This half is responsible for ~20k/year, or 2k/dealer. It is pretty easy to see why a dealer selling such low volumes might not want to make a big investment.
Buick is a nearly dead brand, TBH. If GM had been smart (lol), they'd have kept Pontiac and sent away Buick years ago. They made the wrong choice.
The reason I think is that GM is multinational. And while Buick is not doing well in the US, it’s doing very well in China (80%+ of sales of the brand is in China).
During the 2009 bankruptcy government bailout the politicians involved forced GM to trim their portfolio to 4 brands worldwide. They had to pick between Pontiac and Buick. Since Buick had a strong reputation in the rapidly growing Chinese market it was an easy decision to save it and kill Pontiac. At that time the EV market barely existed.
I could see them trimming down the number of brands -- too many dealers and redundant models -- in ONE national market, but that seems like it makes little sense on an international basis. You'd want to pick the brands in each individual market that are healthiest. I could see shuttering Buick US and keeping Buick CN alive, unless there's something weird about the marketing-- the Chinese market only buys Buicks because they're the same cars available in the US-- which seems unlikely (at least, I'd expect regionalization)
Considering Ford used to ship vans to the US with passenger seats, then unbolt the seats and send them back, for tax benefits, saying "we bolted a Buick logo on the ones going to China and a Pontiac one for domestic markets" is trifling in comparison.
I wonder if they'll eventually reinvent Saturn as an EV brand. Hummer has specific connotations, and those don't mesh with a consumer saying "I'm cross-shopping the Model 3, the Ioniq 6, and the Prius Prime". I figure of their classic brands, Saturn is the one that screamed "I'm innovative and a bit different from traditional GM".
> the Chinese market only buys Buicks because they're the same cars available in the US-- which seems unlikely (at least, I'd expect regionalization)
It's a historical accident. Buicks were the car of choice for party members and government officials in the postwar reconstruction boom so it became the prestigious brand when GM entered the Chinese market in the 1990s via a joint venture with SAIC.
GM tried to sell the Hummer brand during the bankruptcy but ended up just discontinuing it. They recently relaunched Hummer to make EV trucks.
Pontiac had no brand equity at the time due to many years of mismanagement and it was unknown outside North America. I can't imagine that any other company would have paid much for it.
I don’t think Buick sells that much in the USA, as far as I know the only reason it still exists at all is because it is popular in China, and all the designs from China are simply being transferred to the American market. Or they might even be selling cars/mini vans from Chinese factories? But I’d think the tariffs are too high for that.
Exactly. Buick's appeal was to the Greatest and Silent generations. There's a contingency of boomers who still buy Buick once they hit 75, but even among that group it's tiny.
Love how GM is always trying to spin how less dealers is better for them. Manufacturers need volume and less dealerships clearly means less volume.
I agree that Buick is a small brand and their success or failure probably means nothing for EVs at all, but the management consultants and PR people claiming losing dealers is a benefit are obviously wrong and the brand is continuing in decline.
Losing dealers can also mean lower overhead costs. If those dealers were costing more than they were making I see how it can be spun as (at least a temporary) benefit
I've always felt the US car dealership model was very strange. Like some rational economists nightmare of choice management under immovable fundamentals of cost. The jokes about the cheapest price being without engine or doors..
Common sense. EVs are amazing but they are not where close to being practical replacement for ICE engines. Governments should stop subdizing rich people's EVs and insteead help make more efficient and cheaper ICE engines.
> Governments should stop subdizing rich people's EVs and insteead help make more efficient and cheaper ICE engines.
In the US the government has been helping (by a definition of "helping" that means "forcing the development of by tightening emissions and efficiency requirements") that development of more-efficient for decades.
It's not an either-or for that vs EVs. And it's also not exactly popular either; not hard to find people bemoaning the loss of naturally-aspirated engines and higher displacement. The market has repeatedly also chosen "more powerful" over "cheaper" for decades now.
Possibly some targeting of hybrid subsidies as well would help, but it seems like a lot of hybrids are already doing quite well in the market (e.g. Ford Maverick), so I'm not entirely sure why manufacturers aren't already moving in that direction more after being initially surprised by the demand.
But I'm also very unconvinced that cheaper ICE engines or more hybrids are what Buick dealers want.
I could be wrong, but I think the current "EV Tax incentive" applies to PHEVs and that it is actually easier for a manufacturer to take advantage of it with a pHEV than a full EV.
I’ve replaced my diesel with an EV and it’s better in every way. Cheaper to run, less waiting since I charge at home, faster car, more spacious inside, better tech. Definitely a practical replacement for some.
The fuel savings alone are around £1,200/year for me on 10k miles per year. Once the price of the cars come down this will be a big saving for a lot of people.
It's a bit weird because electricity delivered to your home is generally more expensive than fossil fuels. What currently makes EVs cheaper to operate is that at the pump, you pay hefty taxes that go toward road maintenance and related purposes. For now, this taxation disparity incentivizes driving EVs. In the long haul, this will probably go away.
I'm surprised by the "more spacious" comment, however. In the same size class, EVs tend to be more cramped because of how much space is needed for batteries. Even for large cars, like the Cybertruck, the trade-offs are fairly evident. No spare tire, for example.
> For now, this taxation disparity incentivizes driving EVs. In the long haul, this will probably go away.
31 states already have an extra annual/registration fee for EVs to make up for the lost gas tax revenue. Often the annual fee on EVs is higher than the average amount of state gas tax paid by the average driver, but this still comes out to just $100-300 per year. This is like 25-50% of typical fuel savings of EV vs ICE vehicles even at today's very low gas prices.
>What currently makes EVs cheaper to operate is that at the pump, you pay hefty taxes that go toward road maintenance and related purposes. For now, this taxation disparity incentivizes driving EVs. In the long haul, this will probably go away.
It will certainly go away, and with it one of the major non-environmental reasons to own an EV: fuel costs.
My Model Y has over 900L of storage. The frunk and space below the boot combined are almost like having a second boot. Plus the lack of “middle hump” makes the back more roomy.
Well thats the rub innit. I loved the bmw i3, I love my tesla even more, but they are f'in expensive cars, my coworkers are coming to work in beaters that cost less than a fifth of what I spent on my model 3, my down payment was more than several of the cars in my parking lot.
This is such a nonsensical argument. I own two cars, and have a bit of a commute. I gas up once a week, it takes 10 minutes. What are you "waiting" for? There's a gas station on the corner in every town across North America.
Meanwhile, the same EV crowd talk about stopping for 30 minutes at a time on road trip to charge and go to the washroom.
I think the idea is if you plug it in every night you will never have to stop to refuel for every driving scenario except long roadtrips.
EV > ICE for commuters and local driving.
ICE >>> EV for long distances the commonality of which seems to be grossly downplayed for most of the US.
The estimated range for a 2023 Chevy Bolt is 259 miles where hitting 250 miles is a short drive for a weekend trip in the midwest. For a friend's bachelorette party which was a 4 day weekend we drove 600 miles one way nonstop. If you're a 2+ car family an EV is a no brainer for the second car.
10 minutes a week is 8 hours a year you are waiting. I don’t have to do that. I plug in at night and unplug in the morning. I haven’t used a public charger for months.
On the last long journey I did the car was charged before I’d finished eating, so no waiting there either.
every year that 400k number gets whittle down. pretty soon someone making poverty level wages at 24k a year is going to be in the group that gets "taxed".
Damn I am such an outlier if those numbers are actually true.
Avg miles drive per day:5 (1.5mile commute each way + some extra generous miles)
Avg cost of a new vehicle: idk I've never bought a new vehicle. My last vehicle was a used repo and purchased in 2009. Still going strong.
Fastest selling vehicle ever made: without some data point this seems like complete bs. Toyota, Ford, Honda, insert every major car company, makes more vehicles per year than Tesla could dream about.
their data seems sketchy to me, I'm pretty sure 67 miles a day definitely isn't the average. and yea "fastest selling" seems like a bs metric to boost Tesla
Fastest selling car, most units sold in a day/week/quarter/year… I don’t know how else to say it. My point was about EV popularity not trying to boost Tesla.
This half is responsible for ~20k/year, or 2k/dealer. It is pretty easy to see why a dealer selling such low volumes might not want to make a big investment.
Buick is a nearly dead brand, TBH. If GM had been smart (lol), they'd have kept Pontiac and sent away Buick years ago. They made the wrong choice.