GM’s $7 billon loss exposes gap between EV optimism and market reality



General Motors’ fourth-quarter earnings were widely framed as a show of confidence in an electric future. The company absorbed billions in losses and reaffirmed its strategy, and analysts largely applauded its resolve.

Beneath the optimistic headlines, however, was a less reassuring reality: The all-electric transition is proving significantly more expensive, more fragile, and more politically exposed than automakers originally promised.

What stands out most is GM’s refusal to abandon the all-electric narrative, even after acknowledging the scale of the financial setback.

EV shock

In the report, released January 27, GM disclosed $7.1 billion in EV-related losses tied primarily to reshaping its electric-vehicle production plans. While much of the charge is non-cash, it represents real losses on capital GM invested in EV plans that are now being abandoned or restructured.

These figures are not a minor course correction. They are an acknowledgment that even the industry’s most experienced players misjudged the pace, cost, and risk of electrification.

The disclosure followed Ford’s admission that its EV push has resulted in roughly $20 billion in losses. The contrast between the two companies is not the size of the miscalculation but the response. Ford has slowed timelines and reset expectations. General Motors, under CEO Mary Barra, has chosen to absorb the hit and continue forward.

According to GM, roughly $6 billion stems from changes to its EV manufacturing strategy, including canceled supplier contracts and unused equipment originally intended for electric-vehicle production.

Another $1.1 billion reflects the restructuring of its China joint venture. Combined with an October 2025 filing tied to abandoned EV plans, GM has now recognized approximately $7.6 billion tied to its EV strategy in 2025 alone.

Full speed ahead?

Despite those numbers, coverage of GM’s earnings leaned positive. Reports emphasized the company’s balance-sheet strength, its ability to manage the charges, and its position as a leading EV seller in the United States. In that framing, the financial setback was treated as a painful but manageable step toward an inevitable electric future.

CEO Mary Barra reinforced that narrative, saying she has no regrets about GM’s EV strategy, which remains the automaker's “north star.” She cited regulatory changes in 2025 as more disruptive than tariffs and argued that GM’s rapid production reorganization limited the damage.

That explanation is telling. It underscores how policy-driven the EV transition has become, with automakers increasingly responding to regulations, incentives, and geopolitical shifts rather than consumer demand alone.

Facing facts

While GM’s long-term direction may remain the same, what has changed is the implicit acknowledgment that the transition will take longer and cost more than originally forecast, particularly as incentives fade and infrastructure gaps remain unresolved.

That tension is visible in the sales data. GM’s fourth-quarter EV sales fell 43% year over year, totaling just 25,219 vehicles. That decline complicates claims that the financial hit reflects only temporary turbulence. It points instead to continued consumer hesitation driven by price, charging access, and concerns over long-term ownership costs.

The full-year picture is more mixed. GM’s EV sales for 2025 rose 48% to 169,887 vehicles, making it the second-largest EV seller in the U.S. behind Tesla. Those figures support claims of progress, but they also highlight how uneven adoption remains — often buoyed by incentives and fleet purchases rather than steady, organic demand.

China adds another layer of uncertainty. Once expected to anchor global EV growth, the market has become far less predictable due to regulatory shifts, fierce local competition, and rising geopolitical tension. GM’s decision to restructure its joint venture there reflects a broader reassessment of international exposure, not simply EV headwinds.

RELATED: Test drive: 2026 Dodge Charger Sixpack Plus

Stellantis

Stand by your plan

What stands out most is GM’s refusal to abandon the all-electric narrative, even after acknowledging the scale of the financial setback. Barra has argued that adoption will accelerate as charging infrastructure improves. That may prove true, but it assumes infrastructure expansion will continue without the level of government support that initially fueled growth — and that consumers will remain patient as prices stay high and technology continues to evolve.

From an industry standpoint, GM’s experience is less about failure than timing. Automakers were pushed — politically and culturally — to commit early and publicly to electrification. Those that hesitated were criticized. Now, the cost of being first is coming into focus. Retooling factories, securing battery supply chains, retraining workers, and complying with shifting regulations require enormous capital, and those investments do not disappear when demand softens.

There is also a credibility question. When executives express no regrets after multibillion-dollar setbacks, investors and consumers are justified in asking whether earlier forecasts were grounded in market realities — or shaped more by political alignment than consumer readiness.

