[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by R N M

There is overwhelming demand for ICE and automakers are not losing tens of thousands of dollars on each unit they sell as they are on EVs. Tesla is the only automaker so far to make any money selling EVs.

Huh. You should definitely tell that to Hyundai and BYD management. They need to know their finance people are cooking the books.

[sahajesh]

Any idea if this will have air suspension? If not, I’m not interested.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Huh. You should definitely tell that to Hyundai and BYD management. They need to know their finance people are cooking the books.

Those are state sponsored companies.
BYD is funded and controlled by the CCP. They sell well in China bec its much cheaper vs foreign EVs and promoted by their government.

Hyundai can’t give away their EVs. You can lease a brand Ionic 5 for $250 month which is $50k car. It makes no sense.

[LuisBoston]

GM is making profits on EVs now. Hyundai/Kia isn’t far behind. And the BYD are likely profitable. Doubt BMW is far behind profitability too.

As always, once a make has a desirable product, profits will follow. The new iX3 will probably be the high volume, mainstream profit maker BMW is counting on.

As with any tech, if investments aren’t made, profits will never come. And those who fail to make the investments now will be left behind as EVs are the future, regardless of ideological beliefs.

[R N M]

What EV is selling for GM?
Hummer, Blazer etc are all collecting dust.
You can lease a Cadillac Lyriq for nothing.

General Motors Corp. executives expect that losses from the automotive giant’s electric-vehicle operations will shrink by up to $4 billion in 2025 compared to this year as the company scales production and benefits from efficiencies in battery manufacturing.

Also if profitability is there all around the corner - why are all these automakers pulling back the EV investment.

[Cortexiphan]

Originally Posted by R N M

There is overwhelming demand for ICE and automakers are not losing tens of thousands of dollars on each unit they sell as they are on EVs. Tesla is the only automaker so far to make any money selling EVs.

This is not even up for debate as each major automaker has announced plans to delay the EV push and start re-investing into ICE powertrains.

ICE demand is falling globally, so there’s isn’t overwhelming demand.
EV and PHEV demand is rising globally.
Not each major automaker has announced plans to delay EV push, only the ones that didn’t plan correctly did that. (BMW did, so they’re not delaying anything)
On the other hand, brands that were behind in EV development, are now investing on EVs. Even Ferrari is now testing an EV model.
Also, BMW is making money from every EV:
https://www.dw.com/en/bmw-says-elect...ars/a-66703975

[R N M]

^
Please consider the source.

Why then are All these manufacturers reaffirming investment into NEW ICE development?

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/car...ctric-vehicles

BMW becomes latest carmaker to stick with petrol after US removes electric car targets

[turboI]

One article in 1975 for how the media consider about BMW in that time,is the same feeling for the USA customer now?

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by R N M

Those are state sponsored companies.
BYD is funded and controlled by the CCP. They sell well in China bec its much cheaper vs foreign EVs and promoted by their government.

Hyundai can’t give away their EVs. You can lease a brand Ionic 5 for $250 month which is $50k car. It makes no sense.

Your bias (twofold: a sports car fan and an American who doesn't realize the country is just 4% of the world's population) is getting in the way of you learning the facts.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by R N M

^
Please consider the source.

Why then are All these manufacturers reaffirming investment into NEW ICE development?

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/car...ctric-vehicles

25 years inside a major global OEM and 10 at a Tier 1 supplier gives me some perspective.

The industry made a strategic presumption about the rate of EV adoption in the years preceding the actual launches of EV vehicles. That was the necessary timing to develop products, facilitize plants, and allow the supply base to prepare with co-located plants, tooling, and operator employment and training. The presumption was wrong about the rate of adoption, thus the financial analyses indicate that some programs should be delayed or canceled for now and some future programs may be modified for powertrain flexibility or kept on track to anticipate that the demand will finally match production capacity.BMW and STLA both have designed platforms and plants that can accomodate ICE and EV to do a better job than some others at buiiding-in flexibility.

All the global data, including in the U.S., indicates EV adoption is increasing, but at a slower rate than first anticipated.

