Follow us on social media:
Runtime: 10:46
0:00 Stella Could Ax Alfa, Maserati, DS & Lancia
1:14 U.S. Autos, Jobs to Grow If Trump Does Nothing
2:07 India Limits EV Charging Investment
2:50 France Wants EU Relief for CO2 Regs
4:02 Tesla Sales Forecast to Drop
4:45 Trump Shuts Down EV Chargers at Gov Buildings
5:12 Mercedes Gives Up on Dedicated EV Platforms
6:46 BMW To Delay Mini EV Production
7:22 Autoline Poll on Fuel Cells
Visit our sponsor to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone, Intrepid Control Systems and Teijin Automotive.
This is Autoline Daily, the show dedicated to enthusiasts of the global automotive industry.
STELLA COULD AX ALFA, MASERATI, DS & LANCIA
Whoever eventually gets hired as the new CEO of Stellantis will have some big decisions to make. Most experts believe that it’s too expensive to feed 14 brands, so some may have to go. Reuters reports Stellantis is only looking at resumes of execs who already have a plan for what to do with its brands, otherwise they’re not the right candidate. So, the big questions become what brands get merged and/or do they go away completely? Looking at it from a sales standpoint, Reuters has this great chart that shows that Alfa Romeo, Lancia, and DS contribute only 1% each to the company’s total sales. Maserati is less than 1%. Chrysler and Dodge contribute about 3% each, while Fiat, Peugeot, Jeep and Ram provide almost all the rest. Those smaller brands have fans all over the world and it would be hard to see any go away, but that’s what they said about Plymouth, Mercury, Saturn, Oldsmobile and Pontiac.
U.S. AUTOS, JOBS TO GROW IF TRUMP DOES NOTHING
President Trump wants to slap 25% import tariffs on all imported vehicles to force automakers to start building more cars and trucks in the United States. So will it work? Right now, nobody knows. So RFQ Insights created a baseline forecast for the next couple of years that looks at U.S. production and jobs, and assumes that Trump does not slap on the tariffs and assumes he does not cut EV subsidies. The forecast says U.S. production will increase by 482,000 vehicles by 2027 and that manufacturing jobs in the industry will go up by 85,000. That’s if Trump does nothing. And RFQ Insights says we can measure the impact of tariffs and the elimination of EV subsidies by comparing what actually happens to this baseline.
| TRACKING TRUMP’S IMPACT (in millions) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | |
| U.S. Production | 10.8 | 11.1 | 11.3 |
| U.S. Auto Mfg Jobs | 1.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| Source: RFQ Insights | |||
INDIA LIMITS EV CHARGING INVESTMENT
India wants automakers to prioritize investment in EV production instead of the EV charging infrastructure. Last year, India launched a new policy to attract EV investment. If a company pledges to invest at least $500 million in an EV factory, it can then import cars at a 15% tariff, instead of 100%. But Reuters reports that India will only allow automakers to count 5% of their total EV investment towards the charging infrastructure, even if they spend more than that. That seems to be a slap at Tesla because it’s probably about the only automaker that would build its own charging network there.
FRANCE WANTS EU RELIEF FOR CO2 REGS
Automakers in Europe face massive fines over CO2 emissions. Last week, two EV advocate groups sent letters to the EU, urging it to not back off its CO2 rules for this year. But now France is stepping up to the plate and is asking the EU to give automakers more flexibility. Automakers say they face up to €15 billion in fines for missing CO2 goals this year alone, so France is proposing a “bank-borrowing system” which would allow OEMs to average out their emissions over one or two years to meet the target. Currently, automakers must “pool” their emissions with companies that are compliant in order to avoid fines. But that can be expensive and France says it hurts the competitiveness of the European industry. The EU is expected to reveal its plan on CO2 rules in early March.
TESLA SALES FORECAST TO DROP
It could be a rough sales year for Tesla. Volumes had already started slipping in all major markets around the world and now Kalshi, a prediction market, forecasts that Tesla will deliver only around 360,000 vehicles globally in the first quarter. That would be a 7% drop from last year, a 27% decline from last quarter and the lowest level it’s seen since Q3 of 2022. Things like the ramp up of the new Model Y could help explain some of Tesla’s recent performance, but if the trend continues there’s likely other factors at play, like EV shoppers who want nothing to do with Elon Musk.
TRUMP SHUTS DOWN EV CHARGERS AT GOV BUILDINGS
U.S. federal employees that own EVs might be looking for a new place to charge. The General Services Administration or GSA, which manages office buildings for the government, said it received direction from the Trump Administration to start shutting down its EV chargers as early as this week. The GSA owns about 8,000 chargers, which were deemed “not mission-critical.”
