[bro1999]

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...electric-vehicles-and-the-future-of-fixed-ops

As more and more EVs hit the road and replace gas car sales, dealerships will have to reckon with reduced service visits made by EV owners (and thus reduced revenues). Plus, less moving parts = less stuff that will break down needing repairs.

For example, the Bolt's after-sales revenue is expected to be 60% less compared to a similar traditional ICE'er.

"This year, the consulting firm UBS Research tore down two similar-sized hatchbacks, a Chevrolet Bolt and a VW Golf. UBS counted 24 moving parts in the Bolt, compared with 149 in the Golf.

UBS analysts estimate that aftersales revenue for the Bolt, for such things as replacement parts, will be 60 percent less — about $400 a year — than such revenue for a traditional car."

 

[Loboc]

A 1/6 ratio of moving parts sounds way light. Care to inumerate moving parts in an L4 ICE plus attached 8-speed tranny? More like thousands.

Tony Seba’s presentations say 19/2000+. Not only that an EV can last over 1M Miles vs a couple hundred thou for conventional.

 

[DonC]

Dealerships have lots of issues, starting with people hating the buying process. Service has been a bright spot but, as you and the article point out, that may have to be tweaked as well. And tweaked might be too limited. I really like the dealer I've been using but it's a hundred miles round trip.

 

[Mister Dave]

Moving parts aren't the only things that fail. Some of those non-moving parts are pretty expensive. Fail on UBS analysis, again.

I really don't appreciate the "force" concept. Dealers will do what's in their best interest (or not) according to their customers' needs (or in ignorance of them). I believe they call that a free market system. Using force implies you know better for everyone what they need. That's crap thinking.

 

[DonC]

I really don't appreciate the "force" concept. Dealers will do what's in their best interest (or not) according to their customers' needs (or in ignorance of them). I believe they call that a free market system. Using force implies you know better for everyone what they need. That's crap thinking.

Given all the state laws designed to protect dealerships, it's more than a stretch to describe them as being part of a "free market". Way too many market distortions. I mean, in Florida dealers banded together and got a law passed that legally prohibits from competing on price for extended service plans. Basically there is no free market to depend on.

 

[Mister Dave]

Given all the state laws designed to protect dealerships, it's more than a stretch to describe them as being part of a "free market". Way too many market distortions. I mean, in Florida dealers banded together and got a law passed that legally prohibits from competing on price for extended service plans. Basically there is no free market to depend on.

I cannot argue. I bristle at the word "force" and that's just another example of it.

Some amount of anti-trust regulation is needed. Sounds like Florida forgot the meaning of the term.

 

[DonC]

Some amount of anti-trust regulation is needed. Sounds like Florida forgot the meaning of the term.

Adam Smith said the biggest threat to free markets were businesses which would find ways to prevent competition. Another good insight! Free markets work great for their intended purpose but in order to work they need a lot of prerequisites.

 

[Mister Dave]

Adam Smith said the biggest threat to free markets were businesses which would find ways to prevent competition. Another good insight! Free markets work great for their intended purpose but in order to work they need a lot of prerequisites.

I don't know if I'd say "a lot". A basic set of rules works in many cases. Too many rules and everyone runs to Delaware to register their business (or the Caymans).

NADA's original charter was to fight luxury taxes on autos. They finally did it 79 years later!

1996: NADA leadership meets with President Bill Clinton, who had just signed legislation phasing out a luxury tax on new cars.

It's in their interest to prevent GM, Ford and the like who use dealers from competing with them directly. Tesla, not so much so long as they don't use dealerships.

 

[Jmaj]

Given all the state laws designed to protect dealerships, it's more than a stretch to describe them as being part of a "free market". Way too many market distortions. I mean, in Florida dealers banded together and got a law passed that legally prohibits from competing on price for extended service plans. Basically there is no free market to depend on.

Unfortunately for the colluders, as far as GM is concerned any dealer can sell a Chevrolet Protection Plan to anybody. Get a price from an out of state dealer and ask the locals to match it. If they don't, buy from the out of state guy.

 

[DonC]

I don't know if I'd say "a lot". A basic set of rules works in many cases. Too many rules and everyone runs to Delaware to register their business (or the Caymans).

NADA's original charter was to fight luxury taxes on autos. They finally did it 79 years later!

...

It's in their interest to prevent GM, Ford and the like who use dealers from competing with them directly. Tesla, not so much so long as they don't use dealerships.

That didn't take so long. How about the luxury tax on phone service? https://www.cnet.com/news/telecom-tax-imposed-in-1898-finally-ends/ Once a tax, or a tax subsidy, gets into the code it's very hard to root it out.

It is in their interest to prevent a manufacturer from competing. That's the point. It's always in their interest to stifle competition, be if from a manufacturer or from another dealer. Hence protected territories. If it's a company decision that's a free market. If it's legislation that's the destruction of the free market. Personally I think having Apple be able to sell its products through Apple stores works pretty well.

Unfortunately for the colluders, as far as GM is concerned any dealer can sell a Chevrolet Protection Plan to anybody. Get a price from an out of state dealer and ask the locals to match it. If they don't, buy from the out of state guy.

True enough. And if people understood that things would work. It's just an attempt to undercut the free market. Dealers aren't stupid and they obviously thought that this restriction would result in higher prices and margins for themselves. Also note that for plans like GMPP, which are considered an insurance product, those can't be sold to residents of some states since that would run afoul of insurance regulations.

 

[Mister Dave]

That didn't take so long.

LOL - if you're an Arctic whale maybe!

It is in their interest to prevent a manufacturer from competing. That's the point. It's always in their interest to stifle competition, be if from a manufacturer or from another dealer. Hence protected territories. If it's a company decision that's a free market. If it's legislation that's the destruction of the free market.

Manufacturers could undercut dealer prices when competing directly. That's the point of that. The rest of it might be overreach IMO but I'm not well versed on all of the rules and nuances.

But not all regulation is intended to be stifling. Maybe just most of it?

Personally I think having Apple be able to sell its products through Apple stores works pretty well.

Yep and Tesla should be left alone too for now. They'll find out on their own how direct selling limits their abilities (or not as the case may be, but I'm not holding my breath). Cell phones are much easier to deal with all told. I'm not sure if the two really compare, apples to apples.

 

[hvacman]

Warning: Rant following.

I keep hearing this myth repeated over and over and over. The truth is, even if ALL vehicles become ALL electric over the next 10 years, exactly ZERO auto shops or mechanics will be out of business. 24 moving parts? Really? There are more than 24 moving parts just in the Bolt's cabin heating system. Pumps, relays, fans, dampers, control valves. Hoses that deteriorate and eventually leak. Glycol that eventually has to be replaced. Not to mention shocks, springs, control arms, AC system, battery thermal management, windows, doors, wipers, power electronics cooling, seats, tires, wheels, wheel bearings, etc. What was the most common drive train warranty issue on the early Volts - that required extensive service-shop time? ELECTRIC motor bearings!

What missing feature does everybody beef about for their Bolts and Volts? No all-way electric seats! And I'm sure they will come soon - possibly in the new Buick BEV. You think all of these moving seat parts and controls will just keep working forever? So what if the oil changes, spark plugs, and transmission services go away! Those are trivial services compared to all the other parts that can and do break or get tweaked in a vehicle of any kind that does 100,000 miles of outdoor driving through bumps and rain and heat and wind and snow and blazing sun.

Electric vehicles will change a lot of things, but the end of service shops? Not likely...

End of rant. Thank you for your patience.

 

[hellsop]

I don't know if I'd say "a lot". A basic set of rules works in many cases. Too many rules and everyone runs to Delaware to register their business (or the Caymans).

NADA's original charter was to fight luxury taxes on autos. They finally did it 79 years later!

1996: NADA leadership meets with President Bill Clinton, who had just signed legislation phasing out a luxury tax on new cars.

It's in their interest to prevent GM, Ford and the like who use dealers from competing with them directly. Tesla, not so much so long as they don't use dealerships.

And 1991, they put it right back again. And took it off in '02. My guess as to why is that $30k cars stopped being "luxury" and the "dot-bomb recession" required a little easing to encourage people to buy stuff again.