Why VW is Investing $5.8 Billion Into Rivian: For Internal Organs

[Steve A.]

I don't know how I can take any of this serious with this quote in here.

Climate change threatens every living being on this planet. There is no debate on climate change, it's 100% fact. Period. End of discussion. We are causing it. Period. End of discussion.

Science matters and action matters. Alarmism is well warranted.

Democrats didn't run a campaign on climate change or vehicle transitions, the republican party did. They appealed to the least educated, emotionally driven segment of the population. That's a winning strategy, they make up the majority of America.

Way off topic and wrong forum. Let's keep the emotional alarmism on bluesky where it belongs.

Sponsored

 

[Thedude]

Or get a Chevy Silverado BEV with 492 mile range and 12,500 towing capacity which renders an EREV unnecessary.

https://news.gm.com/home.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2024/oct/1007-silveradoev.html

In what way does that make an EREV unnecessary? With the Silverado I could tow 250ish miles and then recharge for 1.5hrs to go the next 250 miles. With the Ram Charger I could tow 350ish miles, gas up in ten minutes and tow another 250 miles. The Silverado also requires a charging location at the destination which many times is just a spot on the side of a dirt road a couple hundred miles from the house. All electric is great where it works but if there’s nowhere to plug in the EREV is an absolute advantage. For perspective the nearest 100kwh or greater DCFC to my house is 350 miles away.

Edit: I should also make it clear that I am very familiar with towing with an EV and the limitations it presents. The entirety of the year I owned my R1T was spent living in a travel trailer that I towed around to different places every week.

 

[Steve A.]

In what way does that make an EREV unnecessary? With the Silverado I could tow 250ish miles and then recharge for 1.5hrs to go the next 250 miles. With the Ram Charger I could tow 350ish miles, gas up in ten minutes and tow another 250 miles. The Silverado also requires a charging location at the destination which many times is just a spot on the side of a dirt road a couple hundred miles from the house. All electric is great where it works but if there’s nowhere to plug in the EREV is an absolute advantage. For perspective the nearest 100kwh or greater DCFC to my house is 350 miles away.

Edit: I should also make it clear that I am very familiar with towing with an EV and the limitations it presents. The entirety of the year I owned my R1T was spent living in a travel trailer that I towed around to different places every week.

Again, if you're the 1% of people that tow on a regular basis especially in cold weather, then a tried-n-true diesel truck is the best solution.

An EREV with half a battery pack that's responsible for <= 30% of the overall max miles is an ICE being *extended* by a battery NOT an EV being extended by an ICE.

For the other 99% of people,400+ BEV miles is plenty for a daily driver.

FWIW I put 100+ miles daily on my R1S , charge to 80% nightly, and have ZERO range anxiety even if I change every other night. In my 40+ years of ICE owning, I think I've towed twice which is the case for 99% if the population.

 

[cevans]

Rivian losing billions per quarter and tens of thousands per vehicle delivered along with 90% stock devaluation isn't a *viewpoint*; it's cold hard facts.

....

Mark my word. VW Group will be buying Rivian eventually.

If you're going to throw "facts" and viewpoints you need to at least have your facts correct -

First - Market value is absolutely, 100%, a viewpoint. It is based on the viewpoints, projections and emotions of investors and what they are willing to pay. It is NOT based on any quantitative measure. Market value is only one of many different ways to value a company, and it's often the worst way. In my opinion Rivian should never have been valued as high as it was, and, at its current price it is a bargain because there is so much risk baked in.

Second - Rivian is not losing billions per quarter currently nor thousands per vehicle. Cash spend and operational profitability are different things. Q4 2024 showed a small gross profit in manufacturing, and they are projecting FY2025 profit - they are making money on the vehicles. Operationally there was still a loss of 743 million (less than 1 billion, so not billions) so the profit from the vehicles isn't covering al their expenses. Half of that loss was R&D which you'd attribute to future projects and revenues not current.

I think there are significant headwinds to Rivian succeeding, and I'm not arguing that they are in a good position. But, if we're talking "facts" then these are them.