Cautionary tale

GM’s experience should also serve as a cautionary tale for policymakers. Mandates and incentives can accelerate innovation, but they cannot force consumer acceptance on a fixed timetable. The EV transition will happen, but not on command and not without detours.

For General Motors, the challenge now is alignment. The company has the scale, engineering talent, and brand equity to compete in an electrified future. What it cannot afford is a prolonged mismatch between production plans and real-world demand. The $7 billion reckoning is more than an accounting event. It is a reminder that the road to an all-electric future is longer, bumpier, and far more expensive than advertised.

Consumers are watching closely. They are not rejecting electric vehicles outright — but they are demanding better value, better infrastructure, and more honest timelines. If those signals are ignored, this reckoning may be only the beginning.

Why Canada’s Chinese EV bet is a big mistake



Canada’s decision to slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles is being sold as a pragmatic trade adjustment. In reality, it looks more like a self-inflicted wound to the country’s auto industry, workforce, and long-term economic sovereignty.

Lower prices today may come at the cost of lost manufacturing tomorrow — along with vehicles that struggle with quality and cold-weather reliability in a country where winter is not a minor inconvenience but a defining reality.

A vehicle that looks competitive on paper may tell a very different story after several Canadian winters.

Under an agreement announced earlier this month, Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs into the country each year at a tariff of just 6.1%, down from the 100% rate imposed in 2024.

Officials emphasize that this represents less than 3% of the domestic market. But auto markets are shaped at the margins. Even a relatively small influx of aggressively priced vehicles can disrupt pricing, undercut domestic producers, and discourage future investment.

Under pressure

Canada’s auto sector is deeply integrated with the United States, with parts, vehicles, and labor flowing across the border daily. That system has supported hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs for decades. Introducing low-cost Chinese imports into that ecosystem does not simply add consumer choice; it destabilizes a supply chain already under pressure from regulatory mandates, rising costs, and declining market share.

That pressure is already visible. The combined market share of General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis in Canada has fallen from nearly 50% to roughly 36%. These companies are not just brands on a dealership lot. They are employers, investors, and anchors for entire communities. When their market position erodes, the consequences ripple outward through plant closures, canceled expansion plans, and lost supplier contracts.

Cold comfort

Supporters argue that Chinese EVs will make electric vehicles more affordable, accelerating adoption and helping Canada meet emissions targets. But affordability without durability is a hollow promise. Many Chinese EVs entering global markets have yet to prove themselves in extreme climates. Cold weather is notoriously hard on batteries, reducing range, slowing charging times, and increasing mechanical stress — conditions Canadian winters deliver in abundance.

Reports from colder regions already using Chinese EVs raise concerns about performance degradation, software issues, and inconsistent build quality. Battery thermal management systems that perform adequately in mild climates can struggle in deep cold. Door handles freeze, sensors fail, and range estimates become unreliable. These are not minor inconveniences when temperatures plunge and drivers depend on their vehicles for safety as much as transportation.

Quality concerns extend beyond climate performance. Chinese automakers have made rapid progress, but speed has often come at the expense of long-term durability testing. Western manufacturers spend years validating vehicles under extreme conditions precisely because failure carries real consequences. A vehicle that looks competitive on paper may tell a very different story after several Canadian winters.

Cheap creep

There is also the question of what happens to Canada’s manufacturing base as these imports gain a foothold. History offers a clear lesson. When markets are flooded with low-cost vehicles produced under different labor standards and supported by state-backed industrial policy, domestic production suffers. Plants close, jobs disappear, and skills erode — losses that are extraordinarily difficult to reverse.

Europe offers a cautionary example. In the rush to meet climate targets, policymakers opened the door to inexpensive Chinese vehicles, only to see domestic automakers squeezed between regulatory costs and subsidized foreign competition. The result has been declining investment, layoffs, and growing concern about long-term competitiveness. Canada risks repeating that mistake but without Europe’s scale or leverage.

RELATED: Exclusive: 'Anti-China moves' pay off BIGLY — Governor Sanders and Arkansas earn A+ for crushing CCP land-grabs

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Image

Spy game

The geopolitical implications cannot be ignored. Modern EVs are data-collecting machines, equipped with cameras, sensors, GPS tracking, and constant connectivity. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that Chinese-built vehicles pose national security risks. Whether or not those fears are fully realized, perception matters. The United States has already signaled that Chinese EVs will not be allowed across its border, even temporarily.

