AD #2580 – Ford Invests in Rivian, Waymo Picks Facility in Detroit, LED Headlamps Increasing CO2

April 24th, 2019 at 11:38am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2580 – Ford Invests in Rivian, Waymo Picks Facility in Detroit, LED Headlamps Increasing CO2″ on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 6:26

0:06 Ford Invests in Rivian
0:44 NHTSA Investigates Even More Airbags
1:15 Lucid Motors Names New CEO
1:40 Hyundai Names Loasby Head of Styling Group
2:24 CSP To Supply Jiangling With Composite Truck Beds
2:57 Waymo Picks Facility in Detroit
3:40 FAA Approves 1st Air Carrier Certification
4:25 Tesla Upgrades Model S And X
5:13 LED Headlamps Increasing CO2

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone and Dow Automotive Systems.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

35 Comments to “AD #2580 – Ford Invests in Rivian, Waymo Picks Facility in Detroit, LED Headlamps Increasing CO2”

  1. Bob Kinnee Says:

    Ford made the right move buying into Rivian GM should have jumped on this when the offer was available to them I believe they will regret this big time !

  2. Larry D. Says:

    Ford wastes $500 mill on the ugly Rivian. A secret clause of the agreement allows Lincoln to market a Rivian Clone, distinghished from the Ford version by a trademark Edsel Grille, and to be named the “Edsel Mark II” (or should it be “III”?)

  3. Larry D. Says:

    1 100% Wrong. The Rivian is an ugly Joke. Who will buy this silly toy which has a face only its mother would love? GM made the RIGHT move, and Ford just went deeper down the drain under the clueless, Auto-illiterate so-called “leadership” of Humpty Dumpty, Hackett of UM Athletics and Steelcase infamy…

  4. Larry D. Says:

    3 cont’d The Bollinger atrocity will not get any beauty contest 5th runner-ups either…

  5. Jim Haines Says:

    So maybe in Europe to save on co2 output just drive without lights and get everybody USSR surplus night vision goggles
    How stupid is this shit I only hope the lunatics in our country don’t win anymore power than they have or dumb shot like this is on the way

  6. Larry D. Says:

    5 My thoughts exactly. Pity. Europe is going down the drain and the fools are rearranging the deck chairs of their Titanic. And probably they got an orchestra to play on, as the Brexit disaster develops, Italy, which is too big to rescue AND too big to fail, goes bankrupt, and France quickly follows.

    The EV never had a chance. Look at Airbus, after $40 billion in subsidies, they built that white elephant the A 380 (of course without asking the Customer what they wanted) and now they have to shut it down after 10 disastrous, billion-$ losing years.

  7. Larry D. Says:

    6 I meant the EU, not the… EV. The EV is alive and well, and Tesla seems to still be far ahead of any current or future rival, just read today’s piece here.

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    6 A320 neos are flying, but 737 Max 8s are not. Airbus must be doing something right, but yeah, the A380 was certainly a mistake.

    It’s hard to figure what Ford is getting for their half billion dollars. It isn’t the styling. Ford can do better than that in-house, and probably will before actually selling any electric trucks. EV powertrain electronics has been pretty much mature technology for about 20 years, with the EV1, except for cost reduction. Everyone gets essentially equal batteries. Tesla probably has a slight edge in motor efficiency, but all EV motors are close enough, that it doesn’t matter much.

    I guess that means Ford is buying battery packaging, and a “skate board” for their $500M. We shall see.

  9. Buzzerd Says:

    Interesting news about another airbag manufacturer, I’ve been to many collisions where we all thought the air bag should have gone off but didn’t, like the F150 that centre punched a tree destroying the truck- no air bag.

  10. Victor West Says:

    Notice the decline in the number of people responding to the forum because of the tone of some of the comments.

  11. Larry D. Says:

    8 not with $ 40 billion subsidies, there is nothing right about that.

    10 You work for Hackett? Obviously you do.

  12. Larry D. Says:

    8 calling Tesla dominance “a slight edge” takes the gold medal for understatement and is 100% contrary to the opinions of the experts on this program and on AAH, who actually spent years taking down the cars and studying them far beyond a test drive or even a long-term test. Whether the established automakers hate it or have fits about it, Tesla has made them look like total fools, AND truly, by a factor of 10 in sales, and in its cars’ performance, dominates the EV field on its MERITS.

    I had to set the record straight.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    9 When I worked for GM’s electronic division, it was a very high priority to not have air bags deploy when there was no crash, higher than having them deploy when there was a crash. Still, the expected, and “allowed” non-deployment was very low, but I don’t remember the numbers at the time, which was 20-some years ago.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    11 Boeing get a lot of subsidies too, in the form of inflated military contracts, and getting paid much more than SpaceX for the same services.

    8 I said slight edge in MOTOR EFFICIENCY, nothing more, and nothing less.

  15. Kit Gerhart Says:

    8, 12, I said slight edge in MOTOR EFFICIENCY, nothing more, and nothing less. Did you even read my post?

  16. Brett Cammack Says:

    1. Didn’t Ford drop $1.2 billion into remodeling the Taurus so it looked like a trout? $500 million is chump change if it buys them the right to use a well-sorted platform.

    2. GM wanted exclusive rights to something that is so worthless that Ford was a fool to invest $500 million in? So, who’s the genius and who’s the fool? Is the technology so valuable to insist on exclusive rights as GM did or worthless? You can’t have it both ways.

