Just one other thing. The Model Y has not had the same refresh as the Model 3 yet. Tesla has actually delayed it until 2025 because when they released the refreshed Model 3, Tesla had a hard time selling the existing older Model 3 unsold inventory. They did not want to make that mistake again so they have delayed the refresh of the Model Y.

So the Model Y does not have a cush ride. Depending on one's arse, that may or may not be a problem.

R&D cannot be amortized. It is a period expense.

That being said it is normally treated as an overall entity expense, not attributable to a single (or even several specific) product line(s).

To be fair to Ford, in their actual report they do note that by the second half of this year they are hoping to start making a variable margin on each EV product sold.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 30, 2024, 07:19:23 AMFord is losing stupid money on EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html

Such a BS article. "Ford's electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year,"

That's not how amortization works, at ALL.

"Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford" Again, you amortize R&D and plant building over the entire production run of all vehicles that USE that R&D and tech, now and into the future, and all the vehicles built in that new plant, now and into the future. You don't just amortize it over the first couple fucking months of production. This holds true for ALL manufacturing businesses, not just automobiles.

That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


Just like for the Ford EVs, naysayers did the same thing with the Chevy Volt back in 2011.

"Now, "father of the Volt" Bob Lutz has weighed in via Forbes to confirm just that--that the true cost of each Volt is nothing like the numbers estimated--and that the car is "doing exactly what it was designed to do."

The Reuters report explained that when dividing the $1.2 billion development costs, each of the 21,500 Volts sold so far has cost GM $56,000 per car. Throw in the actual cost of production and, depending on who you believe, the total per-car cost could be between $75,000 and $88,000. Minus the car's purchase price and--theoretically--you have your headline loss figure.

The Reuters article was based on figures from several Michigan-based industry analysts, claiming that Chevy might be losing up to $49,000 on every Volt it makes."

Those figures were estimated by working out the total cost of development of the Volt project, divided by the number of cars so far--a method which was a little spurious, and what caused Bob Lutz to respond:

From Lutz in Forbes:

"Let me provide a look at how a car company tracks profitability of a product program:  measured are material cost and labor, and these are deducted from the selling price. The positive difference is called "gross margin." Then, one allocates per-unit "fixed cost" (advertising, general overhead, etc.) plus per-unit depreciation and amortization of the initial investment, based on the TOTAL NUMBER TO BE PRODUCED OVER THE LIFETIME of the product. If the margin, after all deductions, is still positive, then we call it a "fully accounted profit," and the car is a winner."

Dividing the number of Lightnings sold for 2023 (20,000 as of the end of December) into the total development costs and factory building costs that apply to all Lightnings and Mach-Es past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest.

You could as easily say that on the day the first Lightning was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in loss. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Lightnings sold at that point: 1. Same as if you added up the total costs of developing and tooling up for Fords newest big block gas pickup engine, and then saying that the first engine off the line carried with it a $1 billion loss. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Ford is trying to show massive loss for tax reasons, but you cannot calculate total program loses until you're completely done with the total production run. Which they are not.

https://electrek.co/2024/04/29/tesla-conducting-more-layoffs-including-entire-supercharger-team/

Just after laying off "more than 10%" of its global workforce, Tesla is laying off even more employees – including senior executives and long-time veterans of the company, most notably the entire Supercharging team and the executive responsible for negotiating NACS adoption across the industry.

________________________

Great! Just as the industry starts to shift to NACS, Tesla might stop bothering to expand?

We really need the other networks to step up.

That was called the Gran Prix/Catalina here in the US.

I do like the big 60s Pontiacs. Great stylish boulevard cruisers

The 1963 Parisienne is my all-time favourite GM product, didn't realize it wasn't sold in the US.

Something about the rear end is just plain gorgeous...

Quote from: Morris Minor on April 30, 2024, 06:28:34 AMHow many people here have EVs? I know:
MrH has an F150 Lightning
Laconian has an EV6 GT
CaminoRacer has a Bolt

+
ChrisV
Veeman
565

Ford is losing stupid money on EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html

How many people here have EVs? I know: 
MrH has an F150 Lightning
Laconian has an EV6 GT
CaminoRacer has a Bolt

Part 29: Pontiac Parisienne


Pontiac had been selling a model called the Parisienne in Canada since 1958.  These Canadian Parisiennes were broadly similar to the corresponding model year Chevrolet Impala and Caprice.  And were it not for unforeseen events, the Parisienne would have remained a Canadian market anomaly.

By the early 1980s, General Motors believed the market for traditional, rear-drive, full-sized cars was in permanent decline.  With this in mind, Pontiac shifted the Bonneville badge from the full-size B-body to the newly facelifted mid-sized G-body in 1982, replacing the LeMans badge on this model.  There would be no full-size 1982 Pontiac.  The G-body was now styled to look like a slightly smaller version of the B-body, in an attempt to satisfy customers who would have otherwise bought the previous B-body Bonneville.  Although the G-body was still rear-drive, playing switcheroo by sticking the Bonneville badge on a smaller car didn't convince traditional big-car shoppers to part with their cash.  Pontiac dealers soon began loudly complaining they wanted their full-sized car back!  But how?  They already confused customers by suddenly turning the Bonneville from a full-size car to a mid-size after decades of full sized Bonnevilles.  Luckily, Canada came to the rescue!

Canadian Pontiac dealers were still selling a B-body Parisienne north of the border, so it required almost zero effort to bring it to the US for the 1983 model year.  The Parisienne's one distinguishing feature was the rear wheel spats on the sedan, which made the Parisienne stand out from it's Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Buick B-body clones.  I think they should have put the spats on the wagon, too, to give it some much needed character.

Both the Parisienne and the G-body Bonneville ceased production in 1986.  The Bonneville badge reappeared on a full sized sedan in 1987, this time on the front-drive H-body.

As for the name, Parisienne or La Parisienne means a grammatically female person or thing from Paris.  I don't know who thought Parisienne was an appropriate name to apply to this most American (or Canadian) of cars, but it must surely have been someone who has never been to Paris!  Can you imagine anything that would look more out of place on the streets of Paris than this?  There's enough steel in this car to build another Eifel Tower!