That leaves Canadian consumers in a difficult position. A vehicle purchased legally in Canada could become a barrier to travel, commerce, or even family visits. The idea that a car could determine whether a driver can cross the world’s longest undefended border should give policymakers pause. Instead the Carney government appears willing to accept that risk as collateral damage.

Realism over resentment

Some Canadians, frustrated by U.S. tariffs and rhetoric, may view this pivot toward China as an act of defiance. But trade policy driven by resentment rather than realism rarely ends well. Replacing dependence on the United States with dependence on China does not restore sovereignty; it simply shifts leverage from one superpower to another, often with fewer shared values and less transparency.

President Donald Trump has made his position clear. He is open to Chinese companies building vehicles in North America if they invest in domestic factories and employ domestic workers. What he opposes are imports that bypass production, undermine jobs, and introduce security risks. Canada’s deal does nothing to address those concerns. Instead it places Canadian workers and consumers squarely in the crossfire.

The promise of cheaper EVs may sound appealing in the short term, but the long-term costs are becoming harder to ignore. Lost manufacturing jobs, weakened supply chains, unresolved quality and cold-weather issues, and strained relations with Canada’s largest trading partner are not abstract risks. They are predictable outcomes.

Canada built its auto industry through integration, investment, and a commitment to quality. Undermining that foundation for a limited influx of low-cost imports is not a strategy. It is a gamble — and one Canadian workers, manufacturers, and drivers are likely to lose.

Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment



If you want a clear picture of where the American auto market is heading, don’t look at political speeches or glossy concept vehicles. Look at where manufacturers are spending — and writing off — real money.

Case in point: Ford’s $19.5 billion decision to abandon plans for a next-generation all-electric F-150.

Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.

The company’s change of direction for its massive BlueOval City complex in Tennessee is one of the clearest signals yet that the industry’s all-electric future, at least as it was sold to consumers and investors, is being fundamentally rethought.

Instead of building a new electric F-150 Lightning there, Ford will pivot the facility toward producing lower-cost gasoline-powered trucks while shifting electric strategy toward hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and smaller EVs.

Demand in the driver’s seat

This move matters because Ford did not quietly slow production or delay a model year refresh. It wrote down billions of dollars in electric vehicle assets, restructured long-term plans, and publicly admitted that customer demand — not forecasts or incentives — is now driving decisions.

Ford expects roughly $19.5 billion in special charges tied to this pivot, most of which will hit in the fourth quarter, with an additional $5.5 billion in cash costs spread through 2027. Of that total, $8.5 billion represents EV asset write-downs. That is corporate language for investments that will not deliver the returns originally promised.

Yet Wall Street’s reaction was telling. Ford stock rose about 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement and remains up nearly 40% this year. Investors appear to see this not as failure, but as realism.

Sticker shock

The electric F-150 Lightning was once positioned as proof that electrification could conquer America’s best-selling vehicle segment. In theory, the idea made sense. In practice, the numbers never fully added up. High prices, heavy battery packs, range limitations under real-world towing conditions, and charging concerns narrowed the pool of potential buyers. Demand softened even as incentives increased.

Ford now plans to transition the Lightning into an extended-range electric vehicle, pairing an electric drivetrain with a gasoline-powered generator. This is not a retreat from electrification. It is an acknowledgment that pure battery-electric power trains do not yet meet the needs of a large portion of truck buyers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the shift plainly. High-end EVs priced between $50,000 and $80,000 were not selling in sufficient volume. That reality is difficult to ignore when inventory sits on dealer lots and profit margins evaporate.

Hybrid vigor

At the same time, Ford is going all-in on hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, and reinvesting in its core strengths: trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. This reflects a broader industry trend. Hybrids offer meaningful fuel economy improvements without requiring buyers to overhaul their driving habits or rely on charging infrastructure that remains inconsistent in many parts of the country.

Ford’s revised outlook projects that by 2030, about half of its global volume will come from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles combined. That is a significant increase from today, but it is far more balanced than earlier projections that leaned heavily toward full electrification.

Lightning rod

One of the more curious elements of Ford’s announcement is its plan to build a fully connected midsize electric pickup starting in 2027, based on a new low-cost “Universal EV Platform.” The company suggests this truck could start around $30,000, a figure that raises serious questions.

