AD #3245 – China Cuts EV Subsidies; GM Converting Old Plant to Make BEV Parts; Ford Reveals Bronco Raptor

January 24th, 2022 at 12:01pm

Audio-only version:
Listen to “AD #3245 – China Cuts EV Subsidies; GM Converting Old Plant to Make BEV Parts; Ford Reveals Bronco Raptor” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 8:30

0:11 China Cuts EV Subsidies
0:39 Chinese OEMs Raise EV Prices
1:18 GM Making Big EV Investment
2:02 GM Converting Old Plant to Make BEV Parts
3:08 Ford Reveals Bronco Raptor
4:22 Cadillac Debuts V-Series Escalade
4:59 RNM Alliance to Announce EV Investment
5:54 NTSB Questions Human Error in Accidents
6:42 Jeep Wrangler 4Xe Sales Confusion

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone, Intrepid Control Systems and Schaeffler.

»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: WardsAuto.com

42 Comments to “AD #3245 – China Cuts EV Subsidies; GM Converting Old Plant to Make BEV Parts; Ford Reveals Bronco Raptor”

  1. Lambo2015 Says:

    So if GM and others are going to keep investing in EVs and creating jobs. I wonder how they will transfer those workers already working at ICE plants when those start to go away? Because it sounds like they will need the ability to make both types of vehicles and will likely carry an increase in jobs while supporting both types of vehicles. But then as the ICE dies off those workers will want to stay with GM but those jobs may already be filled.
    Just another obstacle/advantage that the start ups will not have to deal with.

  2. Buzzerd Says:

    I watched the show on the new Avalan… Silverado and thought it was great. My only criticism is everyone on the show needs to mind the ” you knows”, ” uhhh” and ” umm” fill in words, it can get distracting at times.

  3. Kit Gerhart Says:

    If GM temporarily has more employees with both EV and ICE, after they reduce numbers, the higher seniority employees will be able to keep jobs, if they are willing to move. A lot of people went to other GM plants from Delco in Indiana, as numbers there decreased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s. Also, there may be enough retirements to make massive layoff not necessary. At this point, though, who knows. GM needs to be able to sell their upcoming EVs when they arrive.

  4. Kit Gerhart Says:

    To me, the Avalanche had a serious Aztec problem of the uglies when it first arrived, with the huge plastic cladding pieces. Thankfully, the cladding went away after the first one or two years, or became an option that few people ordered.

  5. Tom D Says:

    The NTSB recommendation to stop blaming human error for accidents strikes me (no pun intended) as an effort to remove responsibility from drivers. There are certainly some lousy roads and poorly engineered intersections that contribute to mistakes that end up as accidents. But giving drivers a blanket “It’s not my fault” excuse only contributes to poor driving. Our US system of awarding drivers licenses to anyone with a pulse makes licensing a joke. If we want to cut accidents, we need to hold drivers accountable for their actions through better training, increased licensing requirements, and consistent enforcement.

  6. GM Veteran Says:

    Very much looking forward to the Bollinger interview! Good work Autoline!

  7. GM Veteran Says:

    I must have missed something in the China EV stories. If the incentives were consumer incentives, why do the EV companies need to raise prices to maintain profitability levels?

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    7. They won’t sell as many?

  9. XA351GT Says:

    Traffic accidents probably are 94% driver error . If it was infrastructure there’d be even more accidents than now. When the bulk of drivers can safely negotiate roads with zero problems are the roads the issue? Driver stupidity is the greatest cause , too fast for conditions, drunk or impaired driving , distracted driving , plain out right carelessness , and improper vehicle maintenance are the root cause for the most accidents . Throwing billions of tax dollars at roads won’t cure the problem that too many don’t take their driving seriously enough. Maybe real fines and jail time would snap people around. Maybe making driving with a cell phone in had a $1000 fine the 1st offense and confiscation of their phone . After that go up a $1000 more each additional offense . Impaired driving a 1 year jail term going up 5 years with each new offense would get their attention.

