It is unfortunate that all this innovation is happening in China, and subject to all sorts of protective tariffs to protect the absurdly dumb and backwards thinking US automotive industry. If they can't adapt to the modern world and what customers want, they should be allowed to go bankrupt. But no, we have to keep subsidizing and protecting the ability to make yet more gargantuan SUVs.
So let’s play this out. Say China floods the US market and the US players go out of business as you suggest. What then happens to the US’s industrial base? What happens if there’s a major war (maybe even against china!) and no car factories to retool? You think a new crop of auto companies come up and then are able to compete against lower wage workers combined with gov financing?
This is the bit everyone misses. It’s not about protecting a backwards US or EU etc automotive OEM. It’s about stopping a government backed business models from Chinese companies wiping out the rest of the world’s auto makers in a way those companies simply can’t compete with … and then jacking up pricing in a couple of decades.
Substitute "china" for "japan" and roll back the clock a few decades. Even though Toyota, Nissan and Honda are top-selling brands, Detroit spiffed up its quality controls, and a bunch of those manufacturers set up factories in the US anyways.
Not great but let's play the other side out. Third party countries such as Australia already have over 80% of the EV market dominated by Chinese made vehicles.
If the US closes it's borders to imports it'll retain a market only fit for domestic consumption. It's cars will not be competitive internationally.
The only real way out is for the US to find a way to remain competitive full stop. Isolationism or just allowing foreign imports to dominate should not be options either way.
Why would China flood the US market? Their advantage is that they can make stuff cheaper. The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, and has one of the highest median selling prices for new cars. I don't think an $10-$15k basic small car would be a bestseller there.
If you are implying that the Chinese can make cars that can satisfy the upmarket needs of US consumers, and do it significantly cheaper, then that implies the US automakers are gouging their customers or are simply incompetent. In both cases, protecting them amounts to putting shareholder interest before the interest of the common people.
The brutal fact of the matter is if the US needs to blockade Chinese cars lest the US automotive industry completely collapses on itself, the US has already lost. There is nothing worth protecting at that point; an industry that can't make first rate products can't create instruments of war that can win.
If we wanted Pax Americana to last, shit needed to change at least a few decades ago. Anyone who was paying attention to EV development would have foreseen China dominating the field.
You mean if China produces vehicles that offer tremendous value and consumers love them? Lots of happy consumers who can spend money on other things they want.
> and the US players go out of business
US automakers have been bailed out several times now and have been insulated from competitive pressures. It is inevitable that several of them will go out of business. This is not a bad thing. The valuable bits will be snapped up by other firms. (pension obligations will be another story). [^1][^2]
> What happens if there’s a major war...
Healthy trade between the US and China dramatically reduces the chances of a major war. China is not run by an irrational child, its policy is influenced by wealthy business owners and its large capitalist class. Those people do not want to go to war with their best customers. [^3][^4]
(Warmongering over China is coming strictly from US hawks who are attracted to the narrative to distract attention from tough times at home.)
> You think a new crop of auto companies come up and then are able to compete against lower wage workers combined with gov financing?
The US auto industry has been significantly bailed out several times. US auto industry workers are heavily subsidized by US government policies. [^5][^6][^7]
Some may recall before the fall of the Soviet union when Soviet citizens were forced to buy Soviet-made cars that were laughably unreliable compared to vehicles manufactured elsewhere.
The US is entering this territory of absurd protectionism that benefits the few at the expense of everyone else. We now have 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs and surely with the rate of innovation we are seeing, they will be 200% before long.
Tesla is bizarrely focused on gigapress and making the EV high-end when the economics of a vehicle with many fewer moving parts and a simpler design should be leading us toward sub-$10K cars and trucks.
As usual, Chinese firms seem to have better engineering chops and much better practical understanding of what the market wants.
China massively subsides its automotive OEMS. To the point that the whole thing might as well be considered a public sector endeavour. The only way the US can counter this is with tariffs or subsidising way beyond what they currently are. If US customers stopped buying SUVs OEMs would stop making them.
Wouldn't that be an argument for Americans (and others) to buy _as many_ Chinese cars as possible? Unless China is imposing export tariffs/taxes/etc. on them, this would basically be draining the subsidized money from their economy - every purchase is a chunk of that subsidized money escaping.
I think geopolitics plays a heavy hand here. I don't see how the US government could negotiate or even allow Chinese EV to be sold on US soil -- and even allowing them to open factories is not a popular move -- not to say that opening factories in the US is expensive.