MERCEDES GIVES UP ON DEDICATED EV PLATFORMS
Just a few years ago the thinking about electric cars was that it was best to have a dedicated EV platform built in a dedicated EV assembly plant. That would allow automakers to optimize both the vehicle and its manufacturing for the best efficiency. But then EVs failed to sell as well as the industry expected. And the dedicated platform and plant strategy turned out to be really expensive. So we’re seeing automakers pivot to platforms that can accommodate any kind of powertrain and plants that can build all those variations. Mercedes-Benz is the latest to make the pivot for both passenger cars and commercial vans. On the van side, Mercedes has a platform called Van Electric Architecture, or VAN.EA, and a variant called Van Combustion Architecture, or VAN.CA, which will share 70% of their parts. It will do the same thing on the passenger car side, and will no longer use the EQ name as a separate brand for its new EVs. Instead, EVs will use the same model names as their ICE versions with EQ Technology added to it. So when the electric version of the CLA comes out later this year, it will be called the CLA with EQ Technology. While multi-powertrain platforms and plants make all the sense in the world from a capital spending standpoint, they’re still less efficient than using dedicated platforms and plants.
BMW TO DELAY MINI EV PRODUCTION
Another automaker is rethinking its EV plans. BMW announced that it is reconsidering the timetable for producing electric Minis in the UK. Two years ago, the automaker invested more than $750 million at its plant in Oxford to make electric Minis starting in 2026 and it planned to make the brand all-electric by 2030. But BMW is now rethinking that plan because of “multiple uncertainties” in the auto industry and its reviewing the timing for starting EV production in the UK.
AUTOLINE POLL ON FUEL CELLS
We’ve got the results of our latest poll. On Friday, we asked “What do you think the future is for fuel cells running on hydrogen?” And most of you don’t seem very optimistic. 38% said hydrogen fuel cells will never happen. 18% said, maybe sometime in the future, but not now. 36% think that fuel cells make sense for long-haul trucking, but not for passenger vehicles. And only 9% thought the future for fuel cells looks bright. Over 1,400 of you voted in the poll and posted 91 comments, some of which were quite detailed and thoughtful. The comments ranged from those in favor, like @mikef8639, who said, “Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. We need to find a way to use it for energy.” But that was countered by tonamiplayman4305 who pointed out, “H2 fuel cells have failed to deliver in passenger cars, in long haul trucking, and German transit agencies have canceled their fuel cell train projects for battery electric trains.” And then there was Klay, who posted on the Autoline website, that “If there was another option I would say the best use case is a silent backup generator for buildings or large cargo ships.” Thanks to all of you who participated, and we especially value your comments. We’ll post another poll later this week.
But that brings us to the end of today’s show. Thanks for making Autoline a part of your day.
Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com
Sean, I don’t pretend to understand marketing, but why can’t excess brands just become single model? A single model could focus on what the brand attributes are supposed to be and, if popular, lead to the model becoming a brand again. On the flip side, if the single model bombs, you know that no one cares if the name disappears.
I’m not sure how people don’t see the emission regulations are just another hidden tax. So you set standards that can’t be met. Manufacturers are forced to pay fines. They won’t lose money so the fines get rolled into the price of their vehicles and end result. The public pays more for vehicles to achieve nothing. So where does the millions in fines go? I mean I get trying to lower emissions but this cycle is just silly.
I’m not sure who is telling Sean that not having a dedicated EV line is less efficient but it has to be minimal or maybe they need to hire some good manufacturing engineers. They have for years run multiple vehicles down the same line and in the assembly process the skateboard or lower section of the car that would house the engine suspension gas tank is the same for an EV with its battery and motors. So that assembly is actually done on a sub line that feeds the assembly line. The body is married to the chassis and interior installed. So I’m not really sure why they make this sound so difficult. My experience tells me it’s not but they like to give excuses why EVs are so expensive. And I see this as nothing more than an excuse.
Though his admin is stopping current investment into anything EV as there is just too much waste to account for. So everything is off the table abd will get reassigned.
I think the problem with EPA and other standards are that they are not useful. If you believe in climate change as a serious problem, you would want to get all emissions for all vehicles down as quickly as practical. There is absolutely no way to achieve useful quick results while still allowing ICE vehicles. So publicly admit that and set a 5 to 10 year sunset clause on them. People will adjust; we always have. But at least we won’t spend all our time talking about what works and doesn’t work with EVs. It will be like we’re suddenly on the moon and all vehicles are EV. Live with it.
If you believe the climate change problem is not as serious, then set stretch goals for manufacturers but not unrealistic ones that result in billions of dollars of fines. This just means people are enriching the government unnecessarily while still producing too much pollution. And figure out better ways to punish companies than just fine them.
My opinion on Tesla sales volume has not changed much. The product is just old and tiresome. They need fresh new products with much better styling and infinitely better interiors. This model Y refresh is a snooze fest to me. They have put lipstick on a pig with that refresh. They are going to falter because they spent too much time on the top and did not adapt quickly enough to the latest in consumer preference/taste.
All EV designs are lackluster. If, for example, Porsche made the unsellable Taycan’s styling as super sporty as the GT3, they’d sell a lot more of them. And maybe they’d even not lose 75% of their value in a year like they currently do.