  10. XA351GT Says:

    # 5 No I’d say it’s probably a way to justify a multi Trillion dollar tax plan that won’t fix a damn thing.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I assume the Escalade V-series will get the TrailBlazer SS treatment of lowered, and stiffer suspension. It will probably have Magneride standard. This will diminish the meaning of V-series; you can do only so much for the handling of a 6000 pound truck. It will be quick with 670 hp, but not quick like a much lighter Hellcat Grand Cherokee.

  12. Warwick Rex Dundas Says:

    John

    I hope Sean is not unwell and just has other commitments.

  13. Lambo2015 Says:

    I agree! If infrastructure was the largest contributor to accidents then accidents would occur in the same locations and warrant a change.

    Poor infrastructure does create traffic jams, road and bridge closures and construction to fix or expand the current roads. I would have to admit entering a construction zone its not uncommon to see a rear end collision from people not knowing how to merge or tailgating gone wrong. But is that because of the construction zone or human error? Id say in most cases its human error.

  14. S65AMG Says:

    China subsidies: As has been widely reported in the past, the biggest EV subsidy in CHina’s 6 biggest cities, and probably elsewhere, is the humongous $15,000 (US) or so one has to pay to register an ICE vehicle there, vs $0.00 for a BEV. This may also apply to plug-ins like the Volt, but you should check. Anyway, I never heard of such laughably small subsidies as the $600 or $800 you mention. Maybe they are for the tiniest little EVs like the stupid Wuling, the $4,800 marvel with the even smaller range which makes it useless for anything outside the city limits (and a small city at that).

  15. S65AMG Says:

    Battery Swapping:

    The idea is great only for fleets of corporate or school vehicles, not for private cars which have 100 different battery sizes and shapes.

    If you have a taxi or bus company, consisting of identical vehicles, or at least vehicles with identical batteries, and if you can do the battery swap in about the time you need to fill up an ICE tank, then they appear very attractive.

    In addition, you can probably get away with much Smaller Batteries for these taxis and buses, say with only 100 miles range instead of 2, 3, and 400, making everything lighter, more efficient, and much much cheaper. these urban vehicles do not cover that many miles in an hour, plus they go at low speeds, ideal for EV propulsion.

    A company in Israel tried battery swapping a decade or so ago but it failed, because they did not meet the above conditions for success. (private autos, different batteries, a mess)

  16. S65AMG Says:

    The ugly Bronco.

    I see a lot of Broncos around, and that’s unfortunate, because they are butt-ugly, and even uglier than their much more stylish main competitor, Jeeps.

    Especially in their doorless versions, they look like some junkmobile from a parts yard, a carcass of a car instead of a car.

    Of course if you are a clueless 16 year old, or an equally immature adult, you may find them cool, and if you are the proud owner of a sugardaddy, he may splash the ridiculous $50,000 or more needed to buy that atrocity.

    It is a ridiculous fad, and it sure is a CULT, far more of a cult than posters here accuse the far more rational Tesla buyers of being.

  17. S65AMG Says:

    Re 1.: I doubt GM and the others will create a single net job going from ICEs to BEVs.

    If anything, everybody knows that it takes far fewer jobs to efficiently (not like the Detroit 3 do!) make a BEV than a comparable ICE,

    And in addition, there will be job losses especially at the service departments of dealerships, due to the far smaller service needs of BEVs (especially the LABOR Part, in case some of you thoughtlessly, knee-jerk write to doubt what the whole industry, and especially the biggest automakers, already know and are preparing for).

  18. S65AMG Says:

    Escalade V: This is comment is strictly academic since I would not buy the ridiculous, bad taste breadvan, if you put a gun to my head.

    But if somebody wants one of these in the “V” form, especially if she is not just a poseur that wants to be seen driving at 10 mph around the mall, and never tows anything,

    the perfectly great CT5 Blackwing engine is NOT a good fit.

