BMW CEO says Europe's ICE engine ban is "no longer realistic"

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

BMW and other European car manufacturers have had ample time to prepare for the transition to electric vehicles (EVs). It is ridiculous for them to now express concerns at the eleventh hour, especially when facing intensified competition from China. If they find themselves unable to compete in the global EV market, it signals a significant issue within the EU's automotive industry. 2035 is far away get your stuff together and you will be fine. No more investments in ICE engines you have what you have keep that and now move all resources to BEVs...

These manufacturers seemed to treat the shift to sustainable vehicles lightly or as a joke, consistently releasing subpar models while generating substantial profits from their (ICE) cars...

To Oliver Zipse and his industry peers: prioritizing research and development in EVs over expanding the line-up of "X" variants could have positioned you more favourably today. The BMW i3, launched in 2013-2014, was a pioneering effort, but progress seemed to halt thereafter...

The auto industry has had sufficient time to adapt and should not expect concessions due to delayed action. The EU car sector must innovate and stand independently without relying on protective measures. Achieving environmental goals is feasible if companies redirect resources from traditional fuels to sustainable alternatives—a transition that should have commenced long ago...

They have had enough time they are like spoiled children now all grown up...

ALL of these should have been a signal to the EU car industry MOVE away from ICE sooner then later...

Oliver and the rest of EU automotive industry should just grow up and start performing. How much of their money could have been spent on BEVs instead of ICE engines.

[edited the wall of text]

The problem is thinking like a Politician and not like an engineer, physicist, chemist, and businessman. Writing words on a piece of paper just doesn't make it so. A global shift to EV is just not realistic. The vision is flawed because no human activity is done for the benefit of the planet's climate; it's a flawed concept.

Industrialists who actually create products rather than legislation have a realistic view of the world. When Government drives the development of the automobile the result is the Yogo and Trabant, not BMWs. Politicians don't understand the concept of "profit motive".

The i3 was not a sales success and did not generate profit, which is why it was dropped.

[David70]

It's best for BMW to say what he's saying so anything he says I consider where and why he is saying it. If I tell my boss some giant project I am given isn't doable, he would also consider the possibility I am saying what is best for me.

On the other hand, I agree 2035 isn't realistic, also understand any major market change will come with a lot of negatives for some. Just resisting it won't change the final outcome. China seeming to be far ahead of the rest in this market I'm sure scares the established ICE manufacturers.

From a selfish, doing what is best for the manufacturers in our country it's a mistake to decide now that EV's won't work long term, go all in on what we are doing now. If we are wrong we will be out of the market. In the 70's U.S. manufacturers were slow to adapt to small, fuel effiicient cars, Japanese were far ahead, we let the Japanese take a huge part of the market.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by David70

It's best for BMW to say what he's saying so anything he says I consider where and why he is saying it. If I tell my boss some giant project I am given isn't doable, he would also consider the possibility I am saying what is best for me.

On the other hand, I agree 2035 isn't realistic, also understand any major market change will come with a lot of negatives for some. Just resisting it won't change the final outcome. China seeming to be far ahead of the rest in this market I'm sure scares the established ICE manufacturers.

From a selfish, doing what is best for the manufacturers in our country it's a mistake to decide now that EV's won't work long term, go all in on what we are doing now. If we are wrong we will be out of the market. In the 70's U.S. manufacturers were slow to adapt to small, fuel effiicient cars, Japanese were far ahead, we let the Japanese take a huge part of the market.

China isnt far ahead tech wise, they just have companies that are wholly supported by their dictatorship government, and are allowed to to use slave labor. So their costs are low, and their government subsidizes their losses anyways so they just dump products to external and internal markets below cost. As long as they're putting foreign competition out of business, the CCP is happy because they show economic growth.

China (correctly) assumes that if they sell EVs significantly cheaper than everyone else, it won't matter that they're crappy and poor quality, nobody will look into the dirty secrets of their supply chain and western consumers will buy them and treat them as disposable.