To put that claim into context, Ford’s Maverick Hybrid, which uses a small 1.1 kilowatt-hour battery, already approaches $30,000 in many configurations. A midsize EV pickup would likely require an 80 kilowatt-hour battery or more. Battery costs have declined, but not nearly enough to make that math easy — especially while maintaining margins.

Consumers will ultimately decide whether such a vehicle makes sense. Price, capability, range, and charging convenience will matter far more than marketing language. Automakers are learning, sometimes the hard way, that affordability cannot be willed into existence by press releases.

Batteries included

Ford’s restructuring also includes repurposing battery plants in Kentucky and Michigan for a new stationary energy storage business. This is a strategic move that acknowledges batteries may find more reliable profitability off the road than on it, particularly in data centers and grid stabilization applications where weight, charging time, and cold-weather performance are less critical concerns.

The broader lesson here is not that electric vehicles are disappearing. They are not. It is that the one-size-fits-all electrification narrative has collided with economic and consumer reality. Automakers were pushed, through regulation and incentives, to prioritize battery-electric vehicles at a pace the market could not fully absorb.

When policy environments change, as they recently have, manufacturers regain flexibility. Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.

From a business standpoint, Ford is attempting to stabilize profitability. The company raised its adjusted earnings guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, even as these restructuring charges weigh on net results. It is aiming for a path to profitability in its Model e EV division by 2029, with incremental improvements beginning in 2026.

That is a long runway, and it reflects how difficult it has been to make EVs profitable at scale. Traditional internal combustion and hybrid vehicles continue to subsidize electric losses across the industry. Ford is now being more transparent about that reality.

RELATED: American muscle-car culture is alive and well ... in Dubai

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Turning radius

This shift also has implications for American manufacturing and jobs. BlueOval City was originally pitched as a cornerstone of the electric future. Its revised mission underscores how quickly industrial strategies can change when assumptions fail. Gasoline and hybrid trucks remain highly profitable, and demand for them remains strong.

Ford insists this is a customer-driven strategy, not a retreat. In many ways, that framing is accurate. Consumers have shown they value choice, reliability, and affordability more than power-train ideology. They want vehicles that fit their lives, not policy targets.

For buyers, this could be good news. A more balanced market tends to produce better products at more reasonable prices. Hybrids, extended-range EVs, and efficient gasoline vehicles all play a role in reducing fuel consumption without forcing trade-offs many drivers are unwilling to accept.

For investors, Ford’s announcement may mark a turning point toward discipline and realism. Writing down nearly $20 billion is painful, but continuing to chase unprofitable volume would be worse.

For the industry, the message is unmistakable. Electrification is evolving, not ending. But it will happen on consumer terms, not political timelines.

Ford’s course correction is not about abandoning the future. It is about surviving the present — and doing so with a clearer understanding of what American drivers are actually willing to buy.

The American car industry would be in a much stronger position today had its CEOs not embarked on the EV joy ride with politicians promising subsidies. Next time maybe the brands will listen to the customer.

American muscle-car culture is alive and well ... in Dubai



One of the first things I did when I moved to Dubai was buy a Dodge Challenger. Not the volcanic Hellcat or the feral Scat Pack — the SXT, the V6 base model.

Nevertheless, for those nine months in 2023, the car carried itself like it had seen things it couldn’t legally discuss. I miss it the way a grounded teenager misses his phone — painfully and often. The car was, in many ways, gloriously pointless. But to me, it was absolutely perfect. Nobody buys a Dodge for practicality. You buy one because fun is a dying art and driving is supposed to feel alive.

America insists this is why we can’t have nice things. The UAE shrugs, inhales some shisha, and says, 'Great, we’ll have them instead.'

What fascinated me then, and still does now, is how the Middle East has quietly become the last stronghold for real American muscle.

Dubai drift

While America agonizes over emissions charts and frets about carbon neutrality, Dubai is out there treating a supercharged V8 like a household appliance. You hear them everywhere — echoing off glass towers, screaming down Sheikh Zayed Road, prowling through parking lots like metal predators looking for prey. It’s the sound of a culture still in love with combustion, unashamed of horsepower, and utterly allergic to guilt.

The region adores these cars. Worships them, even. In the West, muscle cars are increasingly treated like contraband with headlights, monitored by regulators the way principals monitor school corridors. But in the UAE, they’re symbols of power, freedom, excess, and the simple joy of pressing a pedal and feeling physics panic.

