Connect with us

Published

on

GM CEO Mary Barra was recently asked about profitability targets for the company’s electric vehicle line and said that it’s on track for EV profitability in 2025.

But, frankly, the whole conversation about EV profitability and cost parity doesn’t make a lot of sense, and here’s why.

Barra is at the Aspen Ideas Festival this week, and conversations have predictably included lots of talk about electric vehicles. She sat down with Andrew Ross Sorkin from CNBC for an interview about the company’s EV transition, and the question of EV profitability came up, as it often does.

Barra gave the kind of answer we’ve heard before – EV profitability isn’t here but is coming soon, and affordable vehicles are going to be the hardest ones to make profitably.

Here’s the full exchange:

Sorkin: You’ve also talked about the challenges of producing cheaper vehicles, so $30,000 to $40,000 vehicles, and doing that profitably, that’s gonna take ’til when now?

Barra: Well a lot of the vehicles that we’re putting out now as we get to scale, because we’ve brought battery manufacturing inside, we have plans and we’ve said – I don’t talk about individual product line profitability – but we’re on track for 2025 to be in that low mid single digits, and that’s before IRA, and then we’ve said later in the decade we’re gonna be at parity with ICE. So a lot of it is going to rely on continuing to improve battery chemistry and getting cost of out of the battery, ’cause that’s where the cost opportunity is.

Sorkin: Is the idea that there will be vehicles that you will sell, effectively unprofitably, to “seed the market,” if you will?

Barra: I would say we’re going to where we know the consumer has to be to get to the volume, and we’re gonna drive to profitability as quickly as possible, and then when you put things like IRA on top of it, along with the software services, I think we’re gonna see profitability even in those affordable vehicles more quickly than anyone’s expecting.

The most crucial statement here is that Barra reiterated that the company’s EVs will be profitable in 2025, and she specified here that this is without accounting for Inflation Reduction Act tax credits. IRA includes significant credits both for consumers and manufacturers.

Barra’s comments didn’t split out individual product lines, so perhaps she was talking about overall profitability across all of GM’s EV projects. This is necessarily going to be low at the moment because GM is currently spending a lot of money building manufacturing for its Ultium platform, which hasn’t produced many EVs yet. Product lines usually don’t become profitable until they’ve been manufactured for a while, as companies recoup initial investments and get costs down over time.

But what about the Bolt EV? It’s been in production for a long time now – to the point that it’s about to be discontinued. Has GM really not made any money on any of the units it has sold? Could it have done so if it had produced the car in higher volume or hadn’t dealt with an extended recall (which LG ended up paying for anyway)?

But this whole conversation is strange and has been for a long time for several reasons.

A short history of “cost parity” in EVs

There is a long history of car companies saying they can’t produce EVs profitably. One of the earliest was Fiat’s late CEO Sergio Marchionne, who famously told customers not to buy his company’s Fiat 500e because Fiat supposedly lost $14k per unit (among a lot of other bonkers EV-related comments).

Currently, most manufacturers will tell you that they are not making a direct profit on their electric vehicle lines. The most notable exception is Tesla, a company that’s focused entirely on making electric cars and, at times, has had higher margins than anyone in the overall auto industry. Those margins have now dropped as Tesla has dropped prices, starting a price war that is threatening other automakers due to Tesla’s significant apparent cost advantage.

So it is definitely strange to have every company saying that EVs are less profitable, except for the one most profitable company. That company also happens to be the one that has taken EVs the most seriously and for the longest period of time.

And, importantly, Tesla is one of few companies that doesn’t have an interest in making the public think that EVs are inferior in some way or otherwise pushing back the timeline for EV adoption. Because Tesla’s current product mix isn’t heavily fossil-based like the rest of the industry is.

But lest we think Tesla is the only exception that proves the rule, it’s not the only company that has generated a profit on EVs. The unassuming Nissan Leaf, which is currently and has historically been one of the lowest-price EVs (and lowest-price vehicles period – after state & federal credits, many buyers can get one for under 20k), started making a profit in 2014. At the time, more Leafs had been sold than any other EV worldwide, which remained the case until the Model 3 eclipsed it in 2020.

So we know that EVs can produce profit – even a lot of profit – and we know that this has been the case for a long time, even for low-cost EVs.

What does this mean for consumers?

The question Barra answered assumed that cost parity would be hard to meet, particularly in “cheaper vehicles” in the $30-40k range.

