Automakers Reportedly Still Unable to Produce Profitable Hybrid and Plug-In Cars

By Scott Doggett November 25, 2008

Green-Cars-Dollar-Sign-275x.jpg Many members of Congress believe they know what the car company of the future should look like.

"A business model based on gas--a gas-guzzling past--is unacceptable," Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said last week. "We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car."

But the car company Schumer and other lawmakers envision for the future could turn out to be a money-losing operation, not part of a "sustainable U.S. auto industry" that President-elect Barack Obama and most members of Congress say they want to create, so says The Washington Post in story published today.

That's because car manufacturers still haven't figured out how to produce hybrid and plug-in vehicles cheaply enough to make money on them. After a decade of relative success with its hybrid Prius, Toyota has sold about a million of the cars and is still widely believed by analysts to be losing money on each one sold. General Motors has touted plans for a plug-in hybrid vehicle called the Volt, but the costly battery will prevent it from turning a profit on the vehicle for several years, at least.

"In 10 years are they (at GM) going to solve the technological problems with respect to the Volt? Sure," Maryann Keller, an automotive analyst and author of a book on GM, told the Post. "But are they going to be able to stake their survival, which is really more of a now to five-year proposition, on it? I'd say they can't. They have to stake their future on Malibus, the Chevy Cruze, and much more conventional technologies."

U.S. automakers faced a barrage of demands last week that they provide evidence and assurance that they would use federal bailout money to transform their companies to produce automobiles of the future, using advanced technologies and featuring hybrid or plug-in vehicles. And in his "60 Minutes" interview on Nov. 16, Obama said that before backing a big loan package he wanted to be sure "that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere."

But there's no guarantee that the new business model would be any more viable than the current one. Automobile experts estimate that the battery in a plug-in vehicle could add at least $8,000 to the cost of a car, maybe considerably more. Most Americans will be unwilling to pay the extra price, especially if gasoline prices languish around $2 a gallon.

That's why one of the mysteries about GM's plans to introduce the Volt in 2010 is how much it will cost to buy one, the Post reported. "What's the Volt going to cost? I would be happy to answer that if you can tell me the price of oil in 2010," said Robert A. Kruse, GM's executive director of global vehicle engineering for hybrids, electric vehicles and batteries. "I can tell you to the penny what it will cost GM, but pricing is much more related to market conditions."

The hurdles ahead for the Volt and other cars with new technologies pose dilemmas for automakers trying to gauge a market that is still very young for cars that don't exist while trying to stay in business during a downturn.

"These are hard choices," said Toyota chief technology officer Bill Reinert, part of the Prius design team. "Do you bet on lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient but ultimately less profitable cars or do you hold back a little on technology development and look at new versions of existing cars."

Many experts say that gas guzzlers will not fade away as long as Congress fails to impose higher taxes on gasoline to steer people toward fuel-efficient cars.

"You'd think from reading the media that we have had a burial ceremony at Arlington cemetery for the last pickup truck," said James Womack, a management expert who has written about the automobile industry. "I can easily imagine three years from now when public is focused on a new set of priorities ... that this whole thing would go poof."

Eager to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Obama proposed a $7,500-a-vehicle tax credit for plug-in vehicles during his presidential campaign. Roughly half of Americans don't earn enough to take advantage of such a big tax credit. (A head of household would need to earn almost $50,000 to have a federal tax liability that large.) Many others don't have the cash to purchase an expensive vehicle then wait for a federal refund. To spur sales of new vehicles, the price must be reasonable at the point of sale, say many industry experts.

Womack warned that it takes time to design a new vehicle, change assembly lines and then turn a new product into a profitable one. "For anything that's really new it's still about four years," he told the Post. "To get your money back, you need to make that product for eight to 10 years with only cosmetic changes."

Helping automakers over that hump may take more money and patience than Congress or its taxpaying constituents have.

The experience of Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley sports car maker, illustrates the challenges of making a radically new automobile. Founded by a group of high-tech multimillionaires, Tesla has been trying to become the first new successful American car company since Chrysler, which was founded in 1925.

Tesla's founders set out to make all-electric vehicles. The company's first: an all-electric sports car with a price tag of $109,000 that can go from zero to 60 mph in a bracing 3.9 seconds. As of a week ago, only 63 had been delivered to customers; a couple of dozen were nearly ready and the company has about 1,200 back orders.

"The reason we started with a $100,000 sports car is that when technology is new it tends to be expensive," Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal who is the chief executive of and a big investor in Tesla, told the Post. "It just takes time to optimize the right design and work up to economies of scale. ... Why we didn't start with a Honda Civic is that it would be a $70,000 to $80,000 Honda Civic."

With a chassis made by Lotus in England, body parts made by a French carbon fiber firm Sotira and battery parts from Taiwan, Tesla has had supply-chain problems ranging from customs delays to a fire in the tunnel that goes under the English Channel. Initially a two-speed vehicle, the early Teslas were rough on transmissions, which have been eliminated in new single-speed versions. Recently Musk has hired some veterans from the Detroit automakers to smooth out production problems.

"For sure, this game looks a lot easier than it really is," said Jon Lauckner, GM's vice president of global program management. "You've got to get 3,000 parts all together in one place to assemble a vehicle."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

LEAVE A COMMENT

jederino says: 10:50 AM, 11.25.08

It would be wrong-headed for Washington to impose feel-good requirements for any loan package to Detroit (as in 50 mpg -- No! make it 100 mpg!). The Big Three should have only one objective - to serve consumers with good vehicles that make money. Period. And Washington should limit their involvement to requiring a sound business model and plan to reimburse tax payer money.

vvk says: 11:14 AM, 11.25.08

Government seems to approach it from the wrong angle. Instead of trying to dictate things to automakers it should impose stiff taxes on fuel in order to spur CONSUMER DEMAND for fuel efficient vehicles.

greenpony says: 7:30 PM, 11.25.08

Great idea, vvk, because increased fuel prices and increased vehicle prices spur consumer spending. (/sarcasm)

So we're talking about a $50 billion loan, right? The government shouldn't look at it as a way to make money, or make sure they get a return on investment. They need to approach it as what it is: a bailout. Either give the Big-3 the money and try to help them survive, or don't and pray they don't got bankrupt. None of this pussyfooting around about "conditions" like an increased mpg requirement, or a guarantee of profitable operations. After all, even with a bailout market conditions may be such that one or more go belly up.

jerrywimer says: 9:38 AM, 11.26.08

Thanks jederino and greenpony. Using the bailout as an excuse to force a political agenda is stupid at best, and practically a guarateed failure at worst. Forcing a conversion from gas to any alternative is moronic- allow the market and energy availability / affordability to help steer these changes instead. Because it not only needs to be affordable to the manufacturers to make, but to Joe Public to buy. And Joe, especially in today's rough economy and job market, is likely to buy the most affordable product that meets his needs. NOT to consider the exotic 'save the planet' or 'cut foreign oil dependence' thing if it's gonna cost him. And if the choice is between keeping what he's got and spending, even ramping up fuel prices isn't going to do anything but put people out of work, out of homes, and out of cars anyway. Effectively, out of the economy.

REAL SMART planning there..

ADD A COMMENT

No HTML or javascript allowed. URLs will not be hyperlinked.