this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
117 points (89.3% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers
2 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a fundamental truth you have to understand about car companies:They do not exist to make cars. They exist to make money. That distinction, analyst Kevin Tynan tells me, is why they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles.

Perhaps that’s an oversimplification. Tynan is the director of research at an auto-dealer-focused investment bank, the Presidio Group, with decades of experience as an analyst at firms like Bloomberg Intelligence. What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products. It’s that their interest begins and ends with winning customers who will eventually buy more expensive, higher-margin products.

One of the auto industry’s dirtiest secrets is that at scale, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits. In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 54 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products.

Weird, Nissan doesn't have a problem selling Versas for $16k? Chevy doesn't have a problem selling a Malibu for $25k? Honda doesn't have a problem selling a Civic for $25k or an Accord for 28k?

And what happens to the customers who literally can't afford the expensive models? There's a lost sale for every one of them.

This is just fundamentally flawed logic.

In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

They've skewed that way because of CAFE standards.

[–] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you're right, but I also think it's insane that we think of 25000 dollar vehicles as the budget models. An affordable car is something a middle-class income could afford out of pocket in my opinion. Who can spare 25k nowadays?

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Everyone and their mother is comfortable sitting on a car loan and $25k is pretty reasonable for a middle class family these days.

What still blows my mind is how common it is to I see people rolling around in $80k trucks.

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not comfortable with that. 25,000 is $400 a month (5 years). But yeah trucks are ridiculous. People gotta be taking out 8-10 years to pay for those

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In our stage of capitalism, these arent even exceptions. 16k for a Versa. Is probably the best deal I've seen in forever, because almost no one makes sub $20,000 cars now. The last New cars I saw for that were economy cars (Sonic/fiesta/fit etc)

Weird, Nissan doesn't have a problem selling Versas for $16k? Chevy doesn't have a problem selling a Malibu for $25k? Honda doesn't have a problem selling a Civic for $25k or an Accord for 28k?

Malibu used to be sub $20,000 new. (2008) Civics were $13-15,000 in 2005 brand new. These prices are outrageous for the amount of car you get by comparison. $25000 for a civic? It's small and goes vroom. For 3,000 more you have an Accord! Compared to an Accord Civics have no storage, small legroom, an engine that makes them zippy for sure, but it's not as if the Accord is a slouch. At this stage mpg is comparable.

And what happens to the customers who literally can't afford the expensive models? There's a lost sale for every one of them.

If you're not interested in playing the game of taking on massive debt Then that's fine - in their eyes you can keep buying used cars. For this type of person, they've fought so hard to make every car so unfixable to the average person. Parts and service departments are free to make a killing if you can't fix it yourself.

For those that insist on buying dates models you CAN fix - You can forever own hand me downs with ghosts under the hood, gremlins in the electrical lines and odometers with 6 digits. It's just a numbers game where eventually you will buy one that shits out way sooner than you can afford before your mentality suggests "maybe reaching deep on a CC and getting something with warranties wouldn't be so bad?"

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Civics were $13-15,000 in 2005 brand new.

This might be hard to believe but 2005 was nearly 20 years ago...cars have improved in nearly every way possible, then add 20 years of inflation to that and it starts to sound like a good deal...

If you're not interested in playing the game of taking on massive debt Then that's fine - in their eyes you can keep buying used cars.

So they...don't like profit? Because that also contradicts OP.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Improved"?

If you actually think that's true, then I have a subscription to your seat belt to sell you.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -3 points 3 months ago

I'll be sure and write that on your gravestone.

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This might be hard to believe but 2005 was nearly 20 years ago...cars have improved in nearly every way possible, then add 20 years of inflation to that and it starts to sound like a good deal...

Comparison of all 3

Using an online inflation calculator shows the 2005 price inflating to 21,400, and the 2015 price inflating to 24,900. It would seem the civic is matching inflation. So, I'm wrong on how inflation has impacted the value of most cars, but that still doesn't solve the problem that New cars aren't being released for under $20,000 (stateside) anymore - and subsequently how much debt people have to sink into to buy New. Inflation has run what should just be a basic ass car into $24,000+

But my turnaround question would be does the cost to manufacture this car truly not fall? Is the manufacture cost also meeting inflation the way we found the MSRP has? Has manufacturing one truly remained at 90% MSRP? (A quick Google says profits are usually only 10%). If so, why? I understand facelifts and upgrades over the years but if you've been making the same "name" car that shares parts with itself through the years from 2005 till 2025, how are some of those parts not dirt ass cheap - because car brands are intentionally not reusing the parts. A great example is the 2012 and 2014 Chevy Sonic rims are the same. 2013 and 2015 are the same too. Why aren't they they same across 4 years? Also why is the 2012 one a bolt pattern 5x105 - a size and pattern never used again or previously? Because fuck you, consumer, we needed them to be scarce so the price stays at $300 per rim. (Personal experience I had in 2017). A civic, and any other long life car model could be cheaper, but they're not because car makers insist on convoluted systems and "innovation for innovation sake" so a new car is always full of new R&D they need to pay for.

