GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 40 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
F150 using LFP batteries is a great sign of changing with technology
Is that true? I hadn't read they were using LiFePO4 batteries. I am more inclined to buy a vehicle with that type of battery, until solid state of course.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,660 Posts
?
Do you have any documentation to support your assertion that "Ultium is not ready for mass production"?
I think you missed my point, the absence of significant production in the first six months, where’s the ramp up in production for those 65,000 Hummer(?) orders?

Ultium tech may indeed be ready for mass production but it’s clear that GM Ultium resources and manufacturing side is not producing many right now, so safe to assume it is still getting its logistics and supplies sorted for a better effort in 2023
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,012 Posts
If GM can build as many as the public wants next year, then they should be fine as Ford can't build that many this year. But Ford is offering the whole price range right away. I hope that won't hurt GM next year only offering the expensive models.
I thought the WT was the first one into production?

In this case being first is irrelevant, brand loyalty will prevail in the long run in this segment IMO.
So it would be a big deal if 70% of Ford Lightning reservations are from people new to the brand, and became loyal?

I absolutely hate the huge tablet junk. GM has this right.
In pictures or using it?

Do you have any documentation to support your assertion that "Ultium is not ready for mass production"?
GM sold one Hummer in December and 99 over the first 3 months of 2022.
- If you've got 65,000 reservation and only build one truck a day, how many days does it take to catch-up?
- How many years are in 65,000 days?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,853 Posts
?
Do you have any documentation to support your assertion that "Ultium is not ready for mass production"?
I don't myself have any documention, but it is a case of 'reading between the lines' or 'looking at the obvious'. If it was ready for mass production, where are all the vehicles?
It could be simply there is not the materials or labor so they physically cannot produce more...or maybe the costs are a bit high and they are waiting for parts/training/labor costs to 'mature' and come down....but either way the truth is some form of something is 'not ready' simply because they aren't mass producing ultium vehicles at the moment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
I've seen a few of these. I'm starting to wonder if a ground up design is going to help GM in any way. They'll be a year behind and more-so if you want a mid tier model (which is most of us that don't want a work truck or a 100k luxury trim).
The Ultium system is really key for Chevrolet. It’s not like Ford is making these in-house. It’s a supplier Galore.
Chevrolets version is a fully GM engineered truck, from battery Chemistry, to motors, software, etc.
Are there suppliers, of course, but GM is not building a compliance vehicle.

I think Ford will sell a lot more Electric F150’s than Mustangs though, but the two Detroit companies are on very different paths.

It would seem at this point, GM and Tesla are in a race to gethe cost per kilowatt hour below $100.00 and are probably there this year. I don’t see evidence anyone else is.
Beyond the obvious, it tells us that Ultium is not ready for mass production because if it was, there would be tens of thousands of BEV Silverados out there already. This is GM brass saying one thing and forcing engineers to come up with the goods before they’re ready….
It depends on what ‘not ready for mass production you mean.

Is the system engineered for mass production? The answer to that is I believe is yes.

Does GM have the industrial eco system for mass production? The answer is no.
That is precisely why they have a negative free cash flow at this point on their financial statements.

They are investing heavily in that ecosystems, some of it in-house, some of it as JV’s. It would seem that at 2024 they will have a much higher electric vehicle capacity than Tesla in North America, and a lot more models across their brand portfolio including bright drop and the eco system built out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,660 Posts
The interesting part is that the T3 version of Lightning is only supposed to be a get through until the TE3 version of Lightning Begins to roll out of Tennessee in ’25. So now, I’m thinking that the current Lightning remains as the commercial /work truck version while the newer TE3 Lightning is more aligned with the retail customer and the Ultium Silverado….that gets Ford to some potentially big production numbers in 2025.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
The interesting part is that the T3 version of Lightning is only supposed to be a get through until the TE3 version of Lightning Begins to roll out of Tennessee in ’25. So now, I’m thinking that the current Lightning remains as the commercial /work truck version while the newer TE3 Lightning is more aligned with the retail customer and the Ultium Silverado….that gets Ford to some potentially big production numbers in 2025.
This is a prescription for disaster. After the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, all of GM's shipping and announced EVs are based on one scalable architecture--Ultium. This spanned the spectrum from the shipping BrightDrop to the announced Equinox and products of the collaboration with Honda. As much as I respect the current F150 Lightning rolling off the line, it is a stopgap product. It is scheduled to roll off the line for only a couple of years before being replaced by a new Lightning featuring a clean sheet design. However, GM's clean sheet design is rolling off the line now in the case of Hummer and Bright Drop, and early next year in the case of the Chevrolet Silverado EV.

It is bad enough that Ford is using multiple architectures to handle multiple EV models. The Blue Oval would be putting itself into a dramatic competitive disadvantage if it were to proliferate its supported architectures. Instead, it should ensure that its new light truck architecture be sufficiently scalable to handle all of Ford's light truck offerings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
This is a prescription for disaster. After the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, all of GM's shipping and announced EVs are based on one scalable architecture--Ultium. This spanned the spectrum from the shipping BrightDrop to the announced Equinox and products of the collaboration with Honda. As much as I respect the current F150 Lightning rolling off the line, it is a stopgap product. It is scheduled to roll off the line for only a couple of years before being replaced by a new Lightning featuring a clean sheet design. However, GM's clean sheet design is rolling off the line now in the case of Hummer and Bright Drop, and early next year in the case of the Chevrolet Silverado EV.

It is bad enough that Ford is using multiple architectures to handle multiple EV models. The Blue Oval would be putting itself into a dramatic competitive disadvantage if it were to proliferate its supported architectures. Instead, it should ensure that its new light truck architecture be sufficiently scalable to handle all of Ford's light truck offerings.
It’s very difficult for Ford supporters to admit that the Mach E and F150 are essentially the Bolt EV equivalents for Ford. A generation behind HUMMER EV if not further behind. I know, being a Pandres and Former Chargers fan, it can be difficult to admit your teams are no match against the top teams.

plus is one is looking for an electric commuter vehicle, there is no better value out there than the Bolt EV.

That said, Ford hopefully has the leadership to turn its engineering organisation fully to this EV business
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,660 Posts
This is a prescription for disaster. After the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, all of GM's shipping and announced EVs are based on one scalable architecture--Ultium. This spanned the spectrum from the shipping BrightDrop to the announced Equinox and products of the collaboration with Honda. As much as I respect the current F150 Lightning rolling off the line, it is a stopgap product. It is scheduled to roll off the line for only a couple of years before being replaced by a new Lightning featuring a clean sheet design. However, GM's clean sheet design is rolling off the line now in the case of Hummer and Bright Drop, and early next year in the case of the Chevrolet Silverado EV.

It is bad enough that Ford is using multiple architectures to handle multiple EV models. The Blue Oval would be putting itself into a dramatic competitive disadvantage if it were to proliferate its supported architectures. Instead, it should ensure that its new light truck architecture be sufficiently scalable to handle all of Ford's light truck offerings.
Looking at Ultium, it has five separate drive set ups, it has multiple types of vehicles and clear that it is a Multi-platform project hiding within the one architecture / engineering program. The most expensive development cost (~70%) in a vehicle is front crash protection cell, this is something that isn’t exactly scalable and has to be unique to the vehicles size and weight. Honestly, a lot of this is just GM shock and awe marketing.

Rectangle Font Silver Pattern Circle


Ford has just spent $700 million developing an EV assembly production center at Dearborn, they’re not just going to throw that development away after a couple of years, it will continue in a form that suits Ford’s purposes…
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
Looking at Ultium, it has five separate drive set ups, it has multiple types of vehicles and clear that it is a Multi-platform project hiding within the one architecture / engineering program. The most expensive development cost (~70%) in a vehicle is front crash protection cell, this is something that isn’t exactly scalable and has to be unique to the vehicles size and weight. Honestly, a lot of this is just GM shock and awe marketing.

View attachment 66168

Ford has just spent $700 million developing an EV assembly production center at Dearborn, they’re not just going to throw that development away after a couple of years, it will continue in a form that suits Ford’s purposes…
While development of the crash cage might be expensive, there is a lot of builT in organisational experience within a company like Ford or GM , such that , it’s likely that it doesn’t cost them as much as say Tesla or Lucid.

I would not call Ultium and Ultifi shock and awe marketing, there is that, however, looking at a Lyriq and a HUMMER EV, there is clearly more than shock and awe if those two vehicles share more than 60% of development components and software.


They are now building the third plant, one complete, the other almost done and the Tennessee one going up fast.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,660 Posts
While development of the crash cage might be expensive, there is a lot of builT in organisational experience within a company like Ford or GM , such that , it’s likely that it doesn’t cost them as much as say Tesla or Lucid.

I would not call Ultium and Ultifi shock and awe marketing, there is that, however, looking at a Lyriq and a HUMMER EV, there is clearly more than shock and awe if those two vehicles share more than 60% of development components and software.


They are now building the third plant, one complete, the other almost done and the Tennessee one going up fast.
It sure is going up fast.

Aside from batteries, there’s enough differences in Ultium vehicles to be less than 50% parts sharing. Once you get above 50% parts sharing including bodies, you’re in derivatives. So not disparaging Ultium but it’s actually like five vehicle groups under the one Engineering cost center, GM gets good savings that way but let’s not kid ourselves that this is just one vehicle & body scaled up and down..,..,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
It sure is going up fast.

Aside from batteries, there’s enough differences in Ultium vehicles to be less than 50% parts sharing. Once you get above 50% parts sharing including bodies, you’re in derivatives. So not disparaging Ultium but it’s actually like five vehicle groups under the one Engineering cost center, GM gets good savings that way but let’s not kid ourselves that this is just one vehicle & body scaled up and down.
Would it not come down to software cost? So, we know battery and drives are shared components, if you throw in software, and forget the steel used for one moment and do it on a cost basis. It could be above 50% the cost of the vehicle.
Speculating of course.

Raw material costs would not be that significant, as in the vehicle frame and plastics cannot be 50% of the vehicle cost basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,498 Posts
'Raw materials cost' sounds like it's omitting the forming, painting & assembly of those raw materials.

Buy steel from a mill and it goes thru a dozen or more operations.
Buy a chip from a supplier and you merely plug it into a motherboard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Would it not come down to software cost? So, we know battery and drives are shared components, if you throw in software, and forget the steel used for one moment and do it on a cost basis. It could be above 50% the cost of the vehicle.
Speculating of course.

Raw material costs would not be that significant, as in the vehicle frame and plastics cannot be 50% of the vehicle cost basis.
EVs will be yet another example of 21st Century economics. They are characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs. This is a trend that has been going on for decades now. The transition of EVs will accelerate it. Software is not required to be written for each vehicle or even each configuration. Software need only be compiled for each configuration. Software costs are a tiny fraction of the production costs of an automobile. Materials costs are a tiny fraction, as are labor costs. What is more, labor costs for a properly designed mass-produced EV will be significantly lower than an equivalent ICE-powered vehicle.

The major costs are in developing new battery technologies, building new assembly plants, continued technology research, and such like. One of the consequences of 21st Century economics [aka "Winner Take All Economy"] is that it is incredibly difficult to catch up if you fall behind. It can be done, but it is very hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,012 Posts
Looking at Ultium, it has five separate drive set ups, it has multiple types of vehicles and clear that it is a Multi-platform project hiding within the one architecture / engineering program. The most expensive development cost (~70%) in a vehicle is front crash protection cell, this is something that isn’t exactly scalable and has to be unique to the vehicles size and weight. Honestly, a lot of this is just GM shock and awe marketing.
It’s very difficult for GM supporters to admit that Ultium is little more than a marketing name owned by GM.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
EVs will be yet another example of 21st Century economics. They are characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs. This is a trend that has been going on for decades now. The transition of EVs will accelerate it. Software is not required to be written for each vehicle or even each configuration. Software need only be compiled for each configuration. Software costs are a tiny fraction of the production costs of an automobile. Materials costs are a tiny fraction, as are labor costs. What is more, labor costs for a properly designed mass-produced EV will be significantly lower than an equivalent ICE-powered vehicle.

The major costs are in developing new battery technologies, building new assembly plants, continued technology research, and such like. One of the consequences of 21st Century economics [aka "Winner Take All Economy"] is that it is incredibly difficult to catch up if you fall behind. It can be done, but it is very hard.
The economy has always been a winner take all economy. It's not many companies that could build railways across America in the 19th century or telephone cables.
Most wealth in families if built over generations, not a single generation, it's that ability to assist your children put down payment on their first house, etc. Even the Walmart's of this world are multi-generational.
Without stable families poverty and talk like yours take hold.

'Raw materials cost' sounds like it's omitting the forming, painting & assembly of those raw materials.

Buy steel from a mill and it goes thru a dozen or more operations.
Buy a chip from a supplier and you merely plug it into a motherboard.
Instead of poking holes, how about you give an guestimate of where you see costs falling? There is not that much development costs that go into mature production processes. A steel press can work in a factory for decades with multiple dies, so can a welding robot with a couple of software updates, so goes for the paint booth, etc, therefore styling updates are not 'major investments' like say battery chemistry and the industrial process to manufacture at scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
The economy has always been a winner take all economy. It's not many companies that could build railways across America in the 19th century or telephone cables.
Most wealth in families if built over generations, not a single generation, it's that ability to assist your children put down payment on their first house, etc. Even the Walmart's of this world are multi-generational.
Without stable families poverty and talk like yours take hold.