But for consumers, the cheapest vehicles have already reached price parity in many cases.

Currently, and for the better part of a year, the Chevy Bolt has been a screaming deal with its $26k base price. Then you can apply the $7,500 federal tax credit and potentially state and regional credits or other various discounts, bringing it down to a price competitive with the cheapest new vehicles in America.

And that’s not just some bare-bones get-you-there car like the universally-panned Mitsubishi Mirage, but a vehicle good enough to earn Electrek’s Vehicle of the Year award despite being at the end of its lifecycle. So you’re not just getting a low-price car, but a good car – meaning the quality-for-price metric is through the roof.

While the Bolt is being discontinued, the Leaf is still around, is still cheap, and is also a good car. The package is a little worse on value than the current Bolt is, but there will still be a solid EV in the $20k range post-credit, which is about as low as you can expect new gas cars to go.

This holds true as you go up in price, with EVs standing out in terms of value against price competitors. The Tesla Model 3 is a phenomenal car and starts at around $30k after credits. Meanwhile, its cousin, the Tesla Model Y, is currently the best-selling vehicle on Earth because of its value proposition against the competition.

And throughout all of this, we’ve only talked about the purchase price. Running costs, both fuel and maintenance, tend to be cheaper on EVs and, as such, make the total cost parity calculation even more beneficial.

And this all has been the case for some time as well. There’s been no shortage of great EV lease deals in the past, with periods where EVs could be leased at $100-200 a month with little to nothing down (after taking into account state rebates). Admittedly, many of those have dried up recently due to excessively high EV demand.

So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that EVs can’t reach price parity for consumers until some time in the future because it’s clear that they’re already there, even in low-price segments.

How this conversation damages EV adoption

But really, is this even a productive conversation to be having?

The constant discussion of EV profitability and “cost parity” tends to migrate out of the purely financial press and make its way into consumer circles. And through the stock market, retirement plans, and so on, some consumers are concerned about a company’s ability to make a car profitably and don’t want that company to make cars with less profit, even if that could mean lower costs for them as a consumer.

So by stating that EVs are unprofitable, companies throw cold water on the idea of EVs and make everyone feel like the “proper time” to “switch” to EVs is some time in the future rather than now. These companies that are so heavily invested in the status quo want consumers to keep buying the models they offer – which are majority-ICE for nearly every automaker out there.

The conversation itself is harmful to EV adoption, at least in the way it is commonly presented – that this timeline is coming “in the future” rather than now (that said, Barra did say that this would come “sooner than anyone’s expecting,” which is a nice improvement in messaging).

The fact is: it doesn’t matter that much if an individual car, line, or effort is profitable, depending on how it fits into the company’s strategy. And companies know this because they keep making these EVs even though they claim they’re not profitable.

Why would companies do “unprofitable” things?

Companies exist to make a profit above all. But in the course of their existence, this doesn’t mean that every decision a company makes must drive a profit immediately.

Lower-cost vehicles, regardless of powertrain, tend to have lower profit margins. These are made up for by high volume and the expectation that the company may build brand loyalty amongst customers who, as they proceed in life, may end up in a position to purchase higher-priced, higher-margin vehicles.

And as mentioned in the Barra interview, everyone sees that the market is turning towards EVs, and companies are trying to establish a presence in the EV market, which is growing rapidly while gas car sales plateau. This means that companies may consider current EVs a “loss leader” to attempt to establish market share, especially if upfront investments in future capacity – growth of the company’s EV line – are accounted for as “losses” in the present due to the high upfront costs required.

Additionally, government requirements around the world are getting stricter in terms of required EV share. Companies simply have to sell a certain amount of EVs, so it doesn’t matter if they make a profit on any individual vehicle because if they don’t do it, they will be punished. The cost of that punishment (or the cost of credit-trading schemes) is greater than whatever they claim they’re losing on EVs.

This is why, for example, Fiat still sold the 500e in 2014 despite claiming it lost money – because selling the car meant it could continue selling in California, which made Fiat more profit than not doing so.

Companies and governments have different goals

One could call this “picking winners and losers,” but that is, again, a narrow view of the situation. Companies and governments (should) have different goals. Companies are in it for profit, but governments ought to be in it to enhance the public good. And these goals can be in opposition to one another.

To a company, the costs are whatever dollars it has to spend on materials, labor, distribution, etc. But other costs are ignored by a company, and instead absorbed by the rest of society. There is a long history of doing business by externalizing costs and privatizing profits – see the parable of the tragedy of the commons.

