2015 Spark no longer 21-kWh and now 19 ???

[nozferatu]

I doubt very much they are losing money on any car...that's wishful thinking regardless of what they claim.

More like your wishful thinking to think that compliance car makers are making money on their low volume compliance EVs.

I'll remind others of some details and my posts on this:
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5535#p5535
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5645#p5645 and the 2 or 3 past it

Compliance car or not...they are not in the business of losing money...you are sorely mistaken if you think they are.

 

[cwerdna]

I doubt very much they are losing money on any car...that's wishful thinking regardless of what they claim.

More like your wishful thinking to think that compliance car makers are making money on their low volume compliance EVs.

I'll remind others of some details and my posts on this:
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5535#p5535
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5645#p5645 and the 2 or 3 past it

Compliance car or not...they are not in the business of losing money...you are sorely mistaken if you think they are.

No, they'd prefer not to lose money, but it's already a well-known fact that small cars have small margins. (Example: Search for the word margin across all pages of http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/gm-ford-and-chrysler-the-detroit-three-are-back-right.) And, that's already with small car models that sell in the hundreds of thousands globally per year.

Compare that to the Spark EV which has yet to break 1K units after over 10 months on the market, many unique components, R&D, crash tests, certifications, tons of overhead (e.g. manufacturing, documentation, writing service manuals, training, marketing, etc.) and so on.

Other examples and references to money losing small cars:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19900427&id=lDwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6029,5922690
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34979467/ns/business-the_driver_seat/t/ford-rivals-betting-small-beautiful/

That approach can shave perhaps as much as a billion dollars off the price tag for developing a new small car and, notes Jim Hall, an automotive analyst with 2953 Analytics, further reduce the price tag by improving economies of scale.

For shareholders, that has the potential to translate into a profit from a segment that has traditionally been a big money-loser for Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124786970963060453 (Google for Will Small Be Beautiful for GM? to read the entire article)

It was planning to build a new compact car in China (it already works with Daewoo to make the tiny Chevy Aveo in South Korea). Most auto makers have similar arrangements -- profit margins are so low for compacts made in America that not a single auto company makes a compact inside the U.S. Not the Japanese. Not the Koreans. And not even Ford, which plans to make its new Fiesta in Mexico.
...
One reason for the small margin on small cars is that compacts occupy a tiny niche of the market. Gasoline is relatively cheap in America, so those interested in buying fuel-sipping autos often base their buying preferences on environmental or political considerations, or they are particularly sensitive to the variable price of gasoline. There aren't enough of these people, Center for Auto Research analyst Kristin Dziezek told me, to allow auto makers to develop models with varying pricey features that drive up profit margins.

You can find many more by Googling for slim profit margins small cars detroit and reading reputable sources.

 

[nmikmik]

I wonder how much cheaper a 19KWhr pack is to build that a 21MWhr pack is to build ?

I suspect a lot cheaper since it's built in-house compare to contracting out the battery, in addition to similarities to the Volt battery someone already mentioned here.

Too bad, but the price is forcing me to go with "compliance" vehicle.

 

[nozferatu]

No, they'd prefer not to lose money, but it's already a well-known fact that small cars have small margins. (Example: Search for the word margin across all pages of http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/gm-ford-and-chrysler-the-detroit-three-are-back-right.) And, that's already with small car models that sell in the hundreds of thousands globally per year.

Compare that to the Spark EV which has yet to break 1K units after over 10 months on the market, many unique components, R&D, crash tests, certifications, tons of overhead (e.g. manufacturing, documentation, writing service manuals, training, marketing, etc.) and so on.

Other examples and references to money losing small cars:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19900427&id=lDwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6029,5922690
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34979467/ns/business-the_driver_seat/t/ford-rivals-betting-small-beautiful/

That approach can shave perhaps as much as a billion dollars off the price tag for developing a new small car and, notes Jim Hall, an automotive analyst with 2953 Analytics, further reduce the price tag by improving economies of scale.

