The only thing these guys know is to make vehicles bigger and bigger. One day they wake up and will ask for public subsidies because Chinese manufacturers have eaten their lunch.
Citation needed
> Thursday, the auto maker announced a third North American assembly plant to meet commercial demand for F-series Super Duty trucks.
> It’s another sign that Ford’s commercial business is healthy. Pro is Ford’s star business segment, earning $3 billion in operating profit in the first quarter, while the traditional car business saw a $900 million profit, and the Model e electric-vehicle business lost $1.3 billion.
It is Ford's commercial segment that is really driving their success in selling these vehicles.
For example if the owner of a construction company and his son have a Super Duty truck each that is mostly used to commute I would not consider them to be used as business vehicles.
For example in my country the stereotipycal vehicle for construction workers and farmers looks like [0] and exists in dozens of variations with all kinds of specialized attachments like
https://photo.static-viamobilis.com/32/1/7945049-photo-camio...
https://www.ricciato.com/resources/product/10519/gallery/05_...
https://photo.via-mobilis.com/32/2/2312573-camion-benne.jpg
https://www.grupposcotti.it/media/8d879ce9c03e93b/gamma-ivec...
https://www.ricciato.com/resources/product/10519/gallery/IMG...
https://autoline24.it/img/s/veicolo-commerciale-furgone-auto...
[0] https://www.emacchinari.com/img/19/09/231031P_20190730_09522...
https://www.pahomepage.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2022/...
https://www.comerconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08...
https://cdn.ironpla.net/i/3540/785/f6b151d7-c39c-4167-b128-4...
https://hendersonshauling.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/uha...
https://live.staticflickr.com/3872/15073330941_bab304b041_h....
> and exists in dozens of variations with all kinds of specialized attachments
As does the Super Duty.
https://www.fordpro.com/en-us/fleet-vehicles/chassis-cab/
While you can purchase a superduty in a non-fleet configuration through non-fleet retail channels, the article I posted above is speaking specifically about fleet sales.
If Americans really didn’t want EVs then there should be no need to protect the market from the cheaper Chinese brands, because nobody would be buying them.
Chinese carmakers set up shop in Mexico to exploit North American trade rules. Once in place, they send ultra-low-priced electric vehicles streaming into the United States.”
https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicles-mexico-evs-automak...
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2024/07/10...
Also, I apparently need to correct what I said about Trump being more bearish on Chinese EVs. From Bloomberg today: "Trump Welcomes China to Build Cars in US in Departure From Biden."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-19/trump-wel...
From Ford/GM perspective, I’m assuming they’ve crunched the numbers, and realized trying to make a cheaper vehicle will not result in proper ROI. I’m not sure if they can ever compete with economies of scale as well, compared to Chinese hawks, as they just have so many more consumers even just internally.
It’s going to be fun to watch the car-wars as we have allied countries like Australia that are buying up BYDs, so people can’t just call them “Chinese crap” forever. My bet is within 5 years US/Europe is going to rely on protectionism even more, as China puts more pressure on exports. It’s a huge industry with an enormous amount of jobs attached to it after all.
That's a double edged sword as China will retaliate with tariffs on US and EU cars in China, and the Chinese market has been a huge moneymaker for the German companies, who now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They can't outcompete Chinese EV makers on price in the EU market, but they also can't loose the Chinese market if retaliatory tarries would hit them.
I'm focusing on Germany because the Germany economy is far more dependent on cars than the US economy where it's more of a vestigial tail compared to finance, services and tech.
Also, tariffs are a poisoned chalice. Yes, they'll protect your industry locally on the short term, but long term, your industry will loose out on competitiveness on the global market where it lacks protectionism and will be decimated in the long run.
My bet is that instead of a mutual assured destruction tarif wars, EU and Chinese companies will enter into partnerships where they share technology and factories, meaning of course the EU made Chinese EVs will be significantly more expensive than those sold abroad.
Corporations are going to focus on what people want to buy, and right now that isn’t EVs. Several manufacturers tried it, they had aggressive timelines to convert their entire fleets - and they’ve almost all reversed course because the gas/hybrid offerings were far outselling their BEV options.
It’s all about current profit. Remember how the US crushed millions of used cars to help the auto industry and destroyed poor peoples chances of an affordable car? I’ll bet it happens again very soon.
That's the other way around, they are great at making people want to buy the products they make. They make trucks because the chicken tax makes foreign trucks and vans unattractive in the US. And the trucks grow bigger every year because it's easier to satisfy environmental regulations with bigger vehicles (since the goals depend on vehicle size). They then make really good propaganda^w marketing to make people want to buy those vehicles.
If people only wanted rugged, reliable, long-lasting vehicles they would buy Toyota.
And that trucks are that popular at all is already a symptom of the "issue". Most people who drive trucks would be served better by hatchback, or if you want a bigger front grill an SUV. But trucks are cooler, manlier, more American. Which isn't an idea people got on their own. Which isn't an idea people got on their own, it's carefully cultivated in the US.
I still drive it every day to work but for family trips I drive a much larger three-row SUV and it is better in basically every way except gas mileage, which thanks to being a hybrid is about the same. So I get where people are coming from. My conclusion has been people tend to buy as much car as they can possibly afford and often more.
