1 hour ago, David said:

• 52% believe a positive impact on urban communities
• 51% believe a positive impact on suburban communities

WTF does this even mean? Driving an electric vehicle makes your urban or suburban community a better place? 

"An oversample of +/- 350 voters per state was conducted in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Hawaii between October 18-31. State oversamples were recruited separately via stratified sampling and not included as part of the national sample.  The sample size in Hawaii was 153 respondents. In California, Florida, and Texas, respectively, 233, 195, and 196 voters were surveyed as part of  the national poll, and the respondents were weighted to approximate a target sample of registered voters in the state."

This seems like a pretty small sample size to write a headline of: 

Also, not surprised by the "unbiased" sponsor...

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’. The SOP of Gov’t is continual lateness, and I have little faith the infrastructure will be ready in a scant 8 years; on the public charger volume, on the electricity-generation volume, and how to address urban charging issues that seemingly are un-addressable. Couple that with the average $19K higher costs for EVs / extremely limited choice (currently) and I think it’s safe to say it’ll get pushed back to 2040 at minimum.

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’.

100% agree. They're talking less than 9 years to be fully electric. 

I can see a good mix of options finally available to purchase by 2030 but I can't imagine a 100% electric USA in only 8+ years. It just doesn't make sense. 

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

WTF does this even mean? Driving an electric vehicle makes your urban or suburban community a better place? 

As per with any poll, those that identify as Urban or suburban saw electric as a positive. To me seems obvious that in situations where you have a person identifying as say an Urban community member, then that number would mean that percentage of those that identify there is what the percentage approving it to be.

As I stated, interesting posting that is getting media coverage and yet such a small group of people polled by the universities, but those numbers do get attention. Thought it would be an interesting discussion to have here.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

100% agree. They're talking less than 9 years to be fully electric. 

I can see a good mix of options finally available to purchase by 2030 but I can't imagine a 100% electric USA in only 8+ years. It just doesn't make sense. 

Keep in mind it is not 100% electric by 2030, but as I stated sales of new auto's are to be 100% electric by 2030. If the bulk of the OEMs deliver on their schedule of having 20 to 30 models out and ready for sale by 2025 to 2030, then plenty of choices to sell new electric auto's only and let traditional ICE just naturally phase out on it's own.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’. The SOP of Gov’t is continual lateness, and I have little faith the infrastructure will be ready in a scant 8 years; on the public charger volume, on the electricity-generation volume, and how to address urban charging issues that seemingly are un-addressable. Couple that with the average $19K higher costs for EVs / extremely limited choice (currently) and I think it’s safe to say it’ll get pushed back to 2040 at minimum.

Excluding Texas and the mess of a power grid they have there, many states say they can deliver on power needs. Washington has an excess of power they constantly sell into the market where California which always seems to have a shortage buys it up.

It is interesting times we live in to see how this plays out. I do think it will take longer than a 2030 mandate can deliver on. 

In regards to charging stations/terminals, I think the US is in a better spot than many realize as it is a habit change and as states dictate that new home building must include chargers, I think we will see the habit change to home charging no different than charging your cell phone.

I would be all for EV's only in 2030, but I don't think the technology will be there.  Maybe in 2035.  The battery tech just has to get way better and cheaper so these EV's are in another price tier.  The Mach-E, Model Y, VW iD4, etc are like Toyota RAV4 size, but cost $20k more, you have to erase that gap by 2030 if you want to get rid of ICE.  A lot can happen in 10 years but that is asking really a lot.

2 hours ago, David said:

states dictate that new home building must include chargers

That's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of existing homes. 

- - - - -
Here's the issue RE "64% believe it will have a positive effect on climate change".

Automobiles are (reputedly) 29% (IIRC) of 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Selling 100% BE's in the U.S. will be on the order of 15 million (no evidence to suggest that consumers will switch en mass). But 15 million is only 0.05% of all vehicles in the U.S.. Therefore- the effect on climate change would be 5% of 29%... or; the net influence on climate change from automobiles would be maybe 1.5%. Yet we have 64% of this tiny sample of consumers thinking they'll see a change. 
 

Morgan Stanley industry forecast says Ford's BE percentage of all its sales in 2030 will only be 33.7%. That would represent 1.22 million BE Fords. Thru the 3rd quarter of 2021, Ford has sold 21K BE's.

That 21K represents Mach E sales and its forecasted to sell about 24K for the year.  Which is also forecasted to beat GM's EV sales and out selling GM for EVs this year.  All forecasted of course but its trending that way.   Bolt and Bolt EUVs sales are halted due to battery problems.  

