[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

What you have my friend (not kidding… I feel like I know you. And you’re cool to debate with) is a misinterpretation of what I said. It is not that I don’t care about the long term trends and trajectories of the weather, it’s just that it specifically was not what I was talking about. I was talking about “the weather maps lately”. Your response was the equivalent of you telling me that you’ve shaved 4 seconds off your best lap time at VIR and I respond by detailing my best 1/4 mile at Milan Dragway. Related, but sorta off topic.

I have not even tried to make the argument that the climate is warming. That would be debate of facts not in evidence. If I were to make an argument (I didn’t) it would be wrt climate change not climate warming. It would be to point to the increased incidence of extreme cold incidents (3 major storms in Buffalo in a two year period, one of them rivaling the once-in-a-lifetime Blizzard of ‘77, another exceeding it). I would point out the extreme warm weather events (10+ consecutive days of 100+ degree temperature across most of the southern US). Temperature is one thing. Life-changing natural disasters driven by both extremes of temperature is another.


Could not and would not argue or disagree with any of this. ^^

Thanks! I enjoy our debates too and am happy to consider you a friend.

Here’s a pretty good refutation of climate change. I hope you’ll listen to it. Many climate change believers will simply ignore any data which conflicts with their beliefs, or dismiss it as false.

https://youtu.be/1wpspx8EunU

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition of weather maps, note the temps and colors which aren’t consistent. Ask yourself why? Answer, it’s a grift, a scam.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by snizzle

No, they cannot lose here with the EV transition. Mary knows what she is doing. They have the full force/backing of our federal government and increasingly local as public sentiment generally backs the "science." They will not let GM fail.

I think an EV Camaro could be successful, just with a different buyer than the ones that feel in love with the spirit of the Camaro we know today. There are less of us each year that want a big loud V8. I would rather the nameplate die, but GM will use the brand equity as FoMoCo did on an electric Mustang.

Do you mean the brand equity that has lead to declining sales and the cancellation of the ICE Camaro? That brand equity?

No disrespect, but I don't follow the logic of 'we're going to cancel the Camaro because people aren't buying it, but then we'll resurrect it as an EV and count of people buying it because lots of people like Camaros.'

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

It's never made sense. It's like the Mustang Mach E. I think it's a car that a segment of the market really wants right now, but also, that segment has very little overlap with pony car enthusiasts that would look at a real Mustang. I still think calling the Mach E the Ford CR-eV or something that was close to the Honda CR-V (the segment the Mach E is actually trying to gain market share in) would have made way more sense.

Also, you have generic corporate types making decisions at these auto companies now. Where are the car enthusiasts? Everything in the pipeline coming soon is just generic corp trash, pushing out widgets with a subscription/lease business model they want to force on customers like the software industry.

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I think the auto industry will find themselves much like Disney does now, to draw from a separate industry. For years, you had fans of certain IPs telling Disney that their products didn't make sense, quality was starting to drift, and people didn't want the corp feeling and more and more generic products they were putting out. Well, this year Disney is in both an economic and a PR nightmare. General audiences have now recognized what fans started seeing years ago and have closed their wallets. Had Disney changed course earlier, they wouldn't be having a year like this. The auto industry takes longer than even the movie industry to engineer, manufacture, and put out products. I think the auto industry's "2023-like Disney moment" is coming soon.

I completely agree. Having said that, it's possible the suits have a better read on what the next generation wants than I do. Who knows.

I do know that the crap they're peddling will probably appeal to my two daughters, but all three of my sons think it's crap. Oldest son owns a V8 truck middle son owns an Ecoboost Mustang (I refused to buy him a V8, which was what he wanted) and youngest son is only 13, but loves my Camaro.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

My kids are Gen Z and want pony cars. We look for and have frequent discussions on cars in the HS and college parking lots they see. They will text me pictures and stuff of cool cars that pop up. We've seen a definite increase in "fun cars" in the school lots the past several years. Gen Z is into it. Millennials as a group may be a lost cause though, lol. Not to generalize TOO much, but the current younger crowd has the potential to be enthusiasts, if given the chance by the industry. Every fad fades and I think the stuff Millennials were into is starting to be uncool again, plus that group themselves has aged into adulthood, relatively speaking .