 

[SASSquatch]

Did you actually read the article you quoted?

"Towing might just be an EREV's killer app. "When you're towing a big, heavy trailer, typically your efficiency drops by about half, even with gas vehicles,"​

I'm all for the free market and giving the people what they want. More power to them.

Some people make buying decisions based on logic and reason while some based upon emotions like fear (e.g. range anxiety).

A 350 mile BEV max range is plenty for a daily driver for 99.9% of people. If not, then there's always the 492 mile max range of the Chevy Silverado EV.

To each their own but let's not over estimate the demand. Scout last reported 50K refundable $100 deposits across ALL 4 models (2 EREVs and 2 BEVs) which we learned from Ford and Tesla that only a small fraction of refundable $100 deposits translate into final sales as compared to Rivian's $1K deposits.

So, 70% of 50K reservations are for the EREV models which if they're lucky may translate into 35K sales at best but more like half that after the final pricing is revealed .

Is even 35K sales worth Rivian's MASSIVE investment in an EREV model when they already have "well over 100K" R2 preorders where they expect to make much more profit per sale than the R1?

Nice try but the ROI just isn't there.

#NoHalfMeasures

The article I quoted was a direct refute of your assertion that nowhere has it been written that an EREV is designed to reduce cost by reducing the size of the battery. You seemed to have skipped over that inconvenient fact. I have never engaged in a discussion about towing.

The rest of your post is noise.

 

[Steve A.]

If you're going to throw "facts" and viewpoints you need to at least have your facts correct -

First - Market value is absolutely, 100%, a viewpoint. It is based on the viewpoints, projections and emotions of investors and what they are willing to pay. It is NOT based on any quantitative measure. Market value is only one of many different ways to value a company, and it's often the worst way. In my opinion Rivian should never have been valued as high as it was, and, at its current price it is a bargain because there is so much risk baked in.

Second - Rivian is not losing billions per quarter currently nor thousands per vehicle. Cash spend and operational profitability are different things. Q4 2024 showed a small gross profit in manufacturing, and they are projecting FY2025 profit - they are making money on the vehicles. Operationally there was still a loss of 743 million (less than 1 billion, so not billions) so the profit from the vehicles isn't covering al their expenses. Half of that loss was R&D which you'd attribute to future projects and revenues not current.

I think there are significant headwinds to Rivian succeeding, and I'm not arguing that they are in a good position. But, if we're talking "facts" then these are them.

First of all, not sure why you *fact* #1 has anything to do with any of my replies, but at the end of the day market value will be measured by ROI based upon final sales which IMHO would be a loser for Rivian who is still hemorrhaging cash and if not for the VW Group JV and Fed loan at the 12th hour would be a LOT LESS likely to be able to bring R2 to market before going bankrupt.

As far as #2, I stand corrected. I should have said *MORE THAN A BILLION* per quarter. Below is a table summarizing Rivian’s quarterly net losses over the last three years (2022–2024), based on the data compiled earlier. All figures are in millions of USD and presented as negative values to reflect losses. Note that Q4 2024 is an estimate, as the full quarterly breakdown for 2024 isn’t explicitly detailed in the available data as of March 8, 2025.
Rivian Quarterly Net Losses (2022–2024)

Year	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Annual Total
2022	-1,593	-1,712	-1,724	-1,723	-6,752
2023	-1,349	-1,195	-1,367	-1,521	-5,432
2024	-1,446	-1,458	-1,100	-746*	-4,750

Notes:

• Units: Losses are in millions of USD (e.g., -1,593 = -$1.593 billion).
• Q4 2024 Estimate: The Q4 2024 figure (-$746 million) is derived by subtracting the sum of Q1–Q3 2024 losses (-$1,446 + -$1,458 + -$1,100 = -$4,004) from the reported full-year 2024 net loss of -$4,750 million. Official Q4 data may differ once fully released.
• Sources: Figures are sourced from SEC filings, TechCrunch, Investopedia, StockTitan, and other reports, with minor rounding variations reconciled for consistency.