Not saying anything other than the Mach E is forecasted to sell 24 thousand units for 2021.  

I will be saying though, is that there is lots of room to sell MORE!!!  And I wished it kinda did sell more.  At least if it hit 30 thousand units.  Maybe for 2022.  

But then again, (realistically speaking)  I would want Ford to sell 40-50 thousand Mach Es for 2022

We could also see Chinese electric cars come here and drastically undercut Ford and GM in price.  I wouldn’t really bet on it, but it possible that the Chinese do what the Japanese did 50 years ago when they take into the American market quickly gained ground. That could accelerate the EV push.  

Chinese makes have been attempting to gain access to the USDM but have failed numerous times (on a host of issues) to be OK’d. Do they fonally have their shit together?? 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

it possible that the Chinese do what the Japanese did 50 years ago when they take into the American market quickly gained ground. That could accelerate the EV push.  

After 15 years of trying in vain, it took a national gas crisis for the japanese to rise above ‘niche segment’, and primarily because there were few significantly fuel-efficient US models. With established players a-plenty here now, there is no market void like in the ‘70s. Plus, the demographic that bought cheap, miserly cars then is gone. Gotta have those heated/cooled seats!!

- - - - - - - - - - - 
DETROIT (Reuters) - Stellantis NV Chief Executive Carlos Tavares said external pressure on automakers to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles potentially threatens jobs and vehicle quality as producers struggle to manage the higher costs of building EVs.

Governments and investors want car manufacturers to speed up the transition to electric vehicles, but the costs are "beyond the limits" of what the auto industry can sustain, Tavares said in an interview at the Reuters Next conference released Wednesday.

"What has been decided is to impose on the automotive industry electrification that brings 50% additional costs against a conventional vehicle," he said.

"There is no way we can transfer 50% of additional costs to the final consumer because most parts of the middle class will not be able to pay."

Automakers could charge higher prices and sell fewer cars, or accept lower profit margins, Tavares said. Those paths both lead to cutbacks. Union leaders in Europe and North America have warned tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.

Automakers need time for testing and ensuring that new technology will work, Tavares said. Pushing to speed that process up "is just going to be counter productive. It will lead to quality problems. It will lead to all sorts of problems," he said.

Tavares said Stellantis is aiming to avoid cuts by boosting productivity at a pace far faster than industry norm.

"Over the next five years we have to digest 10% productivity a year ... in an industry which is used to delivering 2 to 3% productivity" improvement, he said.

"The future will tell us who is going to be able to digest this, and who will fail," Tavares said. "We are putting the industry on the limits."

Electric vehicle costs are expected to fall, and analysts project that battery electric vehicles and combustion vehicles could reach cost parity during the second half of this decade.

Like other automakers that earn profits from combustion vehicles, Stellantis is under pressure from electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc and other pure electric vehicle startups such as Rivian.

The electric vehicle companies are far smaller in terms of vehicle sales and employment. But investors have given Tesla and Rivian higher market valuations than the owner of the Jeep SUV brand or the highly profitable Ram pickup truck franchise.

That investor pressure is compounded by government policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, California and other jurisdictions have set goals to end sales of combustion vehicles by 2035. The United Kingdom has set 2030 as the deadline for going all-electric.

Tavares said governments should shift the focus of climate policy toward cleaning up the energy sector and developing electric-vehicle charging infrastructure.

Stellantis, created in 2021 with the merger of French automaker Peugeot SA and Italian-American automaker Fiat Chrysler NV, is on track to deliver 5 billion euros in cost reduction through streamlining its operations, Tavares said.

Tavares has accelerated Stellantis' electric vehicle development, committing 30 billion euros through 2025 to developing new electric vehicle architectures, building battery plants and investing in raw materials and new technology.

On Tuesday, Stellantis said it had invested in solid-state battery startup Factorial alongside German automaker Daimler AG.

"We can invest more and go deeper in the value chain," Tavares said. "There may be other (investments) in the near future."
- - - - - - - - - - - 

11 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

That 21K represents Mach E sales and its forecasted to sell about 24K for the year.  Which is also forecasted to beat GM's EV sales and out selling GM for EVs this year.  All forecasted of course but its trending that way.   Bolt and Bolt EUVs sales are halted due to battery problems.  

Not saying anything other than the Mach E is forecasted to sell 24 thousand units for 2021.  

I will be saying though, is that there is lots of room to sell MORE!!!  And I wished it kinda did sell more.  At least if it hit 30 thousand units.  Maybe for 2022.  

