More Details On Volkswagen’s Plan To Invest Billions For EVs


Volkswagen Group is gearing up to mass production of electric vehicles, thus a magnitude of strategical changes are required.

Volkswagen may be a bit late to the EV party, but they’re certainly aiming for a fashionable entry. The German carmaker is set to invest almost 44 billion euro in the next five years, covering everything from e-mobility, autonomous driving, new mobility services, and digitalization in its vehicles and at its plants. The sum represents approximately one-third of the total expenditure for Volkswagen in the 2019-2023 planning period.

All of this is part of the Group’s planning round that was recently completed, but also, discussed and approved in full by the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft at its meeting on Friday. In turn, this move could push VW into the top-tier EV makers, taking into account their production capabilities, liquidity and the overall state the company is at now – even with the fallout of the dieselgate scandal still haunting them both perceptually and financially.

Volkswagen I.D.

The VW Group is diligently working in improving earnings at all their brands. After all, the planned expenditures pose enormous financial challenges, which, on entirety, Volkswagen plans to fund from their own resources. In turn, programs that aim to secure the agreed financial targets have already been initiated by the brands and companies, part of the VW Group. According to several sources, Volkswagen aims to decrease both capital expenditure ratio and the research and development ratio in the Group’s Automotive Division to a competitive level of 6% from 2020 onward. Furthermore, the company aims for a net cash flow target of a minimum of €10 billion by 2020 – however, impacted by the dieselgate scandal, set to put a curb ball into the cash outflows in planning years 2019 and 2020.

The joint ventures that VW currently employs in China are not consolidated. Thus, they will not be included in the plans. According to VW, these joint ventures provide their own funding for investments in both plants and its respective products.

A short rundown of how Volkswagen aims to spend the EV related investments

One of the biggest tasks and challenges that lay ahead of the VW Group is how to assign the new duties amongst the production facilities. Hence, at the meeting, the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft approved the new plant assignment plans. More specific, Emden and Hanover are slated to be converted in order to become electric vehicle plants exclusively – this is where the ID family of EVs are going to be built. Precisely, Emden will see the production of electric small cars and sedans from several brands, while Hanover will specialize in the production of the ID. BUZZ family – in addition to producing vehicles with conventional drives.


New Volkswagen I.D. CROZZ

The changes in the strategical placement of production plants reflect the next five-year challenges and conclusively, lay out the necessary foundations for EVs to be built on a grand scale. However, after 2022 – the year when the ID family is slated to roll out – more production capacity will be needed and VW plans to expand to an additional plant, located somewhere in Eastern Europe.

Volkswagen Group production has targeted a 30% increase in productivity by 2025. However, this doesn’t mean more pollution. Thanks to and backed by good progress in recent years, the environmental footprint of Group plants is to be almost halved within the same timeframe. That, combined with more EVs from one of the biggest carmakers in the world, might finally start to tip the scale to electric vehicles on a more massive scale.

Source: Green Car Congress

Categories: Volkswagen

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

115 Comments on "More Details On Volkswagen’s Plan To Invest Billions For EVs"

newest oldest most voted

Soo.. how much is for near term China, and how much is long term wishfull thinking?

If you read the article you will see that this is (at least per the article) separate from China operations. As far as the second point time will tell. I hope they do succeed because the big Japanese car companies tend to produce ugly (although reliable and durable) cars and their electric offerings (think Prius) may be even more so.

The following is the beginnings of VW BEVs for China and it will have to be rather large per Chinese mandates since VW is the number one selling brand in China…

And there is no wishful thinking in VW making lots of BEVs it is cold hard business…
Unlike Nissan and GM who said they will not create the BEV market VW will be second to the real party following Tesla…
But since less than one percent of Global auto sales are BEVs it is safe to say the party has not even started yet…

Global BEV share more than one percent by now. For all of 2018, it should end up around 1.5%.

Really? With just 0.28 million EVs sold in Europe in Q1-3 I just guesstimated the share this year to be 1.1%.

Not sure it will be 1.5% — but close to that for sure. Definitely more than 1.1%.

China alone is on a good way to sell >800,000 BEVs this year, and Tesla alone ~250,000 (with pretty little overlap between these two figures). All in all, I think we should see something like 1,300,000 globally.