    3. In the words of Amarillo Slim, “Winners talk. Losers walk.”

  17. Larry D. Says:


    1. More like a catfish, but you’re close. It was an unbelievable show of incompetence, after the excellent first gen Taurus which made Ford untold billions and allowed it to waste them buying and fixing (and then selling again) Jag and VOlvo and Aston and who remembers what other loser maker.

    2. I was 100% clear. GM did the RIGHT thing by moving out of the BUTT-UGLY Rivian Edsel, and Ford learned NOTHING from its past mistakes and wasted $500 MILL down the drain, as I clearly said. You were around when it all happened, Edsel and all that, and should know.

  18. Larry D. Says:


    3. And exactly who are the “winners” here????? Hackett and the Ford Stock? The fool who canceled all Ford Cars in the US market? Ask the man who owns one (worthless share of Ford stock) before you opine.


  19. Larry D. Says:

    To sum up: Car and Truck buying is an EMOTIONAL Purchase. Even if the Rivian was as compelling an EV as any Tesla, it STILL would die in the market, with a face that only its mother would love. One word, again, with feeling: EDSEL.

  20. Kit Gerhart Says:

    16 From the linked article:

    “Rivian already has developed two clean-sheet vehicles with adventurers at the core of every design and engineering decision. The company’s launch products – the five-passenger R1T pickup and seven-passenger R1S SUV – will deliver up to 400-plus miles of range and provide an unmatched combination of performance, off-road capability and utility, starting in late 2020.”

    We’ll know a lot more when we see if these vehicles do, in fact, go on sale in late 2020, how well they work, and how well they sell. Maybe there will be re-badged Ford or Lincoln versions, with different front end styling. That would appeal more to a lot of us.

  21. Buzzerd Says:

    I would think casting any opinion on whether GM was smart or not to pass on Rivian is the definition of a unqualified opinion unless you are an engineer at GM or have similar knowledge of what the whole story is.

  22. Brett Cammack Says:

    My point was, if Rivian sucks, why did GM want exclusive access to it and walked when they couldn’t have it? They didn’t walk because it sucked and they’re geniuses. They walked because they couldn’t have it all for themselves.

    Why is Ford a fool for buying into something GM wanted exclusively?

  23. G.A.Branigan Says:

    I don’t see what the big deal is anyways. We are all gonna die in 12 years as told to us by a 20 something yr old sage…

  24. gary susie Says:


  25. GM Veteran Says:

    I am sure Ford will create a vehicle that uses the Rivian skateboard platform and sports classic Ford styling. What would be the point of using Rivian’s styling? I am sure their agreement with Rivian prohibits that. I imagine Larry would call Ford management brilliant if they had made this same deal with Tesla. I think there is room for more than one successful EV startup. Time will tell for Tesla and Rivian. In the mean time, Ford will continue to be a profitable company with an enviable stock dividend (something Tesla may never achieve).

  26. Roger T Says:

    My fellow audience members here are completely disregarding how expensive and cumbersome it is for a big company like ford to get things done. I see the $500M bet as a way to leverage a startup agility of translating ideas into reality, fast. I think this idea is a real winner, if Ford helps out with engineering guidance and does traditional testing.
    I don’t think GM was stupid in pulling out either. The risk Ford is taking is that they are equipping Rivian to do this right and they are commoditizing their know how, although some may say it already is commoditized. GM perhaps values their internal know how more than Ford does.

  27. Roger T Says:

    Additionally, there might be big lessons for Ford on this process – learn how to focus on the task at hand rather than bureaucracy, reassess status quo.

  28. Kit Gerhart Says:


  29. Kit Gerhart Says:

  30. Larry D. Says:

    29 The caption in this article that allegedly Musk broke his “profitability vow” is a lie, or at best very incompetent reporting.

    Musk had said many months ago, and I had cited him in the archives of this show, that every quarter in the future would have a profit EXCEPT those where Tesla has major loan repayments, which happens to be the last quarter, when Tesla repaid $920 mill in Cash. Compared to this payment, the loss is almost half that amount, so if this was a quarter with no loan repayment, Tesla would have a new quarterly profit RECORD at more than $400 mill, crushing its previous record profit of $312 mill.

    I still have no plans to buy Tesla Stock, or any of its cars, especially in Tesla-hostile MI where sales are not even allowed!

    But I would like to know what happened with the 500,000 deposits for the Model 3, how many were fulfilled, how many returned/canceled, how many are left?

  31. Larry D. Says:

    26 “GM perhaps values their internal know how more than Ford does.”

    Considering that the Rivian is a pickup, the above sounds strange, as Ford has a clear advantage in this segment, while GM is better in SUVs, sold more than a million of them in 2018.

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:

    30 I’ve wondered about the deposits too. I’d think those who had waited years for the base car would have ordered when it became available. I suspect a few thousand of the deposits will end up being donations to Elon.

  33. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Weren’t they returnable deposit; just putting one’s self on the list. I thought that that was the way it way supposed to work. Returnable deposit.

  34. Larry D. Says:

    33 Yes, I believe the deposits were refundable, but some details may apply, maybe they have to ask them back in a timely fashion or whatever.

  35. BobD Says:

    On GM wanting exclusivity with it’s investment. This is more common than not. On most of these deals, the cash up front is only part of the investment with the investor often providing follow-up expertise and other in-kind contributions. If you don’t have exclusivity, all your done is allowed the other company to turn around and re-sell part of the IP the initial investor put in. Also on wanting exclusivity, say GM put in $500 million, only to have Rivian six month from now sell the same IP to Ford for $300 million, and six months later sell the same IP to FCA for $100 million. Who looks foolish then?