 

But then again, (realistically speaking)  I would want Ford to sell 40-50 thousand Mach Es for 2022

I would love this too, but there is one big BIG BIG glaring problem. Dealership GREED, I like the looks and am interested in the Mach-E, but my local ford dealers have all put anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adjusted market value on the auto's, as such I am seeing more and more Mach-E sit on the lots. This is not good for Ford and not good for consumers when the greedy dealerships screw you over. This is what will make it hard on changing over when states protect greedy dealerships rather than letting sales via all means, online, direct and dealership play out.

The old days of dealership protection needs to come to an end and let them compete on services.

1 minute ago, David said:

I would love this too, but there is one big BIG BIG glaring problem. Dealership GREED, I like the looks and am interested in the Mach-E, but my local ford dealers have all put anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adjusted market value on the auto's, as such I am seeing more and more Mach-E sit on the lots. This is not good for Ford and not good for consumers when the greedy dealerships screw you over. This is what will make it hard on changing over when states protect greedy dealerships rather than letting sales via all means, online, direct and dealership play out.

The old days of dealership protection needs to come to an end and let them compete on services.

Competition is great.  You would have to abolish all dealer agency laws in each state first.  It is still difficult to shut down an underperforming dealership without a giant exit fee from the automaker, even now.

If they're marking them all up that much, they're selling to somebody because of demand. I think those buyers are idiots but there'd be no markups if they weren't selling at all. They're probably selling every single one of them they can build, because of the chip shortage. 

I have a hard time understanding the 'greedy dealership takes away sales from the manufacturer' argument.

This is how I understand the OEM/dealership relationship works:

• An OEM will produce a certain amount of units.
• The dealership BUYS those units DIRECTLY from the OEM.
• The OEM sells every single one it produces.  The dealership is the one stuck with the unsold inventory. 
• If dealership A-G overprice their inventory but sells every single one of them. Its OK, right?
• If dealership H-P overprice their inventory but doesnt sell a single unit, its their problem, right?
• If dealership Q-Z prices their units at MSRP and sells them at MSRP or below and they sell every single unit, that is good too, right?
• Dealerships A-G and Q-Z have their inventories depleted, so they order more, right?  OEM builds more and sells to dealerships A-G and Q-Z.   Maybe dealership A-G and Q-Z buys up the inventory of dealerships H-P, right?

If my understanding of the OEM and dealership is correct, this is why I do not understand the argument.  Sure, there are greedy dealerships, but if they do not sell their inventory, its on them. The OEM has already sold those units...   But if greedy dealerships sell to overzealous and dumb customers, you cant fault the dealership to do so.  And if THAT business model is successful, then the 'greedy' moniker should cease to be given to said dealership. 

If however that business model is a failure, then the 'greedy' moniker should also cease to be given.  Dumb business owner should be the moniker given.   Greed has NOTHING to do with buying and selling.  Greed is a different animal...

Anyway, back to the misunderstanding of the OEM/dealership relationship. 

Of course if all dealerships A through Z are incapable of selling a certain model and the OEM finds itself over producing, than that is a different angle.  But the OEM will sell those units anyway and offer cash back to the dealership who will offer that cashback to the customer via rebates, right? In  order to sell the units the OEM produced.  In which case these units are NOT going to be sold OVER MSRP anyway, right?    

There will be a time when dealerships H-P will realize that their business model of trying to sell that particular unit ABOVE MSRP is not working and will eventually price correct, right?   

55 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I have a hard time understanding the 'greedy dealership takes away sales from the manufacturer' argument.

This is how I understand the OEM/dealership relationship works:

• An OEM will produce a certain amount of units.
• The dealership BUYS those units DIRECTLY from the OEM.
• The OEM sells every single one it produces.  The dealership is the one stuck with the unsold inventory. 
• If dealership A-G overprice their inventory but sells every single one of them. Its OK, right?
• If dealership H-P overprice their inventory but doesnt sell a single unit, its their problem, right?
• If dealership Q-Z prices their units at MSRP and sells them at MSRP or below and they sell every single unit, that is good too, right?
• Dealerships A-G and Q-Z have their inventories depleted, so they order more, right?  OEM builds more and sells to dealerships A-G and Q-Z.   Maybe dealership A-G and Q-Z buys up the inventory of dealerships H-P, right?

 

If my understanding of the OEM and dealership is correct, this is why I do not understand the argument.  Sure, there are greedy dealerships, but if they do not sell their inventory, its on them. The OEM has already sold those units...   But if greedy dealerships sell to overzealous and dumb customers, you cant fault the dealership to do so.  And if THAT business model is successful, then the 'greedy' moniker should cease to be given to said dealership. 

