Hydrogen always seems to be the Bridesmaid never the Bride technology

Over the 17 years this column has existed, few subjects, if any, have been its focus more often than hydrogen (H2) as an automotive fuel, either for use electrochemically in a fuel cell or burned directly in an internal combustion engine (ICE).

As the most abundant element in the universe, there is no shortage of hydrogen supply (in theory if not in practice) and whether it is used in a fuel cell or an ICE, it generates no greenhouse gases. Consequently, it has long been considered the holy grail of fuels.

During the first decade of this century, it seemed almost certain that hydrogen fuel cells would be not just the powerplants of the future but of the very near future.

They were not.

Due largely to the high costs associated with fuel cells, combined with rapid improvements in competing lithium-ion battery technology and the cult-like success of Tesla’s pioneering battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), it is they that have claimed the popular mantle as heir apparent to the ICE age — at least for now.

Once again, however, there are rumblings of hydrogen’s re-emergence as the fuel of the future. That those rumblings are coming primarily from the world’s biggest automaker by volume — Toyota — and the world’s third-ranked auto group by sales — Hyundai — lends them credence that cannot be ignored.

Both already have hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) on the market, albeit with relatively low sales volumes. But both are also developing hydrogen-fuelled ICEs with near-term production feasibility. It is the potential for those vehicles that is particularly attractive to legacy automakers and has many auto enthusiasts excited.

The attractions to OEMs are obvious. Modifying existing IC engine designs to run on hydrogen rather than fossil fuels would save them countless billions of investment dollars in the new ground-up vehicle designs that BEVs demand. And billions more for new motor and battery manufacturing facilities.

Plus, they would be dealing with mostly known and proven technologies with predictable risks. How many new BEVs have already been the subject of massive recalls?

There is, of course, the matter of ensuring that the engine runs and performs acceptably using hydrogen as fuel. It’s a much tougher challenge than using gasoline, amplified by hydrogen’s gaseous nature and its ability to leak through the most minute openings.

A highly publicized fire in a Toyota race car running on liquid hydrogen fuel quite literally backfired, potentially setting back public opinion on the concept.

Assuming such engineering challenges can be overcome, however, H2 has much to recommend it as a fuel for ICEs.

On the environmental front, hydrogen ICE (HICE?) vehicles would not need lithium, nickel, or cobalt, which are critical battery materials. Consequently, fewer new mines and refining facilities would be required for those minerals, with all their attendant environmental consequences.

The additional hydrogen needed could and should be produced by electrolysis using carbon-free, non-nuclear electricity. Win-win-win!

From the consumer perspective, HICE vehicles should be dramatically lower priced than BEVs. Their only significant added cost would come from the high-pressure fuel tanks required.

They could also be hybridized, of course, adding further to their bonafides.

Best of all, HICE vehicles would require no significant change in driver behaviour from today’s conventional vehicles. Their driving characteristics would be identical and they could be refuelled the same way and in about the same time as refuelling with gasoline. The only difference would be the high-pressure connection from the fuel dispenser to the fuel filler.

That is, IF there were a refuelling infrastructure. It’s a very big IF!

Outside of California, there is virtually no retail hydrogen supply infrastructure in North America now. And even there, the outlets are few and scattered.

The big challenge on that front is that massive new investment would be needed to develop the H2 distribution infrastructure. And we would be back to a chicken-and-egg situation, as we were initially with BEV charging stations. Who will invest in the infrastructure before there are enough HICE or FCEV vehicles on the road to make it financially worthwhile?

If only the same effort and investment that has fuelled the BEV juggernaut, both technically and regulatory, had gone into hydrogen a decade ago, we might have been looking at a very different and potentially better future now.

Realistically, however, the massive investments that already have been made in BEVs and the regulatory fences protecting them are now all but irreversible, severely limiting the prospects for hydrogen to play more than a fringe role in our future transportation equation.

If only…

The post The future of hydrogen revisited — again! appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Battery chemistries will replace engine specs in your new vocabulary

By 2035, if today’s plans and edicts are all realized, 100 per cent of the new cars and light trucks on sale to the public will be battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Not just here in North America, but throughout most of the developed world.

The batteries used in those vehicles, however, will likely be very different from the ones that power today’s BEVs.

Why? Because the lithium-ion batteries that are now the basis for most BEV powertrains are far from ideally suited to their purpose. They’re just the best available alternatives right now.

Compared to traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs), they take too long to charge, they don’t provide enough driving range, and both those deficiencies are amplified in cold weather—all functions of their battery characteristics.

In addition, they are very heavy, adding as much as 450 kg (1,000 lb) to a typical vehicle’s mass, further compounding those problems.

They are also very expensive, often adding $10,000 or more, sometimes much more, to the price of a comparable ICE model.

Given those realities, if BEVs are going to achieve the public acceptance needed to realize the lofty sales goals being mandated for 2030 and 2035, battery performance must be improved dramatically.

Automakers are well aware of those challenges and are investing huge sums in battery production plants, raw material supply agreements, and battery R&D.

Some variations in the batteries’ physical structure have already been realized as various BEVs use lithium-ion cells in cylindrical, pouch or prismatic form.