The numbers back it up. The UAE’s classic-car market is projected to grow from roughly $1.23 billion in 2023 to nearly $1.83 billion by 2032, with collectors routinely paying well above American estimates. This is particularly true for rare models, such as the 1971 Plymouth Hemi ’Cuda convertible that sold for about $4.2 million in Dubai, roughly 35% above its American estimate.

Men in flowing robes and sandals race around industrial estates with the confidence of emperors and the cornering ability of a wardrobe on wheels. Somehow, by the grace of God (not Allah), it all works. There’s something delightfully surreal about watching a man dressed like he stepped out of the book of Exodus drift a Challenger with monk-like serenity.

Combustion cosplay

Back home, Dodge now calls its new EVs “muscle.” But that’s like a woman getting very expensive surgery in a very private place and calling herself a man. Without the roar, the vibration, the combustion, it’s cosplay — an impersonation that fools no one except the marketing department. You can’t call something a muscle car if it sounds like a dentist’s drill.

Real muscle needs rumble. It needs that primal, throat-deep growl that shakes your sternum and announces your arrival three zip codes away. Take that away, and you’re just a sad sack who should have bought a Tesla and called it a day.

When muscle cars disappear, the loss isn’t just mechanical but cultural. For decades, when the world pictured America, it didn’t picture Washington or Wall Street. It pictured steel, cylinders, and a V8 rumble rolling across a desert highway.

Hollywood hardwired that association into the global imagination. "Bullitt," "Vanishing Point," "Smokey and the Bandit," even the "Fast & Furious" franchise, for all its awful acting and cheese thick enough to insulate a house. I still remember being 8 years old, watching "Gone in 60 Seconds," and thinking, Yes, this is what adulthood should look like.

You could grow up thousands of miles away, never having set foot on American soil, and still recognize the sound of a Mustang firing up. It was the unofficial anthem of the greatest nation on Earth, a national ringtone encoded in exhaust fumes. It symbolized everything the country loved about itself: rebellion, possibility, the belief that any man with a heavy foot and enough premium gasoline could outrun his problems. It was an identity as much as a mode of transport.

RELATED: 'Leno’s Law' could be big win for California's classic car culture

CNBC/Getty Images

Revvers' refuge

And that’s the tragedy. A silent America isn’t an America anyone recognizes. The muscle car was more than a vehicle. It was a character, a co-star, an accomplice. Kill it off, and the whole story changes — and not for the better.

And oddly, it’s the Middle East that seems most intent on preserving that myth. It’s as if the region has been appointed the accidental curator of America’s automotive soul. The UAE, in particular, feels like the final refuge where these cars can run wild. Environmental regulations exist there, but only in the same way that scarecrows exist — present, decorative, and cheerfully ignored. The country is spotless, the air somehow clearer than cities that run entire marketing campaigns screaming “sustainability!” And yet it’s bursting with Challengers and Chargers. America insists this is why we can’t have nice things. The UAE shrugs, inhales some shisha, and says, “Great, we’ll have them instead.”

It makes you re-think the demonization of muscle cars. We were told they were barbaric, dirty, irresponsible — rolling catastrophes portrayed as personal hand grenades lobbed at the atmosphere. Meanwhile, Dubai keeps its streets cleaner than half of California while simultaneously hosting enough horsepower to make a U.N. peacekeeper reach for the radio. The contradiction is almost poetic. The place accused of excess manages to be pristine, while the places preaching virtue can’t manage basic cleanliness without a committee and a grant.

Selling sand to a camel

A quick disclaimer for anyone feeling inspired to follow my lead. Dubai might be paradise for muscle cars, but it’s also the Wild West of used-car dealing. A shocking number of “mint condition” imports arrive after being wrapped around a tree somewhere in North America, are given a light cosmetic baptism, and are relaunched onto the market as if they had spent their lives humming gently down suburban streets.

Half the salesmen — greasy, fast-talking veterans from Lebanon, Palestine, and everywhere in between — could sell sand to a camel. You need your eyes open. Fortunately, I knew the sites where you can run a chassis number and see the car’s real history, dents, disasters, and all. It saved me from driving home in a beautifully repainted coffin.

Even with this dark underbelly, Dubai’s affection for American muscle is entirely authentic. You see it on weekend nights at the gas stations, which double as unofficial car shows. Dozens gather, engines idling like caged animals, while men compare exhaust notes with the seriousness of diplomats negotiating borders. Teenagers film everything, because why wouldn’t you document a species this endangered? The entire scene feels like a sanctuary, a place where mechanical masculinity hasn’t been entirely euthanized.