For shareholders, that has the potential to translate into a profit from a segment that has traditionally been a big money-loser for Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124786970963060453 (Google for Will Small Be Beautiful for GM? to read the entire article)

It was planning to build a new compact car in China (it already works with Daewoo to make the tiny Chevy Aveo in South Korea). Most auto makers have similar arrangements -- profit margins are so low for compacts made in America that not a single auto company makes a compact inside the U.S. Not the Japanese. Not the Koreans. And not even Ford, which plans to make its new Fiesta in Mexico.
...
One reason for the small margin on small cars is that compacts occupy a tiny niche of the market. Gasoline is relatively cheap in America, so those interested in buying fuel-sipping autos often base their buying preferences on environmental or political considerations, or they are particularly sensitive to the variable price of gasoline. There aren't enough of these people, Center for Auto Research analyst Kristin Dziezek told me, to allow auto makers to develop models with varying pricey features that drive up profit margins.

You can find many more by Googling for slim profit margins small cars detroit and reading reputable sources.

Small profit margins are not the same as losses...they are still profits albeit not large ones. Believe me, they are not losing a dime on any of these cars.

 

[gra]

Small profit margins are not the same as losses...they are still profits albeit not large ones. Believe me, they are not losing a dime on any of these cars.

The small profit margins referred to above are on compact cars that are sold in volumes one or more orders of magnitude greater than compliance BEVs. GM has also said they've yet to make a profit on the Volt, which is easily understandable given its high R&D and tooling costs and the fact that total U.S. sales have so far fallen far short of the _yearly_ sales they were forecasting for its second year in production.

For that matter, the LEAF has also fallen far short of its original sales forecasts, and we have no knowledge of whether Nissan has made a profit on them yet. Companies selling compliance cars do so because it allows them to sell more of the larger cars that have bigger profit margins, while escaping fines from CARB. If it's cheaper to lose money by building the minimum number of compliance cars so they can make more money on the rest, that's what the companies will do, unless they are motivated by ideology rather than profits. There aren't many of the latter companies.

That being said, many of the compliance cars are quite nice; if someone wants to complain about them not being available in your area, complaints should be directed to your state government for not adopting a ZEV mandate like California's. With the likely exception of Tesla, that's the only reason there are _any_ production BEVs available in the U.S.

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
Yep... nozferatu can keep believing what he wants to believe. We've already given illustrations of costs on MUCH higher volume vehicles and and some costs and work that needed to go into an example compliance car, the Rav4 EV.

And, since gra mentioned Tesla, they were making $ selling CA ZEV credits to other automakers since Tesla produces no ICEVs and isn't mandated to create any compliance cars to offset their ICEVs (that they don't make).

 

[nozferatu]

You guys can also believe what you want but believing GM's comments that they aren't making profit on their cars is complete utter bull....and in the real world of business losing money...particularly for a company under the spotlight like GM....is a fudge numbers game at best. You're naive to think otherwise.

 

[gra]

You guys can also believe what you want but believing GM's comments that they aren't making profit on their cars is complete utter bull....and in the real world of business losing money...particularly for a company under the spotlight like GM....is a fudge numbers game at best. You're naive to think otherwise.

On the contrary, we've never said that GM isn't making profits on their cars, we've said that they aren't making any profit on specific cars. Or do you believe that they're turning a profit on the ELR, given its sales to date and the approximately 2 years worth of ELRs (at the current sales rate) sitting on lots unsold? If buying ZEV credits from companies like Tesla is cheaper, companies will do that unless/until the PR hit becomes a problem, or they can't buy enough credits to cover the requirement. That's what GM did before they got the Spark EV on the market, because Volt sales weren't enough to meet the requirement. Now that they've got the Spark they don't have to buy credits anymore, and as long as they lose less on the Spark and Volt than the credits would cost (assuming they are available from other automakers in the required numbers), it's the most cost-effective business decision. Sure, they'd _prefer_ to make a profit on them, but they don't _have_ to.

Commercial: Veridian Dynamics. The environment—everyone likes it. And so, we do too. That’s why we’re committed to saving it. Veridian Dynamics is turning every one of our buildings 100% green. It’s ridiculously expensive and spending money makes us sad. But we’re doing it because we love nature, even when it’s being mean or just acting stupid. Veridian Dynamics. Greening our world.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You guys can also believe what you want but believing GM's comments that they aren't making profit on their cars is complete utter bull....and in the real world of business losing money...particularly for a company under the spotlight like GM....is a fudge numbers game at best. You're naive to think otherwise.

It's no surprise that your limited knowledge of the EV business allows this thinking, but nonetheless, you are wrong regardless of what you might believe.

There is absolutely NO WAY that GM does anything but lose money on the Spark EV, and plenty of it.