Perhaps even more important, automakers, and ultimately your customers, now have a choice of two different lithium-ion chemistries—NMC and LFP—at least in some vehicles. And that chemical bifurcation is certain to accelerate.

What do those acronyms mean? They identify the chemical materials in a battery’s cathode (positive electrode).

NMC stands for nickel-manganese-cobalt, which has been the dominant type of lithium-ion battery used up to now.

LFP stands for lithium-iron-phosphate, a chemical variation from the predominant form that is now being offered in several BEVs, with many more set to adopt.

The chemical compounds of those cathodes and their differences have a major impact on both the batteries’ performance and their costs. LFP batteries offer several distinct advantages relative to their NMC counterparts, according to market intelligence form, Guidehouse Insights.

For one thing, iron is much more readily available than either nickel or cobalt and its sources of supply are less geopolitically sensitive than those of the latter, which results in both more stable supply lines and significant cost savings—as much as 30-to-40 per cent.

LFP batteries themselves are also more thermally stable, with a thermal runaway temperature of 270°C ( 518°F), compared to  210°C (410°F) for NMC variants. That differential makes a big difference with respect to heat management requirements for the battery.

They can also withstand greater depths of discharge (80-90 per cent of total capacity), higher charge and discharge rates, and thousands of charge and discharge cycles—significantly more than most NMC chemistries—with minimal degradation. Chinese battery maker CATL claims its LFP cells can last 1.6-million km (1.0-million miles).

Plus, the materials in LFP batteries are less toxic than those in NMC batteries, making them easier to recycle at the end of their life.

So, with all those advantages—lower cost, more-readily-available materials, lower potential for thermal runaway, less degradation at higher charge/discharge rates, longer life, and easier recycling—the choice of LFP over NMC batteries should be a slam-dunk, right?

Not quite. For LFP batteries have two big negatives that work against them.

Their energy density is about 30 per cent less than that of NMCs, which means their energy output is 30 per cent less for a battery of an equal mass. And that translates to reduced range for a given weight.

In addition, LFPs reportedly take longer to charge at temperatures below freezing. Vehicle engineers are attempting to address that issue via the battery’s thermal management system, but it’s not a good omen for use in most of Canada.

Some automakers, including Ford and Tesla, are already offering both alternatives and others, including General Motors, are expected to do the same.

Typically they use LFP in their lower-priced models to keep costs down and NMC in their more upscale versions.

If the brand you sell offers that choice, which battery type should you recommend to your customers? If driving range is their most important consideration, NMC is best. But if they are able to recharge frequently and range is not the dominant factor, NFP is probably the better choice.

The post NMC vs LFP EV batteries: what you need to know appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

New-vehicle sales in Canada improved in both March and the full first quarter of 2023, relative to the same periods a year ago. But those improvements were marginal and they continue to disappoint, failing to signal any imminent upturn in the stagnant market.

March sales of about 146,000 vehicles by reporting automakers were up just 3.7% from last year, as estimated by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants (DAC). They were also down from the modest gains of the prior two months, which were 7.5% and 5.7%, respectively.

The SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) for March was just 1.59 million, according to DAC — a steady drop from January’s 1.79-million figure, which was the high-point for the past year.

On a quarterly basis, reported sales of 345,439 new units in Q1 2023 were up just 5.2% from last year’s dismal figures, but down 8.8% from the same period in 2021 — and fully 16.0% below 2019’s pre-pandemic level.

As Andrew King, Managing Partner at DAC observed, “there is a decided lack of momentum.”

GM to the fore

Despite those concerning overall figures, some automakers had a highly positive quarter.

General Motors claimed the top-seller spot for Q1, with sales of 61,093 vehicles, an increase of 25.8% from the same period a year ago. That improvement gave GM a 3.3% bump in market share, year-over year, up to 17.7% — the greatest improvement in both numbers and share in the industry.

Ford came second for the quarter with 46,962 vehicles sold, well behind GM, but 9.1% up from a year ago and ahead of the market average. As a result, Ford’s market share improved by 0.6% to 13.6%.

FCA Stellantis ranked third for Q1 with 40,073 vehicles sold. That total was down by 5.9% from last year however, cutting market share by 1.3% to 11.6%.

Fourth place went to Toyota, which sold 37,304 new units, an increase of 5.0%, improving market share by 0.1% to 10.8%. On a group basis, Toyota/Lexus also ranked fourth, behind GM, Ford, and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis combined, but ahead of FCA/Stellantis.

Korean brands show strength

The Hyundai brand alone claimed fifth place with 25,689 sales, a decline of 3.8% from 2022 that trimmed market share by 0.7% to 7.4%.

Kia leap-frogged both Nissan and Honda to claim sixth place in the rankings with 20,499 Q1 sales, a 38.1% gain that improved Kia’s market share by 1.4% to 5.9% — a share increase second only to GM.

Though passed by Kia, Nissan maintained its familiar seventh-place ranking, with 18,842 sold, down 8.3%. That decline cost Nissan 0.7% of market share, reducing it to 5.5%.

Keeping Nissan in seventh, Honda fell two places in the rankings, down to eighth, with a dramatic 25.8% Q1 sales decline to just 16,199 units. That shortfall cut Honda’s market share by 1.9% to 4.7% — the greatest share decline in the industry.

