-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
Mercedes-Benz delays electrification goal, beefs up combustion engine line-up (Reuters)
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
I don't think the switch was ever going to happen as fast as some expected. 2030 is not that far away in the car design world.
A smaller marque with only a few models like, say, Lancia or Chrysler could go all-in on PHEVs and BEVs pretty easily, but Mercedes-Benz needs to sell a lot of cars and they sell cars to a lot of people who aren't necessarily early adopters.
A smaller marque with only a few models like, say, Lancia or Chrysler could go all-in on PHEVs and BEVs pretty easily, but Mercedes-Benz needs to sell a lot of cars and they sell cars to a lot of people who aren't necessarily early adopters.
Need to keep calling them out - both in-person and online.
We must stigmatize fossil fuel polluters to the level of Nazis. If you are a CEO, lobbyist or lawyer representing them, you deserve nothing less than PR disaster. Same goes for the investors - on Wall Street and the big bank executives who fund fossil fuel projects.
TL;dr Basically do more of what Climate Defiance is doing.
(EDIT: Edited for specificity. I am absolutely against condemning everyday people. What matters is we go after the ones at the top)
We must stigmatize fossil fuel polluters to the level of Nazis. If you are a CEO, lobbyist or lawyer representing them, you deserve nothing less than PR disaster. Same goes for the investors - on Wall Street and the big bank executives who fund fossil fuel projects.
TL;dr Basically do more of what Climate Defiance is doing.
(EDIT: Edited for specificity. I am absolutely against condemning everyday people. What matters is we go after the ones at the top)
Last edited:
Toyota released the Prius 2nd gen in 2006. Almost 20 years later, they are only at 1/3 hybrids.
Why? Because the advantages hybrids and PHEVs have over BEVs are charging infrastructure and battery raw materials. Hybrids and PHEVs take longer to retool the supply chain, factories, and designs because they are more complex. And for-profit companies expect investments into research, factories, and human expertise to pay off in the long-term, so going into hybrids will delay BEV rollout based on those business concerns--unless governments force the automakers to abandon those investments. EREVs would make more sense if they have difficulty sourcing batteries.
They really should. For a premium brand they should really be aiming for higher than 50% fleet electrification (including hybrids) by 2030. Lexus is intending to not sell a single vehicle that isn't electrified in some way by that point.
I can kind of see why, say, Mitsubishi might decide that a Mitsubishi Mirage that is going to be sold in developing markets can't bear the additional cost of a hybrid system to improve efficiency. They should include it anyway, of course, and that's where the government should step in to "encourage" them to include it anyway, but I can see why they might decide building in that level of tech into such a cheap car is impossible. But Mercedes doesn't have that excuse. They don't sell cheap cars.
Lexus's most affordable car, which starts at thousands less than the base model of the comparable Mercedes, is hybrid-only today. Mercedes should really be able to be 100% electrified (including hybrids) six years from now. The problem is they wanted to basically leapfrog the hybrid era and go straight to all-electric with their EQ line, but they (and the entire market) are finding that BEVs are still sort of an early adopter thing and will likely be for years to come, and the lack of investment in hybrids for their roadmap is coming back to bite them.
Toyota got a lot of flack for being late to the EV party — I've even seen them called "EV haters," even though they currently offer about the same number of BEVs as many of their contemporaries — but their decision to focus on hybrids and plug-in hybrids in addition to EVs seems more right by the day.
Been calling this for close to a decade now; these full EV switchover dates have always been too aggressive for the market to actually support. This was inevitable, particularly for any brands selling product in NA and Asia. Europe's legislation is the most aggressive on this, but they are also the market where it will be the easiest to do. But it put European luxury automakers in a predicament where they would face financial catastrophe towards the end of this decade with all-EV lineups in North America. Something had to give.
To be fair, every effort to push efficiency in a range of industries is billed as "too aggressive." Always an excuse to delay innovation and keep the status quo when it comes to this stuff.
I get it's complicated and hard, but would have been nice if the auto industry didn't fight efficiency at nearly every opportunity. They complain about stricter standards for ICE cars too.