And the only reason why FYQ4 wasn't over $1B was due to the sale of $300M+ BS carbon credits which you can be assured will be terminated this year by the current administration.

As far as how you calculate loss per vehicle, but using the bottom line formula below, they are still losing $$$ per vehicle.

Loss per Vehicle (in millions USD) = (Net Loss / Number of Vehicles Delivered ) × 1,000,000

Table: Rivian Loss per Vehicle per Quarter (2022–2024)

Year	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
2022	-$1,298,045	-$383,263	-$234,115	-$236,770
2023	-$169,797	-$94,541	-$87,817	-$108,867
2024	-$106,422	-$105,729	-$109,803	-$52,600*

Notes:

• Units: Losses are in USD per vehicle, rounded to the nearest dollar.
• Q4 2024: Marked with an asterisk (*) as the net loss (-$746 million) is an estimate based on the annual total (-$4,750 million) minus Q1–Q3 losses.
• Trends: Loss per vehicle decreased dramatically from 2022 Q1 (-$1.3 million) as production scaled, dropping to -$52,600 by Q4 2024. This reflects economies of scale and cost reductions, though Rivian still operates at a net loss despite a reported $170 million gross profit in Q4 2024 (Yahoo Finance, February 21, 2025).

Obviously, having to invest even more R&D dollars to design an EREV would make it even worse before they deliver the R2.

 

[Steve A.]

The article I quoted was a direct refute of your assertion that nowhere has it been written that an EREV is designed to reduce cost by reducing the size of the battery. You seemed to have skipped over that inconvenient fact. I have never engaged in a discussion about towing.

The rest of your post is noise.

Adding an internal combustion engine into the mix, plus a fuel tank and associated plumbing, will drive up the cost of the vehicle along with its weight—assuming the battery pack stays the same size.
For the record, I did NOT say, "nowhere has it been written."

What I specifically said was, "NOWHERE have I read..." and challenged you to "produce one quote from an EREV manufacturer" and you produced one quote from a MotorTrend writer who asserted his opinion instead of an EREV manufacturer quote.

Obviously, if you increase costs and weight of a vehicle by adding an ICE, gas tank, and exhaust system, then cutting the battery pack in half will reduce costs and weight, but what I refuted was your assertion that, "The point of an EREV is to reduce the size of the battery because that is the most expensive component of an EV."

Which is why I replied, "100% of the quotes I've read was TO EXTEND max range to address the range anxiety of those hesitant to try a BEV" which is the POINT of an EREV.

The bottom line is that BEV truck/large SUV battery ranges are now well into the 400+ max mile range which is comparable to MOST ICE truck/large SUV max ranges rendering EREVs less important.

That said, I did think of one significant *legitimate* case for an EREV truck/large SUV based upon a buddy of mine that has wanted to try a BEV but had a major *barrier of entry* in that he owns a condo and not a single family home or townhome where he could have a home charger which is a huge segment of the population. He also tows frequently which is why he has a Dodge truck.

So, I will say, the MAJOR case for an EREV is for those who do not have a home charger. I'm surprised I haven't read any manufacturer giving this case as an EREV selling point.

 

[SASSquatch]

Adding an internal combustion engine into the mix, plus a fuel tank and associated plumbing, will drive up the cost of the vehicle along with its weight—assuming the battery pack stays the same size.
For the record, I did NOT say, "nowhere has it been written."

What I specifically said was, "NOWHERE have I read..." and challenged you to "produce one quote from an EREV manufacturer" and you produced one quote from a MotorTrend writer who asserted his opinion instead of an EREV manufacturer quote.

Obviously, if you increase costs and weight of a vehicle by adding an ICE, gas tank, and exhaust system, then cutting the battery pack in half will reduce costs and weight, but what I refuted was your assertion that, "The point of an EREV is to reduce the size of the battery because that is the most expensive component of an EV."

Which is why I replied, "100% of the quotes I've read was TO EXTEND max range to address the range anxiety of those hesitant to try a BEV" which is the POINT of an EREV.