With cars, this means exhaust pollution, which is the largest contributor to smog that harms human health. The air is a common resource that all of us need, and the pollution put into that air by automotive and oil company products is responsible for enormous health and environmental costs (e.g., wildfires due to climate change, which are currently devastating much of North America, causing lung problems and property damage). Those costs are largely not borne by the polluters that are largely responsible for them, but instead borne by all of us on the back end.

It costs manufacturers more money to install pollution control equipment and engineer more efficient vehicles than it would if they didn’t have to do either of those things. Companies lobby fiercely against any requirement that might save you money – even if it costs them little to implement – because they only care about their own costs, not society’s.

But government at least should be different than that. Governments ought to account for these additional costs to society and tell polluters they need to pay those costs upfront.

Until they do, any discussion of “cost parity” is incomplete. If each EV saves $10,000 for society in health costs alone, then it is in the public interest to have more of them and fewer of the vehicles that are choking us. And if we spend all our time focusing on the cost of EV subsidies and not the much higher costs of fossil fuel subsidies, then we aren’t truly calculating which of these technologies has higher actual costs.

For these reasons, I believe we need to retire (or at least reframe) the whole conversation about “cost parity” for EVs. Consumers can already see parity in low-cost EVs and quality-for-price across various price ranges. Companies can already see it, assuming they’re taking their EV lines seriously and not just trying to throw cold water on the whole idea of EVs in the first place. And society can already see it, given that EVs are already making the air cleaner, resulting in lower societal costs that will compound in the future.

So why do we keep talking about some incredibly narrow definition of cost parity and perpetually say that it’s coming sometime in the future when, by so many meaningful metrics, we’re already here, and everybody in the industry already knows why they have to make EVs anyway? It just doesn’t make any sense.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Honda now has an electric Ruckus. Will they bring it to the US?

Published

on

By

Honda now has an electric Ruckus. Will they bring it to the US?

The Honda Ruckus has earned cult status thanks to its minimalist styling, exposed frame, and seemingly endless customizability. The scooter, also known in international markets as the Honda Zoomer, has spent years being seen as a blank canvas for scooter tuners, urban commuters, and anyone who just wanted something simple, small, and kind of weird to zip around town. A few years ago, Honda finally answered the call for an updated version by announcing and producing the “Zoomer e:”, which was an electric version of the Honda Ruckus. So where is it?

When Honda launched the all-electric version of the Ruckus, the Zoomer e:, back in 2023, many fans hoped it was only a matter of time before we saw it quietly glide onto U.S. streets.

But two years later, there’s still no sign of a stateside release, and no indication that Honda plans to change that anytime soon.

The Zoomer e: was first introduced in China in early 2023 alongside two other retro-inspired electrics: the Cub e: and Dax e:.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The Zoomer e: keeps the stripped-down, industrial look of the classic gas-powered Ruckus, but swaps the 49cc engine for a 400W rear hub motor and a 48V 24Ah battery (around 1.15 kWh).

It was originally given a top speed of a mere 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to keep it street legal as an electric bicycle in its first market of China, where it also came with functional but stubby pedals so riders could pretend it was actually pedalable.

The first version of the electric scooter claimed a range of up to 80–90 km (50–56 miles) from its removable lithium-ion battery, depending on conditions.

An advertisement for a Honda Zoomer e: in the Philippines via Facebook

We’ve since seen the performance bumped up to 40 km/h (25 mph) top speeds when the scooter was introduced into the Philippines market, where the local L1B classification allowed for higher speeds. It’s fairly obvious that the performance can be software-tweaked by Honda depending on the market, though likely to a limit. To achieve speeds much higher than 25 mph, a motor and controller swap may be required, though neither would be complicated.

In other words, the electric Ruckus’ debut revealed an ultra-lightweight, street-legal runabout designed for countries with expansive low-speed e-bike laws. But in the U.S., these types of quasi-e-bikes that are actually scooters are few and far between. The same performance can be had from a $1,000 electric bicycle, and in fact, Class 3 e-bikes in the US can go nearly twice as fast as the original electric Ruckus.

So Honda obviously hasn’t been in a rush to bring its low-spec version of the bike to the US market, where it would be a slower and heavier competitor to the wide range of cheap imported electric bicycles. However, its iconic design and cultural legacy have kept enthusiasm up for riders who have managed to privately import their own models. One Redditor appears to have imported two Honda Zoomer e: models in parts to assemble in the US, while someone else posted a YouTube video of his completely assembled Honda Dax e: model that was launched along the Zoomer e:.

