The Ram 1500 REV Electric Pickup Truck Is Dead!

[AZFox]

BEVs are coming. BEVs will rule.

IMHO this will happen, particularly for affordable-transportation vehicles.

A lot of people want what BEVs provide without realizing BEVs provide it.

 

[Doctors Do Little]

IMHO this will happen, particularly for affordable-transportation vehicles.

A lot of people want what BEVs provide without realizing BEVs provide it.

I keep telling myself that every day when I mount up the Lightning, "I know I need this. Ford needs this, but I KNOW I must need this?"!

 

[Garbone]

Stallantis is circling the drain, nothing more.

 

[Doctors Do Little]

Stallantis is circling the drain, nothing more.

Objectively, I can't argue that, Gary. Some popular brands will go down with them unless some software Billionaire wants to buy them for funsies?

 

[KevinRS]

The now-fired CEO of Stellantis famously cut funds for product development. For a year, Stellantis had industry leading profit numbers. They were the darlings of Wall Street. Money flowed like wine. Now they are scrambling to survive. You cannot not (sorry for the double negative) invest in future product in the auto industry. It is like taking a knife to your own throat.

That seems to be an issue across corporate America. I suppose drug companies are mostly an exception, they make all their money on new products.
At a large store chain my mother worked at, when "The Mall" was built in the 80s, and the store moved there, the initial plan was to build the store so it could later be expanded to a 2nd story, but the store manager cut that part of the plan, getting a bonus out of "saving money" but that meant that location couldn't add the furniture department it was missing. I'm sure similar stuff happened across the company, now the chain is down to like 6 stores and shrinking across the country, and most probably think it's completely gone.

 

[E90400K]

I don't know how I should feel about the flood of cancelled BEV projects. Part of me says "fine", because anybody cancelling a BEV was only doing a half-hearted effort to comply. So let them fall behind and fail.

Another part of me is sad that so many of us little people will lose jobs when those OEMs go under next decade - because their product is so sadly uncompetitive. BEVs are coming. BEVs will rule. It's science and technology, not politics. But the CEOs get paid for this quarter, not a quarter that's a decade away. So zero incentive for them to take the long view and set up a company for success.

The now-fired CEO of Stellantis famously cut funds for product development. For a year, Stellantis had industry leading profit numbers. They were the darlings of Wall Street. Money flowed like wine. Now they are scrambling to survive. You cannot not (sorry for the double negative) invest in future product in the auto industry. It is like taking a knife to your own throat.

"...effort to comply". Comply to what?

It is science and technology AND economics, which is where the politics (i.e. policy) comes into it. Policy (politics) comes in as a forcing function because science (chemistry and physics) can't make the technology affordable.

 

[Mac-Tyson]

I don't know how I should feel about the flood of cancelled BEV projects. Part of me says "fine", because anybody cancelling a BEV was only doing a half-hearted effort to comply. So let them fall behind and fail.

Another part of me is sad that so many of us little people will lose jobs when those OEMs go under next decade - because their product is so sadly uncompetitive. BEVs are coming. BEVs will rule. It's science and technology, not politics. But the CEOs get paid for this quarter, not a quarter that's a decade away. So zero incentive for them to take the long view and set up a company for success.

The now-fired CEO of Stellantis famously cut funds for product development. For a year, Stellantis had industry leading profit numbers. They were the darlings of Wall Street. Money flowed like wine. Now they are scrambling to survive. You cannot not (sorry for the double negative) invest in future product in the auto industry. It is like taking a knife to your own throat.

Tim Kuniskis is the CEO of Ram and has been put in charge of Stellantis North America Brands by Stellantis new CEO. He’s talked very openly about how EV’s will surpass ICE one day and the need for continued development. Dodge and Ram are going to need softer launches into EV’s. I think Ram’s recent decision to focus on an E-REV instead of a BEV was a smart one. They also haven’t got rid of the Dodge Charger EV completely yet just the base trim. They are also still planning to launch the 4 door sedan Dodge Charger EV in addition to the Dodge Charger Sixpack. All of these products were developed under a different administration but are good indication of what direction the new leaders want to take the brand. Right now they are just canceling and continuing the products they think will be competitive in the short term as they develop their BEVs. The next 5-10 years though will make it evident whether Dodge and Ram will survive the transition to EV’s or not.

Right now though Chrysler and Jeep are the only Stellantis North America Brands that I think their customer base would welcome pure BEVs. So taking a softer approach for Dodge and Ram might not be bad strategy

For the other Big 3 Ford has invested Billions of Dollars into EV's and GM is still moving forward with their plans to make Cadillac a Tech Focused All Electric Brand that will likely have it's tech trickle down to their other brands. Most Legacy Brands are working on a Timeline of being all electric by 2035 by the earliest and 2050 by the latest. But unlike an EV Startup where they can not make profit for years but as long as there is continual growth and good sales investors will still give money as long as there is a strong potential and pathway to return on investment. For legacy brands they have the advantage of ICE Sales to be profitable to fund their EV development but shareholders are much less patient. They don't want to see the company losing money year over year on EVs. So a lot of automakers are making decisions to invest ICE for short term profits to keep shareholders happy as they figure out how to make profitable EV's. They are canceling products because they don't think the market will favor them right now. It's better to cancel and EV rather than it release and it not sell well. It's also why Chevy is lowering their production of their new Bolt since it's better to under produce and sell out then ramp up production, then it is to over produce and have a bunch of them unsold sitting on lots with headlines explaining that. You much rather want the first headlines. Every legacy manufacturer knows EV's are the future and are working as well as investing a lot of money towards it. The only question is how quickly to scale/transition and if hybrids will be part of that future.

You are right though up until recently Legacy Manufacturers have openly talked about just putting something out on the market (with varying levels of effort) while they developed their "tech focused" EV's.

 

[E90400K]

Tim Kuniskis is the CEO of Ram and has been put in charge of Stellantis North America Brands by Stellantis new CEO. He’s talked very openly about how EV’s will surpass ICE one day and the need for continued development. Dodge and Ram are going to need softer launches into EV’s. I think Ram’s recent decision to focus on an E-REV instead of a BEV was a smart one. They also haven’t got rid of the Dodge Charger EV completely yet just the base trim. They are also still planning to launch the 4 door sedan Dodge Charger EV in addition to the Dodge Charger Sixpack. All of these products were developed under a different administration but are good indication of what direction the new leaders want to take the brand. Right now they are just canceling and continuing the products they think will be competitive in the short term as they develop their BEVs. The next 5-10 years though will make it evident whether Dodge and Ram will survive the transition to EV’s or not.

Right now though Chrysler and Jeep are the only Stellantis North America Brands that I think their customer base would welcome pure BEVs. So taking a softer approach for Dodge and Ram might not be bad strategy

For the other Big 3 Ford has invested Billions of Dollars into EV's and GM is still moving forward with their plans to make Cadillac a Tech Focused All Electric Brand that will likely have it's tech trickle down to their other brands. Most Legacy Brands are working on a Timeline of being all electric by 2035 by the earliest and 2050 by the latest. But unlike an EV Startup where they can not make profit for years but as long as there is continual growth and good sales investors will still give money as long as there is a strong potential and pathway to return on investment. For legacy brands they have the advantage of ICE Sales to be profitable to fund their EV development but shareholders are much less patient. They don't want to see the company losing money year over year on EVs. So a lot of automakers are making decisions to invest ICE for short term profits to keep shareholders happy as they figure out how to make profitable EV's. They are canceling products because they don't think the market will favor them right now. It's better to cancel and EV rather than it release and it not sell well. It's also why Chevy is lowering their production of their new Bolt since it's better to under produce and sell out then ramp up production, then it is to over produce and have a bunch of them unsold sitting on lots with headlines explaining that. You much rather want the first headlines. Every legacy manufacturer knows EV's are the future and are working as well as investing a lot of money towards it. The only question is how quickly to scale/transition and if hybrids will be part of that future.

You are right though up until recently Legacy Manufacturers have openly talked about just putting something out on the market (with varying levels of effort) while they developed their "tech focused" EV's.

A nice positive piece, but I'd like to make an observation. I think it is fair to say some of the best EV that have good build quality, very good trip/route planning/charging software and acceptable (tolerable) range and recharge capabilities are Rivian and Lucid.

The issue is those few vehicles offered by each company are very expensive with starting prices of $70,000, and probably average transaction prices of $80,000.

The majority of market can't afford those price levels or do not want to pay those price levels and have to make transportation lifestyle adjustments. Neither company is financially self-sustaining.

A good EV just can't be made at a reasonable price point. Batteries are just too expensive. On top of that the charging infrastructure is designed for the current battery technology, which provides non-tolerable recharge rates. For two decades we have been hearing about the magical battery that solves the range/recharge/and cost issues. If it comes there is no charging infrastructure to support it.

So there is the need to recapitalize a whole new fast-charging infrastructure. Infrastructure that proves only to be profitable at a delivered-electrons price that is not less expensive than gasoline for the current battery technology.