Make batteries instead of engines, they said! It’ll be fun and perhaps even profitable, they said! Toward the end of the previous decade, and on the heels of the industry-upending mess that was Dieselgate, we saw a ton of automakers and brands announce these sorts of pivots to electric vehicles. At the time it almost seemed simple—how hard could it be for the 100-year-old auto industry to move to one focused on batteries and software, right?
This year’s proving to be the year where they all learn—and show their investors—how hard that really is. Call it the “reality check” era of EV adoption. Ford and General Motors have been going through versions of this. On today’s morning roundup, we’ll see what the German luxury brands are up to on this front.
Beyond that, we have some good news for Mazda; heat over the United Auto Workers’ contract negotiations in Detroit; and also why Tesla losing a CFO is a cause for concern. Let’s jump in.
Ze Germans Face Ze Music, But Are Undeterred
My take on the auto industry’s great transition, now that we’re more than midway through 2023, is this: it’s more than likely going to be a battery-powered future, getting there will be very complicated and expensive, not all brands will survive it, and adoption will not be some magic up-and-to-the-right thing until all the gas cars are gone. It’s going to be weird and rocky, basically. But things are moving in that direction.
Automotive News has a breakdown of the approaches taken by the three big German luxury automakers, all of whom have a high-dollar, tech-savvy, first-adopter buyer base and have gotten their lunches eaten to various degrees by Tesla over the years. They’re all well-positioned to make this pivot, in other words. Here’s how they’re doing and what they’re telling investors right now:
Mercedes is the most aggressive brand, vowing to go all-electric globally by 2030. From 2025 forward, every new product architecture will be electric-only, the company said. Mercedes is expanding its U.S. portfolio of battery-powered crossovers and sedans with zero-emission versions of its CLA coupe and GLC crossover.
But Mercedes acknowledges that the pace of EV adoption will be uneven worldwide. The brand expects electric vehicles to account for 40 percent of its new-vehicle sales in the U.S. by 2026 and 70 percent by 2030.
“Uneven worldwide” is key, especially when you remember how many Mercedes-Benzes across the globe—diesel taxis in Morocco, stuff like that—are harder to transition. BMW, on the other hand, urges even more patience as it electrifies the top and bottom of its range. (And it’s actually doing really well with all of this so far.)
[…] BMW’s EV offensive in the U.S. surges in 2026 with several X-line battery-powered crossovers plan-ned. The automaker will produce many of them in Greer, S.C., where it is investing $1.7 billion to produce at least six battery-powered crossovers.
BMW’s small car brand Mini views electrification as the path to renewed relevance. A battery-powered Countryman will be the first of several new electric Minis globally starting next year. Two China- made EVs — a small crossover and a Cooper SE replacement — will come to market next year, but Mini has not confirmed them for the U.S.
As a two-time former Mini owner myself, I hope the brand finds a way to stay afloat (and relevant) in the United States. From what I’ve heard internally, a lot of Mini’s future EV plans for this country are TBD. But there’s an air of caution with both of these announcements that feels different from all the rosy optimism we’ve heard in the past. Making cars is hard, as we say, and making electric cars is even harder; more and more automakers are being open about the challenges here.
Meanwhile, let’s talk Audi, once an early leader in this space with the e-tron cars and a marque that is now struggling with the same cost and software issues as parent company Volkswagen. It also wants to go all-electric by 2033, but the plan in the meantime seems to be “the same cars it makes now but with electric twins that have different names.” Emphasis mine below.
The brand will expand the EVs on its PPE architecture, which will slowly merge with other platforms into a unified EV platform across the group.
Even for electric, odd for internal combustion. Somebody write that down!
Tesla’s CFO Out, Leaving More Succession Questions
After writing that subhed, now I’m envisioning the Tesla version of Succession. Who gets to take the reins at Tesla after Elon Musk decides to retire to rule over his Mars colony? Tom Zhu? His old friend Peter Thiel? Kanye West? Catturd? One of his kids named after math equations? The mind swirls at the possibilities.
It won’t be Zach Kirkhorn, who’s stepping down as Chief Financial Officer after 13 years under Musk (which must’ve felt like 500 human years.) Kirkhorn was known as one of the more level-headed guys in Tesla’s comparably small C-suite; Bloomberg’s Dana Hull describes him as “a calm, steady presence and regularly spoke at length with investors, even playing the role of Musk’s surrogate the time he skipped Tesla’s earnings presentation.”
It’s not often that losing a CFO makes big headlines in the auto industry, but you know how closely watched Tesla is. Its new CFO, Vaibhav Taneja, is a native of India who currently serves as chief accounting officer. For now, at least, Taneja is serving in both roles, which is considered unusual in business.
More importantly, Kirkhorn was seen as a possible Tesla CEO someday. Who runs Tesla without Musk? What is Tesla without Musk? That’s a very tough question that more and more investors are asking, especially with the EV competition heating up and Musk’s attention seemingly so heavily focused on his social media platform. From Bloomberg:
Musk, the richest person in the world, oversees six companies: Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly known as Twitter), Boring Co., Neuralink and xAI, his most recent venture. Musk’s many interests and the competing demands for his time have long raised concerns about whether Tesla is too dependent on a single individual.
The EV maker has just four executive officers: Musk, Drew Baglino, the senior vice president of powertrain and energy engineering; Tom Zhu, senior vice president of automotive; and now Taneja.
Musk is still relatively young at 52 and, barring any Zuckerberg-related combat accidents, is probably not going anywhere anytime soon. But “Tesla without Musk” is now an even bigger question than “Apple without Jobs” ever was and somebody’s going to need to figure that out someday.
Okay, fine; I will do it. I will be the CEO of Tesla. Time to log on, baby.
Mazda: Doin’ Well, Actually
I still want to see Mazda move faster on EVs and hybrids, but in the short-term, everybody’s favorite manufacturer of the Miata is doing pretty well at the moment. Automotive News reports it swung back to a Q2 profit thanks to the more upscale, more profitable crossover-focused lineup. It seems its grand plans to become a kind of Japanese BMW are working—so far. Recovering from the supply chain crisis is a big help too:
Operating profit rang up at 30.0 billion yen ($207.5 million) in the company’s fiscal first quarter ended June 30, wiping out an operating loss of 19.5 billion yen ($134.9 million) a year earlier, the company said in a statement.