[MidnightLight]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

China (correctly) assumes that if they sell EVs significantly cheaper than everyone else, it won't matter that they're crappy and poor quality

Totally agree about Chinese carmakers' unfair systemic advantages from their government... but disagree about quality. Have you actually seen one of BYD's recent EVs? I have, and I was frankly shocked at how good their fit and finish & material quality was. They're far from perfect, but they're also far from crappy.

[David70]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

China isnt far ahead tech wise, they just have companies that are wholly supported by their dictatorship government, and are allowed to to use slave labor. So their costs are low, and their government subsidizes their losses anyways so they just dump products to external and internal markets below cost. As long as they're putting foreign competition out of business, the CCP is happy because they show economic growth.

China (correctly) assumes that if they sell EVs significantly cheaper than everyone else, it won't matter that they're crappy and poor quality, nobody will look into the dirty secrets of their supply chain and western consumers will buy them and treat them as disposable.

CEO of Ford feels differently - https://www.thestreet.com/electric-v...dical-ev-shift

...the obsession started when Farley and Ford CFO John Lawler test-drove an electric SUV made by Changan, Ford's joint venture partner in China. Here, they found a car that "was smooth and quiet" and featured an upscale cabin with easy-to-use technology, prompting the executives to sit "silently, stunned at the progress Changan had made."
“Jim, this is nothing like before,” Lawler reported saying to Farley after the drive to the Journal. “These guys are ahead of us.”

The visit was just one of many examples the Journal mentioned of his obsession with Chinese EVs, which he shared with Ford's top brass. A series of visits to the People's Republic over the past 18 months would shape his motivation to alter Ford's approach to EVs.

Shortly after one visit to China, Farley arranged for Chinese EVs to be shipped to Michigan for further inspection by Ford executives and directors. These included electronics giant Xiaomi's runaway hit, the SU7 EV, and the Li Auto L6, a minivan that Ford executives compared to "business-class air travel or a home theater."

Additionally, it was noted that last year, the Ford CEO watched engineers dissect an EV from BYD, which revealed "elegant, low-cost engineering."

I agree on the government support problem, don't agree on the "slave labor", companies pay the going rate & people are free to take the job or go somewhere else. I worked for a plant in Thailand for 5 years, competed against Chinese companies, hate the business practices, hate the government support but the idea all their products are crap is completely wrong. I also think if the Chinese government gives them enough support & it turns out EV's are the long term future this support will pay off & they will crush the rest. It's part of why I think the right government incentives make sense, too dangerous to either hope EV's never work out or that companies can compete directly against the Chinese manufacturers being supported by the Chinese government.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by MidnightLight

Totally agree about Chinese carmakers' unfair systemic advantages from their government... but disagree about quality. Have you actually seen one of BYD's recent EVs? I have, and I was frankly shocked at how good their fit and finish & material quality was. They're far from perfect, but they're also far from crappy.

There's more to something not being a POS than having a few display models fit together right. Are they gonna last 20+ years like a normal car? Are they gonna last 10? Or are they gonna be falling apart and clapped out at 3-5? And if they are, will consumers that buy new even care if they're cheap? Nobody really cares about what happens to a 8 year old cell phone...

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by David70

CEO of Ford feels differently - https://www.thestreet.com/electric-v...dical-ev-shift


I agree on the government support problem, don't agree on the "slave labor", companies pay the going rate & people are free to take the job or go somewhere else. I worked for a plant in Thailand for 5 years, competed against Chinese companies, hate the business practices, hate the government support but the idea all their products are crap is completely wrong. I also think if the Chinese government gives them enough support & it turns out EV's are the long term future this support will pay off & they will crush the rest. It's part of why I think the right government incentives make sense, too dangerous to either hope EV's never work out or that companies can compete directly against the Chinese manufacturers being supported by the Chinese government.

China ABSOLUTELY uses slave labor. Both liter enslaved people, and economically enslaved people. You can looked up about the forced labor China uses, it's well documented. More than a couple big companies have gotten caught up by "accidentally" using suppliers that uses slaves.