Meanwhile, plants need to be filled, both for OEM and supply base. The decisions being made to increase ICE production, whether pure ICE or hybrid vehicles, both of which still have substantial demand, are intended to maintain volume in the interim while the slower-than-expected EV growth occurs. It is possible that we will never transition completely away from gasoline, just as some may have speculated that 100+ years ago we would never completely transition away from horse-and-buggy to gasoline. We don't yet know. All the data I've seen about consumer demand for EV shows many either eager or willing or possibly interested or doubtful or strongly resistant to different proportions. Whether we age-out of the resistance or if attitudes change over time due to the novelty disappearing is not yet known. But, the industry cannot exist without production, so, for now, OEMs will build what the market will buy and the current mix adjustments are compensating for the earlier overly-optimistic estimate while the actual EV demand slowly grows. All projections are for EV share to increase. The strategic challenge for my prior and successor colleagues is to get the rate and timing right, this time.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Your bias (twofold: a sports car fan and an American who doesn't realize the country is just 4% of the world's population) is getting in the way of you learning the facts.

My bias is irrelevant.

Numbers and Profit metrics is what count in the real world.
So far EVs have generated Billions in losses for OEMs without clear path to profitability.

Chinese market is unique as it wasn’t integrated into ICE.
It is much easier to implement change when CCP controls the market and can heavily influence what the consumer adapts.

The US is still one of the largest markets for BMW and most European brands so what happens here is very important in their decision making.

[Windshieldfarmer]

Originally Posted by R N M

My bias is irrelevant.

Numbers and Profit metrics is what count in the real world.
So far EVs have generated Billions in losses for OEMs without clear path to profitability.

Chinese market is unique as it wasn’t integrated into ICE.
It is much easier to implement change when CCP controls the market and can heavily influence what the consumer adapts.

The US is still one of the largest markets for BMW and most European brands so what happens here is very important in their decision making.

Just a note…GM just announced their EV sales are profitable…unlike Ford which is incurring huge losses from EVs. People in the USA own 30% of all automobiles owned globally.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by Windshieldfarmer

Just a note…GM just announced their EV sales are profitable…unlike Ford which is incurring huge losses from EVs. People in the USA own 30% of all automobiles owned globally.

They are not profitable.
GM is close to bankruptcy and continues to spread lies as always.

Read the fine print below:

GM said in its letter to shareholders that its EV lineup became "variable profit positive" in the fourth quarter of last year.
The term "variable profit positive" comes with a slight caveat. This metric, as reported by Reuters, means that revenue for GM's EVs was higher than the variable costs, which includes money spent on labor for building the vehicles and the material required to assemble them. What it doesn't account for are fixed costs such as creating new assembly lines, so GM's massive investments in its EV factories and the engineering of the new models are taken out of the equation.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by R N M

My bias is irrelevant.

Your bias is all that you've brought here. You've been doing nothing but picking only those datapoints that support your worldviews, ignoring all evidence otherwise.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by R N M

They are not profitable.
GM is close to bankruptcy and continues to spread lies as always.

Read the fine print below:

The quote in bold may be the opinion of some financial analyst somewhere who has never developed a vehicle, but having been involved with this for my career, this is not how the business case for vehicle programs are done. Even on an aggressive amortization schedule, it is not reasonable to include the full burden of capital expenditure to a specific program for an asset that will provide ROI from collateral or successor programs for decades past the current program. The average vehicle margin is used with the vehicle program amortized investment for tooling that vehicle program, facilitizing for that specific program, the variable cost of those produced vehicles. etc. Any accountants here wish to opine?

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

The quote in bold may be the opinion of some financial analyst somewhere who has never developed a vehicle, but having been involved with this for my career, this is not how the business case for vehicle programs are done. Even on an aggressive amortization schedule, it is not reasonable to include the full burden of capital expenditure to a specific program for an asset that will provide ROI from collateral or successor programs for decades past the current program. The average vehicle margin is used with the vehicle program amortized investment for tooling that vehicle program, facilitizing for that specific program, the variable cost of those produced vehicles. etc. Any accountants here wish to opine?

You are arguing with someone who very clearly won’t change their position based on anything factual. This was made glaringly obvious with flawed blanket statements that are talking points designed to stir people up and not fact based. There have been numerous people posting facts which are simply dismissed for not fitting in their world view. Goodluck getting someone to pay attention to facts, he saw a meme on Facebook afterall!