...
You are simply off the beam on this one. Walmart became America's dominant retailer during the lifetime of the company's founder, Sam Walton. He passed on his wealth to his children, who continue to build it. However, Walmart became Walmart in a single generation. The men who built America in the 19th Century rose from meager means or nothing at all to became titans of industry. In so doing, the displaced the men who had the advantage of generational wealth. People with generational wealth treated the Rockefeller's, Vanderbilts, and others like them like dirt.

In our lifetimes, we have seen the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs who in the best of circumstances were born into upper middle class families gain wealth into the $100 billions. Probably, one of the better examples of the winner-take-all economy is Steve Jobs who was a lower middle class Arab kid raised by adoptive parents. He founded or cofounded two companies--Apple and NeXT--and purchased two others--Pixar and Hobie Cat. Apple went on to become the World's first $1 trillion company, the World's first $2 trillion company, and the World's first $3 trillion company. Although Apple was on the ascendency when Steve Jobs died, the company experienced its $1 trillion status under Tim Cook whom Jobs recruited from Dell. Cook is a procurement genius, but he did not come from wealth. Cook is a middle class gay man from Alabama. To give a product example of the winner-take-all-economy, consider the MacBook Air. This is the laptop computer that fits in an envelop. Because or certain moves made by Tim Cook, Apple's retail price for the MacBook Air is less than the production costs of competing products. These are not examples of generational wealth. If Jobs were still with us, then he and Cook would both be younger than I. Stated another way, when I graduated from college, Apple Computer did not exist. Today, it is No. 3 on the Forbes 500. No. 2 is Amazon which did not exist. No. 1 is Walmart which existed, but was just starting to expand into the behemoth that we know today.

When you talk about railroads, you are not in the same conversation. The 19th Century robber barons relied on their wits. However, their wits would be come to naught if it had not been for massive Federal subsidies, the assistance of the states and their National Guard units along with private armies to put down worker strikes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,148 Posts
You are simply off the beam on this one. Walmart became America's dominant retailer during the lifetime of the company's founder, Sam Walton. He passed on his wealth to his children, who continue to build it. However, Walmart became Walmart in a single generation. The men who built America in the 19th Century rose from meager means or nothing at all to became titans of industry. In so doing, the displaced the men who had the advantage of generational wealth. People with generational wealth treated the Rockefeller's, Vanderbilts, and others like them like dirt.

In our lifetimes, we have seen the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs who in the best of circumstances were born into upper middle class families gain wealth into the $100 billions. Probably, one of the better examples of the winner-take-all economy is Steve Jobs who was a lower middle class Arab kid raised by adoptive parents. He founded or cofounded two companies--Apple and NeXT--and purchased two others--Pixar and Hobie Cat. Apple went on to become the World's first $1 trillion company, the World's first $2 trillion company, and the World's first $3 trillion company. Although Apple was on the ascendency when Steve Jobs died, the company experienced its $1 trillion status under Tim Cook whom Jobs recruited from Dell. Cook is a procurement genius, but he did not come from wealth. Cook is a middle class gay man from Alabama. To give a product example of the winner-take-all-economy, consider the MacBook Air. This is the laptop computer that fits in an envelop. Because or certain moves made by Tim Cook, Apple's retail price for the MacBook Air is less than the production costs of competing products. These are not examples of generational wealth. If Jobs were still with us, then he and Cook would both be younger than I. Stated another way, when I graduated from college, Apple Computer did not exist. Today, it is No. 3 on the Forbes 500. No. 2 is Amazon which did not exist. No. 1 is Walmart which existed, but was just starting to expand into the behemoth that we know today.

When you talk about railroads, you are not in the same conversation. The 19th Century robber barons relied on their wits. However, their wits would be come to naught if it had not been for massive Federal subsidies, the assistance of the states and their National Guard units along with private armies to put down worker strikes.
What is your overall point? You seem to focus on the folks at the helm of say Apple without considering the millions of 401K’s IRA’s etc ridding on apple stock or any other major corp.

Wealth in the general population is what I was referring to, not the exceptional cases.
 
21 - 40 of 89 Posts
Top