Muscle migration

Some of the funniest moments came from watching Emirati drivers — men dressed in immaculate white garments — exit their cars with Hollywood swagger, as if the Challenger were simply an extension of their personality. And in many ways, it was. It was part "Need for Speed," part Moses at the Marina. And somehow, without irony, they pulled it off.

Living there made me realize that muscle cars aren’t dying everywhere. Rather, they’re migrating. Fleeing the jurisdictions that shame them and settling in regions that still celebrate joy. The Middle East has become the last refuge for these beasts. Not because it rejects the future, but because it refuses to surrender the past for a machine that feels clinically dead on delivery.

And that’s the real tragedy. America built the muscle car, mythologized it, exported it, then surrendered it to paper-pushers in Priuses, armed with clipboards and calculators. The UAE bought the export and kept the myth alive. My Challenger is gone now, sold to a man who claimed he needed it for “family errands.” But the fond memories of tearing around the city have never faded. America may have abandoned its automotive adolescence, but Dubai, thankfully, hasn’t.

Someone has to keep the engines roaring. And right now, it’s the men in sandals.

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate



The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

RELATED: Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.

Out of Power: California Drops Electric Truck Mandate Amid Trump Crackdown

California regulators on Thursday repealed a state rule requiring large trucking companies to buy more electric trucks, a win for the Trump administration as it rolls back Biden-era policies that force consumers to buy EVs.

The post Out of Power: California Drops Electric Truck Mandate Amid Trump Crackdown appeared first on .

Ford shifts gears, leaves EVs in the rear view



Ford is stepping back from an all-electric future and leaning hard into gasoline and diesel vehicles.

This is a huge pivot, setting the stage for a potential profit surge starting in 2026. This isn’t just a corporate maneuver — it’s a move that could redefine the American automotive landscape.

If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of the EV mandate

For years, Ford’s profits took a hit from federal regulations pushing electric vehicles. The U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions rules forced automakers to sell an increasing share of EVs, with mandates aiming for near-100% EV sales during the 2030s.

These policies brought steep fines and costly carbon credits, requiring Ford to subsidize unprofitable EVs with revenue from gasoline vehicle sales. The result? Higher prices for consumers and fewer of the vehicles Americans actually wanted.

That’s all changing. In July 2025, a budget reconciliation bill became law, easing these regulatory pressures. The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a step expected to eliminate GHG fines and credits by late 2025.

During a recent earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley highlighted the financial windfall, projecting $1.5 billion in savings for 2025 alone, with billions more to follow in 2026 if these credits disappear. These savings far outweigh potential tariff-related costs, positioning Ford for a profitability boom.

Why EVs haven’t won over America

EVs aren’t vanishing entirely, but their role in Ford’s U.S. lineup is shrinking. The reason is straightforward: Most Americans aren’t interested. Despite heavy subsidies, EVs remain unprofitable for automakers. Consumers face high up-front costs, rapid depreciation, and low residual values, making gasoline vehicles a more practical choice. Ford’s sales data confirms this, showing EVs as a small fraction of demand while gasoline engines remain popular.

To comply with EV mandates, Ford had to inflate gasoline vehicle prices to offset losses. Technologies like start-stop systems, turbochargers, and electrification added thousands to production costs, which were passed on to buyers. Production quotas also limited how many profitable gasoline vehicles Ford could build. The outcome was a market where consumers paid more for vehicles they didn’t fully want, and Ford’s bottom line suffered.

RELATED: Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Back to what works

With regulatory constraints fading, Ford is realigning production to match consumer demand. The company is phasing out costly technologies like start-stop systems and turbochargers, which were required to meet fuel economy standards.

Without CAFE fines, these features are no longer necessary, paving the way for lower prices. Ford is also bringing back naturally aspirated engines, which are cheaper to produce and known for their reliability — qualities American buyers value. The 5.0-liter V-8, found in the F-150 and Mustang, is a standout example, and Ford may expand its use to models like the Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, Ranger, and Bronco.

While Ford isn’t abandoning EVs entirely, its focus will shift. EVs will remain for international markets, niche applications, and research to stay competitive if they become viable without subsidies. This strategic shift allows Ford to prioritize affordable, reliable vehicles that align with what Americans want.