Also cars are covered in touchscreens now. Do you know why - touchscreens are just a TV with a digitizer like your phone. And we have been making those for 20 years so they ARE cheap as dirt. Touchscreens are so popular in the face of consumers wanting buttons because they're so cheap to put in and make a UI for. In fact the UI doesn't even have to change, it just needs to look new every few years and anyone with some computer knowledge will tell you how far changing a jpg image for a button goes to fooling people you did a lot of work.

So they...don't like profit? Because that also contradicts OP.

No, they made cars nearly unfixable to most mechanic shops and you, the consumer with computerisation/combining parts (climate controls are built into the radio unit on mustangs) and own the market on tools to fix their brand. Most Dealerships state parts/maintenance make big bucks. If your car is new enough Chevy and Dealerman are making bank by selling you, for example, a radio head unit that specifically fits around that climate control system, for $500 and then $70/hr in labor.

Not just the consumer, they also get to rake shops across the coals because they make parts that need a unique tool to access and then charge the shop $500 for the tool to prevent them getting their value out of its use. No shop will get $500 of use out of a cube tool that resets the brake caliper of a Kia Sedan in 2006, 2007, and 2008. So shops didn't buy it. Where does that bring you but back to Kia Dealerships. (Or attempting it with needle nose pliers)

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

that still doesn't solve the problem that New cars aren't being released for under $20,000

The number in OP was $25k

Inflation has run what should just be a basic ass car into $24,000+

Yes, inflation is a problem. That's a different discussion.

Is the manufacture cost also meeting inflation the way we found the MSRP has?

Manufacturing costs go down but also there is an increase in technology, fuel efficiency, and especially safety.

if you've been making the same "name" car that shares parts with itself through the years from 2005 till 2025

No one is doing that. Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's even remotely the same car as it was 20 years ago...

Also cars are covered in touchscreens now. Do you know why

Because backup cameras were mandated in 2016.

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The number in OP was $25k

For electric cars yes. (As opposed to the civic question). The reason I would posit is a culmination of my points. Companies love to over engineer these systems to justify high R&D to allow prices (and margins) to go up.

Manufacturing costs go down but also there is an increase in technology, fuel efficiency, and especially safety.

Not something you or I could answer, but are these costs truly matching inflation? In this era I am hard pressed to believe profits are still only 10% that is listed online.

No one is doing that. Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's even remotely the same car as it was 20 years ago...

Many parts do the exact same stuff they used to. A radio head unit nowadays is the same head unit 3 and 5 years ago in a new shell. Bluetooth, USB, Apple/Android carplay, am/fm. And now they're hooked up to the touchscreens. Why change what already works in a new facelift year, except for no reason other than to intentionally prevent parts from becoming commonplace. The rims I mentioned. No one will notice when buying a car if those rims were reused those 4 years.

Because backup cameras were mandated in 2016.

A friend owns a 2019 Ford Fiesta that has a backup camera on the installed screen that's 5 inches tall to 6 inches wide. It's incredibly minimalist and I know most people do enjoy an infotainment system now. That doesn't change my point here that brands embraced putting an iPad in your car, and won't give you buttons back because the ever increasing size screens are incredibly cheap compared to the radio/climate/headlight buttons you see people bemoaning they want back. It also feeds back to the "you can't fix it yourself" problem that car brands have manufactured for consumers.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago

For electric cars yes.

Doesn't matter. The entire point of the article was that EVs can't be made inexpensively because there's not enough profit in inexpensive vehicles. I brought up the vehicles I did because it disproves that theory.

are these costs truly matching inflation?

Probably not. Still nothing to do with EVs.

Many parts do the exact same stuff they used to.

That doesn't mean they're the same part.

A radio head unit nowadays is the same head unit 3 and 5 years ago in a new shell

No.

[–] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your prices are way off. The only car that can be bought brand new for less than $20k in the USA is the Mitsubishi Mirage, and from experience it sucks to drive. A Malibu and a Civic are both like $29k, but actually Chevy just quit making Malibu's this year.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Your prices are way off.

Not sure what country you're from but my prices are direct from the US OEM website, but maybe you can let them know they need to update them.

it sucks to drive

Most cheap cars do. You want cheap? That's what you get. That has nothing to do with the author's claims that the OEMs have no interest in selling them.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't CAFE standards push them to smaller more efficient cars, or am I misunderstanding what CAFE standards are?

As for affordable cars, I think it's fairly easy for the auto industry to just raise prices while extending financing terms longer and longer and advertise $299/mo (with 180 mo financing, $6k down, at 8% interest excluding taxes and fees).

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

The car companies went huge, they made their standard vehicles so big and heavy they qualified for EPA standards meant for work trucks.

Just blatant fuck you to regulations and people's health.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think what they’re saying is that CAFE standards just encourage companies to make and market vehicles where those standards don’t apply, or at least are less strict, such as “light trucks”

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago

Yes, exactly. CAFE carves out exceptions for bigger vehicles, so they just stopped making small ones altogether.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Ohhh that makes sense.