This is a take for sure. Electrification is also extremely fucked, and is just a way to save the auto industry. It has nothing to do with saving the climate. Not to mention the significant hurdles in widespread adoption considering the majority of americans can't even afford one or even has a place to charge it, so are you calling the single mom of 2 driving an old Honda civic because that's literally all she can afford a Nazi?
Electric vehicles are a solution for wealthy single-family home owners who want to feel good about themselves. Until we design our cities in a sustainable way (think public transit, building up, not out, stop developing suburbs and sprawls, etc) and enact major policy changes against corporations for pollution, then nothing will change and its just a facade that the auto industry puts up to make people feel like they're making a difference.
True, but EVs are a different kettle of fish compared to ICE engines. Raising CAFE standards had no real hard limit to it other than raising R&D/material and thus finished product costs (and it did). Doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done.
EVs have different issues. We don't have to like it, but North America in particular (a lot of the rest of the world too) was simply never going to have the infrastructure to support all new cars being EVs by 2030. We have failing electrical grids in several parts of the nation as it stands, and we're talking about adding an EV charging at night in almost every driveway. That would likely double the average household's electrical power draw at nighttime. It was never going to happen that soon. It's probably *trillions* of dollars in investment in power grids alone away, and the market will have to be dragged kicking and screaming until EVs are better in every way than ICE cars. To say nothing of all the other unique challenges EVs face in order to sell well. Yet all Volkswagens/Audis/MBs/BMWs/Volvos/Alfas/Minis/Porsches/etc sold in the US were going to be electric by then? This was going to happen one way or the other, hence how I could forecast it years ago.
its crazy to see some people on this board that basically expect car companies to go out of business chasing electric cars when actual people aren't interested enough to keep them in business. you aren't gonna force people into making something mainstream and especially with how expensive that purchase is.
Let me know when utes can do the same job while powered by a battery system as they can traditional combustion, then majority of regional/rural Australia will change. Plus actual decent distance before charging and further ease of rolling out microgrid systems is needed.
Every time a car manufacturer says they are backing out on EVs and focusing on ICE even more it makes me wonder why I should bother getting their current EVs when it may need new software support in the future. Their loss I guess.
They're not backing out of EVs. A higher percentage of their fleet is electrified with each passing month.
They're just pushing their original target to reach 50% fleet electrification by 2025 back. Reaching that goal would have frankly required their first EVs to be massive, Tesla-level successes with the buying public, and it's been clear for a while now that they wouldn't reach that goal quite so soon. It'll be a lengthier transition period, and they'll need to keep making competitive ICE vehicles throughout.
Mercedes-Benz has some of the best in-car software in the industry. I'd certainly be more confident with MBUX than anything from most any other manufacturer.
assume this means flex based on location. Eg some markets that are heavily ICE will remain that for now, but others like Europe may electrify sooner. I'd like to see more granular info on their plans. Eg UK is kicking in zero emission mandated this year which requires x% of sales to be EV or the manufacturer is fined. That % increases year on year.
They already have one of the better coverage of their lineup with most model classes have a full EV option
They already have one of the better coverage of their lineup with most model classes have a full EV option
Good luck with this schtick!
Calling people Nazis is surely the way to persuade them to demand and buy hybrids, let alone EVs.
I'm not even interested in an EV until the fast charging landscape improves, but I'll definitely lease another Prius.
Absolutely not. That kind of ire should be targeted exclusively toward the big movers and shakers of mass pollution.
I'm talking CEOs, lobbyists, the corporate lawyers and paid commentators.
Well we're in this crazy position where we've waited so fucking long for any kind of wishy-washy committment to reducing emissions globally that governments need to act. Yet we're *also* worried about the poor megacorporations not making enough profit as we try to take big steps towards the changes we need to make.
Of course we don't want people out of work. But perhaps if governments acted sooner, it would be simpler to have a gradual transition. This is entirely on the governments of the world waiting too long and therefore requiring change to be more rapid.
I mean... What's more extreme?
My posts?
Or fossil fuel bigwigs knowingly causing mass death?
You've all seen the news. Billions of dollars in property damage. Millions of lives lost or displaced.
If this was done by people with guns and tanks, it would called war crimes or terrorism. But since this is done by unprecedented extreme weather, we somehow can't directly connect it to the suits causing it?
