AD #2721 – California Amps Up Fight w/ Administration, Europe Wants to Grow Hydrogen Segment, Breakdowns Cost the Economy Billions

November 19th, 2019 at 11:44am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2721 – California Amps Up Fight w/ Administration, Europe Wants to Grow Hydrogen Segment, Breakdowns Cost the Economy Billions” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 8:08

0:08 California Won’t Buy GM, Toyota or FCA Vehicles
1:11 European Car Sales Up in October
1:58 Sales in India Continue to Slide
2:47 More Ford Mustang Mach-E Details
4:38 Europe Trying to Grow Hydrogen Segment
5:42 Mitsubishi Reveals New Mirage & Attrage
6:15 New Airbag Keeps Passengers from Colliding
6:45 Breakdowns Cost the Economy Billions

Visit our sponsor to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone.

»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:

48 Comments to “AD #2721 – California Amps Up Fight w/ Administration, Europe Wants to Grow Hydrogen Segment, Breakdowns Cost the Economy Billions”

  1. ChuckGrenci Says:

    While I don’t doubt the findings on the cost of breakdowns, first off while a reduction can probably be achieved, all of them certainly won’t and I wonder whether the jobs required for dealing with these breakdowns were incorporated in the equation. Bad and good need to be factored here.

  2. Lambo2015 Says:

    Typical California mentality, Do things our way or we will take our ball and go home. Rather than just negotiate to an acceptable middle-ground.

  3. Lambo2015 Says:

    Sean; Any word on where this center airbag is deployed from? You said the space between the driver and passenger but if that the center console I could see my arm getting blown into the air. Hopefully it deploys from the headliner.

  4. Tom Rae Says:

    1, I think replacement parts alone this year is estimates at near $60B

  5. Sean McElroy Says:

    @Lambo – It’s a seat mounted airbag that looks like it deploys from the side of one of the front seats.

  6. rick bradner Says:

    “California Won’t Buy GM, Toyota or FCA Vehicles”
    Wait for the Tweet – Trump will ban Federal agencies from buying Ford & Honda…
    I don’t think GM & Toyota will complain about the math -

  7. WineGeek Says:

    Hey Lambo I think California has the right idea. If you don’t want to produce cars to meet the emission standards we won’t buy your cars. If an organization puts out an RFQ and you don’t have a product to meet the requirements of this RFQ then you lose. By the way this administration doesn’t seem to have any desire to compromise on air quality standards they just want to pollute at the same level we did in 1950 and the hell with the rest of the world.

  8. Lambo2015 Says:

    5 Thanks Sean. Seems like we are moving toward eventually just wearing an inflatable suit that becomes a whole cocoon. About the time they have the 20 airbags fully developed to protect us AV’s should be available making them almost a better cost alternative.

  9. Sean McElroy Says:

    @Lambo – Like this?

  10. Kit Gerhart Says:

    2 I don’t really think Trump and his anti-environment minions are interested in much negotiating either. It seems that GM and FCA took sides, and the wrong one, at least for now. It won’t affect Toyota much, because governments don’t buy many Toyotas anyway.

    1 There don’t seem to be nearly as many breakdowns now, as there were in the “good old days” of the 50s and ’60s. Still, there are enough to cause problems, and cost a lot of money.

    Where do the Europeans plan to get that hydrogen, dissociating methane, or electrolyzing water using power generated from burning coal? Yeah, I’m being a little cynical, but I just don’t see hydrogen making sense as a fuel for vehicles, for multiple reasons, not the least is the need to carry it pressurized to 3000 psi in
    large tanks, to carry enough to go a couple hundred miles.

  11. Drew Says:

    @7 – Wow, that last sentence is quite an exaggeration. Its sensationalistic mischaracterization debases your point in your 1st two sentences.

  12. Lambo2015 Says:

    7 WineGeek; Cali isn’t refusing to buy vehicles from GM, Toyota and FCA because they don’t meet their standards. They are refusing to buy their vehicles because they support a push to having one US standard. What that standard is, still needs to be negotiated. Besides their major cities like LA, San Diego and San Francisco could still pass EV requirements like many cities are already doing without requiring manufacturers to build to two different emission standards.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    7,12 The administration is wanting to go backward in nearly every aspect of improving the environment, while even China is moving forward, though they obviously have a long way to go. If GM, FCA, and Toyota just want one standard, why not an improved standard, rather than a step backward, or sideways?

    BTW, many, or most cars are not built to two different emission standards. Both my Camry and Corvette have 50 state emissions. I don’t know if all 2016 Corvettes are 50 state, but mine, bought in Indiana, is. I suspect GM, FCA, and Toyota don’t don’t want higher zero emission requirements, because they are, uhh, weak in that area.

