New Electric Truck Company - Lordstown Motor Corp - LMC

[JSH]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I do not think that is true. I think that they made a profit, put money in savings, and managed to build a new factory and tool it up, I believe from their filing that the Model 3 is profitable. Did I miss something?

In fact, I remember analysts saying that Tesla could not keep their high profit margins on each vehicle that they currently have, as it is so much higher than industry standard...

Unless you are assuming some accounting method that I have no idea about (which is possible, as I am not an accountant nor very knowledgeable about financial reporting of corporations).

Tesla lost $892 million in 2019.

The Model 3 does have a positive gross profit. Gross profit only includes costs directly associated with making a Model 3 and nothing else. The problem with looking at gross profit is that it excludes a lot of fixed costs and overhead. Tesla averaged a gross profit margin of 16.2% over their last 4 quarters. That is better than some but worse than others. GM averaged 10.0, Ford 13.6%, Toyota 17.95%, Honda 20.5%. (Data from ycharts)

Yes, Tesla spent money building plants and tooling but that is an expected and ongoing expense for any auto manufacturer. On a normal design cycle a model is refreshed 3 years after start of production and redesigned at 6 years. So the Model 3 started production July 2017 and a refresh is due this year. An almost completely new version should be on sale in 2023.

Tesla is lagging the industry here. The Model S is 8 years old with only a minor refresh. The Model X is 5 years old without a refresh.

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I see percentages of around 20% for the Model 3 claimed by different articles, such as this one: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-made...rgin-cash-cow/

That is gross profit not net profit.

[freebeard]

Tesla is lagging the industry here. The Model S is 8 years old with only a minor refresh. The Model X is 5 years old without a refresh.

The VW Beetle (and the Model T Ford) followed that strategy successfully for decades. But without the advantage of over-the-air software updates.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

As far as batteries in a Ford Transit conversion, the floor is already very high. Without a transmission or driveshaft in the way, there is a ton of room between the frame rails.

IIRC since the previous generation the Transit shares a similar platform layout for both FWD and RWD versions, being quite straightforward to convert from one layout to the other. Wouldn't really surprise me if Ford eventually tried an electric-driven rear axle matching a more conventional FWD setup, just like Volvo, Toyota and Lexus have been implementing more often in recent years.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

IIRC since the previous generation the Transit shares a similar platform layout for both FWD and RWD versions, being quite straightforward to convert from one layout to the other. Wouldn't really surprise me if Ford eventually tried an electric-driven rear axle matching a more conventional FWD setup, just like Volvo, Toyota and Lexus have been implementing more often in recent years.

Ford just announced the next generation Transit will get an electric version. 2021 sales for Europe. It was to be revealed at the now cancelled Geneva Auto Show.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The VW Beetle (and the Model T Ford) followed that strategy successfully for decades. But without the advantage of over-the-air software updates.

Different time. 2019 Model S sales have dropped 52% from their 2016 peak. Telsa only sold 14,100 last year.

Very few people want to buy the same car for a second time. The 3 year refresh / redesign cycle matches up with the typical 2-3 year lease.

[ldjessee00]

Part of the normal cycle for a car company is building new plants, not just retooling the plants they already have? Interesting.

I think continually replacing durable items is not a way to move to sustainable transportation. Designing systems in a modular way and offering updates when it makes sense (like offering an update/replacement for the display/infotainment unit in the Model S) makes more sense than expecting customers to buy a whole new car just because the manufacturer changed a body line, changed parts suppliers for some component, and wants to them to buy a whole new one.

I can understand updates for safety and fuel efficiency... but updating a car every 3 years, where most of the change is subtle, makes no real difference in the way the car operates or performs, and most people who own the previous model year could not point out the differences seems like a waste.

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

[...] updating a car every 3 years, where most of the change is subtle, makes no real difference in the way the car operates or performs, and most people who own the previous model year could not point out the differences seems like a waste.

Welcome to throwaway culture, I suppose. I see cars with all sorts of fancy electronic gizmos and I just don't 'get' it. I would have continued driving my "no frills" Yaris pretty much indefinitely, but I didn't feel it was worth the value to put ~$4,000 into something 11 years old with 100,000 miles on it, especially when its value is only around $2,500.

But your comment does remind me---my wife and I bought her Fit brand new. It was our first time buying a new car, and we did it because a used Fit with 20-30k miles on it was only a grand or so cheaper than one that was brand new.

Within 8 months we were already getting flyers from the dealership trying to get us to come trade in our still-new car for a 1-model-year-newer version of the exact same thing. They even had (apparently) attractive financing options for that sort of thing. Really struck both of us that they'd even bother. It means that people must actually do that.

5 years and 60,000 miles later, we have no intention of trading it in. But we're abnormal.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

Part of the normal cycle for a car company is building new plants, not just retooling the plants they already have? Interesting.

Yes, companies are continually building new plants. Sales patterns shift, new markets open up, plants just get old and out of date. There comes a time when it is cheaper to start fresh than to try to work around the existing floor plan.

The oldest plant I work in dates to the 50's and the newest the late 00's. The new plant is WAY more efficient because it was laid out for a modern assembly line. The oldest plant is tiny, cramped and landlocked. Each vehicle cost thousands more to produce there.

GM is building a new $2.3 billion battery factory in Lordstown with a planned output of 30 GWh of batteries a year. The old Lordstown assembly plant that opened in 1966 will be abandoned.

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I think continually replacing durable items is not a way to move to sustainable transportation. Designing systems in a modular way and offering updates when it makes sense (like offering an update/replacement for the display/infotainment unit in the Model S) makes more sense than expecting customers to buy a whole new car just because the manufacturer changed a body line, changed parts suppliers for some component, and wants to them to buy a whole new one.

I can understand updates for safety and fuel efficiency... but updating a car every 3 years, where most of the change is subtle, makes no real difference in the way the car operates or performs, and most people who own the previous model year could not point out the differences seems like a waste.

I would agree with you if the old cars were being throw away. However, they aren't the are passed from owner to owner as they get older and older. At the end of the chain a 25-30 year old car gets scrapped when the new car gets made. The reality is only about 7% of the population buys a new car in a given year and many people never buy a new car.

Also stamping tools and other tools don't last forever. They they can only make a limited number of parts and then need to be replaced. If you are going to remake a tool you might as well change the styling instead of spending millions to make the same old thing.

In general a car gets a refresh after 3 years. New front clip, new rear clip, new interior.

Progress is made a little bit at a time. Those little details that save 0.5% fuel economy add up.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

But your comment does remind me---my wife and I bought her Fit brand new. It was our first time buying a new car, and we did it because a used Fit with 20-30k miles on it was only a grand or so cheaper than one that was brand new.

Within 8 months we were already getting flyers from the dealership trying to get us to come trade in our still-new car for a 1-model-year-newer version of the exact same thing. They even had (apparently) attractive financing options for that sort of thing. Really struck both of us that they'd even bother. It means that people must actually do that.

I dated a girl once that had purchased a new Chevy Aveo (before I met her). She brought the less than 2 year old car in for an oil change, and left with a brand new... Chevy Aveo. She liked the color better on the new one.

That's a minor reason I broke up with her. The fact that she'd associate with a guy like me was the major reason.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I dated a girl once that had purchased a new Chevy Aveo (before I met her). She brought the less than 2 year old car in for an oil change, and left with a brand new... Chevy Aveo. She liked the color better on the new one.

That's a minor reason I broke up with her. The fact that she'd associate with a guy like me was the major reason.

I was shopping used minivans last night after the dealer closed and saw a new Camry that really caught my eye. Then I realized I'm officially old.