mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Expert Says Auto Market Will Be EV-Centric ‘No Earlier Than 2040’

Automotive analyst Sam Fiorani predicts that the auto market will not become EV-centric until the 2040 timeframe or later. Despite the push towards electrification, a significant number of vehicles will still have internal combustion engines (ICE) in the coming years. Meanwhile, GM aims to electrify its light duty lineup by 2035.

The Chevy Silverado EV charging up.

Fiorani’s comments were made during a recent interview with Autoweek. Fiorani serves as the vice president for Global Vehicle Forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions.

Fiorani notes that sales increases toward an all-electric future will not be linear, and many automakers will continue to rely on flexible platforms that can support both electric and ICE powertrains to adapt to consumer demand. This approach allows manufacturers to avoid the high costs associated with dedicating platforms solely to one type of powertrain, especially as ICE remains dominant in the short term.

Prior to full electrification, Fiorani predicts that flexible, dynamic vehicle platforms are the right solution amid changing customer preferences and tightening government regulations. The Stellantis STLA platform is highlighted as a good example of this, as although it is “BEV-native,” easily allowing for the incorporation of an all-electric powertrain, the structure also enables the use of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and gasoline power plants.

At present, GM CEO Mary Barra admits that the EV transition will take decades to complete. However, General Motors remains adamant that it will fully transition its light-duty vehicle lineup to all-electric powertrains by the 2035 timeframe. In the interim, GM has shifted its electrification strategy to include the reintroduction of plug-in hybrid vehicles to the North American market. Previously, GM aimed to leapfrog hybrids entirely and move straight from internal combustion to all-electric.

Of course, the industry’s shift towards electric vehicles is influenced by several factors, including consumer preferences, infrastructure readiness, and regulatory environments. However, waning consumer demand for electric vehicles and a lack of charging infrastructure have forced many automakers to shift their electrification strategy to a more nuanced approach. While the ultimate goal remains a fully electrified vehicle market, the path to achieving that goal remains complex and multi-faceted.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM electric vehicle news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. 2040 is more realistic than the 2030 or 2035.

    Reply
  2. Not realistic charging it in an AI generated garage. Get a real garage, THEN park it outside!

    Reply
    1. Doesn’t every garage come with light fixtures randomly attached to strips of metal teeth on the ceiling?

      Reply
    2. Automakers can have whatever goals they want. The simple fact is, unless enough people want the same things, they’ll continue to make whatever the public will buy. It’s not likely they’ll have all the EV problems figured out by 2040. I doubt this’ll be a real transition in most of our lives. Just an alternate choice for a few.

      Reply
  3. Donut had a video on YouTube where they guessed the prices of used EV’s. They would show the price of them new and had to guess what they are selling for used. The depreciation was as high as 60% in less than 2 years on some vehicles. The EV market is tanking right now. You can now buy a brand new Model S Plaid for mid $80k, when a little over a year ago they were priced for over $100k. EV’s are not the future for the automotive market.

    Reply
    1. That’s largely due to the obvious increase in range of newer models. Sort of like PCs in the 386SX era, where they quickly became obsolete, no one wants an EV with a range of 225 miles or less (are you listening Subaru?).

      It’s also due to declining prices for new models, due to increased capacity and newer technology.

      Over the long run EVs will depreciate less because prior owner maintenance and abuse will become less of an issue. I wouldn’t consider buying a used ICE vehicle, but I would consider a used EV.

      Reply
      1. Really? I own 3 ICE vehicles and don’t abuse them. In fact people want to be the first to buy them when I sell.

        Reply
        1. Did I say everyone abuses their ICE vehicles? No I did not. So quit making arguments in response to an argument I didn’t make.

          BTW, as I mentioned in another post here I have an ICE vehicle that is over 30 years old. Bought it new. So rather obviously I don’t abuse ICE vehicles either, and maintain them well. I don’t consider myself the only person to do that.

          Reply
        2. Per your post, you stated “prior owner abuse will become less of an issue”. EV or ICE, of a vehicle is abused it is the new I do not want to buy.

