Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    FCA CEO Still Thinks Electric Cars Are Not Viable

      Sergio is at it again!

    If there is one thing the Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has been consistent on aside from changing his mind on a number of things is his dislike on electric vehicles.

    Speaking to reporters this week at the New York Stock Exchange, Marchionne said there isn't a viable economic model for electric cars.

    "We still don't have a viable economic model for delivering an electric car. As much as I like Elon Musk, and he's a good friend and actually he's done a phenomenal job of marketing Telsa, I remain unconvinced of a ... economic viability of the model that he's pitching," said Marchionne.

    Marchionne believes the costs for batteries and the various technologies need to come down to make them viable. Otherwise, automakers should focus on developing hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains. 

    "So how do we find a convergence of technology bringing prices of components down and allows us to price accordingly — or we need to navigate through this process in a combined way between combustion and electrification to yield at least a minimum of economic returns that allows for our continuity? The last thing you want is me to be successful selling cars for 24 months and then go bust. That's not a good story. Especially in a place like this which rewards economic success. Let's not sit here and design our own future in the tank. Let's try and do it properly. We will do all the right things. We are investing without making a lot of noise on electrification. We will combine it with combustion to yield the right level of CO2. But we're not betting the bank on going fully electric in the next decade. It won't happen," said Marchionne.

    Source: The Street

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Why am I not surprised by the Emperor with NO Cloths!

    Sergio boy could not ever really manage anything right. He sure has not done that as CEO of FCA. 

    I wonder how sore his lips must be. :nono:

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    48 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    Flunky. Going the way of the horse and buggy is the mind of one Sergio Marchionne. 

    So long as it has Italian leather on the seat of that buggy and they sell more than 7 of them in North America Sergio will be happy.

    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As much as I would like to make fun of Sergio's comments, he may have a point.  Battery-powered EVs are currently NOT CHEAP enough to make or scale at the moment.  If a battery-powered EV was as cheap as a traditional ICE-powered vehicle, then scale and pricing (let alone profit) would almost resolve themselves.  Right now, a lot of automakers are trying to crack that granite and FCA is not in that game.  Of course, given Sergio's intransigence, it may well be 2030 before an EV will be cheap enough for FCA to make such vehicles.  Then again, will FCA survive until 2030?  They are having a difficult time as it is right now.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He is right. BEV does not make sense yet for most. People are straddled with a cord and pay the premium for it. One day perhaps, but not today or in a few years

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Guest DetroitMuscle said:

    He is right. BEV does not make sense yet for most. People are straddled with a cord and pay the premium for it. One day perhaps, but not today or in a few years

    Every day, more and more find that changing habits does make sense and in the next 18 months we will see a the change gain speed.

    @riviera74 I agree with what you said and question if FCA will still be independent let alone have the name brands they have today in 2030.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This thread is not about the feasibility from the owner's standpoint; Sergio is talking about the economics of manufacturing/selling EVs. I'm no fan of him professionally, but on this point he is correct. From the only numbers I've seen, Chevy loses $9K on each Bolt, FCA loses $20K on each fiat 500 EV, and Tesla lost $750,000,000 last year. From the business model standpoint- as of right now, there is no money to be made.

    Unless respective governments want to court bailouts, the countries & states that are considering outright ICE bans would do well to make sure there are manufacturers around to build these cars and at least cover their costs (which would still be a case of no profits/ expansion/ future development).

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, balthazar said:

    This thread is not about the feasibility from the owner's standpoint; Sergio is talking about the economics of manufacturing/selling EVs. I'm no fan of him professionally, but on this point he is correct. From the only numbers I've seen, Chevy loses $9K on each Bolt, FCA loses $20K on each fiat 500 EV, and Tesla lost $750,000,000 last year. From the business model standpoint- as of right now, there is no money to be made.

    Unless respective governments want to court bailouts, the countries & states that are considering outright ICE bans would do well to make sure there are manufacturers around to build these cars and at least cover their costs (which would still be a case of no profits/ expansion/ future development).

    Wasn't the ICE auto industry like this in the early 1900's?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ^ What- that early EV CO's were making money & ICE companies were not? No- in no way was that unilateral. There were thousands of companies that failed in the beginning (first 25 years) of the industry, I'm not aware that any 'belly-upped' solely tied to propulsion choice.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    45 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    ^ What- that early EV CO's were making money & ICE companies were not? No- in no way was that unilateral. There were thousands of companies that failed in the beginning (first 25 years) of the industry, I'm not aware that any 'belly-upped' solely tied to propulsion choice.

    Agreed, neither EV or ICE made money as to why so many failed. But technology changes and old ideas become new and better.

    I agree that ICE is not over yet, but it's days are numbered as better ways to travel come about.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The OEMs that survived at least some notable period of time (the Depression scorched that industry along with every other one) did make money- my point was it was not related SOLELY to the powerplant.

    Look at Doble- built steams cars with AMAZING technology, lasted 1909 to 1931. Again- the Depression, which killed off a disproportionate number of fine marques.

    I'm not seeing much of a parallel from the early 20th century to the early 21st here other that the obvious switch from electric to IC. However, the significant contrast with that is; today's US market breakdown is like 94% IC and 6% EV... the early days were never close to that one-sided. Also- the vehicles were largely comparable in what they offered, how it performed & drove. An EV then wasn't any faster (or slower) than a low-end IC car. The 'change over' was relatively fluid & quick and was consumer-driven. Today the market is ridiculously one-sided and most EVs include range numbers that are less than enticing. Plus EVs have already taken longer time to achieve a tiny sliver of the market vs. than the the rise of ICs early on took.

    EVs will take off once they achieve 2 critical factors; they're priced competitively with IC competition and offer range numbers comparable to IC mile ranges, with charging stations at least 50% as common as gas stations. It's really only 2 things: range/ charging time/ charger commonality... and vehicle price. Everything else is comparable right now (other than EVs being a thin selection of vehicles so far).

    Edited by balthazar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
    • Hummer EV (and Silverado EV) are much bigger and truckular...so they have a lot more space underneath for the dirty bits.   The Lyriq isn't a high riding 4x4, so it has to use space for the electric motor(s), power brake system, HVAC, radiator, etc under the hood...
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...