Follow us on social media:
Runtime: 12:06
0:00 U.S. Senate Blocks California EV Mandate
1:14 GAO Rules Freezing EV Charging Funds Illegal
1:45 Akio Toyoda Wins Back Support from Investors
2:40 U.S. OEMs Want Same Tariff Deal as UK
3:30 Chinese EU Car Sales Soar 79% In April
4:07 GM EV Market Share in U.S. Hits 14%
6:00 Xiaomi Officially Unveils YU7 SUV
7:52 Ford Accuses California Lawyers of Fraud
9:16 Used Car Prices Top $30,000 Once Again
10:09 Rivian Creates Stylish Camo Wraps
Visit our sponsor to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Intrepid Control Systems and Teijin Automotive.
This is Autoline Daily, the show dedicated to enthusiasts of the global automotive industry.
U.S. SENATE BLOCKS CALIFORNIA EV MANDATE
The U.S. Senate voted to repeal California’s waiver that allows it to set its own vehicle emission standards, which blocks the state’s plan to end sales of ICE-only vehicles by 2035. The bill now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature. California’s mandate was adopted by 11 other states but automakers and dealers lobbied hard to get rid of it because they say the goals aren’t achievable and will limit consumer choice. And while they celebrated the vote, the battle isn’t over. California governor Gavin Newsome announced the state is filing a lawsuit because it claims Congress doesn’t have the legal authority to rescind the waiver. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office said the waivers can’t be repealed using the Congressional Review Act. But Republicans in Congress did anyway, which is setting up this legal battle. And the Senate didn’t stop at light-duty vehicles, it also revoked California’s plan for stricter emission regulations for heavy-duty trucks, which the EPA approved in 2023.
GAO RULES FREEZING EV CHARGING FUNDS ILLEGAL
And that’s not the only legal battle involving electric vehicles. Earlier this month, California and 16 other states filed a lawsuit over the Transportation Department freezing $5 billion in funds that Congress approved during the Biden Administration for EV chargers. And yesterday, the Government Accountability Office ruled that it was illegal for the Transportation Department to withhold those funds because the Administration can’t block funding approved by Congress.
AKIO TOYODA WINS BACK SUPPORT FROM INVESTORS
Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda is winning back support from investors and shareholders. Over the last several years concerns of his governance have been growing. Toyota was caught falsely certifying vehicles by the Japanese government and some investors felt the company was dragging its feet on EVs. So, his approval started to fall. In 2022, 96% of shareholders voted to keep Akio in his role but last year that dropped to 72%. However, two of the investment firms that had urged shareholders to vote him out a year ago are now changing their tune. ISS and Glass Lewis are now recommending to reappoint Akio when the company holds its annual meeting in June. And why not? Toyota has the highest profit margins and quality ratings of any full-line automaker in the world.
U.S. OEMs WANT SAME TARIFF DEAL AS UK
GM, Ford and Stellantis are really ticked off that cars imported to the U.S. from the UK only face a 10% tariff, while the vehicles they import from Canada and Mexico face a 25% tariff. They say that puts U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. But auto analyst Michael Robinet with S&P Global Mobility tells Automotive News that the tariffs on Canada and Mexico will probably drop to the same 10% level that the UK has. He says the UK was just first in line to negotiate with the Trump Administration. Chris Feuell, CEO of the Chrysler and Alfa Romeo brands at Stellantis, predicts that if the tariff issue with Canada and Mexico can be resolved quickly then the rest of 2025 will be strong.
CHINESE EU CAR SALES SOAR 79% IN APRIL
Speaking of tariffs, the EU put a wide range of tariffs on Chinese EVs to prevent them from swamping the European market. But those tariffs don’t apply to gasoline or hybrid vehicles, including plug-in hybrids. So in April, sales of Chinese cars in Europe shot up 79%, and doubled their market share to 4.6%. And even with the tariffs, sales of Chinese EVs were up 41% to more than 16,400 cars. According to numbers from Dataforce, BYD, Chery and MG led the way.
GM EV MARKET SHARE IN U.S. HITS 14%
About 100,500 EVs were sold in the U.S. in April, according to Cox Automotive. That was down nearly 6% from last month, but automakers like GM, Nissan and Tesla were able to increase sales. Tesla’s market share, which sits a little below 50%, went up by 3.7% last month thanks to selling over 25,000 units of the Model Y. GM also gained EV market share, which now sits at 14.4%, up 2% from last year. And for the entire first quarter, GM’s EV sales were up 94% to just under 32,000 units, which makes it the number 2 EV seller in the U.S., ahead of Ford and Hyundai.