          Reply
    2. That’s largely due to the incentives for EVs.

      People using depreciation as an anti-EV FUD talking point never take the incentives into account when calculating the depreciation.

      I don’t know why people worry so much about depreciation on a car. Buy it and drive it ‘till it’s dead. Then you don’t have to worry about resale. It only matters if you are some vain fool that just has to have a new car every 2 years.

      Reply
    3. And they make an excellent purchase on the used market because of this! EVs sub $20K often pay for themselves every month when comparing purchasing gas vs home charging at off peak rates. I wish more of my fellow conservatives would take their heads out of Fox News’ rear end and realize the excellent bargain these things are as a Made in USA commuter vehicle. As I’ve said before, EVs are extremely compelling in the low-price segment, not so much in the luxury channel they have traditionally been marketed in.

      Reply
      1. I wish I could upvote your comment about our fellow conservatives getting their collective heads out of their rear ends. True conservatives would actually look at EVs as an option and pick which works best for them.

        Reply
        1. Its simple. Quick & easy sound bites drive raitings of uninformed viewers/listeners. Higher raitings from uninformed viewers drive more sales of crappy pillows and untested dog vitamins. More sales of crappy pillows and untested dog vitamins leads to more annoying commercials targeting uninformed viewers for garbage products from charlatan personalties. More commercials means more revenue for the networks, and the circle goes on and on and on and on and on… Its all just noise, and its all equally self-serving and ridiculous (both sides of the aisle)… You vote for national elections once every (4) years, do you really need/want to spend your entire life viewing everything through the perceived lense of that singular decision?

          Reply
      2. Too many ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal people don’t think. They just accept the most extreme argument in support of their desired position, even if it’s complete nonsense.

        And part of that is due to the click-bait press that we currently have, where the most extreme absurd statements made by politicians get reported. A politician saying something reasonable goes unreported.

        Reply
      3. Yeah, it’s crazy to me that other conservatives don’t buy the most American made cars (Tesla) that are built by the libertarian free speech guy (Elon). We should be supporting him as the woke cult abandons him and the political establishment attacks him. The MSM is still incredibly powerful in shaping the narrative. Get on X; it’s a completely different Overton window.

        Reply
        1. Its crazy to me that the car you purchase has to be a polarizing political decision at all. Its just a car.

          Reply
          1. I love free speech and hate the MSM. Fortunately I don’t have to sacrifice anything because Teslas are already a light year ahead.

            Reply
  4. I will go by the trusted Cox Automotive and say this person is way off. Like nowhere near correct.
    I think China this year so far is at 35% BEV and a lot higher if you count plug ins.
    And Europe is projected to be 25% this year if I remember correctly.
    Seriously doubt his prediction of 2040 as majority will be an accurate one.

    Hell even here in the States where we have politicized EV’s we will mostly likely surpass 10%

    And we still do not have very affordable EV’s yet. Those should be coming next year or 2026 by the likes of GM, Ford, Hyundai, Kia and others.

    China and Europe will surpass 50% by 2030 at the latest and then who knows here.

    If I was a Politician (lets assume Left leaning) I would completely pivot from the so called drive an EV for the environment and go hard core with…..If we do not pivot and pivot fast, our automotive sector will be dying a slow death and China will then rule the World economically and as an Automotive Industry. This has now become a National Security and or pride issue and I advise every American to pivot to an EV when they possibly can.

    But that is just me and I am not a Politician HaHa

    Reply
    1. Sorry, the impact on the environment is the LAST thing I consider when buying a new vehicle as most other people. I buy something that meets my needs and not something some POS politician tells me to buy.

      National security? We have enough oil in this nation to last US hundreds of years and were energy independent until the idiot we have in the oval office shut down pipelines and restricted drilling.

      National pride? That went out the window 60 years ago. If everyone cared so much about this nation and its industry they would not have been buying foreign consumer goods for decades let alone communist made Buick Envisions and Lincoln Nautalues

      BTW, China is dominating the world manufacturing sector courtesy of greedy US executives that sold out our nation from right under US decades ago.