Despite clear consumer interest and a growing market for low-speed electric vehicles, as well as Honda’s own proven interest in growing its electric scooter market, the company hasn’t made any moves to release the Zoomer e: in the US. That’s not surprising since America still lacks a robust electric scooter culture (or even a gasoline scooter culture, for that matter), and anything motorcycle-shaped that doesn’t hit 30+ mph tends to get passed over by mainstream buyers.

But perhaps that could change one day. Technically, bringing the Zoomer e: to the US wouldn’t be a monumental task for Honda. The U.S. is a self-certify country, meaning Honda could design a version that meets federal vehicle safety standards, beef up the motor and controller for higher speeds, and sell it as either a Class 2/3 e-bike, or perhaps more appropriately, as a low-speed motorcycle with a top speed in the 35-45 mph range (55-70 km/h).

With the rise of micromobility, electrification, and growing frustration with car-centric cities, now might actually be the perfect time for a reborn electric Ruckus to hit US roads. But until Honda decides to take that step, American riders will have to keep dreaming – or start importing.

A private import of a Honda Zoomer e: to the US

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

BMW ups the ante with the fastest, most powerful electric maxi-scooter

Published

on

By

BMW ups the ante with the fastest, most powerful electric maxi-scooter

BMW Motorrad’s futuristic electric scooter just got its first real refresh since beginning production in 2021. The BMW CE 04, already one of the most capable and stylish electric maxi-scooters on the market, now gets a set of upgraded trim options, new aesthetic touches, and a more robust list of features that aim to make this urban commuter even more appealing to riders looking for serious electric performance on two wheels.

The BMW CE 04 has always stood out for its sci-fi styling and high-performance drivetrain. It’s built on a mid-mounted liquid-cooled motor that puts out 31 kW (42 hp) and 62 Nm of torque. That’s enough to rocket the scooter from 0 to 50 km/h (31 mph) in just 2.6 seconds – quite fast for anything with a step-through frame.

The top speed is electronically limited to 120 km/h (75 mph), making it perfectly capable for city riding and fast enough to hold its own on highway stretches. Range is rated at 130 km (81 miles) on the WMTC cycle, thanks to the 8.9 kWh battery pack tucked low in the frame.

But while the core performance hasn’t changed, BMW’s 2025 update focuses on refining the package and giving riders more options to tailor the scooter to their taste. The new CE 04 is available in three trims: Basic, Avantgarde, and Exclusive.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The Basic trim keeps things clean and classic with a Lightwhite paint scheme and a clear windshield. It’s subtle, sleek, and very much in line with the CE 04’s clean-lined aesthetic. The Avantgarde model adds a splash of color with a Gravity Blue main body and bright São Paulo Yellow accents, along with a dark windshield and a laser-engraved rim. The top-shelf Exclusive trim is where things get fancy, with a premium Spacesilver metallic paint job, upgraded wind protection, heated grips, a luxury embroidered seat, and its own unique engraved rim treatment.

There are also a few new tech upgrades baked into the options list. Riders can now spec a 6.9 kW quick charger that reduces the 0–80% charge time to just 45 minutes (down from nearly 4 hours with the standard 2.3 kW onboard charger). Tire pressure monitoring, a center stand, and BMW’s “Headlight Pro” adaptive lighting system are also available as add-ons, along with an emergency eCall system and Dynamic Traction Control.

BMW has kept the core riding components in place: a steel-tube chassis, 15-inch wheels, Bosch ABS (with optional ABS Pro), and the impressive 10.25” TFT display with integrated navigation and smartphone connectivity. The under-seat storage still swallows a full-face helmet, and the long, low frame design means the scooter looks like something out of Blade Runner but rides like a luxury commuter.

With these updates, BMW seems to be further cementing the CE 04’s role at the high end of the electric scooter market. It’s not cheap, starting around €12,000 in Europe and around US $12,500 in the US, with prices going up from there depending on configuration. However, the maxi-scooter delivers real motorcycle-grade performance in a package that’s easier to live with for daily riders.