Thats not even talking about your Foxconns of the world. I worked with a plant in Chengdu, we had some former foxconn employees there. They told me stories of some.lf.their friends who were laborers were forced to pay more for boarding and food than they would make for the first 2 years..they were literally losing money the first year or two, paying their debt to the company off, and only after a few years swere they actually earning any money. This was somehow better than their economic prospects in small rural villages. Most of them would work there for a few years while sending money back to their homes, then eventually just not show back up after new year.

Also, you can't take anything Farley says seriously. He's both running Ford into the ground, and a total talking head, who will tell you they're all in on gas V8s one day, then turn around and tell another group of people about how great EVs are the next, then tell a 3rd group that's EVs and V8s are dumb and turbo hybrids are the future. He says whatever the group he's speaking to wants to hear.

[3PedalJake]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

[edited the wall of text]

The problem is thinking like a Politician and not like an engineer, physicist, chemist, and businessman. Writing words on a piece of paper just doesn't make it so. A global shift to EV is just not realistic. The vision is flawed because no human activity is done for the benefit of the planet's climate; it's a flawed concept.

Industrialists who actually create products rather than legislation have a realistic view of the world. When Government drives the development of the automobile the result is the Yogo and Trabant, not BMWs. Politicians don't understand the concept of "profit motive".

The i3 was not a sales success and did not generate profit, which is why it was dropped.

It's telling when mandates to produce a product regardless of whether it has prospective buyers are couched as "goals".

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

BMW and other European car manufacturers have had ample time to prepare for the transition to electric vehicles (EVs). It is ridiculous for them to now express concerns at the eleventh hour, especially when facing intensified competition from China. If they find themselves unable to compete in the global EV market, it signals a significant issue within the EU's automotive industry. 2035 is far away get your stuff together and you will be fine. No more investments in ICE engines you have what you have keep that and now move all resources to BEVs

These manufacturers seemed to treat the shift to sustainable vehicles lightly or as a joke, consistently releasing subpar models while generating substantial profits from their (ICE) cars. When confronted with the realities of market and regulatory changes, they claimed insufficient time for transition. However, from 2001 to 2023-24, clear goals and development plans were established for a greener future. Instead of adapting, they continued producing fuel-inefficient vehicles. Now, seeking to lift bans due to their lack of proactive effort appears ridiculous.

To Oliver Zipse and his industry peers: prioritizing research and development in EVs over expanding the line-up of "X" variants could have positioned you more favourably today. The BMW i3, launched in 2013-2014, was a pioneering effort, but progress seemed to halt thereafter. It's advisable for the industry to reinvest profits, potentially garnered from years of reliance on fossil fuels, into producing affordable EVs. The market for high-end luxury cars is saturated, and diversification is essential.

The auto industry has had sufficient time to adapt and should not expect concessions due to delayed action. The EU car sector must innovate and stand independently without relying on protective measures. Achieving environmental goals is feasible if companies redirect resources from traditional fuels to sustainable alternatives—a transition that should have commenced long ago.

They have had enough time they are like spoiled children now all grown up and momma have said no now.

Year 2000 ECCP
Year 2001 European Transport Policy for 2010
Year 2002 Kyoto Protocol
Year 2003 Directive of promotion of use of biofuels and alternative fuels
Year 2007 EUs strategy to reduce co2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
Year 2009 EC no 443 regulation emission performance standards.
Year 2010 A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles
Year 2011 A roadmap to single European transport area to reduce emissions by 60% to 2050
Year 2014 Alternative fuels infrastructure directive
Year 2018-2019 A clean planter for all a European strategic long term vision for a prosperous modern completive and climate neutral economy

ALL of these should have been a signal to the EU car industry MOVE away from ICE sooner then later.

Oliver and the rest of EU automotive industry should just grow up and start performing. How much of their money could have been spent on BEVs instead of ICE engines.

Well said

At this point, lifting the ban wouldn't really help them much, if any, in the long term...

Chinese EV makers won't slow down or stop...