      Reply
      1. Agreed. EVs do have one major benefit over ICEVs when it comes to the environment – they reduce and can actually eliminate man-made air pollution. To see what our cities would look like with all EVs, go back and look at the pictures from April 2019 (first full month after the COVID lockdowns started) vs. April 2018. EVs can do this for us without destroying the economy.

        Reply
      2. @Tigger
        Are you sure you read it correctly?

        When did I argue about environment or that we DO NOT have Oil?

        I said “If I was a Politician” how I would position the transition to the American public that is taking place worldwide and we are most definitely in last place compared to Europe and especially China.

        If that doesn’t concern you at all, then I am not sure what to say. Maybe look up just how insanely vital the Auto Industry is to Europe and us here in the States.

        I do not think you grasp the Chinese Auto Industry and how massive it is already. And they basically started to be serious about a Decade ago when Tesla Open Sourced their Tech and still is. Chinese Companies took advantage and Legacy Laughed at Elon as another Tech Bro from Silicon Valley playing with his Toy cars….That was Marry Barras take.
        Pray Chinese automakers don’t come here for a while or people that you may know and love will be decimated in the Auto Sector.

        If the Big Three do not take this gift (Probably short term until they build factories in Mexico) of the 100% Tariffs and keep building ICE and providing Crappy BEV’s to us because they cannot compete, the Auto Industry in America will be dead as we know it.

        I am a GM fan and could care less what Propulsion they are using just as long as they can survive the next 100 Plus years as well. I want Americans to have good jobs.
        Yes I love a V8, V10, and V12 like any other Gear head but I am realistic and see the Industry as a whole and not just as a car fanatic.

        Reply
        1. “National security” is usually an argument reserved for those who are concerned about not having enough energy to survive as a nation. The number one issue politicians like Biden and Newsome give for forcing EVs on the public is to “save the environment.” We have Ms Barra repeating “zero emissions” this and that.

          The only other reason for the EV push is that companies can save $$$ by building EVs because of fewer workers and parts. Of course these savings will never find their way into people’s pockets.

          You cannot- at least in the United States- force people to buy something they do not want. IMO the entire industry is myopic especially- Barra and gm- in thinking that the public will magically capitulate to their whims and buy what they are told. GM tried this in the past with disastrous results.

          Unfortunately, the US – or any other nation- cannot compete with slave labor wages no matter how good your product is. Cheapness usually trumps quality. The best way for the US to compete is to do what they used to do best- offer unique, compelling products that customers have to have, not carbon copies of what Asia and Europe offer to their populous.

          Reply
          1. @Tigger
            We are always forced to buy what the Government allows us to purchase for decades now. We have the illusion of choice HaHa
            Also, to be fair there is no law requiring you to buy an EV by any set date. Just a mandate which is basically a wish it would happen sort of thing. Europe and China do though.

            My point is that the Government (Both Sides) need to stop treating this issue as a political one and actually unite everyone so we do not get wrecked by China within the next five/seven years.

            I know many Trump lovers that driver EV’s and I know many so called Liberals that driver EV’s

            I think some people are kind of stuck in the old way of thinking about EV’s and that is quickly not becoming the norm anymore. Hence why I feel Politicians should talk more about uniting us rather than driving a wedge between political ideologies. Makes zero sense to me.

            Reply
            1. I think in this day and age there is ZERO chance of anyone uniting this nation let alone politicians that thrive on division and hatred.

              Reply
              1. @Tigger
                Unfortunately you may be correct.

                Reply
      3. @Tigger
        I do agree on our Corporate Greed making China the manufacturing powerhouse that they are but manufacturing vehicles will hit a lot harder. Those tend to still be well paying jobs in the US.
        Got nobody to blame but us and our greed.

        Reply
  5. Even then…..