XIAOMI OFFICIALLY UNVEILS YU7 SUV
Chinese EV maker Xiaomi saw success with its very first model, the SU7, now having sold nearly 260,000 examples in just over a year. But recently it’s come under a lot more scrutiny, mainly triggered by a fatal accident involving one of its vehicles operating in hands-free driving mode. However, it hopes to turn things around, starting with the introduction of its very first SUV, the YU7. The model is just slightly larger than the new Tesla Model Y and is based on Xiaomi’s 800-volt architecture, called Modena. There’s two battery sizes available that provide ranges between 760 kilometers or about 470 miles for the top-range AWD version and 835 kilometers or roughly 515 miles of range for rear-drive models. Those rear-drive models make about 315 horsepower, while there’s two AWD outputs of nearly 500 horsepower and a Max version that makes 680-horsepower, which launches the YU7 from 0-100 km/h in 3.2 seconds. Tesla doesn’t have a version of the Model Y with that kind of performance, but the others are about the same. The Y has less range than the YU7 as well, but the YU7 has a bigger battery, so it’s also heavier and less efficient. The interior is dominated by a large center display screen and while there’s no driver cluster, a long, thin screen sits on top of the dash at the base of the windshield. Xiaomi says the YU7 is scheduled to go on sale in China in July and CarNewsChina reports that there’s already scalpers trying to sell build slots online for as much as $2,700.
FORD ACCUSES CALIFORNIA LAWYERS OF FRAUD
Automakers operating in the U.S. face lawsuits and litigation unlike any other country. And certain counties and cities in the U.S. are practically lawsuit factories. Los Angeles and Orange County have the distinction of filing more lawsuits against automakers than anywhere else in the world. So it must be sweet revenge for the Ford Motor company to file a racketeering lawsuit against three law firms in California led by the Knight Law Group. It says they conducted a massive scheme to “deceive California judges, dupe their own clients and to defraud auto manufacturers.” Ford’s investigation uncovered over $100 million worth of fraudulent claims and overbilling. One attorney billed for 57.5 hours that he allegedly worked in one day. Another billed for 34 hours he supposedly worked in one day. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All told the law firms have filed 5,000 lawsuits against Ford and other automakers. RICO or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was enacted in 1970 to fight organized crime. And by filing a RICO lawsuit, Ford could be awarded triple damages.
USED CAR PRICES TOP $30,000 ONCE AGAIN
Used car prices are back on the rise and it’s not just because of tariffs. According to Edmunds, the average transaction price of used vehicles 3 years or less in the first quarter was over $30,000 for the first time since 2023. The increase is mostly due to the chip shortage caused by the pandemic which resulted in lower supplies of new cars. Leasing also declined in 2022 and 2023, which means there are fewer 3-year old vehicles returning to dealers now. So, because there are fewer used vehicles in inventory now, prices are going up. Edmunds also says that it expects tariffs could cause new vehicle inventory to shrink, which will cause a similar shortage of used vehicles in the next few years that we’re seeing now. And that means even higher prices.
RIVIAN CREATES STYLISH CAMO WRAPS
Rivian has already revealed the all-new R2, but it’s still having a little fun with the camo wraps for test models. I’m sure you remember those boring old wraps that automakers used to put on vehicles. Over the last 10 years or so we have seen some more interesting designs, but they’re usually a combination of black and white geometric patterns. Not Rivian. It has much more brightly colored wraps that take inspiration from the outdoors and even children’s books. And I’m willing to bet that some customers would actually like this on their own vehicle.
But that’s a wrap for today’s show and this week. And as a reminder, we’ll be off on Monday for the Memorial Day holiday, so we won’t see you again until Tuesday. Thanks and I hope that you have a great weekend.
Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com
In 2024, 24% of vehicles sold in California were zero emissions vehicles. California’s Zero Emissions Mandate requires by 2026, 35% be zero emission vehicles and increase every year thereafter. With 100% required by 2035. There was NO way that any of those targets could be meet. None of the 11 states that following California emissions rules can meet it either.
What is the penalty for not meeting percentage is enforced per auto company brand. The brands that can meet the requirement are Tesla, Riven, and Lucid. All the other brands will have to pay $20,000 fine per noncompliant vehicle. Which will force them to cut shipments to California or stop sending cars here altogether. With fewer cars on the market, prices will rise, choices will shrink, and consumers will either buy out of state or hold onto their older, less efficient vehicles.
Trump is now threatening 50% tariffs on all imports from the EU, so no more Audis or Porsches. Also, no more non-SUV BMWs and Benzes. That will also have an effect on used car prices.
