 7 seater, it’s now a SUV. The Mach E I believe had a similar BS classification. Bought the RWD version, it’s a car. AWD it’s now an SUV.

It's almost like you spoke this into being. This just broke Friday. Treasury has decided to switch from the EPA CAFE classification of vehicles to the EPA Fuel Economy Label classification for the basis of determining IRA incentive. So instead of 5-Seater RWD Model Y and FWD Mach E both being classified as CAR while the AWD versions and 7-seat Model Y being classified as UTILITY, all of them will be classified as UTILITY, consistent with what is shown on the Monroney sticker.

https://www.autonews.com/retail/ev-t...ent=hero-image

Some select statements in case the link is behind a paywall...

The department said it will now use the consumer-facing EPA Fuel Economy Label standard to determine whether a vehicle is a sedan, SUV, pickup or van instead of using EPA corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards.
...

Treasury did not classify the Cadillac Lyriq as an SUV, for example, meaning its retail price could not exceed $55,000. The Lyriq, which Automotive News classifies as a midsize crossover, starts at $62,990. Under the new vehicle classification standards announced Friday by Treasury, the Lyriq would be considered a small SUV.

Before making substantial price cuts to the Model Y, Tesla CEO Elon Musk complained on Twitter about the classification of the two-row Model Y as a car and urged Tesla fans to complain directly to the IRS.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s mainly single family home dwellers, whether they are affluent or not. The top selling EVs by a long shot are, in order

1. Tesla Model 3
2. Tesla Model Y
3. Ford Mustang Mach E

All of them have models that cost less than a Camaro SS. So unless we consider Camaro SS a car only purchased by affluent buyers, I think we can retire the “EVs are only for rich people” mantra. You are absolutely correct though that people living in multi-dwelling locations are less apt to buy an EV. I literally just got off of a Teams meeting scoping a project for a client that wants to understand more about when/where/cost for charging in multi-family dwelling locations. So my team will be studying that over the next several weeks.

Care to discuss the motivation for those recent price drops?

Perhaps affluent was strong, but we're still only talking less than 6% of car sales in 2022. Chevy wants to sell you a SilvErado RST for >100k. Easily attainable. The WT is fleet only. There are many other similar examples and you can't even get that truck yet. A Camaro SS, sure, it's a toy for most, and an expensive one at that so you've got expendable income. Maybe you don't have to be affluent, but it's no Sonic.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Care to discuss the motivation for those recent price drops?

Perhaps affluent was strong, but we're still only talking less than 6% of car sales in 2022. Chevy wants to sell you a SilvErado RST for >100k. Easily attainable. The WT is fleet only. There are many other similar examples and you can't even get that truck yet. A Camaro SS, sure, it's a toy for most, and an expensive one at that so you've got expendable income. Maybe you don't have to be affluent, but it's no Sonic.

One reason...to fit more of their portfolio under the $55k (Cars) and $80k (Trucks and Utilities) price caps for incentive qualification.

On Friday, US Treasury changed their position to categorize by nameplate, consistent with EPA Label (instead of EPA CAFE calculations). This moved all Model Y into the $80k truck and utility category. Tesla immediately raised the price of some Model Y because they still fit under the $80k. They had a couple weeks ago lowered those prices to fit under the $55k.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

One reason...to fit more of their portfolio under the $55k (Cars) and $80k (Trucks and Utilities) price caps for incentive qualification.

On Friday, US Treasury changed their position to categorize by nameplate, consistent with EPA Label (instead of EPA CAFE calculations). This moved all Model Y into the $80k truck and utility category. Tesla immediately raised the price of some Model Y because they still fit under the $80k. They had a couple weeks ago lowered those prices to fit under the $55k.

Right, my point is you continue to downplay the influence our government is having on automaker's internal decisions. They're scrambling. It's crazy incompetence. We have to throw out the tax incentives when touting affordable EVs because A. who knows what classifies in an apparently fluid situation and B. Not every American can benefit based on their tax liability.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Right, my point is you continue to downplay the influence our government is having on automaker's internal decisions. They're scrambling. It's crazy incompetence. We have to throw out the tax incentives when touting affordable EVs because A. who knows what classifies in an apparently fluid situation and B. Not every American can benefit based on their tax liability.

I’m not sure what one thing has to do with the other. Tesla is making a crap ton of EVs every year and the number keeps growing. That has zip to do with government regulation.

A government program comes along that if they play their cards right, they can increase their market share through creative pricing. The parameter of the government program changes and they change their pricing accordingly.

What has not changed is the fact that Tesla has been and will continue to be a force in the development, manufacture, and sales of EVs. No matter what the government does. Their strategy (chess) is not impacted by what the government says or does. Their tactics (checkers) can pivot based on what is to their best advantage. But the strategy remains unaffected.

[Martinjlm]

Switching gears a bit…

This is the press car I got to drive for a couple hours today. The white one in the middle. Questions? Comments?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Not really. It looks like the hundreds of other CUV's on the road.

EXACTLY!!! No longer strange looking science experiments. That’s why I took the picture when it was parked between two Audis.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

I sorta knew that. But for the millions of people who buy CUVs and SUVs it’s a huge step.

[90503]

I'm guessing Corvette....(looks like corner of Corvette emblem on steering wheel)...and the "boost" button would be Corvette....

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

I'm guessing Corvette....(looks like corner of Corvette emblem on steering wheel)...and the "boost" button would be Corvette....

Genesis GV60 Performance

• 77.4 kWh battery
• 360 kW (482 hp) dual motor system
• 700 Nm torque

The Boost button is absolutely ridiculous. Very much like Ludicrous Mode in a Tesla S. Slammed my head back into the headrest when I launched with it from a light. When I looked in my rearview it seemed like the other cars that were at the light were in a different zip code. Handling was very tight. With AWD and a seriously low center of gravity it oughta be. Track beast? No. Canyon carver? Probably. Depends on the canyon. I’d fling it around the Dragon if I had the chance. At the very least, a really, really cool way to go to the grocery store.