Featured Dashboard Summary January 2018

Model 3 numbers doubling every month is a pretty good trend. How many months until it beats the regular Prius?

 

Big drop for the fusion hybrid which did great last year. I expected it to lose some sales to the new camry hybrid but the camry hybrid did not go up as much as the fusion went down. The other disappointment is the prius c. That car needs a redesign with more power from a better engine and lower cost from tgnv. They probably could give the 1.5L the treatment they gave the 2.5L in the camry hybrid, put a 0.8 kwh lithium battery, and remove the expense of the cooled egr and actually lower costs and fuel consumption, while increasing responsiveness.

Transit is approximately 2 weeks when the teslas are delivered outside california. January production looks to have been about 4000 cars, and we got a little less than half delivered to customers. I expect February to produce around 6000, and if half those get delivered and the remaining January cars it will be around 5000, and I hope prius can rise to that level. March will be the kicker for the model 3. I expect 10,000 to be made, and most of the end of the month to go to california. That would put them over 10,000 for the month, and would probably beat the next 2 cars added together.

 

I’ll throw my guess out at 4500 in February and 6000 in March.

 

...I see today in my inbox, Plug-In America pushing for extension of plug-in credits past 200,000...I suspect that will happen sooner or later

 

So hope you are right. But at risk of sending this thread to FHOPol, will leave my skeptical comments out.

 

Manufacturers get the full credit for a quarter after the quarter they meet it, then it goes to 1/2. Many in congress wanted to end it early. IMHO the system needs a time deadline, and then perhaps you could allow more. Current system will work against GM and Tesla in 2019, and help the laggards, which is counter productive. I would say cap it at 1.5M cars, and a manufacturer gets $150/kwh up to $3000 after its half credits are expired. That would move the laggards and get the US to 1.5 million plug-ins faster at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

We can look to the case of hybrid tax incentives to see part of what could help. Toyota got hybrid incentives when the cars would have sold without them. They could not make enough to satisfy demand. Then the credits expired and gas prices went down, and toyota hybrid sales dropped, while other manufacturers still got the incentive.

 

It should have a hard end date.

 

The problem with your proposed 1.5 mil is that it would essentially be a Tesla subsidy. Before long they could be selling more plug-ins than everyone else combined. Also, you would have a ton of 20 kWh batteries being made to take advantage of the $3000. That wouldn't be a good way forward IMO.

 

It depends on your goal. If the goal is to make the technology less expensive and more acceptable to potential customers, then it isn't bad that tesla and gm, the two companies that have invested the most for the american plug-in market, benefit the most. If your goal is to give the money to subsidize toyota, bmw, vw group, and mercedes which have been slow with plug-ins - then the current system works fine.

I know, I know, some auto manufacture paid for a study at carnegie mellon that made some really bad assumptions like battery prices won't go down much, and people won't pay more to have better acceleration in ev mode, that said tiny batteries were best. Those assumptions according to surveys and sales of plug-ins and battery production prices turned out to be wrong. If a battery pack cost a manufacturer $200/kwh and there is a tax credit of $150/kwh, then if 7 Kwh is the right size for a phev, a manufacturer will still put a 7 kwh battery in the car. If its telsa whose cost is probably $190/kwh today going to $100/kwh and they are selling their small 50 kwh pack, then the subsidy is $60/kwh, and neither they, nor gm, nor nissan are going to drop the pack size to 20 kwh. A 100 kwh pack won't reduce oil use much more than a 20 kwh pack, it mainly stops the need for a range extender, but choose your own numbers. Do you really think it will be bad next year if the model 3 keeps a $3000 tax credit, while the prime gets a $4500 one. That is more than fair to toyota. I don't think subsidizing gm 2 mode after toyota's hybrid number was reached, really helped develop hybrid technology. Similarly subsidizing the prime instead of the bolt and model 3 doesn't really push things forward. Toyota seeing the credits expiring though, might have then give better dealer training and fill the channel more which would sell more primes.

 

In reality, the best tax credit for plug-ins might be a big jump in gas taxes. Most people don't like change and cheap gas doesn't force anyone to change.

 

The goal of the tax credits was to help the plug in car industry get started. The biggest hurdle was the cost of batteries. An incentive on the batteries sold increases demand, and gets companies to invest in battery manufacturing and research. This is why the credits were tied to battery size, and not something like efficiency.

As the credits are now structured, the laggard companies are being awarded more than the pioneering companies that started the market. Nissan, GM, and Tesla offered a plug in with a large battery pack nationwide from the beginning. Demand for their products created more demand for batteries than smaller battery plug ins or large battery ones only sold in a few states. They took a greater risk, and 'spent' more of their credit limits during times when the amount covering less of the battery's cost.