If VW is trying to avoid ugly, they should vastly rework their ID concept. That thing is hideous!

better looking than most Toyotas of today which look like giant Dustbusters.

Most Toyotas of all time, really…

huh. Out of all of VW’s vehicles, I will take their ID stuff first. Hopefully, VW has decent specs on it.

I can’t say that I believe VW. But I will say that I hope they deliver. And I will also say that they’d be smart to go all in on electric- the market’s WIDE open still, it’s theirs for the taking.

“The German carmaker is set to invest almost 44 billion euro in the next five years, covering everything from e-mobility, autonomous driving, new mobility services, and digitalization in its vehicles and at its plants. The sum represents approximately one-third of the total expenditure for Volkswagen in the 2019-2023 planning period.”

What are the other two-thirds going to? The 88 billion euros? Is it saving the Amazonas? Or is it producing even more polluting ICE-vehicles? My guess is that the Amazonas is done for and we’ll instead get a lot of tarted up old diesels and petrols. Oh happy days.

VW group will have ~1.3 trillion euros in revenue over that span, so 88 billion is only ~7% of that.

Sounds reasonable. New factories, new tooling for existing ones, etc to support that huge revenue.

The point is that with all that talk about EVs, VW is still investing more than twice as much in further combustion car production than EVs…

I can’t really fault them — it’s not like they can create the battery production capacity, and transition all buyers in a year or two — but it’s important to keep it in mind for perspective.

Please convince all of the SUV owners to convert to small cars and only buy BEVs and then ALL legacy automakers will fully convert…
VW is the first legacy to jump in fully and not just toe the water…
And sadly enough the world switching to BEVs 100 percent tomorrow wont even stop it from burning…
The worldwide climate scientists at drawndown . org dont even list BEVs in their top 25 solutions to limit global warming…
So… get the fork out and get ready to stick it in…

I’m not that impressed by’s ranking of the sustainable electrification of some ground transport as #26 on their list although I agree with many other things on their list:

Fossil fuel powered transport is almost 1/3 of the C02 producers in the US and so is electricity production.
It is essential that we decarbonize these 2 sectors as much as possible and as quickly as possible and certain the low costs of RE already makes it possible to transform the electricity sector once we add in a fair amount of storage.

As battery costs come down, EVs will also quickly become very competitive due to their low TCO.

Good luck on decarbonization with Trump legitimizing coal mining, withdrawing from Paris agreement, slashing the EPA and generally sounding like a man that never reads a newspaper.

It is ironic, that the parts of the world that has the most wealth, is also the part that are most reluctant to change ressource usage.

On a worldwide scale house warming/cooling, shipping and aviation needs to see dramatic new ways of doing business if we are to change anything – beside transportation.

First off, ‘legitimizing’ coal mining was not trump, but China. China mines more than 1/2 of the world’s coal. America accounts for less than 10%. Secondly, withdrawing from paris accord did not harm either the planet, other nations, or America. WHy? Because all it really did was put pressure on AMERICA ALONE, which America continues to drop further than what we agreed to in Paris. Also, America is less than 15% ( at worst; OCO2 shows we are less than 12%, possibly less than 10%) of all of the world. In the mean time, China is growing their emissions over the next 2-3 years by more than what America consumes TODAY. That does not even account for what they currently emit (more than 1/3, and possibly up to 1/2 of the world’s emissions according to OCO2), nor what they are adding to 3rd world nations. Slashing EPA is not a big deal. It is states and businesses that continue to drop American emissions. The only thing that you got right is that Trump does not read a newspaper. The nation with the most wealth right now, is china. And you are correct that they are NOT changing. Coal remains over… Read more »

fortunately China is rapidly changing,for the better ,you like it or not…….The US just gives a disastrous example at the worst possible moment!!!(but we shall overcome…)–even-as-investment-falls-globally.html
China is adding another 300 GW of coal outside of china.
And that is in addition, to China ADDING ( not replacing ) another 300 GW of coal INSIDE of CHina by the end of 2020.

So, CHina is adding 2x the amount of coal that America burns, in addition, to their current burning 3x what America burns today. America is below 250 GW. By end of year, we are supposed to be around 230 GW or below.

Exactly WHAT bad news is America delivering WRT electricity or EVs?