Other car companies that you may have heard of, like Honda, Toyota, Fiat/Chrysler, also lose huge amounts of money on their compliance EV's and they are quite vocal about it. Needless to say, Toyota is about making money, as is any auto company, and Toyota has only lost money in one year of its entire existence!!! Sadly, bankrupt GM isn't in the same league.

I wrote an article trying to quantify how much money Toyota loses on the Rav4 EV compliance vehicle:


http://insideevs.com/will-toyota-cancel-the-rav4-ev/


Toyota has already announced that their next compliance car, a hydrogen one that will replace Rav4 EV in 2015 will cost $98,000 each, and be sold for about $50,000.

Simple math that anybody should be able to accomplish will show that Toyota will lose about $48,000 PER COMPLIANCE HYDROGEN CAR.

With such pathetically low production as the Spark EV, Honda Fit EV, Rav4 EV, 500e, eGolf, et al, they all lose TENS of thousands per car sold for one simple reason:

Zero Emission Vehicles are sold to allow the auto manufacturer to sell polluting oil burning cars in California per Air Resources Board mandates.

For 2015 and beyond, from CARB:

"BMW, Fiat/Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Daimler/Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen must comply with the new requirements. Four additional manufacturers would also be required to comply with the ZEV requirements, but would be allowed to meet their obligation with PHEVs."

Model Year - Total CARB-ZEV Percent Requirement by credit value:

2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%


Any type of ZEV may be used


Type V - 300+ miles range "hydrogen" - Credit per vehicle: 9 (2015-2017 only)
Type V - 300+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 7
Type IV - 200+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 5
Type III - 100+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 4
Type III - 200+ miles range -------------- Credit per vehicle: 4
Type II - 100+ miles range --------------- Credit per vehicle: 3
Type I.5 - 75-100 miles range ----------- Credit per vehicle: 2.5
Type I - 50-75 miles range --------------- Credit per vehicle: 2

After 2017, the credits for Type III, IV and V drop to 3

All manufacturers must report by May of the calendar year following the compliance model year; e.g., for 2008 model year, report is due may 1, 2009. Manufacturers may update reports until September. Manufacturers have two years to make up a ZEV deficit, or they are subject to penalties outlines in Health and Safety Code 43211:

$5000 penalty per vehicle CREDIT not produced

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/macs.htm

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf

"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."

That's a whole lot of gobbled igloo to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."

CARB state coalition - California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

The eight states combined account for 23 percent of U.S. vehicle sales, according to California’s Air Resources Board.

******

CARB states - Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia.

CARB-ZEV states - California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont

 

[buickanddeere]

Something similar to wind turbine companies. The electricity generated is just a bonous. The wind turbine is about making carbon credits for other aspects of the company's business.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The CEO of Fiat/Chrysler just made a speech:

Please don't buy Fiat 500e; we are tired of losing money selling it


By Eric Beech

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne has a request for potential buyers of the automaker's Fiat 500e electric car: Don't buy it. He's tired of losing money.

Speaking at a conference in Washington on Wednesday, Marchionne said Tesla Motors Inc was the only company making money on electric cars and that was because of the higher price point for its Model S sedan. Decrying the federal and state mandates that push manufacturers to build electric cars, Marchionne said he hoped to sell the minimum number of 500e cars possible.

"I hope you don't buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000," he said to the audience at the Brookings Institution about the 500e. "I'm honest enough to tell you that."

The gasoline-powered Fiat 500 starts at almost $17,300 including delivery charges, while the 500e starts at $32,650 before federal tax credits. Consumers are not willing to pay a price that covers Fiat's costs so it loses money on the 500e.

Through April, the automaker sold 11,514 of the 500 cars in the United States this year, down about 15 percent from the same period last year. The company does not break out 500e sales.

"I will sell the (minimum) of what I need to sell and not one more," Marchionne said of the 500e.

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and received a U.S taxpayer-funded bailout. Italy's Fiat took over the U.S. automaker at the time and completed the buyout earlier this year.

"If we just build those vehicles, we'll be back asking ... in Washington for a second bailout because we'll be bankrupt," Marchionne said of electric cars.

The state of California's zero-emission vehicle mandates and federal fuel efficiency requirements for 2025 were pushing the need for electric cars, but Marchionne said he would prefer the U.S. Department of Energy simply set targets and let the automakers achieve them in their own way.