I have to admit I'm losing track of the generations. I'm from the tail end of the Boomers. My first two are Millennials (I think) at 37 and 41. My last three are Gen Z (again, I think) at 18, 16, and 13.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

A couple questions for anyone in the know:

-Were the results of the Camaro hybrid survey (several years ago) ever revealed? Things did not seem so bleak then.

The world will never know. That type of survey is conducted specifically to get consumer feel for different vehicle configurations and content. It’s used internally to support or crash business cases and will never be “published”.

Originally Posted by genxer

-Do the current V8 Silverados meet a treading-water figure with their segment and footprint, toward c.a.f.e. ?

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that along with whatever off-cycle credits that they may or may not qualify for that they do work for the current CAFE regulations. People get paid really good money to ensure that to be the case. The big deal will come in 2027 when new regulations for pickups and utilities kick in. The $850M investment in new V8 built in Flint is focused on addressing those changes to emissions regulations that kick in in 2027.

Originally Posted by genxer

-There will be updated V8 Silverados. Will they end up being hybrid V8s?

I very much doubt this. GM has pretty much slammed the door on doing anything hybrid in the US. Corvette E-Ray (and Zora?) being the only and obvious exceptions.

Originally Posted by genxer

-How many Bolt EVs does it now take in what ratio with Camaros meets the c.a.f.e. average? What would that ratio project to for 2027?

CAFE and individual vehicle contribution to CAFE isn’t planned on a this vehicle vs that vehicle basis. It’s more like multi-variable calculus. That stuff we swore we’d never need once we passed the final exam.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

CAFE and individual vehicle contribution to CAFE isn’t planned on a this vehicle vs that vehicle basis. It’s more like multi-variable calculus. That stuff we swore we’d never need once we passed the final exam.

I'm looking at one puzzle piece, for a way GM could do the 7th gen, with a V8 that will exist. Just considering a shifted venn diagram bubble there. Hypotheticals on this end are choices for them. Is CAFE not still an average that moves by including EVs or carbon credits? Everyone realizes $ are a variable.

I've looked cursorily at nhtsa cafe sites. It basically looks like massive layers of bureaucracy about not just the viscosity of ketchup... but also ingredient abbreviations, it's content of greenhouse gas, and re-modeling the viscosity; and then someone calls it catsup, and the process repeats.

[Wyzz Kydd]

"As stated in the IEA net zero goal [I discussed this goal in last week’s Capital Letter]: the number of global households without a car needs to rise from 45% today to 70% by 2050, reversing a century-long trend of rising ownership…

As usual, California regulators are ahead of the proverbial curve in admitting that the state’s emissions goals will require citizens of that state—on top of being forced into EVs—to drive 25% fewer miles than they did 30 years ago.

Mills believes that the war against cars is about more than the climate, noting that, “car culture is viewed in many environmental circles as inherently toxic and unnatural.” In his view, “It would be reasonable to reach the conclusion that, put simply, they’re coming for your cars.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-against-cars/

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by genxer

I'm looking at one puzzle piece, for a way GM could do the 7th gen, with a V8 that will exist.

Give it up man. It's over. That day is even approaching for the Corvette.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

I'm looking at one puzzle piece, for a way GM could do the 7th gen, with a V8 that will exist. Just considering a shifted venn diagram bubble there. Hypotheticals on this end are choices for them. Is CAFE not still an average that moves by including EVs or carbon credits? Everyone realizes $ are a variable.

I've looked cursorily at nhtsa cafe sites. It basically looks like massive layers of bureaucracy about not just the viscosity of ketchup... but also ingredient abbreviations, it's content of greenhouse gas, and re-modeling the viscosity; and then someone calls it catsup, and the process repeats.

You have to start from the understanding that Camaro ending is not a light-switch decision based on achieve CAFE or not or meet a units sold target or not. It’s part of a broader portfolio decision on what resources are going to be focused on delivering what products and making the most effective and efficient use of those resources.