China is NOT changing. They continue to lie to fools.

First off, electricity WAS 1/3. It is now closer to 1/4. Secondly, transportation was 1/3, but I believe that it was growing due to the move to luxury cars, combined with SUVs. I am not sure at what level it is, but it is higher than 1/3. Third, it is irrelevant what the %s are. What is relevant is the fact that our CO2 has dropped the most over the last 10 years, and continues to drop. This year, will be the single biggest drop in CO2 by America. Why? Because many Coal plants are closing, combined with the massive sale of Tesla, combined with Burlington Northern accelerating their move to LNG based trains (as opposed to diesel; BN consumes 5% of America’s diesel). Drawdown is a joke. The single largest emitter of CO2 are coal plants. The second largest would be our transportation. The idea that solar farms, along with concentrated solar, is a total joke. Solar farms are taking land that is productively converting light AND CO2 into sugars, while reflecting the rest of the light. Heck sandy deserts can be converted into growing olive trees, though sandy deserts COULD be converted with solar farms which would not… Read more »

Except for your take on wind turbines, good comment.

BUT, too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. Wind Turbines are slowing down ground winds. Those are important to the environment. We MUST limit how many we build. I am not sure what the limit should be, in terms of the environment, I just knew that we can not keep building without issues.

Personally, I would like to see us limit wind/solar to 33% of our energy. Then the other 2/3 or 66%, should be our base-load power, with storage for the 1/3.
The 66% should be geo-thermal, nuke, maybe tidal (absolutely predictable). The nuke obviously fission, but it should be SMRs, with guaranteed non-failure ( such as nuscale). We also need some 4th gen SMR that can burn the current nuke waste.

Once Fusion is available, and has a record, it should replace fission that does not burn nuke waste (i.e. we need to stop adding to our fission waste), and simply burn up the rest.

“Wind Turbines are slowing down ground winds.”

So does putting up a building. Neither should be any concern for any rational human being; those are extremely local effects, and aren’t going to have any widespread effect on either weather or climate.

There are significant problems with trying to depend on wind power, because it’s inherently undependable and unpredictable except in very limited places, worldwide, where the wind actually does blow at a fairly constant speed day and night, winter and summer.

So there are legitimate reasons to limit expending resources on building wind farms and wind turbines. But some mostly imagined “problem” with slowing ground winds isn’t one of them.

Actually, wind is reasonably predictable, when looking at a large enough geographic area. Beyond a couple dozen kilometres, most short-term fluctuations even out pretty much entirely.

Of course you still get longer-term fluctuations. But with batteries, long-range transmission, and demand response, this is all pretty manageable, according to a vast number of studies.

Actually, the nice thing about cities and large buildings is that they are confined to a relatively small space. If a lot more land was used up, it might be a concern. Add loads more wind turbines and you run risks on the environment. To call that irrational, is not much different than what I heard ppl claiming in the 60s that mankind could not pollute the environment, or that our CO2 emissions were nothing compared to nature. Over and over, mankind continues to make major damage to the environment. Regardless, it is in our best interest to have an assortment of of energy, not just 2 that depend on just the sun. That is the ultimate in foolishness. ———— edit ———————————————————– BTW, I have to laugh about your posting. It reminds me of several arguments that I have made along the way. The first was in 1979 in a Genetics class at CSU, were the prof argued the old ‘LAW’ that DNA could ONLY serve as a map for genes and could do no work. I argued in class that DNA HAD to do something more. The reason is that Biological systems minimize energy usage. ALWAYS. As such, the… Read more »

LOL… Of course, you know better than all these scientists. Your obviously nonsensical grade-school level arguments totally trump actual research.

really? Which part of what I wrote is nonsensical grade-school level arguments ?

As it is, I wrote to Drawdown as well as pointed out that they do not have geo-thermal HVAC (which would replace the #1 on their list).
As I have suggested to several state and city leaders (new jersey and colorado to list but 2), that they shouldrequire that all new buildings of 5 stories and under to have enough on-site unsubsidized AE (solar will almost certainly be the big winner), to => the energy used by HVAC.