Net income more than doubled to 37.2 billion yen ($257.3 million), from 15.0 billion yen ($103.8 million), as revenue climbed 72 percent to 286.0 billion ($1.98 billion) in the three-month period.
Global sales expanded 32 percent to 309,000 vehicles in the quarter, soaring on the wings of a 61 percent jump in North American shipments to 128,000 vehicles.
Shipments were especially brisk in the U.S., where the CX-90 and CX-50 anchor a refreshed lineup of crossovers. Mazda expects its U.S. sales momentum to gain speed on increased supply following the start of two-shift production at its Alabama assembly plant in July.
Also:
Mazda wants the CX-90 to “upshift” existing customers into a higher price bracket while also siphoning off customers from premium brands with a lower price point.
“We see it steadily growing share week by week,” Guyton said of the CX-90, adding that it has already outstripped the market penetration of its CX-9 predecessor nameplate.
I still owe you a review of the CX-90 hybrid! It’s good and it’s stealing customers from other brands for a reason. Anyway, this is all fine news. No profits means no future Miatas and such. We want profits and we want Miatas. Good luck to all involved.
UAW Demands Could Spike Labor Costs
We’ve been telling you for a minute that the UAW contract negotiations are a big deal, in their own ways as big a deal as the Hollywood strikes happening right now. Both involve big fights over new technologies and the role of workers in them as the corporate entities up top post record profits but face uncertain futures. And the UAW isn’t on strike but negotiations could go sideways and this union is one that’s eager to send a message.
The Detroit News is tallying up the supposed costs of their demands and the tab is big:
The United Auto Workers’ contract demands of the Detroit Three automakers could surge per-person labor costs to more than $100 per hour in wages and benefits, according to three sources familiar with the situation, potentially outstripping North American profits over the life of a new contract.
Now, it’s unclear who those three sources are here; given the story’s framing my guess is they’re automaker sources, so take that with a grain of salt.
“That number seems astronomical for manufacturing jobs that are already relatively well paid,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president of global forecasting for AutoForecast Solutions LLC. “In order to get anywhere near those (wage increase) numbers, other things will have to come off the table, including profit sharing, other benefits, any number of things in order to just get this one thing. If this is not done, you’re absolutely going to see employment reductions from the Detroit Three.”
The total calculation would be nearly double the estimates of what foreign automakers operating in the United States pay their workers in wages and benefits. The gap would be even wider for employees at electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc. The result could challenge the automakers’ competitiveness and valuation, risk UAW jobs and potentially send work to other countries, experts say.
But the workers say they’ve been left behind by rampant inflation even as their post-bankuptcy (minus Ford, obviously) companies rake in record profits and cars cost more than ever:
In a Facebook livestream this week, UAW President Shawn Fain called the demands “audacious and ambitious” because the working class has been left behind by the profits achieved by the automakers for more than a decade. This is the workers’ chance, he said, to gain back what was lost amid the Great Recession and automotive bankruptcies.
“Overall, the starting pay for a Big Three worker today is almost $21,000 less than it was in 2007 when adjusted for inflation,” Fain told The Detroit News in a statement Friday, reprising his criticism of the automakers’ profitability and CEO pay. “UAW members made enormous sacrifices to save the automakers during the Great Recession, but we’ve never been made whole. These massively profitable companies can afford our demands. Our message is clear: record profits mean a record contract.”
Still, this is how union negotiations go; you aim for crazy stuff, management flips out, and then hopefully after weeks or months, you reach a deal without a strike nobody wants:
Scott Houldieson, a Ford electrician and co-chair of the Unite All Workers for Democracy Caucus that endorsed Fain for president, said the communication for leaders is a “mind-blowing sea change” that gives workers confidence their union is fighting for them.
“We aim for extraterrestrial Mars,” said Houldieson, who isn’t involved in the negotiations, “and if we fall short, at least we made it to the moon.”
There’s Musk-esque quote for us all to end on.
Your Turn
You tell me; What is Tesla without Elon Musk?
In some ways to me, Tesla already feels like the post-Jobs era of Apple does now: still strong, in control of market share, but not quite the innovator and game-changer it once was. More steady than anything else. And I’ve been wrong when it comes to Tesla before, but it doesn’t feel like the Cybertruck changes that equation.
can’t wait to see the price increases after the UAW raises. Not saying they shouldn’t get anything, I don’t know anything about the contracts.
I do know that the cost increase will be passed on to yours truly and all my friends here at TA. Oh and if that happens, the used car market will go bonkers.
My lease is up in a year, I had never leased before, but I wasn’t sure what was going on in the car world, what I would want long term and uncomfortable with selections available at the time.
I will be buying out my Tundra 100% with no question. No way in hell I could get anything close to a new or slightly used truck comparable with 25k miles (est for end of lease) for $30k .
Good luck world.
Yeah prices aren’t high because of labor costs. They high because of market demand for high priced vehicles.
Ha-wha?
Remember, you’re just the driver. You rent your new vehicle from the actual buyer who sets market demand is the stealership. You’ll never own it, so why should they care what you want? They got theirs!
I don’t want to support that market.
Shareholders will insist that the margins stay at least as high as they are now. Look at the crap Tesla has taken from shareholders for their price cuts. Look at the crap Ford got for the Lightning price cuts.
It’s amazing how wealthy C levels have managed to convince people that the workers are to blame if prices go up. Instead of, you know, large profits, share buybacks, oversize compensation packages, etc.
bingo.
Whig out time. I read a very in depth tutorial about running costs between ICE and EV. Author was an EV Proponent but thorough. Turns out EVs using rapid charge are around the same cost if not more than ICE. If using class 2 or home charging mostly EV is better but no wait time or out of the way time was included. Charge at home EV DEFINATELY, but didnt take in the fact you cant go from 0 to full charge overnigh and didnt figure buying a charger. Comparing Econo not a big difference between Camry and Cruze? I agree with the writer but didnt allow questions. Like CO2 lower with EV but didnt consider mining damage. Also after 10 years you can trade in an ICE who is buying a 10 year old EV that needs replacement batteries that are no longer available due to tech advancement? Really what 10 year old tech is still supported today?
Battery swaps on phones and laptops are not that big of a deal and the batteries themselves are pretty commoditized. The reason nobody does this is not because of the battery but because the computing power, display, memory etc are all more difficult to replace and are more prone to going obsolete.
The degradation overall after 10 years I think is on the order of 20-30% so the car is still perfectly drivable just somewhat less practical for distance driving even if swaps are still uneconomical. Tons of DC fast charging will max the degradation while if you’re slow charging and keeping in the 20-80% range you’ll probably end up on the lower end (ie with a healthier battery).
Public charging is actually more like 75% the cost of fuel at the top end.
Charging at home absolutely will give a full charge overnight, easily, unless you’re charging off a kettle cord 120V @ 10A which would be really dumb. If you can’t get a 240V line installed, then you’re not a BEV buyer, but you might be a PHEV buyer, in which case the smaller battery will charge overnight from 120V.
Mining damage from lithium isn’t good. Neither is peteoleum mining, which is now in the latter stage where it has to be recovered from tar sands and fracturing. The transport of fuel oil is particularly dangerous to the environment when there a spill, because the ‘crude’ is much closer to kerosene than what we’d expect of crude. I.e. it’s highly flammable, evaporates, and leeches into soil and floats on water, poisoning groundwater. (Lithium ore doesn’t evaporate and poison the world.)
Your point about old battery tech just isn’t valid. There are >10 year old HEVs around going for decent money. There are even a few >10 year old BEVs and PHEVs selling pretty well. Just because you would buy one doesn’t mean they’re not a sound purchase.
Nice try tho
One point I never see mentioned about fast charging for electrics is the greater toll the faster charging takes on battery lifespan, as if they aren’t being made disposable enough as it is. I understand the reticence of the OEMs to leave that out, but I think it’s something that should be mentioned whenever charging infrastructure issues are brought up as it’s not an insignificant additional problem with EVs.
EV batteries are designed with fast charging in mind. Take a look in a modern phone’s settings, you’ll see something about smart charging. Like BEVs, they charge at full rate to about 80% of run capacity, then slow as they get toward 100%. They also don’t ever reach 100% of actual capacity: there’s a margin built in for let’s call it robustness, longevity. You never see it mentioned, huh? It’s kinda funny because this is often the first thing that’s mentioned. So it’s a bit like when someone says how much is that burger when it’s the first thing on the menu.
I only ever see it mentioned as a benefit by ICE haters/Musk suckers as “Fast charging takes only five times longer than filling a fuel tank! (when a functioning charger is available)”, but almost never about decreased battery lifespan. A smart charger hitting hard up to 80% before backing down is just base level tech at this point, but fast charging even below 80% will still cause increased battery degradation. Like discharging quickly often, it thermally taxes the system to a greater degree, causes quicker degradation of the electrodes, and increases the likelihood of the formation of dendrites, especially with Lithium ion. I don’t know what is intended to be meant by “EV batteries are designed with fast charging in mind”. Uh, yeah, they wouldn’t be able to employ it if they didn’t, but it doesn’t say a thing about the negative impact on lifespan the more often it’s used. It’s like, my engine is designed to rev to 7500 rpm, but if I run it at 7500 rpm and a high load often, it will not last as long as keeping down the revs under a lower load.
Yeah, none of them like mentioning this, as you say. But doing road-trip-style fast charging all the time will cook your battery. More people should be made aware of this. Maybe we should do a story on it…
The question:
“You tell me; What is Tesla without Elon Musk?”
The answer:
“post-Jobs era of Apple”
Tesla is a big company now that employs tens of thousands of people. Plus they have a lot of top notch talent that came from legacy car companies when they got laid off during the carapocolypse.
So when Musk leaves, Tesla itself will be fine.
Not fine, better. Once they’re rid of his inane ramblings, they can really start to shine. A bit like PeePee did after they fired him.
Twitter was the best thing that could happen for Tesla and spacex.
Other than the possible margin call mr fusion mentions below.
I’ve always thought Tesla-without-Musk would be a better company, at least going forward. I am willing to concede that his uncompromising approach when it came to certain design decisions early on, allowed them to achieve good results by focusing on the product. But starting around the time of “Production Hell” with Model 3, it became apparent that maybe they would be better served by a leader with some institutional knowledge about manufacturing.
And then later, he really became unglued with the “funding secured” nonsense and his fascist heel turn. So yes, of course Tesla would be a better company with someone stable at the helm. As it is, they’re on thin ice with Musk using Tesla wealth to buy Twitter. (Margin call, anybody?) The bottom line is if a company leader cannot be mentally and physically present, then he should not be leading the company.
“uncompromising” lol
I think most people would agree it’s an accurate description, but feel free to substitute “monomaniacal”. You don’t need to interpret it as anything more or less than that.
I keep reading about how the electrical grid in Texas is being stretched to (and sometimes beyond) its limits due to a heat wave. Now imagine if 50% of Texans drove EV…
I know you’re joking, but charging your car overnight every few days is going to have very little impact on grid stability.
But that is a big assumption in the whole transition etc… Unless everywhere is like CA with cheaper overnight electricity rates, which is unlikely. Most of America does what they want when they want, which doesn’t work well for an optimal grid schedule. I have so many neighbors who can’t remember or to lazy to bring in their trash cans for days…. yet they are going to make sure they charge the EV at night…
If you’re consuming 50 miles of range per day and you have a car that has a 200m range, forgetting to charge once in a while doesn’t matter.
I just wrote a thing about this very topic! https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/electric-vehicle-energy-infrastructure-heat-waves/674940/
The nice thing about EVs is that they’re by far the easiest load to time-shift. Capacity crunches happen during peak draw (usually afternoon on hot days), and it’s relatively easy to set time-of-use rates so that most people won’t charge their cars during that time. Most BEVs (maybe all?) and some EVSEs have scheduler features. The cars in particular let you just say the time you want to be full and when peak rates are, and they’ll automatically adjust accordingly.
EVs get a lot of headlines every time the power companies say “don’t charge due to grid load”, but the real problem is air conditioners.
I look at the BEV transition exactly the same way I approached HDTVs 20-25 years ago.
I waited for all the early adopters to figure out everything for me. We all know that one friend who bought five TVs before you bought your first one. Remember 720p only sets? What about sets that did 1080i instead of 1080p? Those pointless EDTV sets? What about that most sets didn’t have tuners? Remember DLP? Remember Plasma? Remember sets with bulbs for backlights you’d replace before LED-backlighting went mainstream? Remember TVs that couldn’t handle a slightly weird refresh rate like the OG Nintendo at 60.10Hz instead of NTSC 59.94Hz, and not show an image at all? Remember pre-HDMI, or when you might get one HDMI port and not the four you wanted?
I remember. I remember making a requirements list and buying NOTHING until EVERY requirement was met. Got a Samsung 81 series a bit after the Super Bowl in 2008. Been using it since. Every. Single. Current. HDTV can trace itself back to that set.
… and that’s what I’m doing again. I will buy nothing until we know what will be the norm going forward, and when a well-made car ticks every box on my list. Until then, I’ll avoid being the equivalent of a pre-war extinct car at a car show.
I wonder how many people still have 3D TVs.
Too many.
Right now I’m waiting for a 240Hz 4K set that’s ideally Micro-LED. 240Hz/4K requires a new HDMI spec, so I wait. I’ve broken out the Weller and replaced a few caps in the Samsung 81 Series with nicer Nichicons, but looks like I’ll get nearly 20 years out of it before I finally upgrade. I might be 65-70 before I upgrade again.
By which age, ironically, your vision will have gotten worse, and you won’t be able to see the benefits of the new TV anyway. 🙂
I do, because my LG EG9100 OLED is such a beautiful TV, there is no reason to give it up. Most high-end TVs released during that time were 3D-capable, but that had nothing to do with why I bought mine. (And I suspect that most other buyers felt the same way.)
Love my LG OLED as well, but bought after 3D went away. Hoping to get a decade plus out of it.
Remember “curved” TVs? I wonder how many of those sold lol
They still make them for computer monitors. I’ve never owned or used one but I suppose some people like them for gaming.
I have one and love it.
Pepperidge Farm remembers…
Loved your writeup… and now what do I most want in a TV?!?! A dumb TV with no OS or Apps.
That’s why, for me, it only makes sense to lease a BEV today. With rapid changes in battery tech and charging standards, I wouldn’t buy something that has a good chance of becoming outdated quickly. I keep cars a long time and would hate to be stuck with something that’s functionally inferior while still relatively new.
Besides, maybe in 5 years auto designers will once again discover the value of instrument panels vs. stabby screens, quality cloth upholstery vs. “vegan leather,” windows vs. slits, and buy-once vs. subscribe for life. Hey, a boy can dream, right?
God yes.
My ideal BEV would just be a basic 90s car with an electric drivetrain in it.
A few years back I had a 1995 BMW 316i 4 door. It was gloss white, with unpainted bumpers, steelies, trims, cloth seats. It was like somebody walked into a BMW showroom in 1995 and said “Give me the cheapest thing with a BMW badge.”
It was glorious. I still miss it. I’d love something along those lines with an electric drivetrain. Just a simple, solid 4 door saloon that’s comfortable and quiet without being crammed with ‘luxury’ features like leather this, electrically adjustable that, and touchscreen controlled everything.
The last generation of Panasonic/Samsung plasma TVs remain awesome. Nothing else seems to be able to deliver similar black levels and movies look better on these TVs than anything else. Agreed with Goof that maybe a 240Hz Micro-LED set will be impressive enough to upgrade from the plasma.
My Panasonic plasma is 13 years old and still produces a quality picture. I had one board replaced under warranty and that is it. Amazing.
Still have my Samsung. I believe I will go OLED next.
I have a 26 inch 720p tv I bought in 2008 for like $500, that I never watch anyway. I haven’t bought a tv since then, in part because of buyer’s remorse. I could buy a very nice tv for less than half that now, but mine still works and I don’t really ever use it.
I was more talking about people who in 2003 (I knew one!) bought 55-inch DLP projection sets that were 720p only, no included tuner, and paid $4000.
That friend of mine I think spent $15,000 on varying HDTVs before I bought one.
What is Tesla without Musk? Better.
What a weird way to phrase that. Is there a non-extraterrestrial Mars that I’m not aware of? Maybe he thought people would think he was talking about the candy bar company?
At this point I think Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter would all be better off without Musk. The latter is obvious – things you buy during a tantrum rarely work out well, but the first two are at a point where they need to transition to being mature, well-run companies and I don’t think Musk has the temperament for that (really going out on a limb here ;-).
Apparently someone doesn’t like Mars Bars.
https://www.mars.com/
I think in the US, the Mars Bar is dead. Then a necromancer cast a spell and resurrected it as Snickers Almond. They need to bring back Peanut Butter Twix, it was superior to the Caramel version.
I grew up near Mars, PA. Not far from Moon, PA, and both relatively close to the airport…
Oh, we meant the non-extraterrestrial Mars:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-read-planet/
> I think Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter would all be better off without Musk
I think earth would be better off without Musk.
“Making cars is hard, as we say, and making electric cars is even harder” — I think transitioning to electric cars is what is harder. Once transitioned, good odds that making them will be easier than ICE car manufacturing had been.
Ding ding ding ding! Winner! Yup, you’re dead right. Trying to run the same playbook you run in the ICE world isn’t going to work for EV’s. See Fords struggle with software, and the 150-odd different firmware modules they can’t touch if they wanted to. It’s going to be a tough road to move to a software centric model for these folks.
EV adoption would skyrocket if we removed the profit motive from charging infrastructure and car manufacturing. So simple!
*bong hit*
*takes a hit*
The *cough cough* “communist” *cough cough* Chinese are going to take it all over man. Damn, man, I took too much. I got cottonmouth like a motherfucker.
*drinks the bong water*
EVs are a viable technology in use by millions every day. They have now passed the innovator phase and are solidly into the early adopter phase. However, they are more expensive and less convenient than the alternative so as long as ICE vehicles are legal and not financially penalized, an EV adopter must have extra motivation.
Along with being reasonably well-off urbanites, EV purchasers have one or more of these driving characteristics: Planet Savers, Tech Enthusiasts, or Commuters with a Garage. The German luxury brands intersect pretty well with that Venn Diagram so their EV changeover should work out well for a while. I would be a lot more concerned if I were Ford, GM, or Stellantis.
Dodge is committing brand suicide by going all EV.
Dodge committed brand suicide years ago when they stopped bringing out new models and just updated a 13 year old chassis. They left themselves with nowhere to go but EVs at this point.
What brand?
Pray tell good sir, what astronomical rate of pay are executives receiving while producing nothing tangible? How many literal scores of auto worker’s combined salaries do they receive?
The executives at my company do produce tangible things;
OK, I guess none of those are marketable products, but they sleep well at night!
Q: “How do you sleep at night?
A: “On a big pile of money”
At ~$100 per hour it works out to about 200k per year. For GM, Barra’s pay is about 140 workers. When I looked it up it said Ford’s Farley only made 1.7 million which seems “low” at only 9 worker equivalent.
You’re confusing wage with total labor cost per hour (which is wage+bonuses+health/disability/unemployment insurance+sick time+vacation+retirement+misc comp like stock+any other direct cost like the cost of the shitty annual pizza party pizza). Super rough numbers, but wages are usually like 50% of the total labor cost. So more likely, it’s probably approaching a $50/hr wage, or $100kish/year.
Our message is clear: record profits mean a record contract.” –UAW President
Tie wages and benefits to a company’s financial performance at a high point? Workers share in the gravy, but only if they are willing to starve in lean times.
Personally, a flavor of profit sharing is good, but I hope the UAW and manufacturers are able to work out a deal that won’t drive the companies into another bankruptcy when the next recession comes around.
Yeah, this is key. Labor wants to have it both ways; big bonuses in good times, protections from layoffs and wage reductions in bad times. I’ve personally lived through these tense negotiations in a previous job, and was hours away from being locked in to the plant to work the line jobs (as a salaried worker during a strike).
I don’t begrudge the workers trying for what they think they can get.
That said, I also think there’s a tendency around here to blame bad financial results on bad management while holding labor blameless (which is sometimes true), while discounting the idea that good management might produce high profits in spite of labor (presumably equally likely).
Labor indeed wants big bonuses in good times and protection from layoffs and wage reductions in bad times, which is *checks notes* exactly what corporate executives already have.
Plenty of execs lose their jobs, especially when financials are bad.
And they usually get a huge payout from it.
Yep, just like union workers get severance/buyouts during plant closures.
Small violin
For companies over a pre-determined staff size or market cap, laying-off of a set percentage of staff over a 5-year time period should come with mandatory C-suite removal. I will die on this hill.
Corp execs also get big bonuses in bad times, usually after laying off thousands of line workers.
>UAW Demands Could Spike Labor Costs
I get that it was a deliberate choice to make this sub-headline inflammatory, and I get that you addressed the framing in the text, but Come TF On!
>Tesla without Musk
Musk leaving, for whatever reason, would knock at least 50% off its current valuation. The company’s value is tied directly to Musk’s cult of personality. Whoever takes over will need to have a “destalinization-esque” moment to completely divorce the company from how it used to be run.
>EV adoption
While companies may be willing to pump out low-cost EVs in other countries with limited range and power, they have chosen to market them in the US as luxury vehicles. The Bolt was, by all accounts, a fantastic product that was shelved because it wasn’t profitable enough. This can all be tied back to car companies constantly raising prices and compensating by stretching the loan periods to dates that will soon exceed the vehicles warrant period. A systemic restructuring of the auto industry and American car-buying habits are the only real solutions to this problem.
>Misc.
I almost posted this comment under my real name. Don’t like that. Had to replace my name in account settings to fix it.
This is something I’ve been hammering away about since I’ve been on this site. Something is going to give at some point. Consumers can’t juggle increasing debt burdens around forever and pretend things are okay. Unexpected events in life happen that negatively impact one’s finances, and a majority of the population lives paycheck to paycheck. The current paradigm is not at all sustainable.
The only thing keeping this Brave New World from being a time bomb like the housing market is how easy it is to repo a car.
Chevy is keeping the Bolt going after all. I think Tesla would actually do better without Musk. He’s turned a lot of potential buyers off with his whacko behavior.
That was my initial thought about Tesla/Musk, but then I considered my personal opinion – I’m so soured on the psycho nut job that even if he weren’t the figurehead I’d still see the company as an extension of him (and it’s not like he’d drop his stock if he stepped back). Are there enough people like me where the reputation damage is so thoroughly baked in to the product there’s no overcoming it until Musk’s physical status vis a vis breathing matches the condition of Jobs?
Yes, screw Tesla & Melon Husk…I hope Tesla ceases to exist and Muskrat gets sued to oblivion, goes to prison then Mars
>Chevy is keeping the Bolt going after all.
Until I see it, I’ve got a sinking feeling that it will be the Bolt in name only.
Tesla needs to find their Tim Cook soon, their Steve Jobs is in the “I’m destroying myself with my dumb choices”-phase.
Sadly Musk doesn’t seem to have aggressive pancreatic cancer.
I had the same issue with my name showing up instead of my username
edit: seems to be fixed now after re-signing in and changing my account settings
It’s doing that for me too, can’t find where in settings to fix it
Never mind, just went in & changed my name
Regarding the “real name posting” — I could never get into my account settings to fix it. I just got stuck in an endless loop of being prompted to receive a login code via email (while already signed in), clicking it to return to the site, and then being prompted again.
Ultimately I got sick of it and just created a new account using an alternate email address.
News has been thin on a CX-50 hybrid but I see some rumors saying 2025. Really that can’t get here fast enough. Also – really would like to see them build a CX-50 with a not-black interior, without having to get a top-trim for the brown interior. This after boasting about “greige” interior when they introduced the new 3.
Elon seems so caught up with Twitter, it seems like some of the Tesla shenanigans have scaled back – or maybe it’s just buried underneath all the other news. I think the things that still make Teslas vehicles successful wouldn’t be affected, they’re more likely to be toppled by someone else catching up with better range or charging ability or a better value EV. So then it’s a matter of who would adapt better, because if Elon is in charge at the time I could see him just insist Tesla is better just because and make some more promises that everyone else has to figure out. Or maybe something like slash prices at whim again.
The things Teslas get dragged for like build quality and bad UI/UX/ergonomics can and have been easily replicated by other manufacturers, so nobody’s got a lock on those.
I’d love to eventually replace my 3 hatch with a hybrid Mazda of some sort. You’re right that those choices can’t get here soon enough.
It was said that they’d borrow Toyota hybrid tech for the -50, but at this rate it seems like the CX-70 will be here sooner and that can easily share the CX-90 powertrains. Which is still good too, but a -50 hybrid would hit square at the CR-V and RAV4.
I hate wage negotiations.
Is it so stupid of me to wish each side could ask for something realistic and achievable? A bit more money, a few extra holidays, longer or shorter weeks?
Some sort of independent mediation should be in place before this sort of thing kicks off, just to cut down of the antagonistic backing down phase both sides have to go through if they’ve asked for something unrealistic. It makes everyone angry and benefits no one.
The only side being unrealistic are the automakers for painting the UAW and their members are greedy for the crime of wage and benefit increases. The laborers made those profits happen, it’s absurd that they are being treated like villains for wanting a cut.
EV adoption is going to be hampered by charging as it always is. There doesn’t seem to be any solution to the millions of people who don’t park in a garage/driveway. We would need a 10 story parking garage at every highway rest-stop to get everyone home on thanksgiving if we were 100% BEV. The grid is woefully unprepared to handle all the charging.
The industry seems to be tackling these problems by sticking their fingers in their ears and going “nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you!”
I live in a high EV adoption area and maybe half of the grocery stores in the area have DC fast chargers of one flavor or another to support apartment/condo dwellers since these tend not to be road trip convenient areas.
In terms of the grid, it hasn’t been issue yet and probably won’t be since the majority of EV owners are still just charging overnight in the garage.
It’ll be interesting to see if Mazda can, long-term, piggyback on Toyota’s electric transition and focus on improved things like UX, interior materials and driving feel.
Making a medium-price strategy work in today’s market has been successful with everyone wanting to get more “upscale and premium” but Mazda having been doing it long enough that basically all their products were designed with that in mind from the start rather than just stuffing leather and a higher price tag onto a costed-out design, but what happens when supply improves, everyone else catches up and the low end reappears (whether from China or otherwise) and they’re not catching the “for the same money as a Chevy or Kia that now sells at MSRP I can have something actually nice” effect?
Interesting to hear automakers still plead poverty with the unions with record profits. The solution is as simple as it is unfeasible – slash C-suite pay and sell off all the stock you’ve bought back in the past 20 years.
I think a post-Musk Tesla could lean into solid manufacturing and stop trying to chase unrealistic promises. Tesla could become a company that builds great appliance vehicles instead of constantly promising self-driving by the end of each year.
They’re probably never going to be the company building for the car enthusiast, but they don’t have to be. They can sell to tech enthusiasts and people who just want a car they can use.
I often wonder what percentage of Tesla’s efforts are actually directed at moon-shot Musk promises vs. day to day efficient production of cars or iterative improvements of their models. Because we obviously hear about the bold statements and vague promises, but behind the scenes does anyone take it seriously I wonder?
Because if the moon-shot number is high, it really would open a chance for significant improvements in the other stuff if they could just focus effort there.
Yeah, I wonder the same. If you took the FSD programmers and pointed them at driver assistance tech, software efficiency, or whatever else, would they make a difference? Or the engineers trying to make the Cybertruck work as intended and have them start building an efficiency-focused vehicle. I don’t know how much of a difference it would make, but it would likely allow improvements.
Big promises make line go up and breaking them doesn’t make it go down.
If the transition to EVs fails, it will be more an indictment on how the auto industry builds cars coupled with excessive government regulation, than it will be of EV technology itself.
Because of the limited energy storage capacity of batteries, and the production costs of said batteries, an affordable EV will be by necessity a highly efficient platform minimizing drag and weight. In order to make the best of the EV’s key advantages over ICE, such as reduced maintenance and increased drive system longevity, the cars need to be designed not to fail because some inexpensive minor part failed as a result of some bean counter wanting to save a few cents on a component. Minor components critical to the vehicle’s functioning need to be built to last longer than the rest of the car. The cars themselves MUST be repairable, which in turn means a well-designed EV should basically last a human lifetime and be repairable with basic tools, simply because the drive system has so few parts to fail. Parts should be interchangeable and plug and play as much as possible, instead of proprietary and locked behind black boxes and encrypted software that only dealerships can service.
All of this is complete anathema to how the modern auto industry builds cars whether ICE or EV. Which in turn will assure EVs remain status symbols for the rich, and landfill fodder at the end of their life when it costs more to fix the car than it is worth, assuring they will waste MORE resources than ICE cars do. THIS, if anything, is what will doom them, and not the technology itself. If anything, EV technology is superior to ICE from a longevity and operating cost standpoint, and certainly should wipe the floor with ICE regarding reduced ecological footprint, reduced operating expense, AND they could also be cheaper to produce, but if and only if the concerns in above paragraph are considered.
Because of the way they are currently built, the working class can’t take them seriously, with good reason. By the time used EVs are on their 4th owner, they’re likely to have clapped out batteries with no economical means to fix them. It is not without reason that the resale values of most EVs drop off a cliff. The reason Teslas retain their value is because at least some of the above concerns are addressed in their design, in spite of other glaring flaws the cars have. There are Tesla battery packs in use lasting 300k-500k+ miles. The same cannot be said for most of the other EVs coming from the major automakers.
SUVs, trucks, and commercial tractor trailers make for poor EVs. They require too much energy consumption relative to what battery storage allows. The new Silverado EV with 400 miles range has a pack big enough to allow for 8 Solectria Sunrise like sedans to get a 200 mile range, as an example of just how wasteful current EVs are. Sedans, hatchbacks, and sports cars should be the focus for this technology, as the potential for aerodynamic drag reduction in these platforms versus the norm for today is still significant enough that across the board, for a given level of comfort, utility, performance, and safety, per-mile energy consumption could easily be cut by a factor of 2 or more, allowing smaller batteries for a given amount of range. The same cannot be said for giant trucks, SUVs, and utility vehicles like tractor trailers that will require monster battery packs no matter what is done.
I have no goddamn idea why people aren’t talking about the environmental implications of mass producing disposable EVs. We’re already starting to see it too…as you mention, by the time the cars are around for a couple years they’ve lost range, charging capacity, et cetera and they rapidly become more expensive to keep on the road than they’re worth.
In a couple of years we’re going to have piles of clapped out first generation EVs that no one is going to want. There will also be countless issues that will pop up with the cars because the technology is so new. A lot of the EVs currently on sale are essentially beta products. Savagegeese has always compared them to giant cell phones and I think it’s appropriate. They’re outdated within 2 years and aren’t meant to be last much longer.
And you know what? Companies know it. Consumers know it. There’s a reason none of the $40,000+ EVs are selling anymore outside of Teslas, which are on shaky ground due to pricing instability to begin with, and companies are being forced to slash thousands off MSRP and offer crazy lease deals as a result. The market is extremely volatile now that the initial hype has died down.
I agree with you re: using the battery resources more effectively, but I would argue that the best idea is to shift them to making more regular cars into traditional or plug in hybrids. Finding ways to standardize that technology in normal cars will do exponentially more good than forcing people into giant cell phones that are so resource intensive you need to drive them 60,000 miles before they have less of a carbon footprint than a normal ICE vehicle.
We should have started working on it a decade ago, but instead we didn’t and now we’re over correcting. As I said yesterday…don’t overlook the good in favor of the perfect. More hybrids. Less BEVs. We can revisit full electrification in a few years when the technology and infrastructure have improved.
The 1990s was the time when EV tech really became viable. I don’t think it’s so much as the manufacturers haven’t figured out how to build them, so much as it is that they don’t care to build them the way they should be built because it runs counter to their profit motive. I think they WANT them to fail.
Imagine a car that has greatly reduced maintenance costs, can last over a million miles, and is repairable by any shadetree mechanic. A company can’t nickel and dime people that way. Every dollar you save is a dollar some corporation is not extracting from you. Wasteful consumerism is bad for the environment, but great for profits, which is why things are the way they are.
With the tech that was available at the time, manufacturers started getting EVs right at the turn of the 20th century. Jay Leno’s 1909 Baker Electric still runs, with minimal upkeep requirements and expense. Imagine if nearly every used sedan and hatchback had the same degree of longevity. THAT is the promise that EV technology offers, but the auto industry probably isn’t fond of this idea… good for the environment, but not good for nickel and diming people who need to drive.
I wish Toyota had expanded the hybrid tech to more models, sooner, the way they have been doing the last ~5 years. Honestly Toyota probably wishes they had too rather than the attempt at making Prius a sub-brand, but hindsight and all.
Now that there are mainstream BEVs out there, the hybrid expansion looks like a catch-up measure on their part, even though the lineup of hybrids they’ve got are in much more of a sweet spot for use cases and pricing* for more buyers now.
(*excluding any craziness of markups or Toyota tax etc etc)
I suspect, primarily, because it’s…wait for it…An Inconvenient Truth.
Ah dammit I did the same thing but didn’t see yours!
Plug-in hybrids would be a great setup for vehicles like trucks and SUVs that can’t take advantage of ultra-slippery aerodynamics. The problem with plug-in hybrids is increased complexity and materials cost, but trucks and SUVs are already moe expensive to build than sedans and hatchbacks anyhow.
For sedans, hatchbacks, and small sports cars, I think pure BEV makes the most sense. We don’t need monster 100+ kWh battery packs if the cars are designed to be EVs from the ground up and are designed more for function than corporate brand identity. Sedans, sports cars, and hatchbacks with Cd values in the 0.1X range and frontal areas comparable to anything from a Miata to a Mercedes W123, with curb weighs under 3,500 lbs, could all get away with sub-150 Wh/mile energy consumption in real-world highway driving where long range really matters(even if they may not do as well in the city, depending on mass). This means, 200+ mile range sports cars, hatchbacks, and sedans weighing under 3,000 lbs with 30 kWh packs, and 300+ mile range “luxury” sedans with 45 kWh packs weighing under 3,500 lbs, without resorting to exotic materials for weight savings.
Keep the battery small, and purchase cost and operating expense both decrease, as does environmental impact.
PHEVs are also an ideal solution for city dwellers who need to drive long distances sometimes. That’s a significant chunk of people, too. You can do all or most of your commuting/daily duties on pure electric then have the gas engine/normal hybrid benefits for longer trips.
I think they work for quite a few people right now…and my dad is about to take delivery of an X5 50e. I’m excited to see how it does in this exact scenario because my wife and I will likely follow suit sooner or later.
True. One issue with EVs is that many apartment dwellers in cities have nowhere to plug in. Until their landlord installs places to charge, this demographic will be unable to take advantage of EVs. Charging stations are way overpriced, and economically, the benefit of operating an EV vs ICE is greatly diminished if not eliminated outright and then some.
Being able to plug in at home and set your charger to only draw power during off-peak hours is how you take advantage of an EV for reduced operating expense. Done right, it could save you tens of thousands of dollars over its life versus using an ICE, even considering the cost of battery replacement, and currently, the way battery packs are built and sized, they are WAY overpriced…
I really love the LiFePO4 chemistry because of its increased cycle life and reduced fire risk. Every car-sized vehicle I build will use this chemistry. I use other more volatile lithium battery types on my micro-vehicles because I need the extra energy density, and the vehicles are otherwise so inexpensive to operate that reduced cycle life and increased battery expense doesn’t mean much to its operating cost, but for my Triumph GT6, I went with LiFePO4, because any other lithium battery chemistry could come close to doubling its operating cost.
It would be nice if the Autopian ran a series of stories of you building an EV car.
I have a car sitting out in the back field with no powertrain and I know I can’t be the only one interested in converting it to EV.
Someday
I’m not a “city dweller” but a PHEV is great for our purposes. Charging it to 80% takes care of most of our daily driving and bumping it to 100% takes care of a few cases where 80% doesn’t work for us. We’ve gone 3+ weeks at a time w/o the engine firing up. On one tank were were up to ~1000 mi and it was still at ~3/4 of a tank when we left on the next road trip.
Please give us a review of the X5 50e once your dad takes delivery. Did he do any suspension options (not sure what is currently offered – rented a base X5 in February and put 1,000 miles on it in a week and decided it wasn’t connected enough to the road for my tastes).