  14. wmb Says:

    GM claims that hey didn’t make/haven’t made any money on the Volt/ELR and the Bolt EV’s. With the market showing what it can bare (bare?) with Tesla, perhaps Ford will be able to do make some money with the Mach E at this price point?! My question is, did the union know that the Mach E was not going to built in the US? Or was that the reason that Ford wanted to get their contract ratified so quickly, before the Mach E and it’s production site was introduced to the public? I’m sure conspiracy theories have their minds made up on that point already!

  15. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Even at current emission levels the automobile is sqeaky clean and while improvements can be made I believe we continue to be on the right course. I can’t and won’t quote our own John M. but I do recall him stating that a carlife cycle should probably be granted to meet a higher emission target. And also this is about a one-standard for the country which to me makes the most sense especially with the burden of trying to launch all these BEV’s of which levy a great financial burden.

  16. Lambo2015 Says:

    13 Kit Taken from the link in todays transcript.
    “In August 2018, the Trump administration proposed freezing fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026,”

    That doesn’t sound backwards to me it sounds like a freeze at current requirements.

    Also taken from that same transcript since Cali will not be buying GM vehicles.

    “Removing vehicles like the Chevy Bolt and prohibiting GM and other manufacturers from consideration will reduce California’s choices for affordable, American-made electric vehicles and limit its ability to reach its goal of minimizing the state government’s carbon footprint, a goal that GM shares.”

    So again Cali in their pursuit to do things their way will likely cost their tax payers more money and possibly miss the overall target.

  17. Brett Cammack Says:

    California is the USA’s sociopolitical laboratory. What happens there eventually ends up everywhere else in ten years.

  18. Kit Gerhart Says:

    16 Yeah, it would be freezing fuel efficiency requirements, rather than moving forward, but the rest of the world is moving forward.

    I don’t know how many Bolts the CA government was buying, but if very many, that is a good point. They may need to buy more locally made Tesla Model 3s for their electric vehicles.

  19. Lambo2015 Says:

    17 Great! Then the rest of the country can expect 40% of their population to be living in poverty and have a huge homeless problem. L.A. alone has 60,000 homeless people. Maybe that’s how they plan to lower the carbon footprint. Cant pollute too much if you don’t have a house let alone a car.

  20. victor west Says:

    World markets are moving toward what California has done. If US automakers want to remain vital, they will have to move toward the cleanest possible no matter what the US climate change deniers say.

  21. Bishop Says:

    Exactly, victor & Kit.

    If you’re standing still, you’re getting left behind.

    The reason Calif is at the sharp point in regards to environmental issues is because when one flew into LA back in the 60′s / 70′s, it was like flying into Beijing (on a bad smog day)today. It looked like a low cloud cover – but it was smog. I know a lot of peeps like to bash Calif, but I take my hat off to them for doing something about it. Otherwise, it would have become unlivable years ago for the human species.

    You want to talk taxpayer $$$? How about Calif’s GSP (economy) is bigger than all but U.S., China, Germany, Japan, & U.K. Bigger than even France (probably getting close to $3T/yr now). I’d say that protecting their environment is pretty important (and to their taxpayers).

  22. Lambo2015 Says:

    21 Just because CA has buying power doesn’t mean it should be allowed to operate like a separate entity. It is a state of the union and should be working with the government not running rogue. Different regulations cost manufacturers money and honestly in this day I’m not sure why a global emissions standard has not been established.
    The point is emissions is much like fuel economy and at some point you plateau. The improvements that can be made start to dwindle. You fix the big problems then the little problems and soon your left with very small improvements that can be made. No different than if the EPA said, hey from 1980 to 1982 you were able to improve 8 MPG from 18 to 26 in just two years so technically at a 4mpg per year we should be at 100mpg right now. We are not because it isn’t possible at least without sacrificing something else like weight, emissions or cost.

    So next time you hear someone whine about a new car costing $36,000 remember its not just because todays cars have tons of electronics improved safety but they also have 50 years of advancements in fuel economy and emissions since the clean air act. A catalytic converter alone can cost $200 to $1500.

  23. Gary Susie Says:

    I drove thru downtown LA in the late fifties and could barely see the office buildings because of the pollution. Now it is so much better because of their laws.

  24. Larry D. Says:

    “NEW MIRAGE & ATTRAGE” Did they mean “outRAGE”?

    1. Is this the way to get jobs? By making crappy cars and thus creating the need for the mechanics? sounds a ludicrous way to grow the economy to me. BEVs, as everybody knows already, will have far less maintenance and repairs, by definition, than the far more complex iCEs, and thus dealers and mechanics are already worried. They should plan ahead instead of trying to hold on to loser jobs.