The bottom line is that BEV truck/large SUV battery ranges are now well into the 400+ max mile range which is comparable to MOST ICE truck/large SUV max ranges rendering EREVs less important.

That said, I did think of one significant *legitimate* case for an EREV truck/large SUV based upon a buddy of mine that has wanted to try a BEV but had a major *barrier of entry* in that he owns a condo and not a single family home or townhome where he could have a home charger which is a huge segment of the population. He also tows frequently which is why he has a Dodge truck.

So, I will say, the MAJOR case for an EREV is for those who do not have a home charger. I'm surprised I haven't read any manufacturer giving this case as an EREV selling point.

Again, more noise. The battery pack is the most expensive part of the EV. OEMs are incorporating smaller battery packs and adding an ICE generator to reduce overall cost to bridge the gap between the range a very large an expensive battery pack would provide and a smaller battery pack and small efficient ICE. That is why EREVs are all the rage in China and why they are about to be here in the US. OEM after OEM is announcing an EREV in there lineup.

 

[Steve A.]

Again, more noise. The battery pack is the most expensive part of the EV. OEMs are incorporating smaller battery packs and adding an ICE generator to reduce overall cost to bridge the gap between the range a very large an expensive battery pack would provide and a smaller battery pack and small efficient ICE. That is why EREVs are all the rage in China and why they are about to be here in the US. OEM after OEM is announcing an EREV in there lineup.

More irrelevant wishful assertions. What matters are facts. e.g.

1. EREVs are NOT new to America.

2. EVERY EREV that was sold in America is now discontinued.

EREVs Previously Sold in America

1. Chevrolet Volt
   • Availability: Sold from 2010 to 2019 (discontinued).
   • Details: The Volt was one of the first widely recognized EREVs in the U.S. It featured a 16 kWh battery (later upgraded) providing an electric-only range of 25–50 miles, with a gasoline engine extending the total range to around 300–400 miles. General Motors marketed it as an "Extended Range Electric Vehicle" (EREV). Despite its success, production ended in 2019 due to shifting consumer preferences toward larger vehicles and profitability challenges.
   • Status: No longer in production; available only on the used market.
2. BMW i3 REx (Range Extender)
   • Availability: Sold from 2014 to 2021 (discontinued in the U.S.).
   • Details: The BMW i3 was offered in a pure electric version and an optional range-extender (REx) variant, which included a 647cc two-cylinder gasoline engine (borrowed from a BMW motorcycle) to recharge its battery. The electric-only range was around 80–100 miles, with the range extender adding up to another 70–100 miles, for a total of approximately 150–200 miles. The REx was designed more as an emergency backup than a primary feature, and the model was phased out in the U.S. in 2021.
   • Status: Discontinued; available only on the used market.
3. Cadillac ELR
   • Availability: Sold from 2013 to 2016 (discontinued).
   • Details: A luxury version of the Chevrolet Volt, the ELR used the same Voltec powertrain with a similar electric range of about 35–40 miles and a total range of around 300 miles with the gasoline range extender. It was a niche vehicle with limited sales due to its high price and was discontinued in 2016.
   • Status: No longer in production; available only on the used market.

EREVs Currently Sold in America (March 08, 2025)
As of the current date, there are no new EREVs widely available for purchase in the U.S. market. The models listed above have been discontinued, and no new EREV models have fully launched for retail sale by this point in 2025. However, one notable upcoming model is in the pipeline:

Why So Few EREVs in America?
The limited presence of EREVs in the U.S. can be attributed to several factors:

• Market Shift: Consumer preference has leaned toward pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or traditional PHEVs, with automakers like GM discontinuing EREVs like the Volt in favor of larger BEVs or hybrids.
• Cost and Complexity: EREVs require two powertrains (electric and gasoline generator), increasing manufacturing costs and complexity compared to BEVs or standard hybrids.