China was smart about it. They forced automakers to form joint ventures with Chinese manufacturers to build cars in China and they all rushed over there letting greed drive them. China has now taken that expertise and starting building the future of the automotive market... Lifting the bans and slowing down will turn over their automotive industry to China...

EVs are the future no matter how you slice it. It is suicide to fall behind.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Well said

At this point, lifting the ban wouldn't really help them much, if any, in the long term...

Chinese EV makers won't slow down or stop...

China was smart about it. They forced automakers to form joint ventures with Chinese manufacturers to build cars in China and they all rushed over there letting greed drive them. China has now taken that expertise and starting building the future of the automotive market... Lifting the bans and slowing down will turn over their automotive industry to China...

EVs are the future no matter how you slice it. It is suicide to fall behind.

Why?

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Well said

At this point, lifting the ban wouldn't really help them much, if any, in the long term...

Chinese EV makers won't slow down or stop...

China was smart about it. They forced automakers to form joint ventures with Chinese manufacturers to build cars in China and they all rushed over there letting greed drive them. China has now taken that expertise and starting building the future of the automotive market... Lifting the bans and slowing down will turn over their automotive industry to China...

EVs are the future no matter how you slice it. It is suicide to fall behind.

That's how China approaches all trade. They complain about tariffs on their slave produced goods, but you can't really import products to them anyways. They're incredibly protectionist, and really just take advantage of the principles that western economies value

An outright ban of all Chinese imports phased in over a few years is the correct course of action.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

China isnt far ahead tech wise, they just have companies that are wholly supported by their dictatorship government, and are allowed to to use slave labor. So their costs are low, and their government subsidizes their losses anyways so they just dump products to external and internal markets below cost. As long as they're putting foreign competition out of business, the CCP is happy because they show economic growth.

China (correctly) assumes that if they sell EVs significantly cheaper than everyone else, it won't matter that they're crappy and poor quality, nobody will look into the dirty secrets of their supply chain and western consumers will buy them and treat them as disposable.

The real issue with China is they mostly own the battery supply chain, which makes them venerable. China also has a population shortage to support their industrial base in the future. To put the Chinese EV industry in its place is either stick with carbon fueled ICE or develop a non-lithium battery.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The real issue with China is they mostly own the battery supply chain, which makes them venerable. China also has a population shortage to support their industrial base in the future. To put the Chinese EV industry in its place is either stick with carbon fueled ICE or develop a non-lithium battery.

To be totally honest, I think a big part of the push to EVs is a direct result of China's infiltration into the global regulatory class via bribes. Despite their efforts they failed at breaking into other markets when ICE was all these was, so they funded and lobbies their way into a place where they were integral to a new transportation setup.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

To be totally honest, I think a big part of the push to EVs is a direct result of China's infiltration into the global regulatory class via bribes. Despite their efforts they failed at breaking into other markets when ICE was all these was, so they funded and lobbies their way into a place where they were integral to a new transportation setup.

Agree. I still think China could have always flooded the EU and North America with cheap ICEV as well. If they can build car at so less cost than EU and North American, it would have to be true for ICEV has well. With EV, it's the battery cost the Chinese have the advantage with because they own the battery supply chain.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Agree. I still think China could have always flooded the EU and North America with cheap ICEV as well. If they can build car at so less cost than EU and North American, it would have to be true for ICEV has well. With EV, it's the battery cost the Chinese have the advantage with because they own the battery supply chain.

EVs gives China cover. There's a few ICE vehicles built in China sold in the US now, Buick and Lincoln mainly. They're big black eyes for those automakers, always on the verge of being banned or tariffed to oblivion.

China never made inroads with ICEVs because they're a lot harder to engineer quality into. An EV is basically a.aet.of commoditized products, electric motors, batteries, etc are all just stuff you buy from whoever. The only way that China would have really broke into the ICE market would have been via buying stuff from other companies, they likely could have sourced transmissions from ZF or Aisin, engines, well what automaker would have been dumb enough to do that? They could have maybeb contracted Yamaha or someone to develop and build one for them, but that'd be expensive.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

EVs gives China cover. There's a few ICE vehicles built in China sold in the US now, Buick and Lincoln mainly. They're big black eyes for those automakers, always on the verge of being banned or tariffed to oblivion.

China never made inroads with ICEVs because they're a lot harder to engineer quality into. An EV is basically a.aet.of commoditized products, electric motors, batteries, etc are all just stuff you buy from whoever. The only way that China would have really broke into the ICE market would have been via buying stuff from other companies, they likely could have sourced transmissions from ZF or Aisin, engines, well what automaker would have been dumb enough to do that? They could have maybeb contracted Yamaha or someone to develop and build one for them, but that'd be expensive.

My brother just got the new Lincoln Nautilus. From the short time I was with it when he was showing it to me, my assessment is it is pretty well built. Fit and finish was very good and in my view, the interior was on par with Audi's supplier Toray Industries. I was impressed with it more than I expected. It has a curved ribbon screen that extends across the cabin below the windshield. I hope he bought an extended warranty. Lol.

[Wills2]

They are all starting to flap inc VW but it seems strange that they have publicly embraced the move right up until the point they realised that they won't win, but that must have been clear right from the start China hasn't just blown in, they knew before there was this risk.

They got greedy as hell during and after the late unpleasantness and have pushed pricing to the moon and lowered quality, their EV sales are taxpayer subsidised so they just pushed the margins up which has led to the residuals falling off a cliff after the first lease which their finance arms now have to swallow.

Although the EU and other governments in the West are also to blame, with their unachievable targets and fine programs it was all bound to end in tears.

Someone should buy the CEO a book on the demise of Kodak.

[ctcarbonari]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Someone should buy the CEO a book on the demise of Kodak.

Nice...Well said!!!

[msej449]

The big European manufactures of today sound exactly like the big Detroit manufacturers back in the 1980s. I remember when the latter laughed at the small, 4-cyl German and Japanese cars a decade earlier, saying they just weren’t what US buyers wanted. They just sat back and did nothing while their markets were eaten by foreign imports. Then too late, they argued for tariffs. Then GM went bust and had to be rescued with taxpayer dollars.

Now the parallel is here with the European electric car market: Chinese and Far East EVs are starting to dominate. Next step was for BMW and VAG to push the EU to apply tariffs on Chinese imports. This will, eventually, fail to save them unless they stop whingeing, get their fingers out and start building what people want.

Alongside my M235i convertible, I’ve got a Stellantis EV hatchback. But it was only competitive with the equivalent Chinese model because I got a 20% discount on the price, which gave it parity. And even then, the Stellantis remote services are a decade or more behind what a Chinese manufacturer offers. The Stellantis CEO is making the same noises about the ICEV ban and shouts for more time and import tariffs, instead of getting on with the job of catching up. I’d be more sympathetic if he was asking for R&D, supply chain and new factory incentives for local EV manufacturers, but he isn’t.

Europe isn’t the US - we don’t have big oil reserves and most of our petrol/diesel has to be imported, often from politically dodgy, unstable and culturally alien regimes. So it makes sense economically and politically to wean ourselves off petroleum imports and try and transition as much as possible to electric transportation. And if European car manufacturers ‘Do a Detroit’ and won’t build what we need, then it’s the Chinese who are going to fill the gap. It’s this scenario that is pushing European politicians to drag their car manufacturers kicking and screaming into the next decade.

[Th3DarkSide]

Originally Posted by msej449

The big European manufactures of today sound exactly like the big Detroit manufacturers back in the 1980s. I remember when the latter laughed at the small, 4-cyl German and Japanese cars a decade earlier, saying they just weren’t what US buyers wanted. They just sat back and did nothing while their markets were eaten by foreign imports. Then too late, they argued for tariffs. Then GM went bust and had to be rescued with taxpayer dollars.

Now the parallel is here with the European electric car market: Chinese and Far East EVs are starting to dominate. Next step was for BMW and VAG to push the EU to apply tariffs on Chinese imports. This will, eventually, fail to save them unless they stop whingeing, get their fingers out and start building what people want.