The more likely outcome is that the US government would seek ways to force the EU governments to remove Chinese brands from the EU market, or at least imposing a very heavy import tax, like 200%. This, of course, will deal a heavy blow to the EU car makers themselves too, but I believe the US does have enough strings to pull.
That just means the US and EU are in collective isolationism. Will they force third party countries into this agreement to spend more on EU/US cars over Chinese ones?
American auto industry has had several reset chances since Japanese automakers began wiping the floor with them and each time they have found themselves behind within 5-10 years. It’s pretty incredible.
Germany goes the same way and instead of supporting EVs and infrastructure drastically, they discuss how to roll back the phase out of combustion engine cars.
Sad to see how a country, which is so proud of their car industry, fails so spectacularly.
I've seen this shared a few times... and I'm not sure I get why.
I think driving range is an important metric for fully-electric vehicles since recharging isn't easy everywhere in the country.
Otherwise I think MPG is the right metric.
Not sure why driving range of a HYBRID would be a relevant metric, that would be a factor of a lot of things, like gas tank size, which doesn't pertain to efficiency/environmentalism.
Gallons per hundred miles would be a better metric, since it would make it clearer that improving gas mileage of inefficient vehicles makes a lot more difference for gas consumption.
My favorite demonstration of this is that increasing your mileage from 10mpg to 12mpg, from 20mpg to 30mpg, and from 60mpg to 1,000mpg all save the same amount of gas.
If I had a car that could go over a thousand miles between fill-ups, I would never fill it all the way. I’d rather not haul around half a tank of gas that I won’t need, and which marginally hurts the mileage. I also wouldn’t want to have gallons of gas sitting in the tank for months, which is what the result would be if I filled it.
Of course, this line of thinking is why I’d never buy a vehicle with this capability. I’d rather buy one with fewer features, a smaller gas tank, and/or a smaller battery.
If your current car tripled or quadrupled its mileage, would you also stop filling it up? Seems a silly idea to me as you never know when you're gonna want to go a little bit further than you normally do on a tank.
I drive so little that I only fill up about monthly and I could fill up weekly to 1/3rd tank to save a little bit of weight penalty, but that would be silly and a waste of all that gas station time when the gas in the tank does just fine for a month (a year might be different.)
There’s a difference between going from weekly to monthly and going from monthly to semi-annually. For one thing, (AIUI), it’s not good to have gas sitting in your car for more than a few months.
Also, it’s possible that during a given week you don’t go near a gas station (from where I live, if I hop on the freeway and head to the city, I don’t pass any). But it’s unlikely that if you drive for a month you’re not near a gas station at a convenient time to stop. So getting rid of the annoyance of weekly fill-ups is different from dealing with monthly fill-ups (which is not especially annoying).
In my experience, driving ranges of electric cars are heavily cherry picked with the best possible conditions and even then they are very generous. We'll see if someone independent can see what the driving range really ends up being
They are inaccurate, but it's not simply that they are cherry-picked. It is just extremely difficult to give an estimation when one of the main factors is grade. No matter how much grade you pick to use for your benchmark, it is going to be wrong for a lot of people.
Epa standards for MPG have had the same problem for many years. It definitely improved for most people when they stopped using a completely flat area and started having some grade changes, but it is still just a matter of where you fall on the averages for where you live and drive.
Unless we know the details such as battery pack size and capacity of gas tank, it’s hard to imagine how big of an innovation this is. If you add Prius’s range of 550+ on 11.3 gallons gas tank and BYD’s battery powered car range of 400+ - that’s about a 1000 miles right there.
Nonetheless, if they are able to keep the cost down and gain a 30% efficiency- that’s still pretty good.
Readit News
If the US closes it's borders to imports it'll retain a market only fit for domestic consumption. It's cars will not be competitive internationally.
The only real way out is for the US to find a way to remain competitive full stop. Isolationism or just allowing foreign imports to dominate should not be options either way.
If you are implying that the Chinese can make cars that can satisfy the upmarket needs of US consumers, and do it significantly cheaper, then that implies the US automakers are gouging their customers or are simply incompetent. In both cases, protecting them amounts to putting shareholder interest before the interest of the common people.
The brutal fact of the matter is if the US needs to blockade Chinese cars lest the US automotive industry completely collapses on itself, the US has already lost. There is nothing worth protecting at that point; an industry that can't make first rate products can't create instruments of war that can win.
If we wanted Pax Americana to last, shit needed to change at least a few decades ago. Anyone who was paying attention to EV development would have foreseen China dominating the field.
Retool what?
Just because GM was able to switch from cars to tanks for WW2 doesn't mean they could do it now if they had to.
You mean if China produces vehicles that offer tremendous value and consumers love them? Lots of happy consumers who can spend money on other things they want.