The issue of emissions is two fold and the first part has two sides. ALD pointed out years ago that automobiles are just 20% of harmful emissions. The biggest contributors to these emissions are the cities around the world. There is no way a politician/lawmakers is going to require cities, big or small, to live up to the same standards that they are making the automakers live up to! Period! The cost of that type of change would be too much for a city, with their century’s old infrastructure, to live up to those standards! It will be political suicide to even suggest such a thing. If they did, who would wind up paying the cost?! The citizens in those city! The end result is trillions of dollars to the residents. Then there is the billion, if not trillions of dollars needed to transition the vehicles that delivery all the good and services that we use on a daily bases. The emissions of the vehicles and equipment used at seaports, for every type of construction, along with worldwide travel.
The second thing, unlike metropolitan cities., automakers have vehicle platforms take are changed and updated ever 6 to 10 years. So, the opportunity for fairly quick change and turn around, has fallen on them. OEMs were already having to update the IC engines, to ever stringent emission rules and the ever increasing cost they had to either eat, but, more often, past on to the consumer. With EVs, the thought was that they could get out that cycle and put the onus on another party to address how they produced the energy and off them on and emissions. But, the cost of EVs was so .much more and not so easy to digest for the consumer and OEMs were greedy in their forecasts. While the cost of an EV might be absorbed much more easily on bigger vehicles., the hit to the range the heavier vehicle, makes it impractical in the sight of many. I don’t think it’s ever been about emissions for the OEMs, but getting away from all the regulations and the thought building a vehicle that required fewer parts, less personnel to assemble and the savings and increased revenue they could have, if that was to come to fuition!
Yet, here we are! There is instability in the market, law/policymakers doing an about-face and/or flip-flop on the direction they had given just a few years ago, despite automakers having already invested billions into making what they wanted, while the consumer is fed facts, fiction, truth, half-trurths and, in some cases, straight out lies about the ICE/BEV conundrum that is before them! Regardless of what side of the emissions aisle you find yourself, the planet is not the same as it was 125 years ago. Whether the challenges we face are man made or not, one thing is certain, nothing will change for the better, as long as people are at odds as to what to do about it! And the beat goes on!
Transportation accounts for 29% of US greenhouse gas emissions. Private use vehicles are about 2/3 of that. It’s not a huge percentage of the total, but easier to do something about than some of the other sources, given the replacement rate of vehicles. US non-road vehicle emissions are horrible, compared to many other places, because airplanes, using many times as much energy, are used where fast trains would be much better.
Here is info about the sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
It’s ironic that the law makers that make emissions policies for the automakers, are creating them from inside building and cities that are, collectively, bigger contributors to harmful emissions then the automakers ever were! Yet, OEMs take the brunt of the attack on dealing with emissions. Several months ago, my family took a flight on a short vacation. At the shuttle pickup and drop off area, the fumes from those vehicles in that enclosed area at both airports, was almost over powering! One would think that tho vehicles provided that service would be perfect as EVs, since they are on a closed loop of sorts. In that they constantly going back and forth to the same airport-to-hotel, or parking garage and there is a lot of braking involved. That is just one area, but an airport is a huge space, and between the planes, airport support vehicles, private vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers, taxis and shuttles and then operating the airport complex itself, and one begins to see just how hard it is to crack the nut of harmful emissions can be! Yet, as they say, you have to start somewhere. IMHO, automakers are just attempting to get out of the crosshairs of regulators, by electrifying their fleets!
wmb, I agree that airport shuttles would be a great application for EVs, if they could do a day’s run on a charge, and charge overnight. Maybe that will happen, as older ones get replaced.
As far as buildings, newer ones are more efficient than, say, my 90 year old house in Indiana, but since buildings generally last a lot longer than vehicles, reduction in energy usage from them will come slower. The “culture” of the US is very wasteful of energy, not only because of the thing with huge vehicles, but also, with single family homes in the suburbs. My condo in Florida in a 35 unit building uses probably a third as much energy to heat and cool as a similar size house. Most of the developed world has a much greater use of high density housing.
wmb well said and I agree that much of the attraction to EVs from auto makers was likely the lower cost to manufacture. Less parts less labor and a simplicity that if not for the costs of materials would allow for a low price car. With the high costs and other pitfalls to the consumer like charging times and range the interest just wasn’t there to the levels they planned on. For years on here I been saying Evs have a place and they are wrong for thinking they are the fix all 100% replacement for ice. They aren’t. Just like diesel has its place turbines have their place 2 strokes haves place and hydrogen will likely have a great fit somewhere. And utilizing each one where it makes sense taking advantage of its strengths is the smart thing to do. When development can make one tech replace the other and it’s better it naturally happens. Forcing one is just a recipe for disaster and waste.
Light duty vehicles, which are the ones bearing all the effort to reduce green-house gasses, account for 13-14% in the U.S. That’s according to the EPA.