WIth this single change from what CA did and with AE, esp. solar, being expensive, it encourages builders to push insulation, esp on windows (think aerogel windows), and to move to geo-thermal HVAC, LED lighting (builders push incandescent since they are much cheaper).
As that will lower the price for insulation, geo-thermal hvac and LED lighting, it will quickly be accepted into current buildings.

So, please, explain what I wrote was wrong? Or do you simply have nothing intelligent to say (because your posting was total BS).

“Which part of what I wrote is nonsensical grade-school level arguments ?”

All of it.

At best, your assertions (I don’t think they rise to the level of “arguments”) boil down to “Well, China is even worse, so it’s okay that the U.S. is refusing to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.”

At worst… well, at worst those assertions are just parroting the reality-denying, fact-free, science denier talking points from the right-wingnut echo chamber.

Calling that pile of rubbish “grade-school level arguments” is being rather kind.

First off, the CHinese postings is relativly minor in all that I wrote. HOWEVER, what I said remains true: CHINA is the main source of CO2, and America continues to cut down our CO2, while CHina, like the far left, pay lip service while increasing. You obviously, like so many others on the far left, have NOTHING to do with CO2 research or understand what is happening. Look at OCO2. Sadly, it will only show relative amounts above a region, it does not show flow in/out of regions. FOr that, we need OCO3. BUT, there is a enough data from OCO2 to realize that CHina continues to lie, and is backed up by idiots. In addition, you lie about what I said and about the situation: Here is a map that shows the nations that have increased/decreased CO2 from 1990-2016 per capitia. So, America decreases 1-5 tonnes / capita while CHina increases 5-10 tonnes / capita. And you are good with this? Yes? Only an idiot would push for nations to massively increase their emissions, esp. while others are actively working at dropping theirs. Then we have, the real numbers as laid out by Edgar: As shown by… Read more »

I’m not going to dissect your post sentence by sentence — but the “OMG winds are going to die!” bit certainly takes the crown in the WTF department.

Far too many idiots running around here not using any logic.
It is REAL simple. To turn those turbines, means taking energy out of the system.
Buildings simply divert the wind (and take a BIT of energy out).

You have no sense of proportions. The idea that a few turbine blades here and there in a miniscule layer of the atmosphere can affect winds in any meaningful way is just silly.

The drawdown list is ranked by impact vs. viability — basically, pointing at the most low-hanging fruit. Fully renewable energy and transport could have a huge impact, but require way more effort than many of the other things on the list.

and it is poorly thought out.
Esp the pushing of COncentrated solar, and the large solar utilities.
BOTH are going to be far more damaging to the environment that idiots like to admit. At least for now.

BTW, have you ever wondered by Solar CIty/Tesla REFUSES to do Utility solar?
I am going to help you and Pushme.
Both of You should really find that out before speaking out and proving your IQ.

Tesla / SolarCity have done utility-scale projects in the past. It’s just not their focus.

The biggest win would be converting to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. Meat production produces more greenhouse gases than transportation.

It’s more complex than that: a lot depends on proper management. Grasslands actually *critically depend* on the presence of a large number of grazing animals to prevent desertification. (Which, aside from other problems, kills a major carbon sink…)

they didnt jump i to it, forced because they lied about their defeat device dirty diesel politing ways.

What do you consider to be a small car? Unfortunately the largest EV maker is making large cars, with small cars like the Bolt, Zoe and eGolf selling less than the Model 3.

I still find it hard to believe that VW will deliver more than 1 million EV’s per year.

Perhaps in 2030 this might be possible.

They sell about 10 million cars now. Soon EVs will represent for sure 10% of all the cars being sold. So 1 million seems perfectly reasonable.
If you think they seem to be one of the current car makers that is trying to push forward EVs (think about Toyota, Ford, PSA, Fiat, Honda, …) – it seems even more natural.

VW even after the Dieselgate is selling more cars and making more money, 2018 will probably be a record year for them.

Not sure if they will sell 1M EVs / year in 2030,
but I can tell you that by 2025, probably 2023, VW will not be able to sell even 1M ICE vehicles / year.

If VW aren’t selling 1 million EV’s a year by 2025 then mainstream adoption of EV’s in North America and Europe won’t be happening for at least another decade. With a few hundred thousand from other manufacturers and half a million or so from Tesla production will still be small fry in comparison to ICE.

