AD #2203 – VW’s Dealers Revolt Against SUV Name, GM Sees All-Electric Future, EV Prices Likely To Go Up a Lot
October 3rd, 2017 at 11:55am
Runtime: 7:08
To watch this episode on YouTube click here.
- GM Sees All-Electric Future
- Tesla Misses Production Targets by a Mile
- EV Prices Likely To Go Up a Lot
- Why Honda Dropped Accord V6 and Coupe
- CAR Names Carla Bailo CEO
- Solid Global Car Sales
- VW’s U.S. Dealers Revolt Against SUV Name
Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems , Lear Corporation and Hyundai.
»Subscribe to Podcast | 
| 
| Listen on Phone 
| 
On today’s show…GM says it will come out with 20 EV and fuel cell vehicles in the next 6 years…while Tesla misses its production targets by a mile…and Volkswagen’s U.S. dealers told the company they hated the name for its new SUV. All that and more coming right up on Autoline Daily.
This is Autoline Daily the show for enthusiasts of the automotive industry.
GM SEES ALL-ELECTRIC FUTURE
Every time you turn around these days another automaker is announcing it’s going to electrify its lineup. Now it’s GM’s turn. But unlike other OEMs who include hybrids in their electrification announcements, General Motors is talking about fully electric vehicles. It says it will come out with two electric vehicles in the next 18 months, and will have at least 20 all-electric models by 2023. GM says some of those models will be powered by fuel cells, not batteries. It also showed reporters concepts for an electric Cadillac crossover, a Buick SUV, a futuristic ride-sharing Bolt EV and a truck called the SURUS. That stands for Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure. It’s powered by a fuel cell, has four-wheel steer, and is driven by two electric motors. But GM did not allow reporters to photograph any of these vehicles and it did not release any shots either.
TESLA MISSES PRODUCTION TARGETS BY A MILE
Before Tesla introduced the Model 3, critics wondered if the company, which has only built EVs in relatively small numbers, would be able to mass produce the new model. Well it looks like the naysayers were proven right, at least for now. Bloomberg reports that Tesla fell way short of its production forecast for the Model 3. It was targeting to build 1,500 by the end of the third quarter but it’s only made 260 models. The company blames “production bottlenecks” for the delay but it says there aren’t any fundamental problems or issues with its supply chain. Production of the Model S and X also dipped slightly as well.
EV PRICES LIKELY TO GO UP A LOT
And while automakers are jumping head first into the EV market, Bloomberg also points out that since it first started building cars, Tesla has lost $10 billion, with no sign of any profits to come anytime soon. That’s a lot of money to send up in flames. And that points out that prices of electric cars are likely to go up if automakers truly have to sell them in large numbers. Sergio Marchionne just told reporters that Fiat loses $20,000 on every 500E it sells, up from the $14,000 he said they lost on those cars just a couple of years ago. Even though battery prices are coming down, prices of EVs will likely go up by quite a bit in the next three to four years.
With the new Accord, Honda dropped the V-6 and the coupe, and coming up next we’ll tell you why.
WHY HONDA DROPPED ACCORD V6 AND COUPE
When Honda decided to completely redesign the Accord, it also made the decision to drop the optional V-6 engine and the 2-door coupe. Dropping the V-6 and only offering turbocharged 4-cylinder engines helped to simplify the design of the engine compartment and contributed to weight savings. Dropping the coupe saved the company a big investment in tooling. Juni Yamano, the chief engineer of the car told Autoline that it also allowed the company to devote more engineering resources to designing other parts of the cars, notably the thin A-pillars. Honda engineers were able to reduce the cross section of the A-pillars by 20%, largely by doing countless iterations of the design until they got what they wanted.
CAR NAMES CARLA BAILO CEO
The Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor has named Carla Bailo as the new CEO of the organization. She will replace the current CEO Jay Baron who will retire. Bailo was an assistant VP of Research at the Ohio State University. Prior to that she was the Senior VP of Research at Nissan North America. The Center for Automotive Research is perhaps best known for its Management Briefing Seminars, which has been an industry hallmark for over half a century.