In a tight race for ninth place, Mazda edged out Volkswagen to claim the spot with 11,326 vehicles sold. That total was down 12.3% from last year, however, resulting in a 0.6% share decline to 3.3%.

Volkswagen was right behind in tenth with a 17.1% sales increase to 11,007 units, raising VW’s market share 0.4% to 3.2%.

Subaru and Mercedes-Benz maintained their usual 11^th and 12^th rankings, with sales down 1.3% and 10.9% respectively.

It is also worth noting that Lexus surpassed both BMW and Audi for second position in the luxury vehicle ranks with an impressive 42.3% Q1 sales increase.

In addition, Mitsubishi jumped past all three with an 11.5% sales gain to claim 13^th overall in the rankings.

It’s a volatile market!

The post Q1 Canadian auto sales improve, but continue to disappoint appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Conventional heating systems don’t exist in electric vehicles

Most new car shoppers probably don’t show a lot of interest in a vehicle’s heating system before buying. It is just something that’s there, expected to be serviceable, and not seen as a point of differentiation.

With the increasing popularity of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), however, that situation could change, for the conventional heating system, as we have come to know it, no longer exists in BEVs. And what does exist may have a much greater effect on the buyer’s overall level of satisfaction than they expect.

Why the difference? Because the source of heat in a conventional vehicle—waste heat from the engine—simply doesn’t exist in a BEV.

With a conventional heating system, which has been in use since introduced by Cadillac in 1926, heat is transferred from the engine to a liquid (water/antifreeze). That liquid circulates through a closed system that includes a heater core (small radiator), through which air is routed into the passenger compartment, gaining heat from the core.

A fan helps force the warmed air into and around the interior to warm the occupants, as well as defog/defrost the windows. 

The key point is, without an engine, a BEV simply doesn’t have that big source of “free” heat available. 

There is some heat generated by the batteries, plus some from the power electronics, and a few automakers are transferring that heat into the airstream—every little bit helps. But it is not nearly enough to replace what would normally be available from an engine.

The obvious solution adopted by many is to replace the heater core with a resistive electrical heating element, like the one in an old electric heater. 

Rather than just a coil of resistive wire, however, the modern system uses a self-regulating, PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating element with inherent protection against overheating.

The rest of the heater system can remain much the same and the instantaneous heat from the electric heating element means the interior may warm up even more quickly than with the gradual warmup of an engine.

The problem with that solution is that the only power source for the electric heater is the same one used to drive the vehicle—its battery pack. So every watt of power used for heating is one that is not available for driving. Which is one reason BEV driving range tends to be dramatically reduced at low ambient temperatures.

Another alternative, introduced by Nissan in the 2012 Leaf and now employed in several BEVs and PHEVs, is the use of a reversible heat pump—effectively an air-conditioning system that can be operated in reverse. 

In simple terms, a heat pump transfers energy from the outside air into a refrigerant via an external evaporator—even when it is cold outside—then compresses the refrigerant, which heats it up, and releases that heat into the passenger compartment via an internal condenser.

The complexities of making an HVAC system reversible to act as both AC and heat pump are considerable, and consequently expensive. But a multitude of published tests confirm that it is at least as effective as resistive heating and it reduces the negative impact on driving range.

There is a limitation, however. The efficiency of a heat pump diminishes as outside temperature drops. While it can be highly effective at 0oC, it is significantly less so at -20oC and reaches its practical limit about -30oC. Which, unfortunately, is a temperature not uncommon in much of Canada. So even a heat pump needs some additional heat source in the extreme.

Whatever core system is used, the ultimate goal of achieving passenger comfort can be assisted by alternative means such as focusing heat on specific body areas. To that end, heated seats and steering wheels are already in widespread use.

Going a step further, Toyota is the first automaker to employ radiant heating in a production vehicle, directed at the driver’s and front passenger’s lower leg and foot areas in up-level bZ4x models.

General Motors, in conjunction with a thermal management company called Gentherm, plans to expand on that approach with an individualized four-zone microclimate control system on the upcoming ultra-luxe Cadillac Celestiq.

That system, called ClimateSense®, is said to employ 33 unique microclimate devices, including a neck scarf and heated armrests, that allow each occupant to personalize their desired level of seat heating and cooling while significantly reducing total energy consumption.

Expect some combination of these various technologies to become the ultimate heating solution in a case where necessity really does spur invention.

The post The challenges of heating a BEV appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty? That is the question prompted by February’s new-vehicle sales numbers in Canada. Sales of 103,771 vehicles, as estimated by DesRosiers Automotive consultants, were up by 5.1% from February of last year. Following a 7.5% increase in January, that gain makes four consecutive months of year-over-year sales improvements, which is an encouraging sign.

Year-to-date sales of 202,030 units through the first two months of 2023 are 6.3% ahead of a year ago.

Further promoting the glass-half-full perspective, February’s SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) of 1.70-million for February, according to DAC, was the second best for any month since July of 2021.

While those numbers are directionally positive, they are far from a dramatic turnaround, however. February’s sales were not improved as much as January’s, relative to a year ago. And they were the second-lowest for the month in the past ten years. From that perspective, the glass still looks half-empty.