    Course the math just Never ever ever works out cleanly on BEV’s. It’s just batteries (a reversible reaction) has nowhere near the power density of an irreversible reaction (fuel) batteries also have many more steps in their process that loose power with each step. The only way I see “EV’s” being a viable source of transportation is if we develop small scale cold fusion, and even then, that likely wouldn’t be available for consumers as we don’t want Al Qaida waltzing around car lots for fusible materials. If we are being realistic, all politics aside, EV’s will remain a niche vehicle for the next 50-100 years (if we don’t develop teleportation or something better) and automotive will run off renewable diesel. These next gen diesels will be significantly more efficient anyways and solid state batteries WILL be developed (for phones, not cars 😞) and every vehicle will be a level 0 or level 1 hybrid.

    Reply
    1. There’s also hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which don’t have the recharge time issues. I don’t know why more attention isn’t paid to them. Presumably any facility that has the power to recharge BEVs would also have the power to produce Hydrogen, and that could be done 24/7, so infrastructure capacity would be less of an issue.

      Reply
      1. Because h2 is very expensive and difficult to store. And uses way more energy to produce than just using the same energy to charge a battery. And like 80-90 percent of h2 comes from methane fracturing. So still using fossil fuels.

        Reply
        1. If only there were hydrogen in the atmosphere or water, and a method of extracting it. /sarc

          Translation: You’re assuming current most common technology will remain the most common.

          Reply
          1. @Kary
            They have been working on Hydrogen cars for like 40 years. It is not going to replace Gasoline.
            It will be Batteries or some new form of energy that we do not currently use.
            Hydrogen makes absolutely zero sense.

            Just digging up all the tanks underground around the World to swap them with Hydrogen Tanks will not happen Lol

            Also, why would you want to driver with Hydrogen underneath you?
            I personally would NOT!!!

            Just for reference, once permit is in hand, Tesla can put up a Charging Stations in no time. Like two days time.

            Reply
            1. Newsflash, they’ve been working on electric cars for about 100 years. That it’s been 40 for hydrogen means nothing.

              Hydrogen makes zero sense? I just gave one reason–making it 24/7. And I also mentioned refill times. Ignore much?

              Not sure why you think there cannot be hydrogen tanks. LOL is not an argument, it’s just ignorance.

              You do realize that batteries and gasoline are also a fire risk, right? Are you trying to support more diesel? I like diesel, but it’s not really an ecological solution.

              Not sure why you even mention the time to do something once a permit is in hand. Especially when not comparing it to anything else. Rather an empty argument.

              Reply
              1. Hydrogen is a tiny molecule. It is the smallest molecule that exists in the universe that current science is aware. It is very difficult to store, transport and transfer from one container to another without significant losses.

                Current natural gas infrastructure is not appropriate for hydrogen.
                – A hydrogen molecule is H2. Two atoms of hydrogen. Natural gas is CH4. One atom of carbon and 4 atoms of hydrogen. Natural gas infrastructure already has leaks. The infrastructure can’t contain hydrogen gas without every single valve, joint, pump/compressor and transfer couplings being retrofitted.
                – Hydrogen embrittlement.

                Reply
                1. @Rev
                  Exactly.
                  Hydrogen will not replace Gasoline for Consumer cars.
                  Maybe for a short period time until battery density gets better on HD vehicles.

                  Reply
              2. Electric vehicles have not been in development for 100 years. In the early 1900s, the fossil industry literally purchased all the street cars in some regions and crushed them the first modern EV by General Motors was a lease which they physically repossessed and crushed all of them a few escaped and are now in museums or in private collections, the patent for the nickel metal hydride batteries which were used at the time, basically laptop batteries, band the development of large scale, batteries that could be used in electric vehicles. It wasn’t until an American and Canadian scientist developed the lithium iron battery technology that the energy density of batteries started to become practical even here pattern for the lithium iron phosphate batteries, which are cheaper to produce and far safer was given to the Chinese and the rest was not allowed to make them.