Profits in sight

Ford’s second-quarter 2025 financials offer a glimpse of the road ahead. The company reported a record $50.2 billion in revenue but a $36 million net loss due to special items.

Its EV division, Ford Model e, recorded a $1.3 billion loss, up $179 million from last year. However, Ford is optimistic. By redirecting resources from EVs to commercial trucks and full-size SUVs, the company sees a multibillion-dollar opportunity.

To brace for potential challenges, Ford secured a $3 billion line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, despite holding $20 billion in cash and $14 billion in liquid securities. This cautious move signals confidence in its long-term strategy. If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of EV mandates is a win for affordability. New vehicle prices have soared in recent years, with basic models jumping from $16,000 six years ago to much higher today, partly due to EV-related costs. As Ford shifts to naturally aspirated engines, gasoline vehicle prices could drop by thousands. Meanwhile, EVs will reflect their true cost, likely making them less competitive without subsidies.

This shift restores consumer choice. Whether you prefer the reliability of a gasoline truck, the power of a Mustang, or the utility of an SUV, you’ll find more options at better prices. Ford’s emphasis on commercial trucks and SUVs also caters to businesses and families, key drivers of demand.

Driven by demand

Ford’s pivot underscores a fundamental truth: markets thrive when they reflect consumer preferences, not government mandates. The EV push forced automakers to prioritize unprofitable products, raising prices and limiting choice. Its rollback lets Ford invest in what Americans want — affordable, dependable vehicles. This could spark a revival for the U.S. automotive industry, with Ford at the forefront.

Other automakers are likely watching. If Ford’s profits soar, competitors may follow, reinforcing the trend toward gasoline and diesel. EVs will continue to evolve where they make economic sense, but for now, the U.S. market is hitting the gas.

Ford’s decision signals lower prices, more choices, and a market that listens to consumers. Whether you’re a truck driver, a family on the go, or a car enthusiast, this shift could mean better vehicles at better prices. Share this story with friends who love cars or hate high costs — they’ll want to know.

GM’s electric gamble is failing — but Barra won’t hit the brakes



The electric vehicle bubble has burst. Consumers have emphatically rejected EVs as nothing more than a niche car with limited range, minimal utility, terrible resale value, and time-consuming charging hassles.

This consumer rejection began long before President Donald Trump returned to the White House and started repealing Biden-era regulations that essentially instituted a de facto EV mandate. In addition to these critical repeals, Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act just eliminated the $7,500 per unit federal tax credit on each new EV sold in the U.S. effective September 30, 2025.

It’s long overdue for the General Motors’ board to put the EV distraction behind them. If Mary Barra won’t do it, then they need to find a CEO who will.

Other than Tesla, auto manufacturers have been hemorrhaging red ink on their EV ventures — and that was when they could pad the sale of each unit with $7,500 in federal incentives. Legacy automakers have been taking a financial bath on their EV programs. Many are starting to back away from their electric ambitions and pivot back to gasoline-powered vehicles that consumers actually want to buy, including hybrids.

For some manufacturers, however, it may be too late.

GM’s electric obsession

Blaze Media contributor Lauren Fix recently warned on her “Car Coach Reports” podcast that auto manufacturers might not survive the failed “EV transition.”

Yet amidst the carnage of the EV collapse, the CEO of General Motors, Mary Barra, remains unyielding in her commitment to an all-electric future. Sadly, unless GM’s board steps in soon, she may be dragging the entire company over a cliff.

It’s fair to ask at this point, “Who is Barra working for?” She clearly isn’t serving GM’s customers, dealers, or shareholders. Drivers aren’t buying EVs. Dealers can’t sell them. And the EV distraction is dragging down the stock price.

During the Biden administration, Barra pledged to completely purge the GM lineup of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. That’s a direct slap in the face to the company’s loyal customer base — especially truck buyers — who overwhelmingly prefer gas engines.

Now that Donald Trump is back in the White House, the Biden-era regulatory hammer that pushed automakers like GM toward EVs is gone. What, then, is motivating Barra to remain steadfast in her EV commitment?

As recently as late May — four months into Trump’s second term — Barra told the Wall Street Journal, “We still believe in an all-EV future. I think EVs are fundamentally better.” She added, “So I see a path to all EV. It will depend on how much we get the infrastructure ready. But I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Unfortunately, outside of their niche as a daily commuter car for those with a charger at home, EVs have barely any utility at all. They are not “better” in any respect than a multi-purpose, gasoline-powered vehicle that can drive anywhere, at any time, for any distance — without charging hassles.