Coming up next, Volkswagen dealers in the U.S. convinced management in Germany they had better change the name of their new SUV.
SOLID GLOBAL CAR SALES
Automakers had a strong August globally. Wards Auto reports that worldwide sales hit 7.4 million units which is a 4.1% gain compared to the year before. Europe and Asia posted 5.6% sales increases in August, while in South America sales soared 17.6%. But for the third straight month sales in North America dipped, due to drops in Mexico and the U.S. Sales in the region were down 1.2%. But overall it’s shaping up to be a good year for automakers on a global basis. Through the end of August sales are just shy of 62 million units which is about 3% better than last year.
VW’S U.S. DEALERS REVOLT AGAINST SUV NAME
Volkswagen has a penchant for picking car names that make a lot of sense to Germans but not necessarily to Americans. Names like Passat, Touareg and Touran just sound dumb. That’s why Volkswagen’s U.S. dealers almost revolted when they heard that VW wanted to name its newest SUV the Teramont, which is what the vehicle is called in China. Dealers told VW they hated the name and it eventually changed it to Atlas. This may not seem like a big deal, but all the tooling for the “T”-name had already been set.
But that’s it for today, thanks for watching and please join us again tomorrow.
Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com
Share
Embed
Permalink
Comments (31)
October 3rd, 2017 at 12:32 pm
I think that there were a lot of naysayers right here at the Autoline Daily forum that suspected Tesla would lag on their production goals. I believe the management of Autoline also looked at Tesla with a jaded eye (John, correct me if I’m wrong). Anyway, even with Tesla’s explanation of why it didn’t reach its goals I don’t think that answer holds much water when there is such a disparity in what it originally stated and what was produced.
October 3rd, 2017 at 12:36 pm
I don’t know what Teramont means, but it sounds like a better tham than Atlas for a VW CUV. Atlas would be a better fit for some sort of off-road monster truck.
October 3rd, 2017 at 12:39 pm
Why will EV’s get more expensive, even as batteries get cheaper? Is the world already running out of the minerals used in the magnets for the motors?
October 3rd, 2017 at 12:40 pm
I don’t know where you get the Tesla news from but you are reporting on things that are not true.
October 3rd, 2017 at 12:56 pm
As a small town midwestern American…I like Teramont better than Atlas.
The issue with Toureg and Tiguan is the names were never explained. (until recently)
October 3rd, 2017 at 1:09 pm
I’ve had my doubts about Tesla from the very start. While I am impressed with the ability to build a car from scratch, I could never understand how any company, especially a small startup, can continue to operate with red ink quarter after quarter. The fact they burned through $10 billion even surprised me. I sensed it was a lot, but had no idea it was that much.
Not building 1,500 Model 3s as predicted was no surprise. So far no journalists have been able to test one yet (other than riding impressions) leads me to believe the cars have issues.
But never mind the details, they’ll still be able to raise capital to keep them afloat for another couple of years.
October 3rd, 2017 at 1:33 pm
How can Fiat loose so much $$ per car when they have such a “Cheap Engineering Design” manual for their production models. Just look at the JD Power Survey for Quality.
October 3rd, 2017 at 1:37 pm
GM; With new vehicle programs running the 36 to 48 month range. Means these 20 EVs will need to be on the drawing board by July 2019. We’ll see.
EV pricing; If the government really wants to push the EV’s without the cost of offering up subsidies. All they need to do is drive up gasoline taxes. Take in money rather than spending it to push this agenda.. I hope they don’t but just saying..
Tesla; I interviewed there in 2015 as they were preparing to go high volume with the model 3. Something they were and apparently are not familiar with doing. Its new to them and comes with challenges they haven’t dealt with before. That would be my guess to their production struggles.
October 3rd, 2017 at 2:37 pm
I’ll take “Atlas” over Teramont.
#5 – A lack of explanation of the previous car names by VW, I believe, was only a very small part of the problem.
Not everyone cares enough about cars to even care what’s in a name – as long as it ‘sounds’ nice. Even if VW had put out ads telling what the names meant, consumers would likely forget as soon as the next TV commercial aired.