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by OUGrad05

You are arguing with someone who very clearly won’t change their position based on anything factual. This was made glaringly obvious with flawed blanket statements that are talking points designed to stir people up and not fact based. There have been numerous people posting facts which are simply dismissed for not fitting in their world view. Goodluck getting someone to pay attention to facts, he saw a meme on Facebook afterall!

Perhaps, and maybe I'm still affected by some naive optimism of my earlier days, but I saw it as sharing information more than arguing, but maybe it's of interest to other readers too.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

The quote in bold may be the opinion of some financial analyst somewhere who has never developed a vehicle, but having been involved with this for my career, this is not how the business case for vehicle programs are done. Even on an aggressive amortization schedule, it is not reasonable to include the full burden of capital expenditure to a specific program for an asset that will provide ROI from collateral or successor programs for decades past the current program. The average vehicle margin is used with the vehicle program amortized investment for tooling that vehicle program, facilitizing for that specific program, the variable cost of those produced vehicles. etc. Any accountants here wish to opine?

It is industry standard to include capex and R&D costs to determine if a product is a success. Those are by far the biggest expenditures. Labor and materials are much lower.

The same goes for ICE - the engine / chassis development and factory tooling are a huge expense. Hence why you have for example- Z4 and MKV Supra to share those costs for low production vehicles.

It took Tesla which is much more efficient and smaller than GM over a decade to reach profitability and that’s with having Model Y which is the best selling EV in the world. GM has nothing of the sort. Ford also is bleeding billions of dollars due to failure of Mach E and F150 Lightning.

Also the term “variable profit positive” was from GM on their Q4 earnings release to put a positive spin on their EV results. Not from any analyst.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Your bias is all that you've brought here. You've been doing nothing but picking only those datapoints that support your worldviews, ignoring all evidence otherwise.

No what brought me here is buying over past 16 years, 7 BMWs - all new and still owning 2 currently lol

I’m not against EVs but they have to make sense financially for the consumer and the OEM. I am against government mandates that don’t allow the free market decide what general public prefers.

I also believe EVs will continue to increase in marketshare as battery technology improves and charging infrastructure is further developed but this will take a long time.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by R N M

It is industry standard to include capex and R&D costs to determine if a product is a success. Those are by far the biggest expenditures. Labor and materials are much lower.

The same goes for ICE - the engine / chassis development and factory tooling are a huge expense. Hence why you have for example- Z4 and MKV Supra to share those costs for low production vehicles.

It took Tesla which is much more efficient and smaller than GM over a decade to reach profitability and that’s with having Model Y which is the best selling EV in the world. GM has nothing of the sort. Ford also is bleeding billions of dollars due to failure of Mach E and F150 Lightning.

Also the term “variable profit positive” was from GM on their Q4 earnings release to put a positive spin on their EV results. Not from any analyst.

Of course the retrospective financial analysis can be done in different ways. I was speaking of your bold lettered statement and explaining how a prospective program's business case is developed. Some of the statements you are sharing may apply to other industries with different product life cycles. Variable piece cost is one of the major drivers of a program succeeding or failing to get approval. Sit inside a new G45 X3 to see that come to life. However, your approach is not my experience in a few decades in the OEM/supplier side to determine if an individual vehicle program gets approved. Did you work for a domestic or overseas OEM? Accounting practices may vary.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by R N M

No what brought me here is buying over past 16 years, 7 BMWs - all new and still owning 2 currently lol

So, one person, one country market, approximately 0.0000005% of all car sales in the world over the given period.

That is a very strong and highly qualified position. I applaud your competence, sir.

[Accident]

BMW EVs have been profitable for a while.

https://insideevs.com/news/713353/bm...neue-klasse-x/
"Its current lineup of EVs, like the BMW i5, i4 and iX, are profitable, a company spokesperson told InsideEVs."

https://nytimes.com/2024/03/09/busin...e=articleShare
"What is even more surprising is that BMW, unlike General Motors or Ford Motor, made a profit on the electric vehicles it sold."

BMW Sees Top-End EVs Driving Profit Even as Demand Cools - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-demand-cools

https://www.dw.com/en/bmw-says-elect...profitable.%22
"We make money with every electric car today, and that will be even more the case with the Neue Klasse," Zipse said. "It will be very profitable."