The LGR plant is needed to make a certain high powered luxury CUV EV so Camaro has to leave the plant. The other two vehicles currently sharing the architecture and plant are about to go BEV, since Cadillac has committed to be EV only by 2030. So Camaro has to end. There’s no other plant that can accept the platform at anything resembling a cost effective level. Likewise, the engineers dedicated to the Camaro program can be (have been?) reallocated to developing other products with more volume and/or more profit potential. It’s an allocation of resources thing, not a product sufficiency thing.

[Wyzz Kydd]

I think GM, Ford, all of them see the global writing on the wall. We're being pushed into a future where only the very upper crust will be allowed to own cars, own homes, eat steak, heat and cool their homes to their desired temperature, travel freely, etc.

Everyone else will subsist on bugs, take public transportation, use inferior, but more 'climate friendly' appliances, live in densely populated '15 minute' cities.

So they're moving to a business model where they produce substantially fewer cars, but have much higher margins.

My long term goal is to ensure my children are part of the 'upper crust'. For the first two, mission accomplished. For the next two, they're on track, one is going pre-med, then medical school, the other one is on an Ivy League college track. The youngest...let's just say someone has to dig ditches so unless he can make a ton as a professional video game player he may end up digging.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I think GM, Ford, all of them see the global writing on the wall. We're being pushed into a future where only the very upper crust will be allowed to own cars, own homes, eat steak, heat and cool their homes to their desired temperature, travel freely, etc.

Everyone else will subsist on bugs, take public transportation, use inferior, but more 'climate friendly' appliances, live in densely populated '15 minute' cities.

So they're moving to a business model where they produce substantially fewer cars, but have much higher margins.

My long term goal is to ensure my children are part of the 'upper crust'. For the first two, mission accomplished. For the next two, they're on track, one is going pre-med, then medical school, the other one is on an Ivy League college track. The youngest...let's just say someone has to dig ditches so unless he can make a ton as a professional video game player he may end up digging.

I can see how you would come to that conclusion since most of the new EVs that get introduced to the market start out at fairly high prices. There’s a reason for that, but I’ll get to that. The reason I doubt that this becomes a “cars only for the upper crust” scenario is that there is a long list of EV startups that would be poised to fill the void that the major automakers leave IF they were determined to only sell high priced vehicles. What most EV makers are doing now, including GM, Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Hyundai, etc, is launching the highest trim and content vehicles first, then gradually weaving in the lower priced / content versions. If you want a Hummer EV today, it’s $111k+. But there are three lower trim versions coming, the lowest of which is priced around $70k. Still a lot of money, but there are many on this forum that have $70k+ trucks.

The reason we’re seeing the top down approach to introduction pricing is that the people most likely to line up to buy the newest EV are more predisposed to paying whatever the price is, so the OEMs are coming out of the gate with the highest price versions in order to recoup their investments as soon as possible. Sell the highest content, highest price to the people that paid money (usually refundable) just for the privilege of standing in line to spend more money. It is also a good way to test the manufacturing systems. By including maxxed out content, they exercise the assembly process to support assembly of all the features. This approach is the opposite of what OEMs do with more mainstream models. They do tend to focus on one content build configuration for the launch model, but they tend to start with the expected high volume version, not the highest priced. But then, they don’t typically have people pay money to stand in line to spend more money.

There are a number of startup companies trying to come to market now with concepts for EVs in the sub $30k range. Right now they face an uphill battle because Ford, GM, Hyundai, others, all expect to release product in that range…eventually… So some of these startups are racing against the clock. Can they get their low priced products into the market before the sleeping giants wake up?

[arpad_m]

James, I admire your tenacity and optimism you display in always, always trying to steer every conversation back to a track that looks like a normal debate

Wyzz Kydd and many others recognized, however, that this issue is no longer a normal debate of viewpoints where a consensus is purported, which involves actually listening to the other side.

There is absolutely no point in time where the crowd with an unending itch to control every aspect of everyone else's lives will stop and think "okay, we have reached our initial goal, now we can live and let live"---this isn't even a matter of political affiliation, it's a corrupt and viral mindset that moves goalposts continually, trying to eradicate dissent altogether.