So even discounting demand, automakers and dealers are incentivized to make big, expensive vehicles, which reduces the number of small models available, which in turn further reduces demand as would-be small car buyers can no longer find options that make the right tradeoffs for their situation.
In other words, in some ways it's a self-reinforcing cycle that won't end absent external corrections.
This is absolutely not true. The demand is manufactured. Car companies in the US are building bigger SUVs and trucks because they are classified different and have less strict emissions regulations.
Looking at you, Chicken Tax!
This is basic microeconomics. If the Honda CR-V, the Ford Explorer and every other car of a similar or bigger size had to pay the same tax as smaller ones, they would sell less.
They didn’t though. Because Americans didn’t want them.
The emissions regulations people talk about are easy to look up online and there was undoubtedly a real effect on the viability of larger vehicles but it is hugely overstated online. The main reason for huge cars is because they really are much more useful and comfortable for anything except gas mileage and city parking, Americans can afford them, and such models generally have more social clout.
The Fit in particular is an amazing car. There’s actually much more room for the driver than in even much larger cars. With the seats down you can fit all kinds of crazy stuff in there - even 8ft lumber. It didn’t die because of government regulation. It died because Americans by and large think it’s a ridiculous car to drive around in, so it didn’t sell. And because despite all those things, a three row SUV or a truck has more general utility.
Which are exactly the things heavily subsidized in the US!
Either way, that’s two dimensions out of dozens. I could argue that efficiency has come a long way (my large SUV gets 40mpg) but more than that people really will pay huge amounts in gas to drive these cars regardless. While I was paying a little over a hundred a month for my Fit in gas other people were paying just south of a thousand. They could have easily moved down and chose not to. I guess you could plan to turn up the pain as much as possible for as long as possible but I’m not sure how you can accomplish that in a democracy.
City parking is not that big a deal, most people don’t do it most of the time. Obviously people value the dozens of other dimensions they assess cars on much more than these two.
I'm kind of tired of these discussions. It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. If they were not brainwashed by marketing, 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van or a properly-sized commuter car. If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them.
The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it.
[0]: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-ame...
The existence of my three-row four-cylinder hybrid SUV getting 40mpg does not preclude the existence of similarly sized V8s getting 10-15MPG.
> It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car.
Why? I love my Fit, but it struggles to go up steep hills with 4 grown men (who in the back fit uncomfortably) in the car. It has a 600lb total human + cargo weight limit. The cargo space is manifestly severely limited with passengers. My children are able to scream directly into my eardrums and kick the back of my seat. I can go on. In comparison, my SUV definitely provides a higher quality of life, is safer in a collision thanks to F=MA, and is generally more comfortable. It can also pull quite a bit of weight in my trailer, which the owner's manual for my model Fit specifically says I must never do. It is much easier for my aging grandmother to get into the SUV and a huge struggle for her to get into the Fit. Avoiding road debris is much more difficult in the Fit, because its low height means that I cannot safely drive over many objects. (Indeed over the past ten years the under-trim has been quite severely damaged by unavoidable collisions with branches, etc.) It also means if I pull too far forward in a parking spot I hit the transmission (ouch) on the parking bumper, and in "rough" parking areas with steep gradients I have to be very careful.
> 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van
Vans are quite large. I drive one regularly. What's the real difference here other than the shape and sliding doors? Maybe the SUV is higher? Similarly, I don't see much of a difference between an SUV and station wagon. Is it just the height that bothers you? Can you explain what specific utility they are gaining in this situation? I've also noticed that van seats tend to not be as handy as SUV seats for cargo storage unless you totally remove them, but this may vary by model.
> a properly-sized commuter car.
There are plenty of normal sized sedans on the market right now.
> If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them.
This is just silly. Is there a kei enthusiast market? Absolutely! But it's a very tiny market (~7500 imported a year), and they're usually not actually replacing a truck: even your own article mentions that the guy is buying it to serve the role of a side-by-side; e.g., to putter around on his farm on. It's replacing a Polaris Ranger, not a Ford Ranger. This is a totally different market than "people who really need trucks", who yes, buy something like an F-2/150. I live in a rural area and a lot of people that work "truck" jobs, hauling huge trailers, filling the bed with tools and supplies, etc...they're not driving keis.
> The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it.
I find it much more productive to assume people I disagree with are operating on different values than I am to assume they're simply illogical and brainwashed. Do I think it's crazy people are spending 60-80k on trucks that aren't exclusively work trucks or for hauling their boat or something? Yeah. But I know they're not, they're just different than me and have their own reasons. I don't feel a need to dictate everyone drive the cars I like.
My car sat on the lot for months before I bought it. There was plenty of inventory and Honda managed to sell something like 10-11k of them that year. There was no conspiracy here. People just didn't want a small car. People regularly make fun of me for driving such a small car.
If you mostly produce pickup trucks, you're going to make sure that the general public "wants" pickup trucks.
I think part of this is:
1. people want to keep up with the joneses
2. as other cars in traffic get larger, some people don't want to want to drive cars that make them feel small on the road by comparison... the "I want to sit up high so I can see better" effect.
So yes the only way automakers can increase revenue in the US is by making cars and trucks more expensive. Because they can't increase unit volume.
The issue the Chinese have is everyone not just the US is asking the question what in it for us having all the factories in China.