                Private individual tinkered with electric vehicles and batteries in the garages and workshops. It has only been since 2010 that Tesla Nissan and Mitsubishi started working on the modern electric vehicle using lithium ion based batteries. Tesla and the Chinese were the first to start putting serious money into developing the technology. The current automobile industry first said electric vehicles won’t work then they said they won’t go far enough. They said it can’t be mass produced and then they said it can’t be sold cheap enough and out of profit, and now the narrative is that there is no demand, but the fact show that this year was sold than last year. The cost of batteries for electric vehicles has declined exponentially over the last 20 years. In Europe, there are already electric vehicles where the stickup price is getting very close to an equivalent fossil fuel car. The total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle for anyone driving over 20,000 km or 12,500 miles a year is on par with egg gasoline powered car if one takes into account that most people finance the purchase of their vehicles. Once the vehicle has been paid off in both cases, the cost of running an electric vehicle is a fraction of that compared to, a combustion engine vehicle. The auto industry runs all salts of advertisements about gasoline, automobiles, and how great they can be and how they can be used, but they don’t run any advertisements, explaining the total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle and how convenient it is to charge them for many people. I emphasize for many people but not for everyone. The technology and infrastructure is gradually getting there.

                The electrical power industry is very much on board with electrification because it is a business opportunity for them and as we all know, Americans are always up to a challenge. Basic capitalism has now taken over and electrification is well on its way. There are still millions of drivers for whom electric vehicles are suitable so let’s not immediately jump to the cases by electric vehicles currently are not suitable.

                Reply
              3. @Kary
                Have you ever seen an EV catch fire?
                You have Pleeeeeeeeeenty of time to get out and away from the vehicle.

                Have you seen Hydrogen leak and blow up?
                Now would you still prefer to have Hydrogen in your car?

                EV’s have been around for 100 years Huh?

                Also, do a quick Google search and see how Toyota Hydrogen ownswrs are livid becuase most Hydrogen stations are closing down around the World Lol

                Hydrogen will NOT replace gasoline.

                I will however listen to arguments that Airplanes and Cargo ships most likely will convert to Hydrogen and that is mostly because they can produce the Hydrogen at the Ports and airports around the World. That way they will not have to Transport it anywhere,

                Reply
          2. Even electrolysis from h2o is expensive and energy intensive. Why spend that energy when you can just use it to charge a battery?

            Reply
            1. You’re assuming the same technology as today! Again the reason why is speed refueling. If they can get batteries down to doing 300 miles in 5 minutes, then hydrogen wouldn’t be necessary. But today’s technology doesn’t allow that. I don’t claim it never will, but I also don’t claim that electrolysis technology is frozen in time either.

              Reply
  6. Experts repeatedly said to sell Nvidia. Experts said the vaccine was ‘safe and effective’. 4 out of 5 experts used to say unfiltered Marlboros were better for you than the leading brand. Experts generally say what they want to be true, not what is true. Unless Nicola Tesla’s wireless electricity becomes a thing or somebody figures out light weight quick swap battery packs – EVs are never, ever, ever, never gonna be more than a niche market. Ever.

    Reply
    1. 😂 you have a good sense of satire.

      Reply
    2. Vaccines are “Safe and effective,” something which is a term of art. That doesn’t mean 100% without side effects or 100% effective. Even the flu vaccine doesn’t meet such a standard.

      Only The Donald and his ironic and ignorant partners ( e.g. Rand Paul, who it’s difficult to believe actually went to med school), claim otherwise.

      And don’t even get me started on stock market analysts. Calling them “experts” is ridiculous. If they were good at investing they wouldn’t have their current day jobs (and sure as hell wouldn’t be giving public advice except to sway investments in their favor).

      Reply
    3. Oh Lord, people are still saying this? Seems like 2017 again when Bob Lutz said they’d never be more than 3%.

      Reply
    4. What is a niche 8%, 30%, 40% of car sales? I don’t think selling over a million EVs a year in the US is considered a niche. And the number is only increasing yearly.

      Reply
  7. Depends on what market he’s talking about. Globally? US?

    And depends on what he means by “dominant”. Like 80-90%?

    Reply
  8. It has to do more with what the government mandates for law. If they are willing to back off it could take some time and I expect longer than 2040 unless cheaper batteries are found.

    The real trouble is will the government back off and help the auto industry by giving them more time. The ICE engine was developed over 120 years but the far left want the EV to be developed in 20 years.