    Such a vehicle should have a big turbodiesel with 1,000+ lbft and 500+ hp.

    It would also make it not only more competent all-around, but also much more fuel efficient! And for an Escalade V, fuel cost is not a pittance, even with our (still!) dirt-cheap gas prices ($3.50 a gallon unleaded today compared to the $4.50 peak in 2008? But that $4.50 cannot be compared unless you convert it to worthless 2022 Biden dollars, and then it is $7.50!)

  19. Wim van Acker Says:

    @18: what a pity that Larry D. is back. Ehh, Thor, Rey, S65AMG.

    My suggestion: adopt the right moniker for you, 2006E320Diesel, and become a normal person instead of a judgmental pompous jerk. Deal?

  20. Wim van Acker Says:

    @18: what a pity that Larry D. is back. Ehh, Thor, Rey, S65AMG.

    My suggestion is to adopt the right moniker for you, 2006E320Diesel, and become a normal person instead of a judgmental pompous jerk. Deal?

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    14 The Wuling EV has 110 mile NEDC range, equivalent to about 75 mile EPA range, plenty for most commutes, even in the US, if charged every day. Yes, we all know that its performance and lack of crashworthiness would make it unviable to sell in North America, except for Florida golf cart communities like The Villages.

    15 Battery swapping was common 45 years ago, for lead-acid batteries in fork lifts where I worked.

  22. ArtG Says:

    9. In the U.K., police will check phones to see if the driver was texting or talking just before a crash. Phones can be confiscated in certain cases. IDK how they can tell whether the phone was hand-held or Bluetooth was being used.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706182/Police-check-mobiles-EVERY-car-crash-Crackdown-calls-texting-wheel-bid-cut-deaths-distracted-drivers.html

  23. Kit Gerhart Says:

    18 The supercharged 6.2 will work just fine in the Cadillac monster truck, but will, of course, get horrible mpg. The regular V8 Escalade gets 14/19 mpg EPA ratings. The V ratings will probably be about 12/16.

    A little surprisingly, the 12 cylinder Rolls-Royce SUV gets 1 mpg better highway mileage than the Escalade, but the Rolls is probably smaller.

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=44254&id=44969&id=44556

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    20 What they are doing in the UK sounds like a great idea. I’ve read multiple places that the distraction is not much different between handheld, and hands free phone use, because the mental distraction is the most significant thing. Phone use while driving should probably be illegal in all cases.

  25. Merv Peters Says:

    I would like to know the accident stats regarding cell phones.

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    23 Here’s some information from Australia.

    https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/mobile-phone-car-accident-statistics-in-australia

  27. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Strange the Escalade is rated at 16/19 EPA. I rented an Escalade ESV for a family trip (SC to FLA) and saw consist 21/22 hwy mileage at 70 and some 75 mph; I was satisfied, though the ‘big girl’ did require premium. This was for approx. 800 miles at freeway speeds. It was 4WD, set to auto so probably two wheel by default.

  28. Drew Says:

    @22 – Cell phone use is distracting while driving. But there are different types of distractions… some are deadly and some are benign. Just like a conversation with a passenger in the vehicle… if you take your eyes of the road, you are in peril. If you can keep your eyes on the road and it sees danger ahead, your brain will automatically disengage from the conversation and then concentration on the danger.

    I recognize many people have missed a turn or expressway exit while talking on the phone (or talking to a passenger), but that distraction is an inconvenience… not necessarily deadly.

    BTW, both passenger and phone conversations can be beneficial… to prevent tedium or reduce drowsiness.

  29. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I’ve heard an argument that makes sense, that talking to a passenger is less dangerous than talking on a phone, because if “stuff happens,” the passenger will see it and scream, quit talking, etc. while someone at the other end of a phone conversation won’t be aware.