Last edited:
I love ERA, but this forum is often out of touch on a lot of issues. Unfortunately, electrification is something we really should have been doing by the early 2000s so that we could have decades to transition more effectively to EVs. That growing pain isn't going to result in widespread adoption anytime soon, and these overly aggressive guidelines will hurt more than help adoption.
Not positive reading as a person hoping for a more rapid transition to EV's. I do understand why though. EV's can be expensive, and in a market where the infrastructure isnt there, its hard to convince people. Add in the fact that a lot of people dont even believe in and/or care about climate change you get slow change. Tougher legislation and more subsidies is all we can hope for I guess.
I recently bought an electric car and I absolutely love it, but it's plain as day that the technology hasn't overcome the barriers required for mass adoption, which is unfortunate cos it means we're all that much more likely to die in a ruined ecosystem.
1. Price is way too high.
2. Public Charging infrastructure is a kind of shit, the gold standard being Tesla superchargers but the convenience is simply nowhere close to petrol stations.
3. Private charging, which is a huge win, is not available to anyone not living in a single family home.
4. The long term risks associated with batteries are just so unknown (cost, safety, etc).
Until those are resolved, even basic around town use cases like mine are just not gonna make sense for most people. People won't pay a huge premium for the theoretical long term benefits while dealing with the realities of today.
1. Price is way too high.
2. Public Charging infrastructure is a kind of shit, the gold standard being Tesla superchargers but the convenience is simply nowhere close to petrol stations.
3. Private charging, which is a huge win, is not available to anyone not living in a single family home.
4. The long term risks associated with batteries are just so unknown (cost, safety, etc).
Until those are resolved, even basic around town use cases like mine are just not gonna make sense for most people. People won't pay a huge premium for the theoretical long term benefits while dealing with the realities of today.
I think it's worth noting – because there seems to be a bit of confusion, in your post and in others – that the mark M-B is backing away from is an internal goal, not guidelines imposed upon them by any regulators or governments (which is, of course, why they are free to push it back).
Many of the largest automakers have electrification goals that are more aggressive than the current government mandates. We'll see how well they meet their goals (spoiler alert: I'm expecting further push-backs from most of them).
The problem for the "legacy" automakers right now is that R&D resources are finite and developing EVs and ICE vehicles in tandem for a decade or more is very difficult. I'm not just talking about money, but just having enough engineers and designers to manage two parallel product lines. So a lot of the larger companies, like GM, looked at the success of Tesla and really really hoped they could have a fast transition to EVs and basically not have to develop next-generation ICE cars in addition to those EVs. It seems like it's not going to be that easy.
An interesting side note: if you take BEVs and PHEVs together (as vehicles that can drive reasonable distances on electric power alone), the company that sells the most of that category of vehicles in North America is obviously Tesla. But the company that sold the second most last year? Stellantis. Despite not currently offering a single fully-electric vehicle in North America! Their plug-in hybrid Pacificas and Jeeps have proven enormously popular, doubling in volume from 2022 to 2023. For all the talk about a potential consumer pull-back from EVs, it's important to remember that people really like driving on electric power – a lot of the masses just want to also have the backup option of an ICE engine.
This is where my feeling is. We tend to put more weight on the decisions of the consumer rather than the decisions of the producer. Average people do choose to buy cars, sure, but they aren't the ones choosing infrastructure which is designed around keeping them driving.
I don't even own a car, and I specifically factored in that I don't want to own a car when I chose where I was moving to. But if I look at job postings, they frequently list owning a vehicle under requirements on the expectation that I can't travel without having my own car. Despite my efforts, I'm being explicitly told that I need to drive.
Well, based on the news, the US would send Mercedes billions of dollars of petrol and ICE components, give the Mercedes CEO a big hug, and tell them to stick with petrol.
Yes.
People seem to (I think intentionally sometimes) forget that the mandate isn't to have all new cars sold be EVs, it's that are cars must be electrified in some capacity.