Not sure I understand the first comment. Requiring an OEM to meet ANY pollution, safety or other government mandated requirement results in the reduction of choice if the OEM is excluded for not meeting the requirements. Are you suggesting that California can’t set requirements that you don’t agree with but they can if you do agree with them? Are you suggesting that the voters in California don’t have the right to vote in or out any government that doesn’t deal with California’s problems? This isn’t about requirements at all as far as I can see. It seems to be about those Californians getting too ‘uppity’ and needing to be slapped down to where the rest of you people who don’t suffer from pollution are. Personally, I’m on California’s side. If their mandates cause the problems you think they will, the locals will toss the government into the trashcan at the next election. THAT is supposed to be the American way.
The problem with setting difficult goals is that it’s possible for the goals to become undoable if enough people undermine it. American manufacturers have done all they can to undermine California’s EV goal. With 20 or 30 models of ICE and just one or two EVs, it’s pretty hard to make the case that they are all in on the goal. I believe they have not made an honest effort and so deserve to be financially penalized.
Ford going medieval on the crooked Liars (spelled ‘Lawyers’) in CA made my day. I hope these parasites lose big. Ford desperately needs the $, too! The lying clowns were also monumentally stupid, to charge 57 hours for one day and expect they would not be uncovered.
Liars, aka Lawyers, have been a cancer on the US Economy and Society for decades now. The US is a far more litigious society than any other advanced industrial nation. I hope this is the beginning of the decline of the crooked Liars.
All the other news today pales in comparison to the above. Even Tesla, despite the hate of the rabid greenies AND despite of having no new model since 2018, still… INcreased its sales, still dominating, with just two mass market models, which are really one (the 3 and Y), the 100 or so models its lame competitors have lined against it. Amazing incompetence by the ‘experienced’ automakers, both in Detroit and in Germany, Japan and Korea.
Albemarle. Currently, there are 40 battery-electric vehicle (BEV) models available for sale in the US. Tesla is the only company making money on them with 4 models.
Tesla still has “inertia” in the EV market, in spite of Elon. Teslas are worse than some of the competition in various ways, especially operator interface, ride and road noise, but they continue to outsell other BEVs by a wide margin. They only recently dropped below 50% BEV market share in the US, even though there is now some good competition.
Similarly, GM has had “inertia” in the large SUV market for decades. GM sells about three times as many large SUVs as Ford, and 6 times as many as Jeep Wagoneer. Are the GM trucks so much better as to “deserve” that?
Kevin A, CARB members are not elected by the people of California. 14 of 16 are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate. The other 2 are seated by environmental interest groups. Only 4 are scientists, but given the extreme left-leaning g politics of California’s govt, I’m doubtful about the purity of the scientists.
As a result, CARB has a long history of establishing rules that stretched beyond technical feasibility with their prescribed time mandates… often having to rescind or change deadlines.
It’s worth reminding ourselves that CARB was chartered to address the “unique” air quality issues in California driven by carbon monoxide , nitrous oxygen, and their geography that traps these pollutants over high population areas. Those issues have been addressed, but CARB moved beyond their charter to dictate carbon DIOXIDE. CO2 is not a unique California issue. The country and world should be asking if a politically-biased and technology-insensitive CARB should be the governing body for such rulemaking.
BRW, I do believe personal transportation should and will evolve toward 9>0% BEV. But the enablers need to be acknowledged and addressed. As Kit has mentioned several times, most residents of apartments and condominiums lack access to convenient and safe overnight level 2 charging. Until battery technology improves to affordably mirror refueling time and range, consumer demand will likely remain under 50%.
Also, my local government elected official loves his Tesla but cautioned me that the local grid in most of American and the world cannot handle the load. Even if power plants have the capacity, the grid in my neighborhood cannot. He said if more than one in four homes plug-in level 2 charging on a hot summer night, transformers will blow. No one is addressing these issues.
Yeah, in a lot of places the transformers feeding a few homes would not be sized for multiple level 2 chargers, especially in areas where most home heating and water heating is natural gas, and a normal maximum load for the home might be 3-4 kW.
Decades ago, car companies got a bad reputation for saying things were impossible, like meeting CA emission regs in the late ’60s. When forced, it turned out they were possible, albeit not very well until the late ’70s or early ’80s.
This is what I don’t get…one the one hand, the administration is getting read of…FEMA, for example, saying that the individual states are better suited to handling disaster relief, with the federal government kicking in funding to support there efforts. Many governors saying that this is a recipe for disaster, for not the individual states would now have redundancies in processing the claims, and therefore eat up a lot of the money the federal government is providing for each state. Bottom line is the admin wants to individual states to made the call FOR THERE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST. Yet, does not want California to set their own CARB standards that addresses emissions IN THEIR OWN STATE?! It not California fault that other states adopt similar guidelines for their states. It’s not like California is pressuring those states to follow them, yet they are being told they can’t because other state will?! In the case of FEMA, I can see that having a national organization could lengthen response time for those states impacted by disasters and getting the funds they need to address a situation. But if each state has to setup their own FEMA like program, using the funds given by the federal government, it would actually mean less funds available for disaster relief. Why is it okay with the federal government to let individual states to figure it out on one thing, but when it comes to CARBs, California can’t set rules for themselves? I’m not saying what California wants to continue to do is right or wrong, but does the admin feel that they have to stop this one state when, as said, the citizens of the state will have the final say?!