October 3rd, 2017 at 2:44 pm
#4. Not sure what you mean that what we’re reporting about Tesla is not true. Our source is Tesla itself: http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449
October 3rd, 2017 at 2:52 pm
#9 I like the names that already had meaning and were not made up with two exceptions. I like names like Mustang, Challenger, Impala, Javelin, Magnum, Viper, Cobra, Prowler and even Pinto. The exceptions Camaro and Corvette which just never sounded made up.
But I hear the definition of Camaro is a fierce animal that eats Mustangs. Could be a rumor.
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:10 pm
#3. There’s a lot of “rule of thumb” in this answer but here goes:
Munro & Associate estimates GM loses $7,400 on Bolt EV, which has a 60 kWh battery pack. GM pays $145 for each cell. That’s $8,700 just for the cells. I’d estimate the total battery pack is $220 per kWh, or $13,200. None of this includes the cost of the power electronics.
Let’s say the cost of cells drops to $80, and that drops the cost of the pack by $4,800. GM still loses $2,600 on every Bolt. No doubt GM will come up with other efficiencies to close that gap or even erase it. But it will need to raise prices if it really wants to make a profit.
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:14 pm
Camaro while made-up is a derivative of the French camarade meaning friend (or something similar); editorial license I suppose. As to the Corvette, that is a quick naval vessel from which the name was borrowed (and to a greater degree redefined what really is the meaning of Corvette).
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:28 pm
It makes no sense at all to me , putting a 1/2 ton of batts with a limited lifespan in an over priced ,limited versatile , semi luxo barge. Nissan is eventually going to rule the day w/it’s few batts, small eng/gen semi constant duty design,not yet available here. KISS RULES!
When I started leaning the trade there were no ——oil filters , auto transmissions or 12 volt systems. Spark plugs barely lasted 10K,brake shoes about the same, dimmer switches & some starter buttons were on the floor, as was the shift lever. Average vehicle life span was 60-75k w/engine o’hauls or at least valve jobs needed at 30-35k.neglect & metallurgy were prime culprits
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Speaking of pollution—EVs don’t pollute , per say, but what about the plants that charge those batts ?
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:43 pm
#12 Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know that GM was losing that kind of money on the Bolt. Yeah, unless they can lower manufacturing cost a lot, the price of EV’s will need to increase, if/when a lot of EV’s are sold, replacing sales of high profit pickups, big SUV’s, etc.
October 3rd, 2017 at 3:57 pm
Len, I seem to have been cut from the same cloth as you. Or more precisely born at a more simpler time. I remember frequent valve jobs and annual brakes jobs, etc.
It makes no sense at all to me , putting a 1/2 ton of batts with a limited lifespan in an over priced ,limited versatile , semi luxo barge. Nissan is eventually going to rule the day w/it’s few batts, small eng/gen semi constant duty design,not yet available here. KISS RULES!
When I started leaning the trade there were no ——oil filters , auto transmissions or 12 volt systems. Spark plugs barely lasted 10K,brake shoes about the same, dimmer switches & some starter buttons were on the floor, as was the shift lever. Average vehicle life span was 60-75k w/engine o’hauls or at least valve jobs needed at 30-35k.neglect & metallurgy were prime culprits
October 3rd, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Automatic transmissions have been around for my entire lifetime; Hydromatic began in about 1940 and I was born in 1946, but I certainly remember the 10K mile spark plugs, and also 1-2 year mufflers, both wrought on us by leaded gas. Had I known in the 1960′s what I know now, I would have paid the extra for the unleaded Amoco gas that would have made my plugs and mufflers last about 5 times as long.
I suspect part of the short engine life in older cars, in addition to metallurgy, was that some of them were seriously undergeared. The 1950 Plymouth I drove while in high school had a flat head six with 4 3/8 inch stroke, and had a 3.55 rear end ratio. That engine was spinning way too fast for its own good, when driving 70 mph on the highway.
October 3rd, 2017 at 4:13 pm
GM could start this wonderful EV explosion by actually shipping the Bolt to where the current orders are. Overstocked in California and not stocked at all in other areas. I thought this was Bolt specific but it turns out GM is pretty bad at this. A friend traded his Cruise (for a premium) into our dealer because another dealer across the border just can’t get enough of them. I thought there were computer programs that handled this. Must be some supervisors know better…
October 3rd, 2017 at 4:38 pm
I thought the company that tore the Bolt apart, said GM is making money on it.