 

[cevans]

As far as #2, I stand corrected. I should have said *MORE THAN A BILLION* per quarter. Below is a table summarizing Rivian’s quarterly net losses over the last three years (2022–2024), based on the data compiled earlier. All figures are in millions of USD and presented as negative values to reflect losses. Note that Q4 2024 is an estimate, as the full quarterly breakdown for 2024 isn’t explicitly detailed in the available data as of March 8, 2025.
Rivian Quarterly Net Losses (2022–2024)

First - I mean this seriously, stop using ChatGPT or whatever LLM you're using to make replies. Copy and pasting stuff is both embarrassing and it is something any of us could do if we wanted to see what a bot had to say.

Also you're changing what you said in order to make yourself sound correct. You said "is losing" not "has lost" - these are tenses - Grammatical Tenses - Wikipedia. Yes, Rivian was losing billions when they weren't selling vehicles and in the first few years of selling vehicles. This not news. What is news is that Rivian is currently not losing billions per quarter.

market value will be measured by ROI based upon final sales...

No...thats just a word salad. Not much there to reply to frankly...

As for your EREV argument - again you need to stop using AI to generate replies *BUT* your overall point is 100% correct. EREVs are regressive and are worse than a traditional HEV.

 

[SASSquatch]

More irrelevant wishful assertions. What matters are facts. e.g.

1. EREVs are NOT new to America.

2. EVERY EREV that was sold in America is now discontinued.

EREVs Previously Sold in America

1. Chevrolet Volt
   • Availability: Sold from 2010 to 2019 (discontinued).
   • Details: The Volt was one of the first widely recognized EREVs in the U.S. It featured a 16 kWh battery (later upgraded) providing an electric-only range of 25–50 miles, with a gasoline engine extending the total range to around 300–400 miles. General Motors marketed it as an "Extended Range Electric Vehicle" (EREV). Despite its success, production ended in 2019 due to shifting consumer preferences toward larger vehicles and profitability challenges.
   • Status: No longer in production; available only on the used market.
2. BMW i3 REx (Range Extender)
   • Availability: Sold from 2014 to 2021 (discontinued in the U.S.).
   • Details: The BMW i3 was offered in a pure electric version and an optional range-extender (REx) variant, which included a 647cc two-cylinder gasoline engine (borrowed from a BMW motorcycle) to recharge its battery. The electric-only range was around 80–100 miles, with the range extender adding up to another 70–100 miles, for a total of approximately 150–200 miles. The REx was designed more as an emergency backup than a primary feature, and the model was phased out in the U.S. in 2021.
   • Status: Discontinued; available only on the used market.
3. Cadillac ELR
   • Availability: Sold from 2013 to 2016 (discontinued).
   • Details: A luxury version of the Chevrolet Volt, the ELR used the same Voltec powertrain with a similar electric range of about 35–40 miles and a total range of around 300 miles with the gasoline range extender. It was a niche vehicle with limited sales due to its high price and was discontinued in 2016.
   • Status: No longer in production; available only on the used market.

EREVs Currently Sold in America (March 08, 2025)
As of the current date, there are no new EREVs widely available for purchase in the U.S. market. The models listed above have been discontinued, and no new EREV models have fully launched for retail sale by this point in 2025. However, one notable upcoming model is in the pipeline:

Why So Few EREVs in America?
The limited presence of EREVs in the U.S. can be attributed to several factors:

• Market Shift: Consumer preference has leaned toward pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or traditional PHEVs, with automakers like GM discontinuing EREVs like the Volt in favor of larger BEVs or hybrids.
• Cost and Complexity: EREVs require two powertrains (electric and gasoline generator), increasing manufacturing costs and complexity compared to BEVs or standard hybrids.

You seem to rely on AI results for all of your responses. AI results are extremely suspect. If I wanted to argue with AI, I'd start a conversation with Chat GPT.

I am going to repeat the same thing over and over again. Scout received tens of thousands of reservations and the OVERWHELMING majority were for the EREV.

OEMS are introducing EREV vehicles because they make sense from a consumer demand perspective and a cost perspective given that rollout of critical EV charging infrastructure is going to be delayed significantly under the policies of this administration.