  30. Drew Says:

    Kit, yes, a passenger is another set of eyes. Fundamentally, if the driver’s eyes remain on the road, nearly all cell phone-related safety risks are mitigated.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 Surburban and Tahoe have 14/20 EPA ratings with the 6.2. Maybe because they are lighter, or maybe the Escalade has shorter gearing for performance?

  32. Bruce Says:

    How about replacing John’s baseball cap with a dark blue blazer with “Motorweek” appearing on the breast pocket.

  33. Barry Rector Says:

    John,
    Great seeing/hearing you on AD. Yes, you and your team are the reason I faithfully listen/watch your programs. You bring the best, most accurate and up to date info on the automotive industry! You guys are just awesome! Many thanks and keep up the great work!

  34. Barry Rector Says:

    John,
    Great seeing/hearing you on AD. Yes, you and your team are the reason I faithfully listen/watch your programs. You bring the best, most accurate and up to date info on the automotive industry! You guys are just awesome! Many thanks and keep up the great work!

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Speaking of gas mileage ratings, I noticed that the highway rating of my 2022 is 3 mpg lower than a 2021. I found out why. A majority of people are ordering them with the Z51 package, which has shorter gearing than base cars, so the Z51 mileage is what they use for the published ratings, and the numbers on the window sticker.

    https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2022-chevrolet-corvette-c8-3-mpg-worse/

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The city rating is one mpg higher, though.

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=43425&id=44451

    I got about 26.5 for my 1100 mile IN to FL trip, starting with about 300 miles on the car, going 80-82 most of the time on the interstate.

  37. ChuckGrenci Says:

    34, That’s pretty stellar gas mileage for 80plus mph; probably easy surpass 30 at a more sedate 75.

  38. MERKUR DRIVER Says:

    22) The problem with the UK system is that they look 5 minutes prior to the accident. So if you ended a call and then 5 minutes later there was an accident, the UK would say that the phone was to blame. That is not accurate nor is it helpful to determining what the root of the problem is.

  39. Kit Gerhart Says:

    35 Yeah, going slower would improve mileage, but not as much as with a high drag vehicle, like an Escalade. I have found that the minimum speed to get into 8th gear is 60, but once in 8th, you can slow down to 58 and it will stay in 8th. That kind of encourages going 58 on roads with 50 mpg speed limit where I might normally go only ~55. I don’t know how much difference in mpg it would make between 7th and 8th gear at those speeds, and it would be hard to find out, without miles of road to go steady speed.

  40. Lambo2015 Says:

    The issue’s with making battery swapping viable is no manufacturer is going to agree on a standard size battery let alone attachment points and connections. The technology is evolving so quickly that even todays batteries may be obsolete in as little as two years. Less time than it takes to launch a vehicle.
    In addition to that, battery swapping will most likely need to occur from under the vehicle unlike a forklift or golf cart. Thus would require a lift and hydraulic hoist to remove and replace the battery.
    The battery swapping scooters seem a perfect application where they can be small enough to manually lift in and out. Expandable to take 1 or more batteries and just overall manageable as they are typically removed from under the seat or mid section. Designing all EVs to have the batteries accessible from the top and broken into smaller modular designs with a common connection is the only way swapping will become viable outside of a fleet vehicles.

    I very much doubt either will happen anytime soon leaving battery swapping to the fleet/service vehicles.

  41. MERKUR DRIVER Says:

    38) You also have to put structure around the battery as it can no longer be a structural member of the car. Most of the latest EVs are all using the battery as a structural member. Anything that says skateboard chassis is likely using the battery as a structural member of the car. Swapping will prevent that as a design solution thereby making the cars even heavier and thusly lower range. It is an idea that has its merits in certain applications, but not in passenger vehicles at large in my opinion.

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38,39 When I mentioned fork lifts having battery swapping 45 years ago, I was not remotely saying that it would be practical for cars. The fork lifts had the batteries completely in the open in the back, all were probably the same brand, etc. When car companies can’t even standardize regular lead-acid car batteries to fewer than about 15 styles, there’s no way they will ever standardize batteries for EVs.