October 3rd, 2017 at 5:07 pm
Kit your mufflers are lasting longer due to the fact that all emissions equipment needs to last 100K miles and for that reason most is made of a high grade 300 series stainless while the rest of the system (behind the catalyst) is typically 409SS. Unleaded fuel had very little if anything to the increase in muffler life.
October 3rd, 2017 at 5:46 pm
21 I didn’t have cars I kept very long in the right time frame to prove anything on the mufflers, but the OEM mufflers on my BMW motorcyle went from lasting about a year, to lasting 8 years, after the switch to unleaded.
October 3rd, 2017 at 6:14 pm
#13 (& others) – Many years ago when starting at Chevy Engineering in 1966 we were told Camaro = “Pal”. Take it for what it’s worth.
#18 & others – I remember a friend of mine from Oldsmobile (if you can remember them) that as engineers we could never spend the amount of money to increase engine life as no lead fuel did. While we bemoaned the decrease in compression ration necessary at the time, electronics has done wonderful things for engine performance & economy in the years since. In addition, aware that in later years after we adjusted engine design to meet no lead fuel parameters, extra money had to be spent to meet middle eastern countries where leaded fuel was used. In essence, no lead fuel increased engine life & increased spark plug life tremendously. I can still remember having to replace plugs in 57 Chevy (12.5 to 1 CR) every 1,000 miles if I wanted it to reach 7200 RPM without complaining too much.
October 3rd, 2017 at 6:21 pm
#23 did you ever try Lodge spark plugs, precursor to E3
October 3rd, 2017 at 7:32 pm
Wasn’t Lodge part of Lucas, Prince of Darkness, or maybe it was Smith’s?
October 3rd, 2017 at 7:57 pm
They were standard on my 69 ALFA Spyder claimed to fire in oil, very unique shape of ground points and central electrode.
Worked in my BMW Tii engines as well
October 3rd, 2017 at 8:20 pm
John,
Does the amount that Chevrolet looses on each Bolt take in account the amount GM charges each dealer who wants to sell it? I’ve heard that it’s somewhere around $50K plus tools and training of techs.
October 3rd, 2017 at 10:17 pm
Well GM it’s been good knowing you . I want to know how the hell they come up with this crap? You can’t sell Bolts and Volts. You already cancelled the Cadillac version and the Opel version before dumping the whole brand. So how the hell do you ever expect to survive selling these boat anchors? It seems completely insane to take this track . Which by all appearances looks like a one way trip to oblivion.
October 4th, 2017 at 8:45 am
#22 I don’t have an answer to explain your change in motorcycle exhaust longevity as I know they don’t follow the same emission requirements as passenger cars. But I would guess it was a switch in material. Leaded fuel was phased out in 1974 which mainly happen due to the use of catalytic converters which couldn’t handle the lead. Leaded fuel was still available for Off-Road vehicles until 1996 when it was finally banned fully. Not sure where your BMW falls in there but I’d really be surprised to find any evidence that unleaded fuel had any effect on exhaust rusting.
October 4th, 2017 at 9:12 am
#29 I got the bike in 1977. You could still get,(in central Indiana) and I used leaded premium into the early ’80′s, and went through two or three sets of expensive OEM mufflers. After I started using unleaded gas, the mufflers lasted the rest of the time I had the bike, which was another 7 or 8 years. I can’t prove anything, but there was no indication that BMW had changed the material used for their replacement mufflers.
As far as cars, my ’57 Chrysler, ’66 Dodge Coronet, and ’74 Plymouth Duster went through mufflers quickly, but from ’78 Dodge Omni to the present, I have never replaced another muffler. Maybe Chrysler, and everyone else changed to stainless steel exhaust systems after 1974, and that made mufflers last nearly forever. If so, they should have made that change much earlier.
October 4th, 2017 at 7:09 pm
Kit , I got my first car the year you were born