Electrek’s Take

I believe that the CE 04’s biggest strength has always been that it’s not trying to be a toy or a gimmick. It’s a real vehicle. Sure, it’s futuristic and funky looking, but it delivers on its promises. And in a market that’s still surprisingly sparse when it comes to premium electric scooters, BMW has had the lane mostly to itself. That may not last forever, though. LiveWire, Harley-Davidson’s electric spin-off brand, has teased plans for a maxi-scooter-style urban electric vehicle in the coming years, but as of now, it remains something of an undefined future plan.

Meanwhile, BMW is delivering not just a concept bike but a mature, well-equipped, and ready-to-ride electric scooter that keeps improving. For riders who want something faster and more capable than a Class 3 e-bike but aren’t ready to jump to a full-size electric motorcycle, the CE 04 hits a sweet spot. It delivers the performance and capability of a commuter e-motorcycle, yet with the approachability of a scooter. And with these new trims and upgrades, it’s doing it with even more style.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

I found this cheap Chinese e-cargo trike that hauls more than your car!

Published

on

By

I found this cheap Chinese e-cargo trike that hauls more than your car!

If you’ve ever wondered what happens when you combine a fruit cart, a cargo bike, and a Piaggio Ape all in one vehicle, now you’ve got your answer. I submit, for your approval, this week’s feature for the Awesomely Weird Alibaba Electric Vehicle of the Week column – and it’s a beautiful doozie.

Feast your eyes on this salad slinging, coleslaw cruising, tuber taxiing produce chariot!

I think this electric vegetable trike might finally scratch the itch long felt by many of my readers. It seems every time I cover an electric trike, even the really cool ones, I always get commenters poo-poo-ing it for having two wheels in the rear instead of two wheels in the front. Well, here you go, folks!

Designed with two front wheels for maximum stability, this trike keeps your cucumbers in check through every corner. Because trust me, you don’t want to hit a pothole and suddenly be juggling peaches like you’re in Cirque du Soleil: Farmers Market Edition.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

To avoid the extra cost of designing a linked steering system for a pair of front wheels, the engineers who brought this salad shuttle to life simply side-stepped that complexity altogether by steering the entire fixed front end. I’ve got articulating electric tractors that steer like this, and so if it works for a several-ton work machine, it should work for a couple hundred pounds of cargo bike.

Featuring a giant cargo bed up front with four cascading fruit baskets set up for roadside sales, this cargo bike is something of a blank slate. Sure, you could monetize grandma’s vegetable garden, or you could fill it with your own ideas and concoctions. Our exceedingly talented graphics wizard sees it as the perfect coffee and pastry e-bike for my new startup, The Handlebarista, and I’m not one to argue. Basically, the sky is the limit with a blank slate bike like this!

Sure, the quality doesn’t quite match something like a fancy Tern cargo bike. The rim brakes aren’t exactly confidence-inspiring, but at least there are three of them. And if they should all give out, or just not quite slow you down enough to avoid that quickly approaching brick wall, then at least you’ve got a couple hundred pounds of tomatoes as a tasty crumple zone.

The electrical system does seem a bit underpowered. With a 36V battery and a 250W motor, I don’t know if one-third of a horsepower is enough to haul a full load to the local farmer’s market. But I guess if the weight is a bit much for the little motor, you could always do some snacking along the way. On the other hand, all the pictures seem to show a non-electric version. So if this cart is presumably mobile on pedal power alone, then that extra motor assist, however small, is going to feel like a very welcome guest.

The $950 price is presumably for the electric version, since that’s what’s in the title of the listing, though I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. I’ve bought a LOT of stuff on Alibaba, including many electric vehicles, and the too-good-to-be-true price is always exactly that. In my experience, you can multiply the Alibaba price by 3-4x to get the actual landed price for things like these. Even so, $3,000-$4,000 wouldn’t be a terrible price, considering a lot of electric trikes stateside already cost that much and don’t even come with a quad-set of vegetable baskets on board!

I should also put my normal caveat in here about not actually buying one of these. Please, please don’t try to buy one of these awesome cargo e-trikes. This is a silly, tongue-in-cheek weekend column where I scour the ever-entertaining underbelly of China’s massive e-commerce site Alibaba in search of fun, quirky, and just plain awesomely weird electric vehicles. While I’ve successfully bought several fun things on the platform, I’ve also gotten scammed more than once, so this is not for the timid or the tight-budgeted among us.

That isn’t to say that some of my more stubborn readers haven’t followed in my footsteps before, ignoring my advice and setting out on their own wild journey. But please don’t be the one who risks it all and gets nothing in return. Don’t say I didn’t warn you; this is the warning.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending