Who is Tesla partnering with on drivetrain for truck?

[bhtooefr]

I doubt this. Truck buyers are not just loyal to the brand but what powers the brand. You think die hard GM truck guys wants a Tesla powertrain?
Brand loyal buyers will reject nice street rods that have the wrong brand under the hood. It’s just not that simple.
To even be seriously considered it will need a solid rear axle.
All signs point to a unibody ridgeline style Ute.

AFAICT, signs right now are pointing towards a Class 6 truck derived from a lightened/cost-reduced Semi platform - basically, the largest, heaviest things (outside of, in some states, RVs) that someone can drive without a CDL in the US.

Interestingly, it does look to me like the Semi is using solid rear axles, with the motors as unsprung weight. Surprised they didn't go with a de Dion tube or similar to mitigate that (and I suspect a smaller truck would end up going to a de Dion tube).

 

[CUBldr97]

I am trying to reconcile this development with what we know to be the case, as follows:

1. To the extent I have been able to find, this news of a partnership is based on two points -

• Karen Rei's "I know something but I can't say who it is but you can trust me" post from around mid-last week
• Clean Technica's "scoop" of today (12 Feb) that "a source somewhat close to the heart of a big new development at GM has informed CleanTechnica that GM is indeed working on an electric pickup truck, and it is based around a Tesla powertrain".

I need to tread carefully and therefore want to make sure all understand I am neither belittling nor refuting Karen or Zach.

But... we also have

2. For years Tesla has reported that they will be...and finally....are...developing a pickup truck; Mr Musk has presented a Musk-typical timeline for it; he asserts it will be awesome or words to that effect. Et cetera

So:

How are these two situations not mutually exclusive?

• Will Tesla abandon development of its own vehicle, relinquishing the market to GM?
• Will Tesla retain development of its own vehicle, secure in the belief that it can carve out its own niche of the pickup market, irrespective of what GM may create with Tesla's drivetrain?

If the former, then Tesla ensures for itself some security of a stable cashflow for some goodly period of time - perhaps a minimum of 5 years; possibly for decades. "Stable" would partly be a function of how the two parties would mash out the arrangement; partly a function of the long-term fortunes of each party; partly a function of the pickup market.

If the latter, then it is axiomatic that some fraction of the total pickup market that GM would have held will go to Tesla. This likely will be a financial wash for Tesla. We do, however, need to consider -

• What features can Tesla provide to differentiate its product from a competitor whose powertrain is - effectively - the same?

Finally, we're at a point where conjecture begins to become fun. We have -

• Supercharging. Tesla has asserted that it does not consider SpCs to be a profit center T/F?
  • If true, then an arrangement with GM would by needs have to mandate GM pays for some appropriate fraction of SpC build-out and maintenance. GMEVs would share charging slots with Tesla EVs.
    • OR, a deal with GM would exclude GMEVs from using SpCs.
  • If false, then Tesla would retain the ability to charge whatever rates it locally is allowed to do and either
    • has a price difference between its vehicles and those of GM, or
    • all pay the same, or
    • once again, does NOT permit GMEVs to use SpCs
• In all cases, the crucial point is the effect on Tesla-vehicle owners: either SpCs remain exclusive to Teslas, or another company's vehicles get to make use of the sites. We already have seen pushback from early owners - Models S & X - with the proliferation of Model 3; fortunately, this appears to be extremely limited. The only way, however, that I can envisage avoiding unpleasantries from allowing GMEVs to share SpC slots would be were an immense number of slots to be created - ten times the current number? Thirty times?

• Autopilot and Full Self-Driving
  • Tesla's moat - to use the term that Mr Musk has disparaged - will in no way be compromised with any arrangement with GM. If it is a good product, then a Tesla pickup will be superior to a GM one. If GM creates a better mousetrap, then so be it....with Tesla still capturing that drivetrain cashflow.

• Ancillary pickup features
  • Mr Musk has stated that Tesla's pickup has features heretofore unseen. As with AP/FSD, this becomes a battle of the development engineers. Better product...and better marketing...will translate to better sales.

My preliminary conclusion from the immediate exercise of writing this is that Tesla has created an interesting tradeoff. Its EV drivetrain is a potent distinguisher in the vehicular market. By sharing it with GM (or whoever), Tesla is relinquishing that while retaining other extremely valuable and unique features; at the same time, they will be benefitting from the cashflow that selling the drivetrains provide.

A final point is personal to Mr Musk and EV enthusiasts but not to Tesla's bottomline and to shareholders sensu stricto. This is his avowed aim to move the world away from ICE. Discussion of this last point is peripheral to this thread, but it should not be dismissed by any.

Could it be like what we say in the 80's and 90's when car companies made basically the same vehicle underneath, but with different badging? for instance, the Mazda MX-6/ Ford Probe, Or Ford Explorer Mazda SUV partnership, or the Honda/ Chevy silly ass pickup...

This actually could be a great partnership for TESLA, If they work with GM to roll two lines, one GM one TESLA, Interior/ exterior differences, but underneath identical vehicles.

 

[ricohman]

AFAICT, signs right now are pointing towards a Class 6 truck derived from a lightened/cost-reduced Semi platform - basically, the largest, heaviest things (outside of, in some states, RVs) that someone can drive without a CDL in the US.

Interestingly, it does look to me like the Semi is using solid rear axles, with the motors as unsprung weight. Surprised they didn't go with a de Dion tube or similar to mitigate that (and I suspect a smaller truck would end up going to a de Dion tube).

Little chance of a dead axle go into a light duty pick up.
Imagine asking buyers if they want more weight, reduced ground clearance and more complexity? At least you could tell them it will cost far more and won’t be as robust or durable. And they couldn’t lift it or modify it easily.

 

[bhtooefr]

A de Dion tube axle would not necessarily reduce ground clearance at all, though.

It would increase cost, weight, and complexity, though, yes... but with a reduction in unsprung weight, and it would likely be more durable (because the electrical and cooling connections to the motor wouldn't be subject to suspension movements).

And I suspect the vast majority of light-duty pickup truck buyers aren't lifting anything and would prefer the better ride quality of reduced unsprung weight, but there are ways to lift those setups (I'm thinking I'd move the motor and (if present) Panhard rod attachment points down, in addition to the spring modifications).

 

[mongo]

Interestingly, it does look to me like the Semi is using solid rear axles, with the motors as unsprung weight. Surprised they didn't go with a de Dion tube or similar to mitigate that (and I suspect a smaller truck would end up going to a de Dion tube).

With the de Dion, the center unit needs to react all the wheel torque, so you would need a structure to route that force back to the frame. With the solid axle, that torque gets transferred down the tube and handled at the frame rails via the spring links. With aluminum carriers and no differentials, the axle may be both lighter and provide more ground clearance. It also eliminates the CV joints wear and issues with the short available swing distance (due to drive unit width).

Motion of the electrical cable and coolant lines is no worse that what ABS sensors and brake lines (air or hydraulic) experiance today.

 

[ricohman]

With the de Dion, the center unit needs to react all the wheel torque, so you would need a structure to route that force back to the frame. With the solid axle, that torque gets transferred down the tube and handled at the frame rails via the spring links. With aluminum carriers and no differentials, the axle may be both lighter and provide more ground clearance. It also eliminates the CV joints wear and issues with the short available swing distance (due to drive unit width).

Motion of the electrical cable and coolant lines is no worse that what ABS sensors and brake lines (air or hydraulic) experiance today.

A de dion dead axle uses a diff and innner and outer CVs or ujoints. Tons more complexity and weight. Zero advantage over a solid axle in a pickup. Lots of disadvantages though.

 

[ricohman]

A de Dion tube axle would not necessarily reduce ground clearance at all, though.

It would increase cost, weight, and complexity, though, yes... but with a reduction in unsprung weight, and it would likely be more durable (because the electrical and cooling connections to the motor wouldn't be subject to suspension movements).

And I suspect the vast majority of light-duty pickup truck buyers aren't lifting anything and would prefer the better ride quality of reduced unsprung weight, but there are ways to lift those setups (I'm thinking I'd move the motor and (if present) Panhard rod attachment points down, in addition to the spring modifications).

I guess by clearance I meant more things hanging down to get snagged on brush and rocks etc. I doubt there are any pickups owners that want CV joints in the back of their trucks. Not as strong as the solid axle nor as durable.

 

[RobStark]

I doubt this. Truck buyers are not just loyal to the brand but what powers the brand. You think die hard GM truck guys wants a Tesla powertrain?

Do you think GM needs convert 90% 50% or even 10% of current GM truck buyers to Tesla powertrains to be successful?

There are quite a few people that own both a Detroit pickup and a Tesla. And the reason they own a Detroit ICE pickup is because there is not an electric alternative.

They would not only get GM owners but Ford,Ram, Toyota and Nissan full size truck owners too. Then there are fleet owners that purchase based on Total Cost of Ownership per mile. Tesla powertrains wins by a country mile here.

GM sold ~900k full size pickups in 2018( Silverado and Sierra in USA,Canada, and Mexico). First year 50k full size pickups with Tesla powertrain would be a success. And they could do that easily.

GM is going to have a hard time getting ZEV credits by selling $37k Bolt EVs without the Federal Tax Credit because functionally they are $22k cars. A GM full size pickup with Tesla powertrain can offer a lot of value.

 

[bhtooefr]

Additionally, there's CAFE benefits from doing this, too, as CAFE is split between cars and light trucks.

Right now, the usual way to get better CAFE scores is to abuse the off-road vehicle definition to get tall AWD cars classified as light trucks. That way, you can use an inefficient car to offset a full-size pickup's CAFE effects, instead of dragging down the car CAFE bucket, and full-size pickups are the cash cows for the American automakers.

The Bolt, however, is a car, and goes into the car CAFE bucket.

A Silverado/Sierra 1500 EV would, on the other hand, would boost truck CAFE figures. Even better for GM, as far as CAFE is concerned, from 2019-2021, no consideration is made of BEV efficiency - all BEVs are rated at 0 g/mi CO2 and count multiply (2x for 2019, 1.75x for 2020, and 1.5x for 2021). Even after that, the first 200,000-600,000* EV/PHEV**/FCVs that they sell in 2022-2025 count as 0 g/mi CO2.

Offsetting inefficient guzzlers with vehicles rated at 0 g/mi CO2 will do far more for GM's CAFE than offsetting already efficient cars.

...some of this also explains why so many automakers are putting horrific inefficient PHEVs and EVs out - an EV that gets 50 MPGe has the same CAFE score as an EV that gets 150 MPGe.

* It's 600,000 if they sell 300,000 EV/PHEV/FCVs in 2019-2021, it's 200,000 if they fail to do so.
** PHEVs are only zero-rated for the electric portion of their driving, the EPA and NHTSA have a method for determining electric vs. fuel usage in a PHEV.

 

[ricohman]

Do you think GM needs convert 90% 50% or even 10% of current GM truck buyers to Tesla powertrains to be successful?

There are quite a few people that own both a Detroit pickup and a Tesla. And the reason they own a Detroit ICE pickup is because there is not an electric alternative.

They would not only get GM owners but Ford,Ram, Toyota and Nissan full size truck owners too. Then there are fleet owners that purchase based on Total Cost of Ownership per mile. Tesla powertrains wins by a country mile here.

GM sold ~900k full size pickups in 2018( Silverado and Sierra in USA,Canada, and Mexico). First year 50k full size pickups with Tesla powertrain would be a success. And they could do that easily.

GM is going to have a hard time getting ZEV credits by selling $37k Bolt EVs without the Federal Tax Credit because functionally they are $22k cars. A GM full size pickup with Tesla powertrain can offer a lot of value.

You think a ford owner will suddenly switch to Chevy or the other way around? Like I said, it will sell to their Tesla base. And to make money they need to sell lots of trucks.
I do believe bev and hybrid trucks are coming though. BTW GM already has an electric power train in the COPO Camaro. Perhaps some of that could trickle into their trucks. Maybe Tesla batteries?

 

[bro1999]

Additionally, there's CAFE benefits from doing this, too, as CAFE is split between cars and light trucks.

Right now, the usual way to get better CAFE scores is to abuse the off-road vehicle definition to get tall AWD cars classified as light trucks. That way, you can use an inefficient car to offset a full-size pickup's CAFE effects, instead of dragging down the car CAFE bucket, and full-size pickups are the cash cows for the American automakers.

The Bolt, however, is a car, and goes into the car CAFE bucket.

A Silverado/Sierra 1500 EV would, on the other hand, would boost truck CAFE figures. Even better for GM, as far as CAFE is concerned, from 2019-2021, no consideration is made of BEV efficiency - all BEVs are rated at 0 g/mi CO2 and count multiply (2x for 2019, 1.75x for 2020, and 1.5x for 2021). Even after that, the first 200,000-600,000* EV/PHEV**/FCVs that they sell in 2022-2025 count as 0 g/mi CO2.

Offsetting inefficient guzzlers with vehicles rated at 0 g/mi CO2 will do far more for GM's CAFE than offsetting already efficient cars.

...some of this also explains why so many automakers are putting horrific inefficient PHEVs and EVs out - an EV that gets 50 MPGe has the same CAFE score as an EV that gets 150 MPGe.

* It's 600,000 if they sell 300,000 EV/PHEV/FCVs in 2019-2021, it's 200,000 if they fail to do so.
** PHEVs are only zero-rated for the electric portion of their driving, the EPA and NHTSA have a method for determining electric vs. fuel usage in a PHEV.

Hmm....GM officially classifies the Bolt as a "truck".

 

[bhtooefr]

...huh.

However, the EPA classifies it as a Small Station Wagon, which is a car. Not having an AWD option, having only 5 seats, and not having a large cargo area, it can't be a truck. (I also suspect, if it were going for the off-road vehicle rule that most crossovers go for, it doesn't have the ground clearance, approach, departure, and breakover angles necessary to be considered an off-road vehicle.)

 

[AudubonB]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering why they were presenting information about Chevrolet truck bolts.

 

[jhm]

Best-Selling Pickup Trucks In America – December 2018 | GCBC

The US pickup truck market is about 3M units. Sales were 2,944k in 2018 up 122k or 4.34% from prior year. GM specifically sold 973k, up 25k or 2.68% over prior year. So GM is loosing market share. GM needed to grow truck sales by 41k just to preserve market share.

If GM were to target selling 50k electric trucks per year in coming years, it could be in a position to gain market share rather than losing it.

The market as a whole need to add about 130k per year to get to a point where EV trucks are dominating segment growth. At that point ICE trucks peak. To this end, I'd like to see Tesla target an eventual 10% market share, about 300k/yr. Growing to this level over several years will suck most of the growth out of the market, forcing truck makers to build electric or lose share.

Obviously pushing Tesla trucks to 10% share of market leaves 90% of the market for the "diehard" to cling to their cherished brands and drivetrains. The "diehard" will be among the last 10% truck buyers to convert, not the first 10%. Commercial and government fleet operators will be looking for a favorable total cost of ownership and may have some interest in greenwashing their organizations. I suspect that TCO economics will be key to getting to the first 10% of the market. EV enthusiasts wanting an electric truck for personal use also can buy up the first 5%. My expectation is that EVs will comprise 15% to 20% of the market by 2025 and Tesla can command half of that.

Honestly, the problem for Tesla is that the truck market is too small to give it a lot of running room. While the Model 3 can reach 800k levels and Model Y 1200k levels, I think it will be challenging for a pickup to hit 600k level worldwide by virtue of the global market being only 6.2M (Focus2move| World Best Selling Pick up - The top in the 2017). Midsize car sold 9.5M worldwide in 2018, coupes 0.8M, "Executive cars" 2.4M, and SUVs a staggering 32.1M. So the Tesla Models S/X/3/Y will address a market of at least 45M, and this excludes small cars (10.1M), compacts (14.1M) and city cars (4.2). So in light of the 45M market that Tesla is addressing, the 6.2M pickup market is not so substantial. It's definitely worth going after, but market saturation is less of an issue with Model 3 and Y.