By waiting, the laggards get to use the credit value for more profit. It still helps in growing the segment, but the risk was in getting the segment started. The pioneers will end up with less awards in comparison with the laggards being able to use the credit on the same number of plug ins sold.

Having the credit apply to a number of plug ins sold for the segment instead of per manufacturer, or with a hard end date to them, evens the fairness of the credits among the manufacturers. The pioneer companies will have a chance to use the credits for profit over a similar number of cars sold as the laggards with these plans. If such end up as Tesla subsidies, so what. They had the most to lose if the plug in segment never took off.

 

Agree with #14 with regard to Tesla.

But GM had a lot more ($$) to gain (or avoid loss) from being more aggressive with with plug-in segment than many others. The Japanese segment had relatively less to gain playing the CARB credit game - fewer SUVs and trucks to offset.

I would like to give GM more credit, but am skeptical of how engaged they would have been if not able to play this game. Nissan, OTOH was one of the major established manufactures who had ICE legacy issues like the rest, but seemed more willing to accept and lead in the paradigm shift.

This solves the problem above, with the additional benefit of being revenue positive and paying for our road infrastructure.

 

GM and Nissan were both trying to get an advantage by being first to market with a plug in, like Toyota had with hybrids. The Malibu hybrid seems to be a decent car; GM just pushes the Bolt and Volt more. So they probably could have taken a safer path by coming out with hybrid sooner instead of fighting for the Volt.

Nissan and Toyota did have less large SUVs and trucks to offset, but that wasn't due to a lack of trying. Offsetting trucks is more important to CAFE, not CARB. The Prius helps Toyota profit off the Tundra, probably the thirstiest the pick up on the market

They all play CAFE and CARB. Toyota had California only BEV, pushed FCEVs with CARB, and kept the PiP to CARB states while they had favorable markets in Florida and maybe Texas. Everybody sends their plug ins to California and CARB states first.

 

Although I am personally a bit relieved that Toyota is weaker in the SUV and truck segment, I agree that they are probably not pleased with missing this lucrative market ($$$).

With that said, there seems reason to believe Toyota would have jumped on early and aggressively with plug-ins if it suited them financially. I would argue the Mirai is a good example of Toyota's willingness to bring a nascent or even premature technology to market primarily because the incentives are there.

I see GM's lack of a hybrid earlier as denial and associated poor management. Once they figured out it was in their interest, they moved forward. This would be consistent with the Volt in the U.S. and possibly why it is a relatively poor seller globally.

 

Japan is pushing hydrogen FCEVs along with most of their auto industry. Toyota lobbyed with CARB to get those credits, because selling H2 FCEVs in other markets helps them back home. It wasn't a case of California offering credits themselves.

Plug in success would have hurt the FCEV effort. That along with outdated or wrong assumptions in regards to plug ins is why Toyota kept their efforts their to a near minimum. The PiP went farther than those sticking to compliance cars, but it also had the purpose of killing off the third party Prius to PHEV converters.

I believe the Prime as designed originally was more along the lines of the PiP in performance, so it may not have done as well here as it has.

The government had wanted GM to end the Volt project as part of the bail out. There was also a change in management with the bail out.

In Europe, the first gen was too expensive once import tariffs were added. The Prius does poorly there for the same reason. Setting up manufacturing for such a small seller to just avoid taxes didn't make sense. Dieselgate and Europe's shift to hybrids came after the Volt was pulled from the market. Japan is just tough for outsiders to get into, and other markets likely suffered from being too small to import a model with little to no profit margin.

With interest in hybrids and plug ins increasing, and reduced production costs, the gen2 could do better elsewhere, but I think they have left the European market. GM is introducing a Buick version to China. It should do well there, and other countries moving to ban ICE cars will help the Volt or its successor.

 

Yes. I was trying to point out that in the U.S., Toyota introduced the Mirai to very limited markets where there was heavy (State) government subsidy. But that is at least the case in Japan, where the (national) government highly subsidizes H2. Hence, Toyota introduced the Mirai in the setting of big carrots.

Worldwide Prime sales are much greater than the Volt. It is true that the Volt is sold in fewer markets, but that lends credit to the theory that GM was also primarily chasing markets as described, as opposed to being a PHEV forerunner because they saw the light. It is much easier to see Tesla and Nissan as having more of the latter.

 

The subsidy should have phased out for each manufacturer after the 200K units sold were reached OR after 3 (for example) companies reached the 200K mark. This would have provided more incentive to be early. As it is, if you aren't on the leading edge you can just wait to use your 200K units until the others have done the work to get battery prices lower.

Mike