Most consumers know that. GM’s dealers definitely know that.

So, how does GM still have a CEO who doesn’t?

On “Car Coach Reports,” Lauren Fix speculated that Barra’s public EV commitment may not reflect GM’s actual intentions. Maybe she’s just covering for a busted product pipeline — trying to save face while GM begins its years-long pivot toward hybrids behind the scenes. If that’s true, the best-case scenario is that the CEO is lying to shareholders and dealers — it’s a very bad look.

Whether or not Barra is being honest about her intentions for an all-EV future, GM’s website still has a “sustainability” tab which reads, “We aim to achieve an all-electric, zero emissions world while advancing an equitable and inclusive transition to our carbon-neutral future.”

It might as well read: “We’d rather drive off a cliff in the name of a net-zero future than keep building the profitable cars and trucks Americans actually want.”

Investors call Barra’s bluff

Wall Street is finally taking notice — as well it should. When EV hype peaked in June 2021, GM stock was trading around $63 per share at its height. Today, it’s down 15%.

Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is up 50% since June 2021. Put another way: $1,000 in GM stock back then is now worth $850. That same $1,000 in the S&P 500 would be worth $1,500. That’s a 75% gap — and GM investors are the losers.

During a recent earnings call to discuss Q2 2025 results, a Morgan Stanley analyst finally confronted Barra about the elephant in the room: “How does GM expect to be profitable with EVs when players like Tesla apparently cannot?”

RELATED: Car dealers stuck with unsellable EVs have nobody to blame but themselves

Photo by UCG / Contributor via Getty Images

Tesla is facing stiff headwinds with a 13% drop in sales and a 16% drop in profits for Q2. Even with the tax credits still in place, Tesla’s per-unit profit is only around $3,000. But those tax credits are about to vanish with the impending elimination of the $7,500 per unit federal tax credit. Moreover, Tesla is also about to lose another revenue stream: regulatory credits, worth about $1,500 per vehicle, paid to Tesla by non-EV manufacturers to meet emissions rules.

In summary, Tesla will be losing up to $9,000 per unit in revenue sources against a profit of $3,000 per unit — an unsustainable path for a sustainable car company. If Tesla can’t make it work, what chance does GM have?

The imminent EV reckoning

Barra had no real answer. Just vague talk about “manufacturing optimization.” She won’t admit to the writing on the wall — that General Motors has no path to profitability selling electric vehicles.

It’s long overdue for the General Motors’ board to put the EV distraction behind them. If Mary Barra won’t do it, then they need to find a CEO who will.

EV sales are sinking — which automakers will go down with the ship?



The electric vehicle market is hitting a critical tipping point — and the mainstream media won’t talk about it.

In a no-holds-barred episode of “Car Coach Reports,” we sat down with two of the sharpest minds in the industry: Anton Wahlman, a veteran financial analyst and columnist for Seeking Alpha, and Karl Brauer, a respected automotive expert known for his data-driven insights on iSeeCars and YouTube.

Together, we pull back the curtain on what’s really happening in the EV world.

Here’s the reality: The federal EV tax credit — up to $7,500 per vehicle — expires September 30, giving automakers under 90 days to move more than 140,000 EVs currently sitting on dealer lots. That’s more than a 100-day supply of inventory, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. And while some companies are positioned to adapt, others are dangerously overcommitted.

We break down which brands might survive the coming EV shakeout — Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Tesla, and others — and which ones are at risk of collapse once the subsidies disappear. The entire industry is being reshaped by political decisions, not consumer demand. It’s a wake-up call for car buyers and a challenge for automakers.

This isn’t about being for or against EVs — it’s about exposing the truth with no agenda.

Don’t miss this essential conversation — especially if you’re shopping for a new vehicle or wondering what comes next for the automotive world.

Biden Admin's $7.5 Billion EV Initiative Built Fewer Than 400 Charging Ports in 3 Years, Watchdog Says

The Biden administration's $7.5 billion program to install electric-vehicle charging stations across the United States has delivered fewer than 400 charging ports since November 2021, according to a Tuesday report by the Government Accountability Office.

The post Biden Admin's $7.5 Billion EV Initiative Built Fewer Than 400 Charging Ports in 3 Years, Watchdog Says appeared first on .