    Reply
    1. You realize there were EVs 100 years ago, and modern battery development has been going on longer than 20 years. Remember your first cell phone and laptop used Nicad batteries?

      Reply
      1. I remember in the 90s I was in middle school. Some kid’s dad worked for GM and he brought an EV1 to the school as some sort of thing for science class. It was a fully functioning car and the guy was driving it, I suppose for R&D. Was super cool (in my middle-school aged mind), and even back then they were fast, though probably not by today’s standard. Though now that I googled it, the car was pretty hideous to look at.

        Reply
      2. EV’s were also around in the 90’s and they failed just like now.

        Reply
        1. I the 90’s they weren’t selling well over a million a year and growing.

          Reply
          1. Nor were they very practical. Our unnamed commentator works with alternative facts.

            Reply
        2. Alternate facts much? That’s just total delusion, both as to the past and the current day. Amazing what some people believe.

          Reply
  9. Did consumer demand for EVs wane or were automakers simply too optimistic? Yes, Tesla is in a slump but in April Tesla’s competitors (as a group) outsold Tesla in the US for the first time ever and EV sales as a whole were up again.

    As for the 2035/2040 question – the answer is it doesn’t really matter. Even with 100% new vehicle sales being EV we’ll still see ICEVs on the roads for a couple of decades or longer.

    Reply
    1. I wish there were more reporting on the reason for the Tesla sales slump. Other manufacturer EV sales were either good or not bad, but Tesla’s were horrible, despite declining prices. Maybe it’s the rental companies dumping them created additional supply???? Or are people just turned off by Musk?

      As to your last comment, I regularly drive an ICE vehicle which is over 30 years old, although most the time that’s just to maintain it. But it was my daily driver until about 12 years ago.

      Reply
  10. Maybe even 2050. Which is why this focus on EVs right now, and the accompanying price increases and discount reductions on ICEs to pay for them, is beyond utterly RIDICULOUS. Lots of management heads need to roll and not at just GM.

    Reply
    1. Legacy auto has been smacked right in the face with innovator’s dilemma. How do you replace your current profit makers without going bankrupt. Tesla and other EV startups didn’t have this issue; they had other problems but not innovator’s dilemma, although it looks like Tesla is starting to face it.

      Reply
    2. You don’t magically wake up one day and start building something. You have to build skills, technology and sales. Toyota is playing the wait game and they are seen as laggards in the EV space. EV sales are increasing yearly and passed over a million a year last year in the to US.

      Reply
  11. With regards to you can’t make Americans do what they don’t want to do remember Vietnam and the draft? Most Americans don’t have a say in whether or not they had to go and die in some far away land.

    Nature and science aren’t up for a discussion or a debate. Either we transition away from burning stuff or the planet that we will leave. Our children will have significant economics, social and political problems caused by rapidly changing climate that affects the weather such as storms, the water supply, the food supply and basic ability to live in a hot region. Every summer is getting hotter and hotter with more people dying every year due to heat exposure. Some nations are literally going to be underwater. Large sections of Florida will be covered by the sea. Don’t take my word for it. Take a look at coastal cities in Florida in the low line areas and see what the municipalities are planning for.

    The planet will be just fine. It’s the humans who will have a problem.

    Reply
    1. And when enough people complained and protested about the war and draft, it was ended.

      Reply
  12. GM, aside from VSS modular kit, still relies on Opel designed platforms. C1XX is an Espilon variant that’s evolved a few times and become lighter/more modular.
    Will these platforms last until 2040 or be considered too heavy if Toyota is serious about lightweight hybrid ICE vehicles with more efficent engines? This is yet another reason why selling Opel was a mistake that did nothing for stock price and only made GM more dependent on China. Opel wasn’t a money looser if you consider how it’s cars stocked Buick and platforms supported GM.

    Reply
    1. Selling Opel has nothing to do with GM designing cars. The reason cars were becoming more light weight was regulations in Europe which required smaller more efficient engines, thus lighter weight vehicles to get similar performance.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel