[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by M3WC

They have no incentive(motivation) to address scaling, there is no rush when they currently make no profit on EVs.

IT'S THE DEALERS!

December 6, 2022 <- that's, like, a month ago!

Ford CEO Jim Farley, announced today that 1,920 of Ford's 2,968 US dealerships (~65%) agreed to become Model e certified dealers and accepted the strict terms that Ford laid out in order to continue selling fully electric vehicles. That still leaves about one-third of its dealer network without the ability to sell a single fully electric Ford vehicle from January 1st, 2024 to at least January 1st, 2027

Even the signed-on dealers aren't going to be trained, ready, and willing for at least 6 months and it'll probably be much longer before they're effective especially given the "no haggle" pricing.

None of the OEMs are in any rush to push out BEVs because their dealers don't want to - and aren't prepared - to sell them!

GM isn't much different.

Let's say your Silverado shows up tomorrow; will your salesperson be able to tell you about it? Will they even know how to turn it on?

It's the sales model that the OEMs can't scale yet.

(congrats on the Silverado BTW, it sounds pretty awesome! So does the new [mythical?] Ram)

[Bc2005]

My Dad worked for a small Ford dealer in the 60s through the 80s, and even then it was hard for a small dealer to accommodate new models and luxury vehicles. If the Ford dealer wanted to sell a specific model or a range of models (e.g., Lincoln) Ford required the dealer to buy a complete set of special tools for that set of vehicles each year, and to send mechanics to the necessary training.

Most of the special tools and test equipment and were only used for troubleshooting unique features of Lincoln luxury cars, so they were not general purpose tool sets. It was way too expensive if you only expected to sell a small number of vehicles each year. The tool purchase and training requirement never went away if you wanted to keep being able to order Lincoln vehicles.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

As it should. Nothing wrong here. What was your main point?

Not speaking for Bc2005 here, but mandates that are not economically viable aren't good for a business economically speaking. It's a burdon that not all can carry.

A lot of Cadillac dealers recently disappeared for these same reasons, and there was a class action with Hyundai/Genesis and dealers over similar mandate issues, mandates that would have bankrupted many of them. The dealers won. At least Cadillac offered dealers buyouts to sell their right to carry the brand.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

my small dealership, which was was a classic small standalone family-owned Ford franchise (started in 1928) sold out to a larger, still family-owned, multi-brand/multi location franchise corporation.

That's a 10 year trend with The Bigs going on mind-blowing acquisition tears, buying 80-100 dealerships / year

For example, between 2011 & 2021 the top 10 dealer groups went from owning ~13% of the market to 24%, or an 85% 10 year growth rate.

Further, these are publicly traded companies:

* AutoNation
* Lithia Motors
* Group 1 Automotive
* Sonic Automotive
* Penske
* Asbury Automotive Group

And Lithia specifically specializes in buying rural dealerships.

Publicly traded companies growing marketshare 85% over the last decade via massive acquisition isn't wokism, it's capitalism.

Sadly, any Ma & Pa shop is dumb for not selling out right now.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

If you can’t carry the burden you shouldn’t be in that line of business. It’s pretty simple.

Not all shops will service a Veyron, and that’s ok.

It seems to me if you want to sell a BMW you should be able to service it.

Imagine BMW decided to sell and service Bentleys in every store, and had to buy a million in tools and training and floor 6 million in inventory at every store, and they are in a market where no one wants or can afford a Bentley, those dealers should just fuck off and die I guess.

The choice to exist is being forced, and for what?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

The choice to sell Bentleys was the dealer’s. Not BMW forcing it. Your argument is a strawman, I was only replying to what the poster above you said. Which is my first sentence in this post.

And I think you meant to say Rolls Royce, as Bentley is a VW.

OK, so my choice of product is confusing you, let's change it to ferrari. BMW dealers are forced to carry Ferraris, and if they refuse, they can close. Or instead, lets say they have to sell BMW branded jet aircraft. It doesn't matter what you call it, being forced out of a market by the supplier that wants you to carry something you can't sell, or can't afford to sell, is not good for the consumer or the retailer.

Cable companies do something similar to this this with package stuffing. Want channel X, guess what? You have to buy this whole package of shit you don't want, and you have to pay more for it because it's so many channels. It's not good for the consumer.

Mandating seatbelts and air bags adds 1-2% more cost to cars to save lives in car crashes..

Mandating EV's adds 30-40% more cost to a car to reduce our national CO2 by what, 5%? Transportation is only 15% of total national C02, and shifting that load to the grid will still cause a lot of C02 to be generated.

We reduced more CO2 by covid lockdowns, why not just switch to work from home until we can get this EV stuff to work better? Just use a mandate, those are fun. There are better ways to get C02 reduction if that is the actual goal when you are good with mandating your way there.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

dealership and franchise because he didn't feel like fucking with it. Our county doesn't even have annual emissions testing mandates, so who gives a crap about LEED.

Well having done a few buildings I can give you about 5 great reasons of the top of my head, but it's off topic and you seem pretty emotionally committed to your narrative & villains so, yeah, blah blah jingo terms Jerry veddy veddy bad man.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

que sera sera

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

That's a 10 year trend with The Bigs going on mind-blowing acquisition tears, buying 80-100 dealerships / year

For example, between 2011 & 2021 the top 10 dealer groups went from owning ~13% of the market to 24%, or an 85% 10 year growth rate.

Further, these are publicly traded companies:

* AutoNation
* Lithia Motors
* Group 1 Automotive
* Sonic Automotive
* Penske
* Asbury Automotive Group

And Lithia specifically specializes in buying rural dealerships.

Publicly traded companies growing marketshare 85% over the last decade via massive acquisition isn't wokism, it's capitalism.

Sadly, any Ma & Pa shop is dumb for not selling out right now.

Ah yes... a truly competitive dealership business model

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

Dude, I can even agree with what you’re saying, it’s just that I couldn’t read it. I’m not sure what rampage you’re on… the poster said “if a dealer wanted to sell a Lincoln, they had to buy tools”. Anything else is beside the point, I’m really confused by your rant.

I'm not ranting at you, you are good . It's just the idea of mandating stuff that doesn't need mandated.

go back to post 570 where mandated sales rules were brought up. The idea that if you want to sell certain models, you have to invest significantly in certain tools/resources that you may never be able to capitalize on.

Tesla has sales centers, and service centers. A majority of sales centers are not service centers. Imagine if all sales centers needed to service the cars they sold. There are 673 sales centers and 140 service centers. Now apply that to Ford, or any other brand. It seems to work for Tesla. One size fits all rules hurt consumers.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I kinda disagree that it’s working for Tesla.

You certainly aren't wrong. I was shopping Tesla in late 2019. In my due diligence I found the local service center was rather poorly rated, in addition to national consensus on the tesla forms that this is a common thing ie: it is systematic rather than due to a bad service manager here and there at a few locations. They used to offer loaners to take the sting out of getting crap service, then they switched to uber credits. F- that. It was one of the factors that turned me away from the brand.

At least with BMW, I have 3 within an hours drive, if I don't like one, I have options. There are also lots of independents to try. The next closest Tesla service center is ~4 hours.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And we were getting along so well.
Anyway, why you gettin' upset about it?

We still are right? RIGHT?? I'm not upset, that's just how I say stuff.

What? I'm workin on it.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

The idea that if you want to sell certain models, you have to invest significantly in certain tools/resources that you may never be able to capitalize on ... One size fits all rules hurt consumers.

Originally Posted by Onesie

I understand what you’re saying. I kinda disagree that it’s working for Tesla...Not being able to service it, waiting months for parts, etc. is really going to hurt Tesla ... I don’t think it’s good long term for them to offer bad customer service

Tesla is not a good example because it doesn’t have dealers

I'm with both of you guys on this

The thing is, US dealers have the insane lobbying org that is the NADA using government regulation to give them a business model the market doesn't support. That's why the dealers can essentially shit on the OEMs without fear; at least up until now!

The thing is, BEVs give the OEMs new leverage:

They can do what Ford is doing and break up their company into different business units/legal entities. The way the laws are written, dealer leverage is derivative of OEMs having existing businesses selling units to dealers ... BUT if the OEM creates a new company that's sold zero units ever, like say, "Ford Model E", then Ford can do what Tesla is doing: sell cars online and build their own sales & service centers.

While that sounds like a big capital lift, Ford and GM already have a huge head start with their fleets businesses and they could leverage that or even larger used car centers or even craft entirely new agreements with some of these dealership companies!

IMO, the #1 reason Ford is creating two business units is a shot across the bow to dealer groups.

And Efthreeoh, that's my point about your Ma & Pa dealer: Ford and GM know it's only a matter of time before all dealerships in the US are part of a public company like Lithia for rurals or Penske for cities and that only makes the lobbying & grift to congress 1000x easier. Lithia is buying 100 rurals / year; there's only so many, and soon no matter what Ford is asking, your Ma & Pa dealership will be big corp Lithia.

The OEMs are trying to nip it in the bud, using fine-we'll-just-create-new-legal-entities-that-build-these-cars to control the customer experience and make it McDonalds: you get the same dealer experience in Dubuque as in LA.

If they don't they could lose control of their businesses as the top 10 dealer groups regulate Ford & GM under their heel.

"woke" is a boogie-man smoke screen oligarchs are using so you don't notice them using the tools of the state to move massive industries under their control. You're worried about the wrong villains.

[KRS_SN]

Environmental capitalism instead of wokeism. The ev is just a result of exploiting a percieved crisis to make millions of bucks. The real factors that affect pollution are hard to address let's go for the lowest hanging fruit(the commuter) and make billions in the process.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Environmental capitalism instead of wokeism. The ev is just a result of exploiting a percieved crisis to make millions of bucks. The real factors that affect pollution are hard to address let's go for the lowest hanging fruit(the commuter) and make billions in the process.