My family and I went to California last weekend and that state has A LOT of vehicles on the road! We were in the San Jose/Freedmont area and was amazed at the 5 line highway and bumper to bumper traffic on a non-holiday weekend! While there were a lot of EVs and hybrids, I can see that smog and emissions could be a problem for the state, at least in that area we were in.
The thing is, it’s not that OEMs can’t hit the 2035 100% targets, for Tesla, Rivian, Lucid and a number of Chinese EV companies are doing it now, with GM making big gains. And with how quickly the battery/EV motor industry is changing many of what some are dearly of today, may be address long before that time comes, perhaps by the beginning of the next decade. It will not be cheap, though! It’s just that many legacy OEMs to use the next 10 years to get to reach that target, but there are Chinese companies who and want to enter their markets, just as lawmakers want to move away from the legislative promises they have made and the automakers have invested in! How things work out only time will tell, so pull up and chair and get your popcorn ready, for one thing is for sure, it will be interesting!
If the states should have redundant FEMAs, with the feds chipping in, should Florida with lots of hurricanes get the same amount of federal money as Washington, which rarely even has thunderstorms?
Wmb and others are being purposely obtuse. All automakers have EV cars available for purchase in California but they cannot force the customers to buy them. That is the hole in your argument. And penalizing automakers $20k per car because California’s own citizens refuse to buy EV is punishing the wrong party. Of course they would pull their ICE models from the state if this insane mandate actually went into effect. But everyone knows CARB would have backed down and slipped their deadline. Because letting it happen would be economic disaster for the state and any of the other sycophant states that follow CARB.
Also, the argument that California has a right to regulate its own emissions flies into the federal supremacy over interstate commerce. An easy argument for the feds to say that CA and the other 12 states are exerting control over what/how/where cars can be sold is superseded by federal authority. CARB should never have been passed and was done so by a federal waiver I believe. Waiver has been repealed.
Now personally, I’m sad because I really wanted the climate zealots to finally experience the crushing economic calamity that this rule was going to unleash on their states. The job losses, tax base shortfalls, population and business exodus, litigation, and other unintended consequences would have been glorious.
Regarding Tesla’s rise in sales, I saw a story yesterday that all of the Tesla stock short sellers are losing their butts to the tune of multi millions of dollars because the stock price also had quite the rebound. Good times.
I say let Cali keep their ridiculous mandates and let the auto industry there and in the 11 other states tank right into the toilet. Let the voters see the idiotic policies folks like Newsome are putting in place as that’s great to seal his fate at any presidential run and wake more people up to the ridiculousness of the left. Let it happen
KEVIN A. you crack me up so much! California Consumers SHOULD do what they want, which means the crazy left loons in Sacramento CANNOT FORCE THEM OTHERWISE, which is what the MANDATE does, it FORBIDS the CA car buyer this or that. If you got the GUTS, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE what car to buy, rabid green clowns!
and FURTHERMORE, CA is just one of 50 states in the Union and it is very, very inefficient and horrendously expensive for one state to have DIFFERENT STANDARDS (such as in gasoline or auto safety) than the others, and force refineries and automakers to produce 50 different models and grades of gas instead of ONE. THIS IS LUNACY AND IT SHOULD STOP.
Many, or most cars sold in the US have 50 state emissions. It’s apparently not much more expensive to meet CA emissions, or they’d make two versions.
Kit – Or maybe certifying 2 emission systems is even more expensive than meeting the CA emission regulations.
JoeS, what you said, but also, unlike years past, there is now little, if any performance and/or fuel economy compromise with 50 state emissions, making less incentive to do two systems. Priuses and Corvettes both use 50 state emissions, so the decisions seem to apply at both ends of the performance spectrum.
Kit, how would we know? No company seems to offer a real choice. Did they spend all their engineering dollars to meet the CA emissions? Unless we have an engine design engineer tell me that there is no difference in fuel use, power or reliability I believe there is always a compromise.
If there was much difference in fuel efficiency, it would be useful to have federal and CA versions, to make meeting CAFE standards easier. I don’t know anyone directly involved in engine control design or tuning, so I don’t have anyone to ask. It’s certainly the case, though, that today’s 50 state certified engines work really well.