> and the US players go out of business
US automakers have been bailed out several times now and have been insulated from competitive pressures. It is inevitable that several of them will go out of business. This is not a bad thing. The valuable bits will be snapped up by other firms. (pension obligations will be another story). [^1][^2]
> What happens if there’s a major war...
Healthy trade between the US and China dramatically reduces the chances of a major war. China is not run by an irrational child, its policy is influenced by wealthy business owners and its large capitalist class. Those people do not want to go to war with their best customers. [^3][^4]
(Warmongering over China is coming strictly from US hawks who are attracted to the narrative to distract attention from tough times at home.)
> You think a new crop of auto companies come up and then are able to compete against lower wage workers combined with gov financing?
The US auto industry has been significantly bailed out several times. US auto industry workers are heavily subsidized by US government policies. [^5][^6][^7]
---
[^1]: https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/auto-bailout
[^2]: https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...
[^3]: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/tr...
[^4]: https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-trade-can-reduce-conflict
[^5]: https://hbr.org/2019/06/how-china-wins
[^6]: https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/chinas-capitalist-classes-th...
[^7]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bailout.asp
The US is entering this territory of absurd protectionism that benefits the few at the expense of everyone else. We now have 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs and surely with the rate of innovation we are seeing, they will be 200% before long.
Tesla is bizarrely focused on gigapress and making the EV high-end when the economics of a vehicle with many fewer moving parts and a simpler design should be leading us toward sub-$10K cars and trucks.
As usual, Chinese firms seem to have better engineering chops and much better practical understanding of what the market wants.
Anyone could buy imported car, the only problem was lack of $$$ hard currency.
The more likely outcome is that the US government would seek ways to force the EU governments to remove Chinese brands from the EU market, or at least imposing a very heavy import tax, like 200%. This, of course, will deal a heavy blow to the EU car makers themselves too, but I believe the US does have enough strings to pull.
80%+ of EVs in Australia are Chinese made. Will the US/EU accept they just can't make competitive cars or will they force other countries to buy their cars? https://www.drive.com.au/news/china-builds-80-per-cent-of-ne...
> How big's your engine? 5.7 litre Buick and a 7 litre v8 motor!
> It's 160HP in the Buick
> It's 200HP in the 7.0l [other American car]
> How do [American car companies] get so few horsepower from these engines?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RKai81eBRE
Sad to see how a country, which is so proud of their car industry, fails so spectacularly.
The average miles driven on a car per year is 13,500
The median range of a gasoline automobile is ~400 miles
Assuming most people don't drive to absolute empty figure that's something like 40 trips per year to the gas station
This BYD cuts that down to ~10 trips per annum
Or framed another way you go to the gas station once every five weeks vs once a week
(1) https://www.caranddriver.com/auto-loans/a32880477/average-mi...
(2) https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1221-janu...
I think driving range is an important metric for fully-electric vehicles since recharging isn't easy everywhere in the country.
Otherwise I think MPG is the right metric.
Not sure why driving range of a HYBRID would be a relevant metric, that would be a factor of a lot of things, like gas tank size, which doesn't pertain to efficiency/environmentalism.
That is 34.5km/L or 81.1MPG.
These numbers are incredible.
Sounds promising but would love to see an exact apples-to-apples comparison before I get too excited.
and that 250E battery is good for 60km range in summer, 40km in winter
Of course, this line of thinking is why I’d never buy a vehicle with this capability. I’d rather buy one with fewer features, a smaller gas tank, and/or a smaller battery.
I drive so little that I only fill up about monthly and I could fill up weekly to 1/3rd tank to save a little bit of weight penalty, but that would be silly and a waste of all that gas station time when the gas in the tank does just fine for a month (a year might be different.)
Also, it’s possible that during a given week you don’t go near a gas station (from where I live, if I hop on the freeway and head to the city, I don’t pass any). But it’s unlikely that if you drive for a month you’re not near a gas station at a convenient time to stop. So getting rid of the annoyance of weekly fill-ups is different from dealing with monthly fill-ups (which is not especially annoying).
Epa standards for MPG have had the same problem for many years. It definitely improved for most people when they stopped using a completely flat area and started having some grade changes, but it is still just a matter of where you fall on the averages for where you live and drive.
My maths is not what is used to be.
A thousand miles with gasoline and 300 miles on battery = 1,300 miles
either that or you have to tow a small trailer with extra batteries
On a lighter note
Even Tiger Woods cant drive 1,300 miles so the Chinese have no chance
Nonetheless, if they are able to keep the cost down and gain a 30% efficiency- that’s still pretty good.