After 2030 you could still purchase a gas vehicle, it may just have a hybrid component, or PHEV battery...that you don't ever have to charge/use if you don't want to - thus gas-only vehicle
I think hybrids and especially plug-in hybrids make a lot of sense for a lot of people in the short- and mid-term. This opinion got me branded an oil company plant in the last thread on EVs we had, which is hilarious, but I think it's pretty much the truth and we're seeing that in the market. The biggest problem with plug-in hybrids right now is that we can't make enough of them, the huge increase in demand for them took a lot of companies off guard and they're selling for way over sticker.
I think it's fantastic that everybody who buys a new Toyota Crown, whether they're aware of it or not, is getting a hybrid. Same with the new Land Cruiser. And the Toyota Sienna. And the Toyota Sequoia. And the Toyota Venza, as well as the Toyota Crown Signia, the vehicle that's replacing it. And of course the Prius. And starting with the 2025 model year, the Toyota Camry. All that is a huge environmental win and will make a big difference in the overall emissions across Toyota's fleet, and they're doing that in a way that doesn't require any big sacrifices of the buyer or make them adjust their life in any real way. The idealistic response is that, well, maybe those buyers should be making the sacrifices and adjustments necessary to only buy a pure EV. But the pragmatic response is to realize that a lot of people won't do that, no matter what other people on the internet think about them, and Toyota changing their fleet in this way is going to have a real positive impact in the real world, even if it's not as good as the imaginary scenario where everyone only buys full EVs.
Some people will say we can't afford to be pragmatic here. I think we can't afford not to be. It's going to need to be a multi-pronged effort – the people who can moving to full EVs (or better, public transport), with more efficient ICE cars also on the market to reduce emissions for the people who are as yet not going to make that leap.
I think it'll depend on a country by country basis.
In Belgium about 50% of new car purchases are by companies because this is a very tax friendly way to pay employees. But from next year on every car that is not 100% electric will be taxed harder and harder each year both for the user and the company. So it's expected the switch to electric in this field which is already ongoing, will see a nearly 90% shift by 2026.
And most hybrids are not included in this, because the government said car manufacturers (and companies) would use that as a cop-out.
(and new non-electric cars will be forbidden starting 2030 - and by 2035 in Europe)
In Belgium about 50% of new car purchases are by companies because this is a very tax friendly way to pay employees. But from next year on every car that is not 100% electric will be taxed harder and harder each year both for the user and the company. So it's expected the switch to electric in this field which is already ongoing, will see a nearly 90% shift by 2026.
And most hybrids are not included in this, because the government said car manufacturers (and companies) would use that as a cop-out.
(and new non-electric cars will be forbidden starting 2030 - and by 2035 in Europe)
This was bound to happen. I also can't see the EU ban for 2035 holding up. Not because of car manufacturers but infrastructure.
Take Germany for example. Our infrastructure got neglected for decades and isn't remotly close to being able to sustain such a large number of electric vehicles. For people in rental apartments there is often no way to charge at all. The public charging "networks" are crap, often broken, occupied, rare or just not there. Politics could fix that, but there are a lot of factors why this won't happen (soon) and even if, wheels turn very slowly in this country and it will take decades to get the infrastructure in a state that's acceptable.
Take Germany for example. Our infrastructure got neglected for decades and isn't remotly close to being able to sustain such a large number of electric vehicles. For people in rental apartments there is often no way to charge at all. The public charging "networks" are crap, often broken, occupied, rare or just not there. Politics could fix that, but there are a lot of factors why this won't happen (soon) and even if, wheels turn very slowly in this country and it will take decades to get the infrastructure in a state that's acceptable.
there is a huge difference between 'all new cars BEV' and 'all cars BEV'. If all new cars sold were BEV tomorrow, that'd still only be a few % of the total cars driving around which would take years longer to slowly convert over as they naturally get scrapped. Plenty of time to beef the grid up. And the UK grid has said they could even cope with all cars being BEV as they estimate demand being no more than we already used back in 2005 - lots of efficiencies since then has dropped grid demand quite a lot
where is 'here'? because different countries have different mandates. UK originally had a 2030 goal to require all new sales to have 'meaningful electrification' which meant PHEV with a battery of undefined size. And then 2035 for all BEV. Since then theyv'e pushed it back to just have the 2035 goal without the interim step because - in their own words, they were just too good at this net zero lark so they've slowed down a bit.. sigh
Sure, that is absolutely right. But because of lots of factors (charging, rental, price, range, slow expansion) it'll not happen as fast in Germany. We can't even build a single train station or airport in 10 years. How would we beef up our entire grid in 10? Impossible.