Considering there is 0 Aviation environmental regulation, private jets have no limitations, nor do really cargo ships, we have no real rail transport in this country and 62% of the US power production is from fossil fuels, I would say that is accurate... it's crazy the govt would support this tech without looking at the bigger picture.

[Tejas1836]

Much easier to control a population using EVs compared to ICE

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Environmental capitalism instead of wokeism. The ev is just a result of exploiting a percieved crisis to make millions of bucks. The real factors that affect pollution are hard to address let's go for the lowest hanging fruit(the commuter) and make billions in the process.

And what is disturbing is that it's not even a very big fruit. US only accounts for 15% of the worlds CO2 production. All US transportation is only 27% of the US's total C02 production, and light duty cars are only 57% of that. We are going to solve a perceived crisis by upending multiple industries, force people to buy more expensive cars that they can't logistically support, and spend trillions of dollars that we don't have, and waste valuable natural resources to accommodate all of that. All to reduce CO2 production in an area that is 57% of 27% of 15% of the problem. (.15*.27*.57)= 2.3%. The energy replacement to fulfill this need still uses over half of it's input from CO2 production (carbon power) = half of 2.3% (.15*.27*.57) /2 = a little more than 1% change in the worlds CO2 problem.

Yah, it's kinda nutty.

Let people have EV's, for many they are great. Lets just not fool ourselves (or others) about what those EV's are accomplishing.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Environmental capitalism instead of wokeism. The ev is just a result of exploiting a percieved crisis to make millions of bucks. The real factors that affect pollution are hard to address let's go for the lowest hanging fruit(the commuter) and make billions in the process.

Originally Posted by ASAP

Considering there is 0 Aviation environmental regulation, private jets have no limitations, nor do really cargo ships, we have no real rail transport in this country and 62% of the US power production is from fossil fuels, I would say that is accurate... it's crazy the govt would support this tech without looking at the bigger picture.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

And what is disturbing is that it's not even a very big fruit. US only accounts for 15% of the worlds CO2 production. All US transportation is only 27% of the US's total C02 production, and light duty cars are only 57% of that. We are going to solve a perceived crisis by upending multiple industries, force people to buy more expensive cars that they can't logistically support, and spend trillions of dollars that we don't have, and waste valuable natural resources to accommodate all of that. All to reduce CO2 production in an area that is 57% of 27% of 15% of the problem. (.15*.27*.57)= 2.3%. The energy replacement to fulfill this need still uses over half of it's input from CO2 production (carbon power) = half of 2.3% (.15*.27*.57) /2 = a little more than 1% change in the worlds CO2 problem.

Yah, it's kinda nutty.

Let people have EV's, for many they are great. Lets just not fool ourselves (or others) about what those EV's are accomplishing.

Couldn't agree with these statements more. I still say we should just abolish the entire cruise ship industry and see what kind of reduction in emissions that yields. There's no worse or more gluttonous way to travel in the 21st century, IMO. The loss in jobs would not be that great, and people would still travel to many of the destinations anyway, they would just use air or rail.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

And what is disturbing is that it's not even a very big fruit. US only accounts for 15% of the worlds CO2 production. All US transportation is only 27% of the US's total C02 production, and light duty cars are only 57% of that. We are going to solve a perceived crisis by upending multiple industries, force people to buy more expensive cars that they can't logistically support, and spend trillions of dollars that we don't have, and waste valuable natural resources to accommodate all of that. All to reduce CO2 production in an area that is 57% of 27% of 15% of the problem. (.15*.27*.57)= 2.3%. The energy replacement to fulfill this need still uses over half of it's input from CO2 production (carbon power) = half of 2.3% (.15*.27*.57) /2 = a little more than 1% change in the worlds CO2 problem.

Yah, it's kinda nutty.

Let people have EV's, for many they are great. Lets just not fool ourselves (or others) about what those EV's are accomplishing.

But its okay, because your new EV can make fart noises and will come to you instead of you going to your car like the pleb

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by kyriian

But its okay, because your new EV can make fart noises and will come to you instead of you going to your car like the pleb

Because this is what the people want :



And that ~1% global C02 reduction won't be realized until 100% of all ICE's are gone and we are only driving EV's. We are 8 years away from the end of the world, so I don't think we are gonna get there with this approach.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Couldn't agree with these statements more. I still say we should just abolish the entire cruise ship industry and see what kind of reduction in emissions that yields. There's no worse or more gluttonous way to travel in the 21st century, IMO. The loss in jobs would not be that great, and people would still travel to many of the destinations anyway, they would just use air or rail.

That would impact the decision makers who retire on fat pensions to go on cruises ....and then brag about it to their poor neighbour ice users while tut tutting about how the ice is killing the world and causing wildfires etc ...
so not happening....

[GrussGott]

Aaannnddd ... let's move back to the auto industry and away from "this is what people I don't know think and I'm super confident of it!"