Looking forward, the breadth of improved vehicle availability is gradually widening and consumer spending remains resilient, observed  Andrew King, Managing Partner of DAC.

We’re still looking at the “supply story,” both here and in the U.S., where limited inventory has been holding back sales, said Rebekah Young, Director, Fiscal and Provincial Economics at Scotiabank. She added that Scotiabank has “pencilled in” a forecast of 1.65 million vehicles for 2023.

If achieved, that figure would be a solid 10 per cent increase from 2022, while still more than 10 per cent below pre-pandemic norms. Half-full or half-empty?

Winners and losers

With the now usual caveat that reported sales numbers for any manufacturer may reflect its product availability as much as market demand alone, here are the winners and losers of automakers who have reported sales for February.

Of those automakers reporting February results, Genesis topped the charts in terms of percentage gain from the same month last year, up 69.6%. Lexus wasn’t far behind at 52.4%, followed by Volvo at 14.4% and Hyundai at 3.6%.

Those reporting February sales declines included Subaru (-1.0%), Toyota (-2.0%), Mazda (-24.9%). Acura (-25.5%) and, with the greatest decline, Honda, down by 38.9%.

Given that many automakers continue to report sales only quarterly rather than monthly, a complete breakdown of results by manufacturer will be available after the first quarter.

The post Canadian auto sales make gains in February…but barely appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

The Ford Mustang Mach-E on display at the Houston Auto Show, January, 2020.

What BEV buyers need to know about EV-specific tires

With sales of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) rapidly increasing in Canada, it is important that customers, especially first-time BEV buyers, are well tutored in what to expect from their new vehicles to avoid unpleasant surprises.

As we discussed in the last issue of Canadian auto dealer, one of those potential surprises is the impact of winter weather on driving range and charging time. 

Another is that BEVs require different tires than those used on comparable ICE vehicles—a key point drivers may not realize until the tires have to be replaced or swapped out for winter driving.

Why do they need different tires? One main reason is that BEVs are much heavier than their conventional counterparts. Their battery packs typically add as much as 450 kg (~1,000 lbs) of total mass—much more in the case of pickup trucks—necessitating tires with significantly higher load ratings. 

Using “regular” tires on these vehicles would dramatically compromise the vehicle’s handling characteristics, tire life and occupants’ safety.

In recognition of that point, a new High Load (HL) tire load rating that can carry a greater load than the previous XL heavy-duty tires at the same pressure has been adopted to accommodate the increased weight of vehicles with heavy batteries. 

To support that added load, especially when cornering and braking, tires for EVs typically have sturdier sidewall and tread construction, which may come at the expense of a smooth ride. 

It is also important for EV tires to minimize rolling resistance, to help extend precious EV driving range as much as possible. But changes in tire construction, tread design and tread compound that result in reduced rolling resistance typically result in reduced traction as well. 

Combine all those factors with the instantaneous peak torque produced by electric motors at startup, which increases tire slippage, and tread life tends to be reduced too—typically by 20 to 30 per cent, based on multiple reports.

Designing an EV tire, then, becomes a matter of balancing the three major tire characteristics: traction (or grip); rolling resistance; and treadwear. How each vehicle and tire manufacturer prioritizes those often competing qualities substantially defines the character of the vehicle.

Another key factor that must be considered is noise—to a much greater degree than is necessary on tires for a typical ICE-powered vehicle, where tire noise tends to be substantially obscured by engine noise at highway speeds. 

There is no engine noise in a BEV and the noise from the motor(s) and electronics is of a much different quality, so noise from the tire/road interaction takes on greater priority. Not only must the tire noise be reduced, but what is generated must not be unpleasant to the vehicle’s occupants.

Beyond the usual approach of optimizing tread designs to reduce noise, some tire manufacturers are fitting special acoustic foam liners to the inner surface of the tread to act as sound absorbers within the tire cavity.

All of these aspects make the ideal EV tire significantly different from one optimized for an ICE-powered vehicle. Significantly more expensive, too!

Most major tire companies now offer a range of EV-specific aftermarket tires to choose from when it is time for replacement. 

It should be noted that it is not necessary to use a tire that is designated as EV-specific. But it will be difficult to find a “regular” tire that satisfies all the dimensional and load requirements for most BEVs, as well as providing a satisfactory noise signature.

Then, of course, here in Canada there is the matter of winter tires. To the obvious question, “Do BEVs need Winter tires?”, the answer in most of the country is, “Absolutely!” 

Perhaps even more so than for comparable conventional vehicles, given the instant torque delivery from the electric motors, which makes wheelspin control a greater challenge.

For those BEVs with multiple-motor AWD systems and owners who think they will satisfy all tractive needs, the answer is: “It doesn’t matter how many wheels are driven if none of them have traction!”

Finding EV-specific winter tires still presents more of a challenge than for their fair-weather equivalents. But most majors now offer at least some availability in select sizes. Manufacturers of the original-equipment tires for a given brand may be the most likely sources for early winter tire availability.

Tires are probably the furthest thing from a customer’s mind when they are shopping for a BEV. But it’s important that they be apprised of what to expect down the road when taking delivery, to avoid a potentially unwelcome surprise later.