He did the M Sport package so it has the sporty suspension upgrades. The 50e is also way more powerful than the base xdrive40i, it’s closer to the M50i when it comes to acceleration because of the electric power thrusting it off the line. We only drove the base 40i when we were looking.
I found it to be more than powerful enough and the B58 is the stuff of legends for a reason. It’s smooth, potent, and sounds great. Excellent interior as well…honestly as good as any I’ve been in. I agree with you though-it was a very disconnected driving experience. I honestly thought all the car journos harping on how bad modern BMW steering is were probably exaggerating/getting into some groupthink but they are correct….the steering feels like it’s connected to broomsticks that are in vats of pudding.
We’ll see if the 50e with the M suspension doodads and better brakes is more engaging. I doubt the steering will improve at all since Ze Germans are absolutely hellbent on removing any and all feeling from that part of the driving experience, but if the rest of the car is tighter it will still help the overall experience.
I wanted him to get one of the V8s but he wasn’t interested. He knows and appreciates cars but I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s a driving enthusiast in any way.
I have no goddamn idea why people aren’t talking about the environmental implications of mass producing disposable EVs.
“ICE vehicles will end the world in 10 years!!!! We gotta do SOMETHING!” – Some Short-Sighted Environmentalist Activists ready to cancel you if you don’t agree to “SOMETHING”.
There are already junk yards in some parts of the country that have stacks of BEV batteries and no one that wants to recycle them.
point me to these junkyards; it’s hard to find batteries in stock and cheap!
Did you just wake up from a coma? They’ve been discussing it ad nauseum for the last decade, but somehow people keep coming out of the woodworks insisting nobody’s looking into it, as if they think they just came up with the sickest burn of their life.
Come on, dude, I believe you’re smarter than that. Show some initiative. Search “EV lifecycle emissions” along with MIT, ANL, ICCT, UCS, IEA, or any credible scientific source you trust and you’ll hear a resounding “Yes, we’ve already thought of that!” Yes, there’s nuance to it, but that’s all being hashed out during those big international meetings that barely make the headlines anymore.
And if you really believe there are junkyards stacking up with BEV batteries… just go to Ebay, search for batteries salvaged from wrecked Teslas, take a good hard look at those prices, and ask yourself if anyone is dumb enough to leave that kind of money in a junkyard.
“ I have no goddamn idea why people aren’t talking about the environmental implications of mass producing disposable EVs.”
Sounds like an inconvenient truth, or is that too on the nose here?
People are talking about this but there aren’t that many EVs that are end-of-life yet. There are still a bunch of 1st gen Model S and Leafs running around and there weren’t that many sold to begin with.
I’m not sure where people keep getting this 60k mile figure. I cannot recreate this using standard models unless I make comparisons between EVs and ICE from different classes (Rivian R1T versus VW Golf), or use hybrids or otherwise not “normal ICE vehicles” (Niro hybrid versus Niro EV) — and even then, you still only break even at 60k miles if you assume the electric grid suddenly stagnates and all the renewable development is cancelled.
If you want the scientific data for EV break-even points, here are the fast facts. (I say fast, but this comment will probably take a day or so to get approved thanks to all the links.)
UCS: 14.8-21.3k miles to break even. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf
Reuters independent analysis: 13.5-14.8k miles to break even. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
MIT: typically 22k miles to break even. https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore
If you want more detail, here are more in-depth studies, though they don’t deliver the same topline “break-even” point, so you’ll have to calculate it yourself.
Argonne: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/11/178584.pdf
ICCT: https://theicct.org/publication/effects-of-battery-manufacturing-on-electric-vehicle-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
Carbon Brief: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/
I think there’s going to be an emerging model of rebuilding the current EV’s ala coachwork: take you car and make it new again. There was an interesting piece on this a few years ago on the lightning site and lo and behold what have we here: https://unpluggedperformance.com/exclusive-luxury-interiors-by-von-holzhausen-x-unplugged-performance/ Huh. So imagine this with a “powerpack” refresh service and an electronics upgrade. A Tesla Model 3 Performance is already a very quick car; the drivetrain is great, the suspension can be tuned, upgrade the powerpack and interior and it’s a new car. Somebody is going to make a ton of money doing this.
Like many enthusiasts I have a soft spot for Mazda and I’m pleased to see they’re doing well these days. They’re a small-ish, independent company that doesn’t have the resources to throw around that the bigger players do. And yet they’re doing just fine. How?
…by making intriguing, comparatively affordable products that punch above their weight. I’ve been casually looking for my wife’s eventual next car and both the CX50 and CX90 will be near the top of our list depending on how much space we wind up needing. Honestly, I didn’t realize how comparatively affordable both of them are. The turbo CX50 comes standard with leather and can be had for well under 40k, and you can get a nicely appointed CX90 in the mid 40s if you don’t go buck wild the options.
Both are essentially the same cost as their Japanese competitors but come much better equipped…AND both cars are comparatively fuel efficient and apparently more entertaining to drive than other crossovers as well. They come in actual colors too! Honestly, if you’re looking for an SUV you’d be nuts not to hit up your local Mazda dealership. Also, they aren’t marking cars up, at least in my area. Many of their crossovers are listed for under asking, and they’re plentiful.
I hope they continue to succeed and I hope their PHEV technology trickles down from the CX90, because it’s apparently pretty damn good, although the ice powertrains are so much cooler than what their competitors offer that I’d be hard pressed to turn them down. You go Mazda! Also, put that new straight 6 in a sedan. Pretty please.
I keep dreaming the rumored inline-6 will make it into one of their CUVs. Mazda makes damn good cars for the price.
The I6 isn’t a rumor, it’s in the CX-90 and will also almost be in the upcoming CX-70.
The vibrant red Mazda has offered recently is glorious.
Tesla would be much better off without Musk. So when the “adult in the room” quits, I expect the lunacy will only grow.
Tesla without Musk is a company that’s actually run by adults
Fuck X, keep calling it Twitter 😛
This seems about as likely to me as taking delivery of a Cybertruck this year.
I never had you pegged as a Tesla stan but here you are getting a cyber truck. 😉
Lol I don’t hate Tesla the way some do, but the chances of me personally buying a Cybertruck are less than me winning Mega Millions tonight. I should have said “as anyone taking delivery”.
Zero is zero no matter how you frame it, so I would say either is equally correct. 🙂