Alongside my M235i convertible, I’ve got a Stellantis EV hatchback. But it was only competitive with the equivalent Chinese model because I got a 20% discount on the price, which gave it parity. And even then, the Stellantis remote services are a decade or more behind what a Chinese manufacturer offers. The Stellantis CEO is making the same noises about the ICEV ban and shouts for more time and import tariffs, instead of getting on with the job of catching up. I’d be more sympathetic if he was asking for R&D, supply chain and new factory incentives for local EV manufacturers, but he isn’t.

Europe isn’t the US - we don’t have big oil reserves and most of our petrol/diesel has to be imported, often from politically dodgy, unstable and culturally alien regimes. So it makes sense economically and politically to [...]

“What people want” in the USA continues to be ICE vehicles. Soooooo 🤷‍♂️

[bmw 66]

AFAIK the real problem has multiple sides:

China is selling EV's way too cheap - they're running it a loss in order to gain market share destroying competition and later on use that as leverage (either during a war about Taiwan - or just to charge more). Having had IT based suppliers from China at work: DO NOT TRUST THEM. They don't even try to hide that they're lying to your face.

EU public doesn't like EVs well enough. Hence the EU car markers can't sell them in volume to their home crowd. This will change once the public will have to pay for CO2 emissions (from 2027 onward people in the EU will have to pay a "tax" on anything that emits CO2 for warming their home or driving a vehicle). As things stand now the "tax" will be highly significant.

This "tax" is setup to be a bit unpredictable, but right now it would be a LOT. It would force people using ICE cars to abandon them and suddenly switch to EVs, same for heating a home: natural gas, etc would be out and heat pumps would be mandatory almost.

BUT ... our electric grid is in no way up to that challenge. Simple reason: No project to improve the grid succeeds as nobody wants it in "their backyard".

But next to no communication to the public at large of this happens. Why: it's the job of the country-level politicians to sell this to their voters, but they don't want to do that as they know it's going to be unpopular. So they go "mañana" and as always only run with the good news themselves ignoring to say the EU is causing it, while once they're finally pushed hard enough will bring bad news as "they EU made us" - ignoring the same political parties pushed it at the EU level.

The politicians are going to have a nightmare on their hands if their current rules for 2027 kick in without a huge shift in the public's use of fuel for driving cars and heating homes. There's going to be revolts (at least in France) if they let those things kick in as-is.
It'll disrupt markets and electric grids alike and will hit those weakest in society the worst.

The car makers expect the rules to get looser for them by 2035, but the R&D cycle and need to sell engines for long enough to recuperate it all is long, and waiting for the politicians to realize in 2027 or 2028 they can't do it, pushes them into impossible timelines. So they try to shake up things a bit ...

[msej449]

As I said, unlike the US, most European petroleum has to be imported, at significant cost to us. So as well as the existential threat of global heating from car emissions, thre’s a purely economic argument for moving to EVs where possible. And that imperative is already working hard and seeing significant year-on-year increase in EV ownership. And in the UK, that’s without any taxpayer incentives and in a completely free-market energy landscape.

If it wasn’t for the Chinese, we could probably leave this to the market. But what’s happening here is that the Chinese are undercutting domestic car manufacturers and winning more and more market share. So that’s a double-whammy economically.

Tariffs are a short-term stop-gap but not a long-term solution to being uncompetitive. If European governments do nothing then their domestic car industry will wither. So yes, they’ve imposed tariffs but along with that, are pushing their own industrials to compete. In that context, I think it’s a balanced approach.

And let me put this ‘we don’t have the capacity to go for EVs in a big way’ argument to bed - we do. At least in the UK. There’s no problem with generating the power we need. Blackouts and brownouts are an unknown here. If anything, we have a surplus. And this is with an entirely free-market power landscape. Not only that, we’ve got very high levels of renewables (and while that’s a lot down to our geography, it’s still a big plus, nevertheless).

But yes, if you’re not one of the 60% of UK households with domestic off-street charging capability then charging overnight is a challenge. And you need this to be convenient and cheap for the EV vs ICEV equation to work.