I think they can do it.
In fiscal year 2017, the Volkswagen Group’s sales revenue increased by 6.2% year-on-year to $263.4 billion. It looks like VW can afford it.

The question (aside from the question of available battery supply) has never been whether or not they can build that many PEVs (Plug-in EVs) with decent EV range. The question has always been whether VW, or any other legacy auto maker, is going to demonstrated that it is actually willing to spend the resources to do so.

Regarding jumping into the EV revolution, VW has been talking the talk for several years now. But as yet, they have shown very little sign of actually walking the walk.

Actions speak louder than words.

Hence why the ACTION of a plan being put in front of the committee last week shows they’re pretty serious. Along with the ACTION they have put into the MEB platform. Announced in 2016 as ready for production in 2019 and still on time.

This is awesome, we may all be impatient for VW to get moving and give us good EVs, but they are doing this smartly. Electrify America is putting in all the necessary infrastructure, and VW is working from the bottom up to ensure everything is in place when the first true EV rolls off production. In the next couple years, everything will change.

Nah, it’s the other way around: the roll-out of their new platform is constrained by the necessities of development time frames — they can’t move it forward. The roll-out of supporting infrastructure on the other hand can easily be timed to coincide with the roll-out of the cars.

Let’s get ready for the show to come. This is gonna get interesting.

Yes… all legacy auto manufactures better start redrawing their BEV plans and turning up the dial…
VW has locked in a huge amount of batteries from most all of the current battery makers…
And just like Tesla they have most likely locked in the lithium and other battery material mining rights…
So where is the next auto maker going to get theirs when they finally decide to switch…

From the same sources. Battery makers can easily scale capacity on about two years’ notice. Mining projects take a few years more; but they also have a lot in the pipeline ready to go once the need materialises.

Yes, but as the EV revolution goes into its period of exponential growth — if that’s not happening already, it will very soon — that means that battery suppliers will continue to lag about two years behind demand. Only those auto makers who spend their own resources to build battery cell factories whose output the control are going to be able to build and sell as many long-range EVs as they want to.

This is an inevitable result of the “S-curve” of market growth in a disruptive tech revolution. The only way to avoid that bottleneck is for auto makers to get ahead of the curve by building their own manufacturing capacity — as Ford once did with its River Rouge complex, and as Tesla is currently doing with its partnership with Panasonic at Gigafactory 1.

Or contracting companies to build and run factories for them – which is what many of the larger manufacturers are doing.

I have to wonder whether you actually understand the concept of “exponential growth”… We are not *entering* an exponential growth phase. Growth has been exponential for years (volumes doubling roughly every two years) — pretty much ever since the first serious modern EVs came up.

And I have no idea what makes you think bottlenecks are inevitable with exponential growth. Want to know some other exponential growth markets? Photovoltaics, memory chips… Aside from occasional hiccups at the beginning of major growth phases, these are know for suffering from chronic *over*-capacities. Once the manufacturers get a grasp of the ongoing growth, they outdo each other with capacity additions, each trying to grab the largest share of the growing market…

The limiting factor right now isn’t the battery makers — it’s the car makers, failing to acknowledge the exponentially rising demand, and to order batteries accordingly.

Lithium is a commonly available mineral. There isn’t going to be any lithium shortage, unless it’s a very near-term one (1 to 2 years at most) as new mines are opened. And anyone trying to tell you otherwise is almost certainly selling stocks in speculative mineral exploration companies.

It certainly does look like there is a looming shortage for EV batteries in the auto industry, as battery makers are not building out new manufacturing capacity any faster than they’re getting contracts for deliveries. That has nothing to do with any shortage of minerals or precursor materials.

Tesla is going to be sitting in the catbird seat, able to make as many BEVs as they possibly can, over the next several years. Other EV makers will be — in fact, some already are — standing in line and whining about lack of battery cell supply.

For most EV makers, depending on outside suppliers for battery cells is going to be wholly inadequate as the EV revolution goes into a period of rapid growth. It looks like that will start in 2020, and it will likely continue for a decade or so.

Actually, CObalt is going to cause an issue. We need to get Cobalt Canada going, along with other elements/minerals that come from Africa or nations that China control. If they can not control the batteries, than they WILL control the elements. Just like they do with REM now.

It’s amazing how many believe this bs from the German manufacturers. They are liars and cheats and will stoop to all kinds of lies to keep selling their polluters.

You do realize that the US automakers have some of the lowest mpg vehicles produced worldwide right? Non-US manufacturers embraced diesel as it seemed to offer a solution to the CO2 emission which is considerably lower than is petrol cars. Later most of them descovered that the planned evolving of the clean diesel was harder than expected, and environmental agencies in US and EU was tightning the emissions requirements. That led not just German, but also other manufacturers to make not so wise decissions.

Please point me to a US manufacturer that is actually trying hard to make the future of transportation for the masses green….

And btw, the new Euro6 diesel standard has emissions comparable to gasoline cars.

“Please point me to a US manufacturer that is actually trying hard to make the future of transportation for the masses green….”


GM is the one that got it started. They invented the skateboard that is now in use by tesla, and most of the other bright ones.

Yeah, and Kodak invented the digital camera. Then Kodak shelved that tech, just as GM shelved the EV skateboard tech. Kodak left it to its competitors to develop the market for consumer quality digital cameras.

The Bolt EV uses a skateboard design, but that’s copying Tesla — it’s not an outgrowth of the 2002 GM AUTOnomy skateboard chassis concept.

and yet, your post does not change, modify or anything on my posting.

Kodak were the worlds No.1 seller of digital cameras in the early 2000’s. Your Kodak story is all wrong. They went bankrupt for a number of reasons, certainly not because they jumped on digital too late – in fact, it’s more because they jumped in too early and misjudged where the market was going.

Lets hope Tesla don’t end up like that.

So, many things wrong with your posting: Actually, if you know anything about physics and chem, you would know that diesel has ZERO chance of being less CO2 emissions than regular gasoline. And if you understood how oil is fractionally distilled (i.e. separated into products), you would then know that Diesel will ALWAYS emit a lot more pollution than gasoline. Basically, gasoline is easy to make clean. Diesel is not due to their much longer chain lengths. The ‘clean diesel’ that you wanted in europe was not about CO2, but about MONEY. You were trying to save money. Diesel is more efficient in terms of more BTUs / lb or gal. Look, at this link. It SHOWS the BEST POSSIBLE emissions per fuel. IOW, it assumes that they will have 100% burn. What you see is that Gas is better than diesel. It has shorter chain lengths, so it burns cleaner. If you notice the best is a chain of 1, which is methane (CH4). Propane is a chain of H3C-CH2-CH3, while gasoline runs around 4-12 , but diesel is a mixture of chainlengths of 8-21, along with heavy use of benzene, phenol (aromatics), etc. So, no, the American… Read more »

Wouldn’t it have been better if VW would have decided to spend all those € billions on NEW factories?

They can if they want, but they have 123 factories/plants on the world. It would be better to re-tool them for the sake of the environment. In addition, ICE will be dead in less than 22 years.

Not sure that ICE will be dead in 22 years. The fact is, that ICE is useful because of the energy density of gas/diesel/etc.
So, Military, EMS, and any off-roading will prefer the use of series hybrids over pure EVs.
At some point, we will likely drop batteries and move to pure capacitors.
BUT, even those will not approach energy density of Diesel.

Capacitors will very likely never approach the energy density of batteries — anyone claiming otherwise is delusional or a scam.

For uses that can’t be feasibly covered with batteries alone, I hope we might one day see use of range extenders based on fuel cells instead of combustion engines — more flexible in terms of fuel types, more efficient, cleaner… But unfortunately much more expensive.

Why would they want to build *new* factories, when EV production takes less space than combustion car production?…

Not unless you mean new battery cell and/or battery pack factories.

Tour Tesla’s Fremont assembly plant, and any legacy gasmobile maker’s assembly plant. I’m sure you’ll find a lot more similarities than differences.

Legacy auto makers are going to have a period of intense struggle over the next decade or two, converting their gasmobile assembly plants to EV assembly plants. Why in the world would VW or any other legacy auto maker make their coming financial difficulties even worse by abandoning what they have, except where necessary?

Where it’s really going to bite legacy gasmobile makers in their bottom — their bottom line, that is 😉 — is with their factories which are dedicated exclusively to building gasoline/diesel engines and other parts that BEVs don’t need. Most of those probably will be abandoned. EV startup companies, and Tesla, will likely pick up some of those at fire-sale prices, and convert them (and hopefully, at least some their workers) to making parts for EVs.

Good point. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is my belief that Mazda would be an excellent acquisition for Tesla. They are clearly on a path to extinction, with their ignoring EVs while trying to revive rotary engines, but they have a talented design department and a capacity of 1.5M cars/year, which would be a great asset during the next decade of Tesla expansion.

They can convert their engine assembly plants too.

Probably worth pointing out that most manufacturers own assembly plants, they subcontract most of the manufacture of the parts out to other companies, get them shipped in and then assemble the entire engine in their own factories (and manufacturer some parts of it there).

They’ll be a company (probably in China) making the solenoids for the engines, another making the bolts, another making the pistons, another making the seals. They’ll all come in big boxes from those factories and then be assembled into a working engine in the car manufacturers engine assembly plant. Those engines will then be transported to the car assembly plant, where they will be installed into the car.

The companies making those parts may be in trouble if they’re a bit too specialised, but many of them will probably have hands in many different pies and industries and so just convert the factories building them to another contract (perhaps parts for the electric motors).

The VW diesel scandal was the best thing that happened to VW,made them realize that ICE has reached its full potential and it’s diminishing returns in research& dev.,they will eventually get BEVs to mass market and prob faster than Japan Auto.

and also one of the best things to happen for BEVs and greener transportation…

Actually, it did NOTHING to make VW realize anything.
It was Tesla pushing the feds to push VW to go EVs. Then add in the German gov,
Along with Tesla destroying all luxury car sales.

I don’t agree at all. I think it’s pretty clear that part of the fallout over Dieselgate was VW realizing there isn’t any future in diesel cars. That alone may not have caused VW to start making serious plans for converting large amounts if their production to EVs, but it certainly was a big push in that direction, even aside from the huge fines and criminal prosecutions related to Dieselgate.

Let us please remember that increasingly strict controls of emissions were the reason that VW engineered and produced the emissions test “cheat”. The trend towards increasingly strict emissions isn’t going to stop. That alone will force VW and other legacy auto makers to switch to producing EVs, sooner or later. Any executive at every legacy auto maker who doesn’t have his head firmly buried in the sand, already realizes this. The Dieselgate scandal was merely about VW trying to delay the inevitable.

Assume VW simply paid out billions on fines and it went to the gov.
Why would you assume that VW would do ANYTHING to switch to EVs?

Dieselgate was because they thought they could get away with it.
It had NOTHING to do with delaying things.
In fact, had America NOT found this, then European car makers would have continued this and the European govs would go along with it, all while disregarding the MASSIVE increase in CO2 that is coming from all of the nations.

The best thing would have been if VW admitted that combustion cars won’t do it and they have to take EVs seriously, *instead* of cheating in attempt to keep combustion cars alive at all costs, and only changing course once they got caught at it…

is it a plan or a press release? Only time will tell.

It’s from a press conference about the board’s decisions. The board decides on actual investment plans, not on press releases…

I am so excited!!! Especially if what the ceo said about pricing is true!!!

The Tesla Model 3 is the only EV model that actually already has reached an annual sales total of more than 100,000.

There have to be at least 100 EV models that will have an annual sales total of more than 100,000.

When will that happen?


There will be tremendous growth in marketshare for EV’s during the next decade.

You have this backwards.
Just like so many are waiting for the Model 3, we will shortly witness the fall in ICE sales. Right now, it is the luxury vehicles that are falling in sale, and MY will do a number on these companies.
BUT, Tesla will be producing a 20-25K vehicle around 2022. That is when ALL ICE sales are gone, esp if that is a 20-25K X-over.

This might be Teslas biggest achievement so far?

Probably, but the VW diesel scandal helps forcing them to do it.

nope. The scandal did NOTHING TO THEM.
It was the penalties and the fact that first the US gov, and now, the EUropean gov, are requiring all penalties to be invested into EVs, plugs, etc.
Finally, Merkel has really pushed hard on the German companies to do the right things.

Merkel? Are you trying to be funny? She’s chiefly responsible for the whole “clean diesel” push, along with a lot of other policies to delay actual progress.

While Dr./Chanceler Merkel DID push against strict CO2 limits on vehicles, that is not much different than other leaders in other nations. Even in China, they are doing little to nothing to stop the CO2 from ICE. They are pushing EVs, but that is in hopes of capturing the market. IOW, it has NOTHING to do with CO2 limits.

The diesel scandal is the stick; Tesla’s success is the carrot.

First German car makers care NOTHING about the scandal.
And Tesla success is not a carrot. It is far more of a stick than a carrot to them.
They care about the massive penalty, and the loss of sales of luxury vehicles that compete against Tesla.

Didn’t understand this, it’s expensive to re tool yes but so would re tooling for a new ice and ice engine, you would think an ev would require less tooling not more it’s not a big task or a big challenge it’s really simple. Elon did it and had never built a car before. Fed up with hearing legacy ice makers winges and how much it will cost. If China says you have to make so many
EVs surprise surprise they build them. Could do with some western governments that represent us getting some balls and setting some quotas. If ice makers go out of business we will just have to wait a little longer for our Tesla’s.

Teslas production facilities are dwarf compared to VW. And Teslas still struggles to get it right, even after trying for 2 years. China is not a free market, and “goverment” heavily subsidices production in strategic focus areas.

How can a western goverment tell a private enterprise how to act?

“How can a western goverment tell a private enterprise how to act?”

By setting new and stricter CO2-emissions standards?

Govt tells private enterprise how to do things all the time. Look at all the safety gear/features in cars today- govt made those mandatory while LICE companies cried and complained. Fuel economy was also mandated since major shareholders of LICE companies are big oil and they have fought CAFE every foot of the way.
It just takes a govt with testicles (coughObamacough).

subsidies, regulations, taxation, and in most parts of Europe, the large companies are partially owned by gov.

Retooling for a completely different platform and power train is surely more expensive than retooling for a new revision of the same old combustion engine…

Tesla needed huge investments to crank up EV production. Legacy makers need similar investments. Tesla got the money as new capital; legacy makers are trying to get it out of their running businesses… That’s undeniably a challenge. Not an excuse mind you — but a challenge nevertheless.

well, out of your postings today, this one has validity.

Here let me save VW, Ford, GM, Toyota and all the other car companies money.

Build nice looking cars with a good 200-300 mile range for ~30k and you will sell cars/suvs/trucks.

Please send half of your market research budgets to me for saving you a ton of time and money, Thanks

Very very nice. I am very happy that VW is investing heavily and I am very happy that they are not going the useless Fuel Cell track for that kind of car. From 2020 on we will see a lot EVs from VW.
And special thanks to the US authorities which uncovered the diesel cheating.

Back then, they didn’t make plans to spend 30 billion Euro on it. They thought they could do it on the cheap — turns out they couldn’t… I think they learned their lesson.

Where are the naysayers of EVs saying there is no demand for all these BEVs that VW says they’ll make? Every year they use that trope, saying demand is already exhausted.

Talk is cheap

30 billion Euro is not cheap in my book…

over what time frame?

2019 – 2023.

Uh… The ID. family is slated to roll out with the first two models in 2020 (starting production in late 2019 at the Zwickau plant) — the 2022 timeline is for the Emden and Hannover facilities to join the fray, with several additional models.

It’s interesting to compare with the other automotive group of similar size — Toyota. The latter seems to dabble in battery research, but have very little in the way of actual product plans yet.

Globally, the EV share this year might be 1.1%. If it grows 80% each year for the next four years, it’ll be 11.5% in 2022, and 20% in 2023. But it seems there won’t be enough batteries for growth to be that fast.

Anyway it definitely is unusual to see the biggest players in the industry pursue such different strategies. As ever, is going to be very interesting to watch things develop!

There will be enough batteries, if car makers order them in time.

Do they care at all about the dirty electricity for the production of those EVs,and their batteries???!!(coal=lignit generated Polish or East German…)

keep in mind that same electricity would go to making gas/diesel instead of driving cars.
As such, EVs are much cleaner.

Lignite is used in all of Germany, not just Eastern Germany. Poland on the other hand only has hard coal.

(Poland uses even more of it in the energy mix, though — so it more or less evens out in term of pollution…)

VW however claims that their EV production (including the cells) will be carbon neutral…