doesn't compute. let's say it costs $10K to build a car and 8 of that is labor. that leaves $2000 for the resources/energy (low end estimate according to BoA report). 80 x 2000 = 160K (just for energy/resource). add, the 8K for labor and we are at 168K for the EV and at 10K for hybrid.
at the high end, it's 328K to build an EV.
I don't see how a business is viable if it costs 80X to build an EV.

link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/raw-m...172812315.html

 

I am open to some sort of EV but I don't really prefer it. Toyota bigwigs have been pretty open to the fact they don't see a full transition in the cards both from a business standpoint and from consumer attitudes. Let's face it, without $7,500 rebates EV sales would probably be less than half of what they have been so far. But Toyota also had the gimmicky fake manual transmission they were developing for EV's that was basically the equivalent of video game pedals and a shifter attached to nothing but software that made the car mimic manual transmission behavior. C&D did a story about a test drive in a prototype and said it was eerily realistic, and fun. Would I buy that in a Toyota EV, especially that little two seat sports car they have teased for two years? Yeah. Absolutely, if it is fun.

I have mentioned before that I want to hunt for a third car, probably something used, that will be different from what I have now. Things like a Giulia Quad, M2/3 with a stick, Miata, BRZ, Integra S, whatever, but also in the mix would be the new Model 3 performance. Just want some variety and having an EV as #3 to fall back on if you ever had oil supply disruption would not be a bad thing. If another company had a fun electric, maybe that as well. The problem I have with Tesla is the sleek, but boring exterior, and even more dull interior. If Tesla had about the same prices that have, but at least made a entry level luxury interior I would own one by now. The lack of engine noise make it pretty sterile, and I can get over that part, but a couple seats and an Ipad bolted to the dash just does not feel like you are getting your money's worth. A little diamond stitched leather, some brushed aluminum, alcantara, or tasteful use of wood goes a long way with me. I don't want molded plastic surfaces, pleather and a touchscreen.

 

I think you're missing the point, what Toyota is talking about is largely the resources needed to produce the batteries, so compare a Tesla battery to a hybrid vehicle battery and you'll get the idea. When you start paying attention to the more scarce materials like Cobalt for instance, you then see what Toyota is talking about, how they can produce more cars with the same amount of (battery related) resources, especially when you consider that much of the traditional hybrids still use Ni based batteries. So from an economics standpoint, it just makes sense, and that's before we even start talking about the actual humanitarian/environmental aspects of Li batteries.

 

hey man, that's just what Toyota's research showed. I believe it goes beyond just cost /unit in raw dollar expense, they take into account all the "well to wheel" costs. mining/refining/production/labour costs/energy input etc. etc. etc. I'm not an economist, but it's the program my son is in and he got to the fly on the wall at this meeting. I know it doesn't make any ****ing sense to me either.

darcy

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/dodge-...le-want-report

Another scramble to keep selling ICE's.

I should have gone to business school. Apparently only idiots go there, then move on to mismanage car companies.

 

Stellantis has to be the worst managed car company out there. I had an Alfa, which obviously was not a strong seller but a good car, and Stellantis came out and announced the FIRST brand under their umbrella to go all electric would be Alfa. Alfa buyers are gear heads, so it was a bit of a head scratcher. Dodge, the brand with ginormous Ram's and Hemi driven muscle car buyers as their chief consumers decided they would push electrics too. My friend who is a die hard Chrysler guy was crying in his beer. Jeep, which at one point not too long ago had the number one most desired domestic label increased their prices by 50% and with falling reliability scores ADDED the complexity of 4XE along with the added upcharge and tried to force them out the door. I realize most don't go offroad, but who wants to go fording into a mudhole in a Wrangler with a giant lithium battery and hope for the best? I am seeing 5 digit advertised discounts on Jeep models.

I would have maybe had one universal EV platform that would adapt to different product lines, dipped my toe in the water with a ONE model under a brand or three and see how they sold. They were all so scared of being left behind they blew a ton of money trying to force demand that is not there yet.

 

We live a couple hours away from where the Charger, Challenger, and 300 have been built for years, it will be very hard to imagine them switching over to EV and maintaining sales volumes the plant needs to survive. There has to be massive cuts or they keep making ICE versions to survive.

 

It's cool to see a major new engine announcement, but I guess we'll see how it goes. My problem with modern ICEs is they are too fragile now - high pressure, super narrow tolerances, with software as an interference layer. Every major automaker has engine issues now that we've transitioned to small, high compression, FI engines - they are too stressed to last.

Add to that the technology layer that will age out well before the rest of the car (except maybe the engine ), and subscription models for things that are built in and used to be one-time cost, and you can see why the average age of vehicles on the road is increasing rapidly.

And then there's the cost of new vehicles right now - 30%-50% more than five years ago - for a variety of reasons, but new cars ICE or otherwise are not as good as they were five or even ten years ago.

 

I don't think the power train is the issue.

https://jalopnik.com/over-5-000-new-...are-1851697827

The ICE models don't sell either...

 

Bingo. You nailed it! The old V6 and V8 engines, in particular, had more bearing surfaces to take load, lower the overall stress on the engine, and generally last quite a long time due to relative simplicity. Normally aspirated four-cylinder engines had way less stress as well, albeit they are all (generally) less fuel efficient and less torquey than the modern counterparts in EPA testing. Of a curious note, the Honda Ridgline with it's 3.5L V6 is the most fuel efficient 300-ish hp truck in the compact truck segment (28 mpg on a recent test from C&D, with most others 23-ish mpg). There's just something about a smooth V6 or big V8 that works well in larger vehicles...

That said, I've driven a few modern turbo engines that were very fun to drive and worked really well in city driving, in particular. I just don't trust them to last, for the reasons you've described.