If however that business model is a failure, then the 'greedy' moniker should also cease to be given.  Dumb business owner should be the moniker given.   Greed has NOTHING to do with buying and selling.  Greed is a different animal...

Anyway, back to the misunderstanding of the OEM/dealership relationship. 

 

Of course if all dealerships A through Z are incapable of selling a certain model and the OEM finds itself over producing, than that is a different angle.  But the OEM will sell those units anyway and offer cash back to the dealership who will offer that cashback to the customer via rebates, right? In  order to sell the units the OEM produced.  In which case these units are NOT going to be sold OVER MSRP anyway, right?    

 

 

Yes, I completely agree. While I will never buy a vehicle (or probably anything) over MSRP, there REALLY isn't anything wrong with it. It's simply supply and demand playing out. 

I don't think the dealerships are scumbags, just trying to run a profitable business. I'll never support that myself, but it's just simple business. 

OEMs (almost always) maintain a set MSRP for the model year, and adjust rebates at the first of every month to adjust to market conditions. At least right there the buyer has a basis of comparison.  When dealers invest in advertising & competition, that further exerts a small degree of price control in the local market.  This all favors the consumer.  

In an OEM-controlled direct-sales model, there is nothing to stop the OEM from bumping MSRP monthly, because the OEM has zero competition (as with Tesla).

I stated it here before; my local Buick-GMC dealer had a '21 Yukon Denali on the floor, with a $10K market adjustment. $83K > now $93K.  I was told it was the last of 8 Yukons, and the other 7 all flew out the door, all with $10K M.A. on the sticker/no rebates.  They had people buying them sight-unseen 4 states away.  Buyers aren't walking away from these in this market.

M.A. isn't something I would ever want to pay, either, but this IS an unprecedented market.  Dealers charging M.A. are quite simply shifting their revenue to make up for major supply issues. 

I get the point you're all making, but to me as @ccap41 has state he would never support them, I also refuse to support a dealership like that. Sadly, all the dealerships around me are using M.A. on the Mach-E so getting one might not happen for me. 

Another reason to continue to do the maintenance and take care of my existing autos till this shortage craziness is over.

Pickings are razor thin right now. toyoter dealer nearby is down roughly 60% from normal, and half of what's on the lot looks pre-owned / off-brand.

If you can wait, I'd recommend it. Or- order one if you want; from discussion with the sales dude, it seems ordered vehicles sidestep M.A. pricing. Look into it, get better pricing and the exact vehicle you want. Just don't expect a sub-MSRP number (but you've indicated you prefer paying MSRP, so that shouldn't be an issue for you).

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

Pickings are razor thin right now. toyoter dealer nearby is down roughly 60% from normal, and half of what's on the lot looks pre-owned / off-brand.

If you can wait, I'd recommend it. Or- order one if you want; from discussion with the sales dude, it seems ordered vehicles sidestep M.A. pricing. Look into it, get better pricing and the exact vehicle you want. Just don't expect a sub-MSRP number (but you've indicated you prefer paying MSRP, so that shouldn't be an issue for you).

I am going to wait this mess out as like you, I have no problem taking care of my rides and going long on owning them. One thing that is crazy especially on the Mach-E is that some of my coworkers who have pre-ordered them on the internet with Ford have hit the dealerships to finish up the deal only to have them say they want X amount of M.A. to finish the deal and that has killed many a EV purchase as I do not blame my coworkers for NOT wanting to be gouged. Kinda Sucks.

^ Dumb (but within their right).  It's a better, and better built vehicle than the Tesla Model Y, another BE SUV that starts $16 grand higher. Even a M.A. of 10 grand on the Mach-E is still a great deal, no? 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

^ Dumb (but within their right).  It's a better, and better built vehicle than the Tesla Model Y, another BE SUV that starts $16 grand higher. Even a M.A. of 10 grand on the Mach-E is still a great deal, no? 

An example is BOSE, no retailer is allowed to discount their products unless they have approved such a promotion, nor is any approved retailer allowed to sell above MSRP. They ensure the retailer makes a fair profit and they make a fair profit.

Ford problem is they market an amazing auto at a MSRP price. They should be ensuring their dealership network sells at the MSRP price and makes a fair profit. M.A. is greed pure and simple and give Ford a black eye by those wanting to buy their products.

I do not see a Mach-E that I agree is a better product than a Tesla Y being sold with an M.A. of $16 Grand to use your example of a great deal.

Ford set expectations of their selling price of a Mach-E with the MSRP. The Dealers should be honoring this as a retailer for Fords Products. Ford should be ensuring the dealers make a fair profit and not allow the gouging. 

IMHO