AD #3370 – Germany Slashes EV Subsidies; Tesla Charging Fee to Use Nav; GM Q2 Earnings Down Sharply

July 26th, 2022 at 11:55am

Audio-only version:
Listen to “AD #3370 – Germany Slashes EV Subsidies; Tesla Charging Fee to Use Nav; GM Q2 Earnings Down Sharply” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 10:21

0:07 Germany Slashes EV Subsidies
0:48 Faraday Future Needs More Money
1:17 GM Q2 Earnings Down Sharply
2:42 Detroit 3 Support Chip Act
4:16 Tesla Charging Fee to Use Nav
5:06 Tesla Really Ramps Up Production in China
5:43 Tesla Posts GigaPress Video
6:14 Sono’s BEV Uses Solar Power
8:02 GM Locks Up EV Raw Materials
9:02 VW Starts Making ID.4 in the U.S.

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

14 Comments to “AD #3370 – Germany Slashes EV Subsidies; Tesla Charging Fee to Use Nav; GM Q2 Earnings Down Sharply”

  1. Lambo2015 Says:

    I really question if Faraday Future is legit at this point. Or are they so mismanaged that they don’t know how much money they need to launch a vehicle that is now 5 years late. As Sean said they said at one point they didn’t need anymore money and now need 325 Million. I would be concerned if I were an investor.

    As the EV subsidies go away it will be interesting to see how that affects sales.

  2. Albemarle Says:

    I think EV subsidies are a nice bonus for the purchaser. We got $14,000 rebate from the Ontario government when we bought our Bolt in 2017. Lovely, but ridiculous. We would have bought the Bolt regardless, and I think that’s the point. Subsidies do pivot purchasers to companies that still have them and away from those who have run out, but I believe they don’t increase the overall EV sales.

    The much higher cost of EVs means that those who demand a return on investment before purchasing an EV are just using this as an excuse to not go electric.

  3. GM Veteran Says:

    Because EVs were more expensive than comparably sized ICE vehicles, I think that the subsidies do help some buyers decide to go electric. However, I don’t think they are necessary for EVs over $60k. If you are considering a vehicle in that price range you don’t need the assistance and are more likely buying it for non-utilitarian reasons like styling, exclusivity, etc. Our tax dollars don’t need to help a buyer get into a $70,000 Lyric or a $100,000 Model S.

    While prices continue to equalize with ICE models, assisting a family to get into a $45k Blazer, a $48k Mach E or even a Model Y is not such a bad idea. In another couple of years, they won’t be necessary as OEMs launch more EVs with reasonable price tags (like the coming $30k ish Chevy Equinox, among others)

  4. Nicolas T Says:

    With agreements for Li ion battery secured for GM and Ford (and Tesla) using current tech thru 2030, it really seems solid state tech is out of question for the rest of the decade, at least in significant volumes.

  5. Kit Gerhart Says:

    3 The cheapest Model Y is now $65,990 plus $1200 destination fee, ~$22K more than the base Mach-E.

  6. Lambo2015 Says:

    2 I don’t think making the case for a ROI is an excuse to not go electric. Just good economic decision making. When you have two products to choose from and one is significantly more expensive. I expect more out the more expensive version. You get what you pay for right? Either its better quality more features or its name brand which makes sense sometimes. Right now that more expensive version, cost more, does less and has limitations making it inconvenient.
    So just looking at it from a practical standpoint or financial decision an EV doesn’t make sense to me. So its not an excuse, I prefer to spend my money wisely.


    Silly me for paying nothing for navigation on my phone with live traffic updating.

  8. GM Veteran Says:

    @5 Oops! Guess I should have said Model 3. Even that may not be a good example much longer at the rate Tesla keeps raising their prices. Sheesh!

  9. wmb Says:

    IMHO, when it comes to subscription services in vehicles, nothing that is classically associated with driving the vehicle should be apart of a subscription program. A sub for heated seats and steering wheel? Crazy talk! A subscription for free over the air radio? Ridiculous! A sub for navigation? I’m on the fence with that one, but fork to my nose and that is a sub that I could unhappily live with! For unless your traveling all the time, how much would you use it? So it would be something I could live without. The same is true with Tesla’s AutoPilot and FSD, along with GM and Ford’s Super Cruz and Ford Cruse. One classically purchase a vehicle to driver it, so to have it do all the driving is an added service, so I could see that it may come with a nominal monthly cost. Yet, on the other hand, if you charge a sub for these, why not for regular cruse control too? Along with lane keep assist and the feature that allows you to keep a specific distance behind another vehicle?! Where does it all stop? Just as challenging is that huge TV screen in the back seat of the new i7, is a head scratcher. To pay a sub to watch of the air TV is crazy, but to stream TV requires an internet connection, so there is already a cost, then there is the streaming service itself and now a sub from BMW to use the TV too? Seems excessive.

  10. Chris Hail Says:

    I’m really getting tired of my tax dollars bring spent to entice other people to buy electric vehicles that aren’t really really for full use. Early adopters are going to buy then regardless.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The only car related “subscription” I’ve ever donr is SiriusXM, at $50 for a year. I may, or may not continue, depending on if I can continue for thr same price.

  12. Sean Wagner Says:

    The GM/LG Chem deal to procure and refine essential precursors to modern battery cell production is highly significant.

    China practically owns that part of the business.

    And like with many elements of a sensible industrial policy, it shouldn’t be the unfeasible “attempt to make it all in the US and fail at great cost”, but rather create a global supply chain bypassing China.

    Which is why we needed the Trans-Pacific Partnership for Trade. China didn’t wait a second to jump in. Similarly, we never got mirrored tariffs for cars either.

    On subsidies, they helped accelerate early adoption, but need to be phased out. And I agree that the early adopters weren’t the ones who required additional incentives.

    Here in Switzerland (with admittedly high purchasing power), Tesla has become the second-best selling marque overall (!) as of H1’22 without significant government help.

  13. ChuckGrenci Says:

    I agree with the many here about purchasing subscriptions, if it’s part of the vehicle and had an upcharge to begin with, no subscription should be tolerated; a service that provides updated content or third party (e.g.,Sirius), then yes, as an option.

  14. Lambo2015 Says:

    As with any product, cost is based on what the market will bear. As long as consumers refuse to pay subscription services for vehicle options OEMs will have no choice but to toss this horrible idea out the window. When they incur the cost to place the options on the vehicle and 10% opts to pay for the service they will likely change plans.