What's new
By:
Mopar Insiders Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Stellantis Electric Vehicle Day on July 8, 1 hour before Wall Street open

pumadog said:
Did you realise that for BEV product they showed mostly FCA models (much 500, Ducato) in the films, despite having much more PSA product on the EV market?
Click to expand...

Electrification wasn't a problem for FCA. I mean engineering part. They did it all, or almost all. But some things are not yet on the market like Giorgio-BEV, some are put in the freeze like more models on eMini. And FCA's scope of electrification technologies is much broader than PSA's. I think that's understandable.

B segment PHEV? It's not viable because of costs. Maybe on B+ SUV models which are priced at the same level as C-segment hatchbacks. Actually price is at the C-segment hatchback level.
Look for example at ZF's electrification market analysis. They said that for A and B segment PHEVs are not viable solution.
 
Bili said:
EDM, battery cells and so on. Look at it as on the engine. You share it between different platforms. So nothing new. Of course that they will bring commonalization to bring costs down.

Both Medium and Large predate Stellantis but some component development started by Stellantis like battery cells and electric motor. But for Large, which is actually nothing more than another Giorgio fork, inverter technology, three electric motors, 800V and more will be already present on Maserati products next year, Giorgio fork(s) products.

Better battery integration for BEV models had already started independently by FCA and PSA and was green lit before the merger. I'm the one who said that batteries will be flat in the floor. That's something which is not present on current generation PSA or FCA platforms except for Fiat eMini which is used for the new electric 500. Yes, I'm the one who said that 500 BEV (eMini) is at higher evolutionary step than PSA e-CMP.

@KrisW is sure that STLA Small is nothing more than eMini evolution. Maybe he can type more about it.

According to Stellantis PHEV should be phased out by 2029 or 2030. After that date BEV will be the only choice for what they call Zero Emission Vehicle.
Click to expand...
I don't think you could say that based on this presentation.
Tavares mentioned an expectation of a 70% share of Stellantis sales in 2030 being LEV's in Europe. He expected 20% of all Stellantis LEV sales to be PHEV's in 2030.
If my math is correct that leads to an expectation of 15% of all Stellantis sales in 2030 to still be PHEV's.
That would be a much higher share than it was last year in Europe.
They gave no specific numers for north and south America but it would be safe to assume that for these markets the PHEV might even be more important than the BEV in 2030.
This was first and foremost a presentation for investors and that group of people seem to have decided that only BEV's are worth betting on. A company has to be ready for a world in which the eu and us governments decide that by 2035 or 2040 ICE will be banned.
I am sure that if the markets decide that they want PHEV's Stellantis will give that to them.
 
pumadog said:
We might mean the same thing in the end. When calling it evolution, those evo steps look far bigger than one could have feared with renamed current platforms in your mind. From what is on the market/public: eMini doesn't offer PHEV currently, CMP neither, EMP2 doesn't offer BEV, Giorgio no major electrification at all. Now all will have flat floor batteries and even FWD/RWD/AWD flexibility. I'd say it could be much worse.

Did you realise that for BEV product they showed mostly FCA models (much 500, Ducato) in the films, despite having much more PSA product on the EV market?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting indicator that indeed they will use more of FCA technical base. Lets see.
 
Bili said:
Page number 21

Stellantis has a plan without PHEVs in 2030, already 2029 in US.

But they've revised it, at least for US. Back then the plan was to have 35% of LEV sales, now it's 40%.
Click to expand...
I talked about this presentation, the july 8th one.
This is the most recent one and at the end of this presentation Carlos was asked about the BEV/PHEV mix of all LEV sales in 2030 by the Nikkei analyst at around 2:11 in the video. He gave a perfectly clear answer: their forecast is at least 80% BEV. A 80/20 mix of LEV's.
Carlos did mention several times that Stellantis was a very diverse company and that this gave them better insight in the different markets around the world. Maybe he did learn a few things from his new partners in the past few months.
 
Deckard Cain said:
40% eletrified vehicles in the US by 2030 is not "forcing it on everyone".
Stellantis would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't push forward with electrification.
Click to expand...
Well stated.
Also FCA Planning on U.S. emissions was totally dependent on President Trump getting a second term together with a favorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling on States ability to set local Emission Standards as I mentioned back during the Fall:Death of ICE in U.S. by 2031... Coming November 2020...prescription: a Stellantis-GM Merger
 
One interesting thing which wend under the radar.

In the EU they said that Stellantis will have 70% of BEV in sales mix in 2030.
At the same tome they said that even before Fiat and Opel will be BEV only. Such plans were even before communicated for DS.

Basically this leads us to conclusion that all ICE/MHEV sales will go to just 2 brands. Citroen and Peugeot.

Nice play from French I must say. They secured Citroen and Peugeot as (by far) the best selling Stellantis' brands in Europe.
 
70% LEV* sales, not BEV. And you forgot Alfa, Maserati, Lancia & Jeep. As it looks politically, there won't be much ICE sales after 2030 for any passenger car.

You know why they could picke Fiat for that goal? Because there's no current ICE product on the market. Easy to go electric fast. Not much to loose. Fiat chose not to develop new ICE product before Stellantis was born. 500 (2020) BEV only, no Panda (2012) ICE in development, no B-Segment car, Tipo long announced to stop after current gen. 500L (2012) no successor, 500X (2014) nothing on the horizon. No C SUV, no D or E segment at all.

*Light Emission Vehicles = BEV, PHEV, Hydrogen …

Edit: New EU plans should go public on Wednesday: -60% CO2 until 2030, -100% until 2035
www.berliner-kurier.de

Nur noch E-Autos erlaubt: EU beschließt das Aus für Verbrenner!

Bis 2050 will die Europäische Union CO2-neutral sein, deshalb müssen Autobauer bis 2035 auf Elektro umrüsten.
www.berliner-kurier.de www.berliner-kurier.de
 
Last edited:
Bili said:
One interesting thing which wend under the radar.

In the EU they said that Stellantis will have 70% of BEV in sales mix in 2030.
At the same tome they said that even before Fiat and Opel will be BEV only. Such plans were even before communicated for DS.

Basically this leads us to conclusion that all ICE/MHEV sales will go to just 2 brands. Citroen and Peugeot.

Nice play from French I must say. They secured Citroen and Peugeot as (by far) the best selling Stellantis' brands in Europe.
Click to expand...
Actually it didn’t go under radar, it was mentioned in this thread during the play by play. Of Europe mix 20% of the 70% is PHEV.
 
pumadog said:
70% LEV* sales, not BEV. And you forgot Alfa, Maserati, Lancia & Jeep. As it looks politically, there won't be much ICE sales after 2030 for any passenger car.

You know why they could picke Fiat for that goal? Because there's no current ICE product on the market. Easy to go electric fast. Not much to loose. Fiat chose not to develop new ICE product before Stellantis was born. 500 (2020) BEV only, no Panda (2012) ICE in development, no B-Segment car, Tipo long announced to stop after current gen. 500L (2012) no successor, 500X (2014) nothing on the horizon. No C SUV, no D or E segment at all.

*Light Emission Vehicles = BEV, PHEV, Hydrogen …

Edit: New EU plans should go public on Wednesday: -60% CO2 until 2030, -100% until 2035
www.berliner-kurier.de

Nur noch E-Autos erlaubt: EU beschließt das Aus für Verbrenner!

Bis 2050 will die Europäische Union CO2-neutral sein, deshalb müssen Autobauer bis 2035 auf Elektro umrüsten.
www.berliner-kurier.de www.berliner-kurier.de
Click to expand...
FCA was working on a Panda replacement together with Baby Jeep.
 
But where is it? Is it the B-SUV from Tychy or completely canceled? Or will the current generation continue until a Centoventi-Panda BEV reaches acceptable price levels in 5-10 years?
 
pumadog said:
But where is it? Is it the B-SUV from Tychy or completely canceled? Or will the current generation continue until a Centoventi-Panda BEV reaches acceptable price levels in 5-10 years?
Click to expand...
They didn’t become action projects until Manley became CEO , but then canceled then in favor of becoming PSA Poland projects.
 
VinDiesel said:
Finally, it should be noted that the safety statistics for BEVs are horrible. TELSA's flagship Model S and X average one fatality a week, and that's just in the US. By comparison, their biggest competition the Mercedes S and GLs average less than one fatality a year, with the same number of 2012 and newer registered vehicles (big Benzes and big TESLAs) on US roads so the comparison is statistically sound.
Click to expand...
A large number of those fatalities are due to the misuse of Auto Pilot and driver negligence. Not a fair comparison at all. Additionally, Tesla is just one brand that has a sketchy reputation anyway. They do not represent all BEVs.
VinDiesel said:
When it comes to BEV's, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors....folks are being fooled.....because apparently decayed plants are evil....and there large deposits of these in Russia....and this is what the BEV engineers tell themselves to justify their human cancer experiment.
Click to expand...
Decayed plants are not evil. Emissions produced by ICE vehicles, along with a lot of other sources, are the things that are causing pollution. No, vehicles are not the only source of this and I actually think there are larger sources that should be addressed first. But ICE vehicles definitely contribute to the pollution of our planet. A good comparison is to a cell culture in a Petri dish as we continue to poison ourselves with our own waste. The only ones being fooled are those who believe politicians (on both sides of the aisle) over scientists.
 
VinDiesel said:
No, those TESLA fatalities are mostly because the battery takes up the entire floor area of the vehicle so it is extremely difficult to protect. The gas tank in the S-Class and GLS is very well protected and difficult to rupture in a crash.

There are only about two dozen TESLA Auto Pilot fatality investigations in the USA so Auto Pilot represents only a small fraction of TESLA fatalities. BEV fires are also much worse than ICE fires and more difficult to extinguish.

I'm just glad Tiger was driving a GENESIS and not a TESLA.

Regarding pollution, yes we should be scientific about all this. So why do all the scientists lie about the MPGe? Why are over 80% of the efficiency losses neglected in the MPGe calculation?
It is very easy to prove that a F-150 with a 5L V8 converted to CNG can cruise much farther on the highway than a Model S using the same amount of natural gas ignited in a typical power plant. Heck, a BEV will discharge itself completely if left parked outside in the cold winter.

Of course these are minor inconveniences compared to the biggest lie about BEVs.

CANCER, ain't it a bych!
TESLA....what a bychin ride!!!
Click to expand...
"All the scientists lie" is a very vague argument. When you think everyone is lying about something, I think you need to start examining whether you are buying into some kind of strange conspiracy.

You can make whatever argument you want, but the point is that at least 97% of actively-publishing climate scientists have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human events.

All I'm saying is that politicians should not be trusted, no matter which party they belong to. They are the ones who take donations from companies and individuals in certain sectors, such as the oil and gas industry, for example. The scientists are the ones to pay attention to, and when there's a consensus, it should not be ignored. I can't have any kind of rational discussion with someone who wants to claim everything is a lie, hoax, or conspiracy, though.
 
Wait what your saying is producing rotational energy through the conversion of water to steam, sending it hundreds of miles away with all the line loses, then stepping it down, put it into storage device and then converting it back to rotational energy may be subject to efficiency loses that are not full accounted for vs locally produced rotation energy through a thermal reaction.

Hmmmmm maybe
 
Ryan said:
"All the scientists lie" is a very vague argument. When you think everyone is lying about something, I think you need to start examining whether you are buying into some kind of strange conspiracy.

You can make whatever argument you want, but the point is that at least 97% of actively-publishing climate scientists have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human events.

All I'm saying is that politicians should not be trusted, no matter which party they belong to. They are the ones who take donations from companies and individuals in certain sectors, such as the oil and gas industry, for example. The scientists are the ones to pay attention to, and when there's a consensus, it should not be ignored. I can't have any kind of rational discussion with someone who wants to claim everything is a lie, hoax, or conspiracy, though.
Click to expand...

Ryan that 97% is incorrect number, it was a small number of climate scientist that were surveyed and it was only ones that responded. Secondly it not a scientific argument in the value of consensus. Science is not a democratic process. It takes a single point of evidence to defy a consensus, history is full of false scientific consensus. And citing funding of research by the energy sector is absurd absolutely dwarfed but the funding by Public sector investment in making a argument in state control of energy and energy use.

I have studied this in detail even reading much of the IPPC actual (1600page) document which lists CO2 as a trace green house gas less than 5%, of that only 3% anthropologic. These are not theory these a measured percentages. Never mind that CO2 is a component of living on Earth.

I prefer we stick with cars, as this seems to be divisive issue that people seem to have strong opinions on both side, with very poor handle of the facts and even less of the actual science.

Is it likely that human activities are contributing in a way to changes in climate, the answer is Yes, but there is follow up question is it significant given the massive natural inputs which are the SUN (not static), Cosmic radiation (not static), Natural gas emissions (not static), tilt of the earth (not static), path around the sun (not static)... the answer here is most likely NO.

But sides are better off letting Engineers solve the issues not the political process. That is how you get mandates without support infrastructure that is most back door ban on private transport.

Organic movement to Electric powertrain is preferred.
 
Ryan said:
"All the scientists lie" is a very vague argument. When you think everyone is lying about something, I think you need to start examining whether you are buying into some kind of strange conspiracy.

You can make whatever argument you want, but the point is that at least 97% of actively-publishing climate scientists have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human events.

All I'm saying is that politicians should not be trusted, no matter which party they belong to. They are the ones who take donations from companies and individuals in certain sectors, such as the oil and gas industry, for example. The scientists are the ones to pay attention to, and when there's a consensus, it should not be ignored. I can't have any kind of rational discussion with someone who wants to claim everything is a lie, hoax, or conspiracy, though.
Click to expand...
Hating on Tesla will get more ridiculous especially when John Elkann and Elon Musk have Semi-Public/Semi-Private Dinner (200 people max) around U.S. Labor Day timeframe in Italy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top