Marchionne said for the company in 2025 to maintain the same type of U.S. sales mix it has now, hybrid vehicles that are powered by both gasoline and electric engines will make up more than half if not close to three-quarters of sales.

Electric car sales have been held back by inadequate driving range in the eyes of many consumers and high sticker prices.

(Additional reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

 

[xylhim]

I can't wait for the day when the CEOs decrying the CARB mandates step forward and thank the states for the ZEV requirements, since it forces them to retool for the upcoming EV revolution. Once the gigafactories get built, perhaps only Nissan will be able to withstand the competition of a mass market EV from Tesla. This hydrogen non-sense from Toyota really has me confused, it's a complete distraction away from the electrification of the automotive industry.

 

[Chocula]

...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne has a request for potential buyers of the automaker's Fiat 500e electric car: Don't buy it. He's tired of losing money. ...

Boo hoo Sergio, go buy your CARB credits from Tesla! I bought one of your competitors cars instead, your welcome! If he really doesn't want them to sell, just increase the price by the $14,000 he claims to lose. Heck, add $100,000 to the price, I bet they don't sell then. I hope the judge reads his comments back to him when explaining why his request for being exempted from the CARB rules (because American's don't want electric cars) is being denied.

In all seriousness, Sergio Marchionne's previous statements about the 500e did influence my decision purchase the spark and not the Fiat 500e. He is spoiling his company's attempt to build any credibility for their brand. Why would I want to buy a product when I expect the company to drop support at their first opportunity.

 

[gra]

I can't wait for the day when the CEOs decrying the CARB mandates step forward and thank the states for the ZEV requirements, since it forces them to retool for the upcoming EV revolution. Once the gigafactories get built, perhaps only Nissan will be able to withstand the competition of a mass market EV from Tesla. This hydrogen non-sense from Toyota really has me confused, it's a complete distraction away from the electrification of the automotive industry.

You definitely are confused (as are many others, along with those who are willfully ignorant), as FCEVs are part of the 'electrification of the automotive industry'. See the 'EV' following 'FC'?

Of course, cars have been 'electrified' to some extent or other for more than 100 years, at least since the first one used a spark plug instead of a heated piece of metal to ignite the fuel mixture, but if you want to be more restrictive since 1912, when Charles Kettering's Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (better known today by its acronym) developed and introduced the first integrated starting, lighting, ignition and charging system on Cadillacs (and thus provided the final nail in the coffin for BEVs in their first go-round).

 

[TonyWilliams]

Of course, cars have been 'electrified' to some extent or other for more than 100 years, at least since the first one used a spark plug instead of a heated piece of metal to ignite the fuel mixture, but if you want to be more restrictive since 1912, when Charles Kettering's Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (better known today by its acronym) developed and introduced the first integrated starting, lighting, ignition and charging system on Cadillacs (and thus provided the final nail in the coffin for BEVs in their first go-round).

Uh, ya. Because a 1912 automobile had something electrified, we should all want hydrogen powered "electric cars". Sure, sounds awesome.

MORE NEWS FROM TOYOTA - Battery cars are only good for the "last mile".

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140520/OEM05/140529984/toyota-moving-away-from-evs-in-favor-of-hydrogen-fuel-cells

Toyota moving away from EVs in favor of hydrogen fuel cells


Lentz on Toyota and Tesla: "We learned a lot about being a smaller entrepreneurial company in the auto business and being faster to market. They learned about our quality control."

May 20, 2014 - 2:47 pm ET

LOS ANGELES -- Toyota Motor Corp. is walking away from building longer-range battery-electric vehicles in favor of its effort in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, its top North American executive said.

At a time when EV maker Tesla Motors is the darling of Wall Street, Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota’s North American region, said Toyota sees battery-electric vehicles as viable only in “a select way, in short-range vehicles that take you that extra mile, from the office to the train, or home to the train, as well as being used on large [corporate] campuses.

“But for long-range travel primary vehicles, we feel there are better alternatives, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and tomorrow with fuel cells,” Lentz said in an interview after Fortune magazine’s Brainstorm Green conference.

Because hydrogen fuel cells are cheaper on a cost-per-vehicle basis and are more efficient on a well-to-wheel basis, Toyota has turned away from a 20-year effort to create a viable battery-electric vehicle.