 

[anthonyj]

Best-Selling Pickup Trucks In America – December 2018 | GCBC

The US pickup truck market is about 3M units. Sales were 2,944k in 2018 up 122k or 4.34% from prior year. GM specifically sold 973k, up 25k or 2.68% over prior year. So GM is loosing market share. GM needed to grow truck sales by 41k just to preserve market share.

If GM were to target selling 50k electric trucks per year in coming years, it could be in a position to gain market share rather than losing it.

The market as a whole need to add about 130k per year to get to a point where EV trucks are dominating segment growth. At that point ICE trucks peak. To this end, I'd like to see Tesla target an eventual 10% market share, about 300k/yr. Growing to this level over several years will suck most of the growth out of the market, forcing truck makers to build electric or lose share.

Obviously pushing Tesla trucks to 10% share of market leaves 90% of the market for the "diehard" to cling to their cherished brands and drivetrains. The "diehard" will be among the last 10% truck buyers to convert, not the first 10%. Commercial and government fleet operators will be looking for a favorable total cost of ownership and may have some interest in greenwashing their organizations. I suspect that TCO economics will be key to getting to the first 10% of the market. EV enthusiasts wanting an electric truck for personal use also can buy up the first 5%. My expectation is that EVs will comprise 15% to 20% of the market by 2025 and Tesla can command half of that.

Honestly, the problem for Tesla is that the truck market is too small to give it a lot of running room. While the Model 3 can reach 800k levels and Model Y 1200k levels, I think it will be challenging for a pickup to hit 600k level worldwide by virtue of the global market being only 6.2M (Focus2move| World Best Selling Pick up - The top in the 2017). Midsize car sold 9.5M worldwide in 2018, coupes 0.8M, "Executive cars" 2.4M, and SUVs a staggering 32.1M. So the Tesla Models S/X/3/Y will address a market of at least 45M, and this excludes small cars (10.1M), compacts (14.1M) and city cars (4.2). So in light of the 45M market that Tesla is addressing, the 6.2M pickup market is not so substantial. It's definitely worth going after, but market saturation is less of an issue with Model 3 and Y.

Pretty sure pickup margins are higher than passenger car margins. And Tesla’s pickup is going to “compete” with the F650, pretty much a monster truck for fun and to show off. Elon did say a conventional pickup would be released down the road. Perhaps that is where GM/Rivian/Tesla come together as partners

 

[Yuri_G]

Pretty sure pickup margins are higher than passenger car margins. And Tesla’s pickup is going to “compete” with the F650, pretty much a monster truck for fun and to show off. Elon did say a conventional pickup would be released down the road. Perhaps that is where GM/Rivian/Tesla come together as partners

I doubt the truck will be that big. I'd expect it to be F-150/Raptor size. All of the articles that mention the truck show the concept art of the semi truck conversion Tesla made as a joke.

I'd guess the Tesla truck will be way more efficient than what Rivian has shown and creating something excessively large would make that impossible.

 

[RobStark]

You think a ford owner will suddenly switch to Chevy or the other way around?

When they are selling essential the same widget? No.

If one is selling a demonstrable superior product? Yes.

Up to know they have been selling pretty much the same product for at least 30 years.

Like I said, it will sell to their Tesla base. And to make money they need to sell lots of trucks.
I do believe bev and hybrid trucks are coming though. BTW GM already has an electric power train in the COPO Camaro. Perhaps some of that could trickle into their trucks. Maybe Tesla batteries?

It will start with the Tesla base and expand.

Tesla didn't have a base 10 years ago.

People laughed that German car owners and intenders would switch.

Would a person that bought 3 S Class in a row or the 35 year old dreaming of a 3 Series since high now switch to Tesla ?

Yes, many did in fact.

GM has a prototype electric COPO Camaro. Like the turbine car in the 50's or the Fuel Cell Van in the 60's.