You are going back in time to pull out EREVs that were created as half measures over a decade ago. I drive a BMW i3s REX. The fuel tank is 2.2 gallons. BMW threw it on as an afterthought because initially, the battery tech wasn't sufficient to have a pack dense enough in the small size of the i3 to provide enough range.

Maybe do some research instead of relying on AI summaries.

 

[Steve A.]

First - I mean this seriously, stop using ChatGPT or whatever LLM you're using to make replies. Copy and pasting stuff is both embarrassing and it is something any of us could do if we wanted to see what a bot had to say.

Also you're changing what you said in order to make yourself sound correct. You said "is losing" not "has lost" - these are tenses - Grammatical Tenses - Wikipedia. Yes, Rivian was losing billions when they weren't selling vehicles and in the first few years of selling vehicles. This not news. What is news is that Rivian is currently not losing billions per quarter.



No...thats just a word salad. Not much there to reply to frankly...

As for your EREV argument - again you need to stop using AI to generate replies *BUT* your overall point is 100% correct. EREVs are regressive and are worse than a traditional HEV.

First, using a LLM is NOT to compile a summary of information you know you've read before but don't remember where you read it is a HUGE time saver especially when you're on your phone, so get over it, seriously. It's a tool like a better search engine.

Second, I corrected my*billions* statement where I should have said more than a billion per quarter or perhaps billions per year. When I misspeak, I have no problem admitting it.

Finally, I included the last 3 years when Rivian was producing and selling vehicles and like if you take away the BS $300 carbon credit sales which mostly likely will be gone soon, they would have still lost more than a billion in Q4 as well.

 

[Steve A.]

You seem to rely on AI results for all of your responses. AI results are extremely suspect. If I wanted to argue with AI, I'd start a conversation with Chat GPT.

I am going to repeat the same thing over and over again. Scout received tens of thousands of reservations and the OVERWHELMING majority were for the EREV.

OEMS are introducing EREV vehicles because they make sense from a consumer demand perspective and a cost perspective given that rollout of critical EV charging infrastructure is going to be delayed significantly under the policies of this administration.

You are going back in time to pull out EREVs that were created as half measures over a decade ago. I drive a BMW i3s REX. The fuel tank is 2.2 gallons. BMW threw it on as an afterthought because initially, the battery tech wasn't sufficient to have a pack dense enough in the small size of the i3 to provide enough range.

Maybe do some research instead of relying on AI summaries.

AI is an extremely effective time saving RESEARCH tool to summarize information that you know you've read before and provide the sources from which it derived the answer especially if you're on a phone. If you know how to ask it specifically what you seek, no need to ask it over and over to game it.

Based upon the $100 refundable deposits for the CT and Ford Lightning, we know thet only a small fraction of those deposits translated into actual sales. Like I said, Scout has had 50K $100 deposits 70% being EREVs so AT BEST we're talking about 35K real sales. I personally put down a deposit for each BEV model since I'm sure if I'll want the truck or SUV in 2+ years when they are finally delivered. Why not? It's only $100.

Again, Rivian R2 preorders are 100K+ . Makes no sense to spend R&D on EREVs at this time until you deliver the R2 when you are still losing $$$: per vehicle delivered with the EREV demand yet to be determined based upon actual sales.

 

[cevans]

First, using a LLM is NOT to compile a summary of information you know you've read before but don't remember where you read it is a HUGE time saver especially when you're on your phone, so get over it, seriously. It's a tool like a better search engine.

No, I won't get over it.

I *much* prefer posts from people being people, including yours when you're arguing and a bit off-kilter! If you chat GPT why don't I just ChatGPT back, and then we can just have a ChatGPT back and forth where we don't need to do any work nor have any opinions we can just let a robot argue with itself over and over.

 

[captainjp]

No, I won't get over it.

I *much* prefer posts from people being people, including yours when you're arguing and a bit off-kilter! If you chat GPT why don't I just ChatGPT back, and then we can just have a ChatGPT back and forth where we don't need to do any work nor have any opinions we can just let a robot argue with itself over and over.

I would def be amused by that

Sponsored