The post Electric vehicles are different where the rubber hits the road appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Not all the automakers have reported 2022 year-end sales yet, but we’re close enough to a final number to know that it will fall short of 1.5-million, probably somewhere very close to 1,488,600 units. DesRosiers Automotive Consultants (DAC) have estimated it at a rounded-off 1.49-million.

That is at least a 9.1% decline from last year’s abysmal numbers, and even 3.2% below peak-pandemic 2020, making it the poorest sales performance year since 2009.

We have known it was coming, but that doesn’t lessen the impact. Still, it might have been worse. Significant supply-side shortages kept inventories low throughout the year, which made it a sellers’ market, so profits tended to remain strong in spite of the sales declines.

Providing at least one positive note, December 2022 sales were a healthy 5.5% ahead of those for December last year, which was itself a relatively strong month. That robust finish brought Q4 sales to within 1.0% of those from a year ago.

In addition, the SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) for December was about 1.65-million – the highest it has been since last January and a significant improvement from the sub-1.5 million level that has prevailed since March.

It is a single data point, but one that does provide hope that this long period of relative stagnation may be coming to an end – unless it is overwhelmed by the expected oncoming recession.

(Note: All numbers discussed here are exclusive of Tesla sales as that company does not report.)

Detroit Three make gains

As we have noted in sales reports throughout the year, given the ongoing supply-side constraints and their effects on production throughout the industry, sales numbers for any manufacturer may be a reflection of product availability rather than market demand alone. Still, the end results are a reflection of how well each automaker has been able to deal with those multiple influences.

For the 14^th consecutive year, Ford retained its number-one sales ranking, with 240,325 units sold – a modest decline of 1.3% from 2021 in a market that was down 9.1%. As a result, the brand gained 1.2% of market share, to top the industry at 16.1%.

An impressive 41.6% sales surge in Q4 boosted General Motors’ full-year sales to 4.8% ahead of 2021, ensuring its second-place ranking with 228,000 units sold. As a result, GM’s market share increased by 2.0% to 15.3% – the greatest share gain in the industry.

Toyota, with or without Lexus sales included, claimed third place in the rankings, selling 175,181 Toyota-brand vehicles in the year, a 12.1% decline that cut its market share by 0.3%, to 11.8%.

Stellantis, in fourth place, increased its annual sales by 4.8% from 2021, to 169,179 units, bumping market share up by 1.5% from 2021, to 11.4%.

Hyundai consolidated its fifth-place ranking with sales of 112,559 new vehicles, down by 11.1%, resulting in a 0.1% market share decline to 7.6%.

Tight races further down

After falling to sixth place earlier in the year, Honda retained that ranking at year-end with sales of 91,882 vehicles, a 30.0% year-over-year decline that cut its market share by 1.8% to 6.2% – the greatest share decline in the industry.

After being surpassed by Kia for seventh place earlier in the year, Nissan regained that position at year-end with 70,965 total sales, a 23.3% decline that reduced the brand’s market share by 0.8% to 4.8%.

Kia finished the year not far behind in eighth with 68,258 sales, a decline of 13.8% and 0.2 % of market share, reducing it to 4.6%.

Mazda and Volkswagen scrapped over ninth place throughout the year with Mazda claiming the spot at year-end on total sales of 49,874 vehicles, a 19.8% decline, resulting in a 0.4% loss of market share to 3.4%.

Volkswagen was close behind in tenth with 46,951 vehicles sold, down 22.1% from 2021. As a result, VW’s market share fell by 0.5% to 3.2%.

Subaru remained 11^th in the rankings, about 3,000 units back, followed by Mercedes-Benz, which continued to head the luxury brand rankings, ahead of Audi, BMW, and Lexus in that order.

Winners and losers

As it did throughout much of the year, Genesis finished 2022 with the greatest sales increase in percentage terms, up 25.8% from a year ago. It was followed by General Motors and FCA/Stellantis (both +4.8%), Maserati (+1.3%) and Audi (+1.2%), the only brands to make absolute gains.

At the other extreme, Jaguar experienced the greatest percentage decline (-44.7%), followed by Land Rover (-36.5%), Acura (-30.4%), Honda (-30.0%), Nissan (-23.3%), Subaru (-22.6%), and Volkswagen (-22.1%).

The post 2022 auto sales lowest in 13 years but December upturn offers hope appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Educating electric vehicle buyers about winter performance can help avoid negative feedback

This being the December issue of Canadian auto dealer means that we’re on the cusp of, if not already well into the grips of, another Canadian winter.

It also means that many of your customers will be facing winter for the first time with a battery electric vehicle (BEV). Which raises the question: “How well have they been prepared for the new challenges they are about to face?”

If the answer to that question is, “not well,” then you may encounter some unhappy feedback as they encounter a variety of unpleasant surprises.

What kind of surprises? The big one is that winter weather, in particular sub-zero temperatures, may dramatically affect both their BEV’s driving range and its charging time.

That realization shouldn’t come as a surprise. It should be apparent to most that batteries lose capability in the cold, based on their own winter experience with cell phones and cameras and the batteries used to start their conventional internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

The same laws of physics apply to the batteries in electric vehicles. Colder temperatures reduce their ability to store and release energy and the colder it gets the greater that impact.

The most significant result of that impediment is a reduction in driving range in the cold, which probably won’t surprise most customers as they will have experienced some reduction in winter-time fuel-efficiency in their previous ICE-powered vehicles.

On average, BEV range decreases from its rated peak by more than 20 per cent at just 0°C. And it falls off by 50 per cent at -20°C!

Just how great that range reduction could be in their BEV may be the big surprise.

There are countless anecdotal reports of everything from minimal to very dramatic BEV range reductions in real-world winter experience, which make it difficult to know just what to expect.

To provide a more definitive answer, a Canadian company called Geotab, which specializes in web-based analytics, undertook a study to determine the impact temperature has on range, and whether all EV models were impacted equally.

To that end, Geotab reviewed anonymized data from 5.2-million trips taken by 4,200 EVs representing 102 different make/model/year combinations and analyzed the average vehicle trip efficiency by temperature.

Their analyses showed that, regardless of make or model, most EVs follow a similar range/temperature curve, with range decreasing as temperature falls below or rises above 21.5°C.

Not surprisingly, the rate of decline is much greater with falling than with increasing temperature.

On average, BEV range decreases from its rated peak by more than 20 per cent at just 0°C. And it falls off by 50 per cent at -20°C!

Of course, there are variations from that average among individual vehicles, but the trend is consistent. And it is significantly more concerning than the reduction in efficiency typically experienced in ICE-powered vehicles in winter, which tends to be closer to half that rate of decline, based on data published by Natural Resources Canada.

Even at the same rate of decline, that reduction would be far more impactful in a BEV with a typical driving range of 500 km or less, and a recharging time that may range from a half-hour to several hours, than in an ICE-powered vehicle with a typical range of 600 km or more, often much more, and the ability to refuel in five minutes.

It should be noted, as well, that the ability for a battery to accept a charge, and consequently the time to recharge, is also diminished as the temperature drops.

It is not just the direct effect of temperature on the battery that reduces range, however. It’s the fact that power to generate all the heat needed both to keep the windows clear of fog and frost and to create a comfortable environment for the occupants, as well as to heat the batteries themselves, has to come from the batteries.

In an ICE-powered vehicle, most of those needs are accommodated by waste heat from the engine.

Ideally, BEV customers should be made aware of these realities before they are surprised by them. They should also be made aware of means for minimizing their impact.

Keeping BEVs in a heated garage, when not in use, and charging them indoors is the ideal way to combat winter. But home-charging, even outdoors, has advantages.

Most BEV automakers provide a means of preprogramming charging times, as well as pre-heating the occupant space using external charging current. Scheduling charging and preheating to be completed just before the vehicle is needed will help warm both, reducing battery load once underway, thus extending range.

Given time and education, BEV customers will adapt to these new realities. Ideally, they won’t have to learn about them by unpleasant surprise.

The post Avoiding a winter of BEV discontent appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

For the first time since last January, November auto sales in Canada outpaced those of the same month a year earlier. Sales of 114,966 units, as estimated by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants (DAC), were up by 4.1% from November 2021.

Could this accomplishment finally signal a turning point in the longstanding challenge of production constraints due to supply-side limitations? Maybe, but not necessarily.

As DAC points out, the comparable of November 2021 was a noticeably weak month with sales of only 110,448 units – compared to a market of 143,315 units in pre-pandemic November 2019 and 128,351 in 2020. So 2022’s modest gain hardly constitutes a rebound.

That perspective is reinforced by November’s SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) of just 1.51-million, according to DAC – about where it has been for the previous two months.

Still, even a modest gain is better than a decline. And it offers some hope that the bottom may have been reached.

Unfortunately, even if that is the case, with current year-to-date sales of just 1.38-million it is unlikely that full-year sales in 2022 will reach 1.5-million. “If this is indeed the case,” says Andrew King, Managing Partner of DAC, “it will be the first year the market has fallen below this threshold since 2009.”

Looking forward to 2023, Laura Gu of Scotiabank Economics says, “We expect the sales rate in Canada to reach 1.65-million – still below fundamental demand – but with considerable bandwidths around those figures in light of economic (and policy) uncertainty, layered on top of weak sight lines on auto production plans.”

Winners and losers

With the caveat that we are still in a period where product availability tends to dictate sales performance of individual manufacturers as much or more than market demand alone, here is an overview of November, 2022 sales for those automakers who have reported.

Kia led the charts in terms of percentage gain, up 58.0% from the same month a year ago, with year-to-date sales down by 17.3%.

Lexus followed with sales up 32.9% in November and down 5.7% for the year-to-date, followed by Subaru (+13.8% Nov / -24.9% YTD), Toyota (+6.0% / -13.3%), Mazda (+3.1% / -21.8%) and Genesis (+1.9% / +26.1%).

The two other reporting brands’ November sales fell short of their year-ago figures with Hyundai’s numbers down by 10.9% (-12.2% YTD) and Acura’s down by 38.8% (-31.3%YTD).

A complete breakdown of results by manufacturer will be available at the end of year.

The post Modest November auto sales gain is the first since January appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

While September’s Canadian auto sales offered some glimmer of hope for improvement, October’s sales numbers laid waste to any such optimism.

Sales of 121,653 new units in October, as estimated by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants (DAC), were down by 5.4% from the same month in 2021 – one of the stronger comparables of this year.

But that point of comparison, October 2021, was already severely depressed, down almost 20% from typical pre-pandemic levels, which leaves October 2022 with the lowest sales total for the month since the recession of 2009.

That situation is reflected in the SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) for the month which remained below 1.5-million, according to DAC – consistent with its performance over the past six months but well below the pre-pandemic norm  of 1.9-million.

Estimated year-to-date sales of 1,264,964 vehicles through October were down 11.2%  from the same period in 2021, and almost 25% below the pre-pandemic norm for that month.

“As has been the pattern recently, sales were highly varied with a small group of players showing robust sales gains, while the majority continued to struggle and experienced double-digit declines,” according to DAC.

DAC Managing Partner, Andrew King added, “until the recovery becomes more broadly based across a wider group of manufacturers the market will continue to struggle.”

The post Canada’s October auto sales continue to disappoint appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Could a revolution in automotive braking be on the horizon?

Almost 100 years ago, Walter Chrysler triggered a revolution in automotive braking by fitting the new car bearing his name with standard four-wheel hydraulic brakes—a feature that would become ubiquitous throughout the industry and survive to this day with little deviation in principle.

That situation may be about to change, however.

The 1924 Chrysler was not the first production car with hydraulic brakes. That distinction belongs to the 1921 Duesenberg, a high-priced, low-volume vehicle that employed a troublesome hydraulic system designed by one Malcolm Lougheed. 

It was Chrysler’s engineers, however, who developed that system to production readiness, registering multiple patents in the process. In exchange for usage rights, Chrysler assigned the patents back to Lougheed, who proceeded to license the technology to the rest of the industry via his company—Lockheed!

Just as the Lockheed name became synonymous with brakes in those early automotive days, the Brembo name enjoys a similar association today, having established its bona fides on the race tracks of the world, including on Formula 1 cars. Brembo brakes are now de rigeur features on a multitude of different vehicles with high-performance aspirations.

Beyond its racing and high-performance applications, Brembo is also a major supplier of brake components for more mass-market vehicles and it is that broader market that is the focus of its latest braking innovations, collectively labeled Sensify (a combination of the words sense and simplify).

In the company’s words, “Sensify takes you from a system that for decades has applied the same braking pressure on all four wheels at the same time to one that independently can manage the braking forces on each wheel, according to driver needs, vehicle dynamics, road conditions.”

Doesn’t ABS (Anti-lock Brake System) already do that, you might ask? It does, to a degree. ABS effectively allows a series of quick lockups and releases to keep the tire rotating at the limit of adhesion. 

Sensify goes a big step further, using predictive software and artificial intelligence (AI) to individually control each brake even more precisely, keeping the tire right at the threshold of lockup rather than locking up and releasing.

The result is a smoother and more controlled stop, with the same ability to steer while braking that ABS offers but without the brake pedal pulsation and noise that can be so disconcerting to drivers who may be startled by the occurrence.

There is much more to Sensify however. At its core is what has become known as “brake-by-wire” technology. Rather than applying pressure directly on a hydraulic cylinder, as is the norm, brake-by-wire uses the brake pedal as a variable electronic switch, controlling the signal to an electric motor that in turn applies pressure to the hydraulic cylinder. 

It’s not a new concept. It has long been used in aircraft. Toyota’s Prius was the first automobile to employ it and various Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Alfa Romeo models, as well as Chevrolet’s Corvette C8 also use it. Sensify takes it a step further by sending electronic signals not to a central hydraulic cylinder but to individual cylinders at each wheel. 

Alternatively, Brembo also offers Sensify variations with electric motors, rather than hydraulic cylinders, to clamp the calipers at each wheel. 

Importantly, the Sensify system also employs a new spring design that pulls the pads completely off the rotor when not in use. Doing so effectively eliminates rolling resistance from brake drag, helping reduce fuel consumption in ICE vehicles and increase range in EVs.

Brembo fitted a Tesla Model 3 with Sensify hydraulic brakes on the front wheels and electro-mechanical calipers on the rears for a media event held recently at Michelin’s North American proving ground in Laurens, South Carolina. Comparison tests with a corresponding current production Tesla, braking in a variety of different circumstances on both wet and dry surfaces, earned broad praise for the Sensify system, including the descriptor, “game changing.”

Will it be? Quite possibly. The prospect of eliminating metres of hydraulic tubing throughout the vehicle alone could make it highly attractive to automakers. The ability to electronically tailor the braking performance, as well as the pedal feel, to suit different circumstances and customers should also be an attraction.

The downsides? Not many. Cost is always a factor and that is unknown at this point. Motors at the wheels for the electro-mechanical system will add unsprung weight, which can affect ride and handling.

When will we see it? Brembo says Sensify is scheduled for production in 2024, leaving unanswered, for now, who will be the first to adopt it.

The post Give us a (new) brake appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Sometimes a smaller negative can be as welcome as a positive, encouraging hope that the situation just might be improving. Such is the case with new-vehicle sales in Canada in September.

September sales of 130,421 vehicles, as estimated by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants (DAC), were down just 4.5% from the same month last year—their best relative performance since January. That said, those figures were the lowest for the month since the economic crisis of 2009, and they were down 23.2% from September, 2020, the sales high-point of the pandemic period.

September’s SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Sales Rate) was about 1.48 million, according to DAC—about where it has been throughout the quarter.

As for Q3 as a whole, its cumulative sales of 387,435 units were down 11.8% from the same period last year, and exactly in line with the decline for the full year to date.

So where is the glimmer of hope? It is in the fact that 10 of the 25 reporting brands made relative gains in Q3 and a few—the Detroit Three among them—made absolute year-over-year gains. The caveat to that accomplishment is that the industry was extremely hard-hit by semiconductor shortages in the comparative summer of 2021.

Summarizing the situation, Andrew King, Managing Partner of DAC, cautioned: “The split in performance between companies was remarkable—and it would be foolish to get too optimistic until the recovery has a broader base of participants”.

There remains a huge dichotomy between vehicle availability and pent-up demand, all complicated by a rapidly worsening economic environment, which leaves prospects for the fourth quarter as a big question mark.

Light truck share edges upward

Sales of 321,658 “light trucks” (pickups, vans and utility vehicles, including crossovers) in Q3 were down 7.9% from the same period a year ago, but their cumulative market share for the year-to-date increased by 2.7% to 83.4% of the market – still below their Q1 2021 peak of 84.4%.

Passenger car sales of 65,777 units were down 27.0% from Q3 2021, at the expense of 2.7% of market share.

Detroit Three to the fore

As noted above, the variation in results among manufacturers in Q3 was dramatic, with the Detroit Three performing particularly well compared to the rest.

Ford retained its number-one ranking for both Q3 and the year-to-date with sales of 70,330 and 185,484 units respectively, up 12.2% for the quarter and 1.5% for the year so far. Ford’s market share for the year-to-date has increased by 2.1% to 16.2% – the greatest share gain in the industry.

General Motors took clear control of second place with 62,075 sales, up 27.6%, for the quarter, and 172,279, down 3.3%, for the year-to-date. That surge improved GM’s market share by 1.4% to 15.1%.

Toyota, with or without Lexus sales included, ranked third for both the quarter and the year-to-date. The Toyota brand sold 44,220 units in Q3, a decline of 23.0%, and 136,505 for the year-to-date, down 16.5% from a year ago, cutting market share by 0.7% to 11.9%.

Stellantis claimed fourth place with 40,958 sales in Q3 and 130,729 through nine months resulting in year-over-year gains of 14.7% and 6.9% respectively, and a market share gain of 2.0% to 11.4%.

Hyundai maintained its fifth-place ranking with sales of 27,472 vehicles, down 23.3%, in Q3, and 87,754, down 10.5%, for the year-to-date. Its market share improved by 0.1% from 2021, to 7.7%.

Still turmoil further down

Having fallen to sixth place earlier in the year, Honda retained that ranking with sales of 24,836 in Q3 and 70,827 for the year-to-date – declines of 36.8% and 31.8% respectively. As a result, Honda’s market share declined by 1.8%, year-over-year, to 6.2%.

Kia clawed its way into seventh place for the quarter with 17,322 sales, a decline of 30.9%, but sales of 50,473 units year-to-date, down 23.9%, leave it ranked eighth on that basis and cut market share by 0.7% to 4.4%.

Nissan’s 15,283 Q3 sales, down 39.6% from the same period a year ago, left it in eighth place for the quarter. But its 55,807 cumulative sales, down 25.6%, kept it in seventh for the year-to-date, with a market share decline of 0.9% to 4.9%.

Volkswagen reclaimed ninth place for the quarter with 14,348 vehicles sold, down 22.7%, but remained tenth for the year-to-date, with 36,440 cumulative sales, down 22.4%. VW’s market share fell by 0.4%, year-over-year, to 3.2%.

Mazda dropped to tenth place for Q3 with sales of 13,700 vehicles, but its cumulative sales of 40,011 units maintained its ninth-place rankings for the year-to-date, with market share reduced by 0.5% to 3.5%.

Subaru remained 11^th in the rankings, followed by Mercedes-Benz, which continued to head the luxury brand rankings, ahead of Audi and BMW, in a close fight for the next ranking, followed by Lexus..

Winners and losers

Given the ongoing supply-side constraints and their effects on production throughout the industry, sales numbers for any manufacturer may be a reflection of product availability rather than market demand alone.

With that caveat in mind, for Q3 2022, General Motors led the way in terms of the greatest percentage gain, up 27.6% from a year ago, followed by FCA/Stellantis (+14.7%), Ford (+9.5%), Genesis (+8.6%) and Maserati (+7.4%).

At the other extreme, Jaguar experienced the greatest percentage decline (-43.7%), followed closely by Acura (-39.8%), Nissan (-39.6%), Mitsubishi (-39.2%), and Subaru (-39.0%).

The post September auto sales offer glimmer of hope amid stagnant Q3 results appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.