    7 I fully agree with you and disagree with 2, on this particular item. But as 11 says, your last statement is utterly wrong, this administration has had ENOUGH of the US being the SUCKERS of the world, and have CHina and India pollute MUCH MORE than the US AND being EXEMPT from the Paris accord provisions. This administration is not your typical CORRUPT politicians that looks to line their pockets, and this is why it will not last long, with one or the other excuse. ALL of (legally) corrupt Washington is against it.

  25. Larry D. Says:

    17 I often thought about that well known saying when I see 50% of the BEV cars are sold in CA. The Q is when will the rest of the US follow. First, they have to allow Tesla to sell in all 50 states directly to the customer. The current restrictions are 100% outrageous, and once more point to the legalized corruption of politicians, Fed, State, or local.

  26. Larry D. Says:

    18 NO, the”REST OF THE WORLD” is not moving forward. Only Europe, and CHina because the dictators in Beijing don’t want to inhale polluted air and not make it to 110 years old. the VAST majority of the rest of the world, incl Japan, are STILL not doing anything, but instead, nations like INDIA, with its 1.3 billion, pollute in the worst way.

  27. Bob Wilson Says:

    OWCH! I hope those Mach-E technical specs are wrong. Back of the envelope, the kWh/100 mi looks pretty grim ( 230 mi / 75 kWh ~= 32.6 kWh/100 mi.) As I compared these numbers to my Standard Range Plus Model 3, the higher efficiency lets the Tesla shame the Mach-E. However, Ford still has time to tweak the car so I’ll wait for the EPA metrics and head-to-head comparisons.

    Compared to the iPace and e-tron, the Mach-E is easily fair competition and USA built too. IMHO, LG Chem sure supports a lot of mediocre EVs. Something is wrong.

  28. Larry D. Says:

    20 see 26. NO, the “rest of the world” is much WORSE than the US in pollution, except Europe. and CHina, while it has a ton of BEVs, is a HUGE polluter with the “one a week” coal fired plants it built over the last 30 years, which it is not closing down, only also developing renewables (I can see the windmills from my 10th floor balcony here, and unlike the spoiled Kennedys, the liberal hypocrites who fought tooth and nail to not have a wind park near their precious Hayannisport estate (compound), I like the view).

  29. Kit Gerhart Says:

    This administration has destroyed America’s reputation around the world, as it alienates allies, abandons international agreements, and more.

    And the US emits more greenhouse gases per capita than India or Chins, but has been surpassed by Australia, with their dominance of coal for electricity generation.

  30. Bob Wilson Says:

    As for California “will no longer buy new vehicles for state-owned fleets from . . ., Toyota . . .” What a great time to stop paying $2M/each for new hydrogen fuel cell stations. Let the hydrogen fuel cell advocates pay fuel station costs with each car (and annual registration.)

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    30 Yeah, fuel cell cars don’t make sense anyway, until hydrogen becomes free.

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:

    26 Sorry, I should have said “the rest of the developed world.”

  33. Kit Gerhart Says:

    27 The big battery, rwd E-thing is supposed to have 300 mile range. It will built in Mexico, former source of US market Fiesta.

  34. Kit Gerhart Says:

    33 The same plant in Mexico as the Fiesta.

  35. Larry D. Says:

    Yesterday I saw the A6 L version in black and chrome, it looked perfect, not like a modification of an existing SWB design.

    And yet if I had a choice, I probably would not bother to get an “L” version of either of my E 320s, the one overseas is already too big and bulky for downtown driving, and the one in the US, I seldom, if ever, have passengers in the back seat. But for a couple with two big kids, (and growing tall), the L is the obvious choice, as the regular E has a huge trunk but with the front seats moved back, the rear legroom is not limo-like like in my 740iL

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    35 The L versions of those cars would make sense, only if the back seat is used a lot. The short ones would be at least a little more nimble, and in most cases, would look better.

  37. cwolf Says:

    I believe there should be only one world emissions standard. But, I also believe these standards only apply to ICE’s without EV’s included in setting averages nor allow manufactures to sell “credits” for the sole purpose of distorting another’s true values.
    Why are standards so hard to understand and complex, when a simple approach makes wanting to resolve problems easier to deal with; Especially between countries of different cultures and politics?

  38. cwolf Says:

    I fail to see the message or what is to be learned from knowing the cost of break downs, other than it is an interesting tid-bit.
    In comparison to the $41B annum, the cost to commuters spend $110B just in transit each year.
    I doubt half of these drivers get into accidents, so it is the COST of being involved in one is the issue….but still unclear.
    So we have facts that EV’s cost less to maintain, so can one conclude any auto repair costs remain unchanged, probably higher for EV’s ($1500 door handles).
    Since commuter distances seem to be increasing, people may come to favor EV’s more in the future; And the more time on the road, the potential to be have an accident increases, so the cost of break-downs and commuting should continue to rise. Are these costs something to be expected as a result of cleaner air, or does mass transit need to be given more value?
    I have no answer, just food for thought.