point being
1) you may not need to beef it up in 10 years if only 5% of cars on the road are EV (all new car sales in a year)
2) you may not need to beef it up much if you have excess capacity from increased efficiency of devices over the last 20 years. You may have lost some generating capacity but the transmission grid which is likely a harder challenge, may be generally fine and only need reinforcing in certain areas (eg connecting service station/rest stops to the grid with enough power for large charging hubs)
Again, you're probably right. It's a nuanced topic with a lot of ifs. I am openly pessimistic and I'd love to be wrong.
Alright
Will you pay for the charging infrastructure in my area because it sucks and the city is so broke they're shutting down hospitals and schools
When these car companies talk about demand not being there like expected, it really didn't help that they either develop some ugly ass fucking cars (not everyone has but the merc S & E range is ugly for sure) that also don't have enough range and are also too fucking expensive even compared to their ICE equivalent. And no one other than Tesla has really invested in a charging infrastructure that isn't dogshit.
And on top of all this, people across the world are going through a cost of living crisis.
Do the fucking math.
And on top of all this, people across the world are going through a cost of living crisis.
Do the fucking math.
I like how all of these car companies have duped people into believing that they have any real intention of meeting their "goals". It's always the same shit: publicize goal -> (optional) take massive subsidies -> milk the PR benefits -> quietly delay target when everybody forgets your original promises -> loop back to start
The public load of electricity decreased by 51 TWh from 2018 to 2023. That's roughly 10% of the overall load. (source)
So even if the load just increased back to 2018 levels, that's probably enough for all cars being electric in this country.
BEVs use around 15 kWh per 100 km. 51 TWh are 50 billion kWh.
The whole talking point about BEVs blowing up demand is blown out of proportion, especially as other sectors get more efficient with time and the load decreases.
Last edited:
I agree ….What's more extreme?
My hobby as an occasional puppy strangler?
Or fossil fuel bigwigs knowingly causing mass death?
Add a V8 all petrol option to the new AMG C63 and we're good.
New hybrid C63 is getting awful reviews. "No soul".
Apart from the speed, AMG took away what made a C63, a C63. And upped the price to £109,000.
New hybrid C63 is getting awful reviews. "No soul".
Apart from the speed, AMG took away what made a C63, a C63. And upped the price to £109,000.
It also doesn't help that they don't have an "EQC" equivalent to the C-Class and GLC yet. Those would be, like, their Model 3 and Model Y competitors, but they're still nowhere to be found. And yeah, the starting price of the EQ versions being $10-15K more than the ICE versions doesn't help.
The E-Class is an icon, and the S-Class is of course in a class of its own. They look stately and convey presence. The EQE and EQS are weird warmed-over jelly beans. I get that they were going for a futuristic look, but I'm really not sure that's what people dropping $100K on a Mercedes wanted.
I've long thought that when Mercedes was really serious about EVs, we'd know, because they'd just make an electric E-Class and C-Class and S-Class, not some weird EQ sub-brand thing. Also I'm not sure why every brand from Hyundai to Cadillac to Mercedes decided that electric = 'Q' but EQE and EQB are ugly-ass names and it's weird that the EQ sedans and SUVs have the same names.
You realize if you start calling everyone nazis no one is going to take the usage seriously anymore. This ain't it.
There's still the lack of charging points. That is a real problem. Not everyone can hook up his own charger.
Are you an EV driver? Because Germanys EV infrastructure is on the top in the world and it gets only better in the Nordic countries.
Not sure what your impediment is, you don't need to charge on daily basis unless you drive constantly long highway travels.
When I don't travel, I only charge once or twice per month(!), 500km is plenty of range for getting A to B in my area.
The everyday people are the reason for this news though. There is weak appetite for electrified vehicles with the technology available today. The general population is not willing to give up the current stable driving experience they have for range anxiety, poor resale, inefficient winter driving, and charging times.
It should go without saying, but not everyone is convinced BEV is the future at this time and wants to participate today. The market shows this, the demand shows this, and the sales figures show this.