Lentz’s comments come on the heels of Toyota’s decision to end its r&d deal with Tesla to supply the RAV4 EV. Lentz said the deal, through which Toyota agreed to buy Tesla components for 2,600 RAV4 EVs over three years, “was never about open-ended volume. It was time to either continue or stop. My personal feeling was that I would rather invest my dollars in fuel cell development than in another 2,500 EVs.

Lessons learned

“We learned a lot about being a smaller entrepreneurial company in the auto business and being faster to market,” Lentz said. “They learned about our quality control. It was more about two types of companies working together than about batteries. We’re not anti-battery. We are a big battery company. We have 6 million hybrids running on batteries.”

Not that Toyota has done poorly investing in Tesla. When Toyota President Akio Toyoda joined forces with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in 2010 with a $50 million capital infusion, there was no way Toyota would know the investment would be worth 10 times as much today on Wall Street.

“It’s done OK,” Lentz said, with a hint of sarcasm. “It’s an investment and we have to treat it like an investment. If it were my money in my pocket, I would take a little off the table. But it’s a [Toyota Motor Corp.] investment, so I don’t control it.”

Toyota’s commitment to fuel cell infrastructure in California -- timed to coincide with the launch of its hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as well as those of Honda and Hyundai -- includes a $7 million arms-length loan to FirstElement Fuel Inc. to help build refueling stations.

FirstElement, led by former General Motors marketing chief Joel Ewanick, is planning a network of hydrogen refueling stations across California by Fall 2015.

A Toyota study has calculated that it will take 68 refueling stations to meet the needs of 10,000 California fuel cell customers to not worry about being stranded. By the end of 2016, California should have 50 stations in operation, “which is a good step,” Lentz said.

He said most of the hydrogen fuel will have to be trucked in, initially, before self-generating hydrogen stations can become affordable.

“My hope is that other automakers will see our investment and will invest as well, so hopefully we can accelerate to 70 [stations] before 2018,” Lentz said. “Unlike hybrids when we were on our own, all the major players will be out there with us in fuel cells.”

 

[FutureFolly]

Someone needs to explain the difference between marginal profit and net profit. The marginal profit for one specific car is the revenue from one sale minus ONLY the incremental cost(materials, labor, energy, shipping...) of building that one car. The net profit of a model is the total revenue from the sale of all related models(hatchback, sedans, convertibles...) minus ALL the costs that went into those models. Costs of bringing a car to market are substantial. Engineering, design, testing, safety certification, emissions certification, customer research, marketing, factory capacity, equipment, tooling, THEN assembly, electricity, metal, paint, wheels, tires, powertrain(with its own fixed costs), batteries, random outsourced parts, transportation to customers, profit for the dealers.

Many, many vehicles have been manufactured and sold that never generated a NET profit, but relatively few vehicles have been produced that never generated a MARGINAL profit. In this day and age, you need either a high marginal profit or a high volume to make ANY car work. A high price does not mean a car is covering ALL of its costs.

The SRT/Dodge Viper is a good example. It represents a HUGE investment by FCA. I'm sure Marchionne is even proud of the Viper. Few other vehicles represent the concept of a "halo car" better. A 640 HP, 8.4L V10. A totally new, unique chassis. Ridiculously monstrous tires. The price of a European supercar. Yet there is NO WAY they are going to net a profit. In its first year on sale, they are getting no where near the demand that they need to justify more investment at some point in the future. If it weren't a halo car, this would be the definition of a flop. Marchionne only likes the Viper over the Fiat 500 EV, a "compliance car," because he can claim that it brought people into the dealerships. Also, there WAS a plan for the Viper to be profitable that he can pretend is still working.

AT THIS POINT, GM is most likely close to making a marginal profit on the Spark EV. All the signs point to them having a plan to make the Spark EV first marginally profitable and at least indirectly net profitable. Everything they have already spent learning about EVs building the Spark can eventually be depreciated over other models.

-They built a stand-out powertrain in-house, instead of outsourcing. They are definitely manufacturing motors for less than they could have bought them.
-They didn't design a dedicated platform. Avoiding that investment lowered their marginal and fixed costs.
-They engineered a battery pack TWICE that is smaller than the competition without comprising range compared to the competition. Less lithium, lower marginal cost.
-They are going to build their own battery packs next year. This SHOULD lower their marginal cost.
-They care enough to change battery packs after only one model year.
-They used Volt parts where they could. This mostly spreads the fixed cost over more models.
-They chose the cheapest car in their line-up to electrify.
-They are shipping the powertrains to S. Korea to keep labor costs down.

A corporation simply doesn't go through the effort to find a ton of little costs that they can lower through more investment, if those investments will ALWAYS yield a product that doesn't sell for a marginal profit. Complying with CARB mandates is simply one cost of doing business just like putting emissions systems on cars. Yet no one acts like they're being tortured by the EPA by being forced to put catalytic converters(CCs) on their cars. As soon as I need to If GMs only saw selling the Spark EV as a cost of doing business, their investments would have to be immediately depreciated to zero because there would have to be no plan on raising volume beyond necessary.

 

[nozferatu]

It's no surprise that your limited knowledge of the EV business allows this thinking, but nonetheless, you are wrong regardless of what you might believe.

There is absolutely NO WAY that GM does anything but lose money on the Spark EV, and plenty of it.

Absolute rubbish...keep thinking that....lol.

 

[gra]

Of course, cars have been 'electrified' to some extent or other for more than 100 years, at least since the first one used a spark plug instead of a heated piece of metal to ignite the fuel mixture, but if you want to be more restrictive since 1912, when Charles Kettering's Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (better known today by its acronym) developed and introduced the first integrated starting, lighting, ignition and charging system on Cadillacs (and thus provided the final nail in the coffin for BEVs in their first go-round).

Uh, ya. Because a 1912 automobile had something electrified, we should all want hydrogen powered "electric cars". Sure, sounds awesome.

Uh, no, that wasn't my point (but you knew that ). My point was that we've been driving ICE-electric hybrids for over a century now, with the amount of electrification increasing in each generation, until it's not only used for the most basic requirements like starting, ignition and lighting, but also used for almost every other function as well. Just about the only area left to electrify is the propulsion itself, because in addition to the above 'electrification' is now used to see out when it's raining or cold, heat and move the seats/windows/doors or unlock them, speed up/slow down/hold speed, steer, brake, shift, and on and on.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Uh, ya. Because a 1912 automobile had something electrified, we should all want hydrogen powered "electric cars". Sure, sounds awesome.

Uh, no, that wasn't my point (but you knew that ).

Come on, hydrogen cars, profitable compliance cars... heck, all we need is some Frankenplug cheerleading for a trifecta !

Anyhow, sure, cars are getting more and more electrical. I just drove my 1951 GMC 2 ton truck, and I can confirm that 63 years ago, there was limited electrification of cars. But, what can replace a 5 speed Fuller with straight cut gears, no synchronizer rings, double clutch shifts, 2 speed air shift, gigantic non-power steering wheel? It doesn't even have an electric switch to energize the starter; foot actuated mechanical simplicity.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... All the signs point to them having a plan to make the Spark EV first marginally profitable and at least indirectly net profitable...

A corporation simply doesn't go through the effort to find a ton of little costs that they can lower through more investment, if those investments will ALWAYS yield a product that doesn't sell for a marginal profit. Complying with CARB mandates is simply one cost of doing business just like putting emissions systems on cars. Yet no one acts like they're being tortured by the EPA by being forced to put catalytic converters(CCs) on their cars. As soon as I need to If GMs only saw selling the Spark EV as a cost of doing business, their investments would have to be immediately depreciated to zero because there would have to be no plan on raising volume beyond necessary.

And yet companies are LOUDLY complaining about CARB-ZEV compliance. All the examples given can just as easily be explained away with GM (or any manufacturer) trying to "lower the loss" of a required expense (CARB-ZEV compliance).

Car companies did complain about catalytic converters; I remember all too well. Seat belts, air bags... anything government mandated, they complained. They complained enough about CARB-ZEV that they sued (successfully) to stop the entire program in 2003. The electric cars of the era stopped immediately.

Now they are suing the EPA to try and stop / slow down CARB-ZEV. Same game, different era.

I don't really care if somebody wants to think that there are tooth fairies or that any street legal, crash tested, assembly line produced car from a top heavy major corporation and built at a few hundred at a time are profitable at $20k-ish. Folks in the industry know better.

If CARB-ZEV and CAFE mileage requirements disappeared tomorrow, so would the Spark EV, like the EV-1 before it. I would guess the Volt would go, too.