  39. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 It would seem that the cost to maintain an ICE would be higher than for an EV, for the first 10-15 years. You’d have $100/year for oil changes, with synthetic oil, for $1500 dollars in 15 years. You might a a few hundred dollars of other maintenance. With an EV you’d have almost no routine maintenance, other than stuff that would be the same for an ICE or EV, like tires, wiper blades, etc. Then, though, at about 15 years the EV might need a $20K battery, while unless you are unlucky, the ICE car still won’t need more than a few hundred dollars in repairs a year. Yeah, there will be used batteries from crashed cars, but still…

    The US certainly needs better mass transit. It is better in many “third world” countries.

    As far as breakdown on the side of the road, they would be very rare with both. The last breakdown I had was with a 1966 Dodge in about 1972, when the fuel pump failed.


    I love the per capita figures people quote. As if it somehow gives pass to the worst polluters of the world. However I love it because per capita my F150 Supercrew 4×4 is more efficient than a toyota Prius. I just love that per capita math.

  41. Kit Gerhart Says:

    40 Huh… How, exactly, is your truck, per capita, more efficient than a Prius? It uses 4 times as much gas in city driving, and carries the same number of people, and if it’s like most similar vehicles, it doesn’t carry much else. Yes, your situation may be different. Maybe you are towing a back hoe to a work site most of the time, but most of these trucks are usually hauling only a driver, and little else.

    As far as greenhouse emissions by a country, per capita is the only reasonable measure.

  42. Larry D. Says:

    36 The L versions look just as good, and probably better, than their regular length versions, and if you carry 4 real people in them, they can travel in perfect, no compromise comfort, just like in the L versions of the bigger heavier flagship models, which are a bit more luxurious but do not offer any more comfort for 4 passengers total. If you try to sneak a 5th in the back seat, even the flagships are not tolerable on long trips. That’s why many flagship [premium models cost even more with a strict 4 seat design, with a divider between the back thrones, and not an uncomfortable, ill-fitting bench like in the Lincoln TOwn car, whose front passenger seat is just excellent, but the back is a crude bench.

  43. Kit Gerhart Says:

    42 Do they have stretch Camrys and Accords in China, or only more premium cars?

  44. Larry D. Says:

    Never saw an Accord here, and only 1-2 Camrys. I’ve been driven in a stretched Jetta VW with nice wood and interior back inj 2016. Plenty of leg room in the back. Today I saw another Merc E L that looked like a Maybach S, then saw its back and it said.. E 200 L and on the right, 4MATIC.

    I wonder if the 200 has a real 2 lt engine or some joke 1.5, or other sub-2 lt engine. The car looked enormous and imposing. I have no idea why it had to be 4matic in Shanghai, where it almost never snows. Maybe it was a visiting bigwig.

    Just came back from one of these fantastic Chinese group dinners (banquet really) inside the campus, far better than the out of campus restaurant we were invited yesterday, also had alcohol ( Chinese red wine, quite good, served from decanter etc) first time since I had alcohol on the flight to shanghai on Nov 1-2. Outstanding dishes, and the 7 of us who sat on the round table with the round rotating disc on top of it did not eat half of the various dishes and soups. Very stimulating discussion with colleagues from China, Hong Kong, S Korea, Sweden, India.

  45. Larry D. Says:

    I have also seen Skoda Superbs in China, a stretch version of the Passat essentially, the Name had been used in much older, pre-VW Skodas for a large sedan. I also see Superbs in the old country, I believe several bishops or archbishops use them as their official cars.

  46. Kit Gerhart Says:

    44 I found that the engine in the E200L is, in fact, a 1.6 turbo. The car would probably as good of gas mileage with the 2.0, but maybe using the 1.6 is to get people to pay extra for the E300 with the 2.0.

    Stretch sedans like that make a lot of sense, if the back seat will be used much. The stretch would add little weight, and no aero drag, while even a 4 inch stretch would make the back seat significantly roomier.

  47. Kit Gerhart Says:

    45 I remember seeing Skodas when in Czechoslovakia in 1992. Most I remember were small, rear engine cars, but there were a few large sedans, probably used by the party bosses when new.

  48. Larry D. Says:

    47 Czech/kia also had the Tatra brand, large and probably expensive cars with very weird shapes, named after a mountain range there. They became a bit more mainstream in the 60s or 70s and then disappeared.

    I know an owner of an old Skoda as above who lives in the old country and is a.. dentist to the insane (literally his job is to be a dentist at a well known insane asylum). He liked that car a lot, but maybe he did not know any better.