This should be no secret to you and many of us, who have already lived a couple decades to have a baseline and the ability to recognize societal trends. Any and all issues, including the "case" of electric vehicles is turned into a show of superiority, then a cult, then a set of oppressive mandates in the name of the "greater societal good". Our way or the highway, if you disagree, you get those labels of shame, modern day scarlet letter equivalents followed by attempts at reducing your life to nothing. Conspiracy theory? Just consider how silly the thought of limiting personal freedoms and disallowing heating appliances, travel, certain foods, home purchases etc. would have seemed only 20-25 years ago, and today it's an actual possibility in states like California. (We have 3 new neighbors who moved here from CA in the past two years, I'm not getting my information from the CA governor's office and the mainstream media.)

It's a thought pattern and a system diametrically opposed to the American way and mindset that, by the way, has been the envy of nearly every nation and seems to be pushed to the verge of extinction.


Now to those that are tempted to say "BUT FFS WHY IS THIS EVEN DISCUSSED ON A CAR FORUM", chatting about parts and performance numbers and driving experiences is very much fun, but we aren't robots acting as search engines and information exchanges, and these bigger picture discussions are very much germane to the Camaro and muscle cars and EVs anyway.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can see how you would come to that conclusion since most of the new EVs that get introduced to the market start out at fairly high prices. There’s a reason for that, but I’ll get to that. The reason I doubt that this becomes a “cars only for the upper crust” scenario is that there is a long list of EV startups that would be poised to fill the void that the major automakers leave IF they were determined to only sell high priced vehicles. What most EV makers are doing now, including GM, Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Hyundai, etc, is launching the highest trim and content vehicles first, then gradually weaving in the lower priced / content versions. If you want a Hummer EV today, it’s $111k+. But there are three lower trim versions coming, the lowest of which is priced around $70k. Still a lot of money, but there are many on this forum that have $70k+ trucks.

The reason we’re seeing the top down approach to introduction pricing is that the people most likely to line up to buy the newest EV are more predisposed to paying whatever the price is, so the OEMs are coming out of the gate with the highest price versions in order to recoup their investments as soon as possible. Sell the highest content, highest price to the people that paid money (usually refundable) just for the privilege of standing in line to spend more money. It is also a good way to test the manufacturing systems. By including maxxed out content, they exercise the assembly process to support assembly of all the features. This approach is the opposite of what OEMs do with more mainstream models. They do tend to focus on one content build configuration for the launch model, but they tend to start with the expected high volume version, not the highest priced. But then, they don’t typically have people pay money to stand in line to spend more money.

There are a number of startup companies trying to come to market now with concepts for EVs in the sub $30k range. Right now they face an uphill battle because Ford, GM, Hyundai, others, all expect to release product in that range…eventually… So some of these startups are racing against the clock. Can they get their low priced products into the market before the sleeping giants wake up?

I have to agree with Arpad both in terms of admiring your tenacity and recognizing that this isn't a 'normal' debate or situation. The climate change activists don't want everyone to have EVs. Their stated goals are to drastically reduce car ownership. To reduce power consumption across the board, amount traveled, amount used on heating and cooling, amount used on raising food.

Their goals are right out in the open for everyone to see. Fewer people, lower standard of living, top down control over ever aspect of people's lives. The cars they drive, or don't, their water heaters, their stoves, their dryers, the food they eat, everything. Climate change alarmism is just the 'emergency' they are leveraging to assume that control.

Note the goal posted in my previous post. They want global ownership of cars to decrease to the point where 70% of the population doesn't own a car by 2050. How will they do that? Regulate them to the point that only the rich can afford them.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I have to agree with Arpad both in terms of admiring your tenacity and recognizing that this isn't a 'normal' debate or situation. The climate change activists don't want everyone to have EVs. Their stated goals are to drastically reduce car ownership. To reduce power consumption across the board, amount traveled, amount used on heating and cooling, amount used on raising food.

Their goals are right out in the open for everyone to see. Fewer people, lower standard of living, top down control over ever aspect of people's lives. The cars they drive, or don't, their water heaters, their stoves, their dryers, the food they eat, everything. Climate change alarmism is just the 'emergency' they are leveraging to assume that control.

Note the goal posted in my previous post. They want global ownership of cars to decrease to the point where 70% of the population doesn't own a car by 2050. How will they do that? Regulate them to the point that only the rich can afford them.

No doubt there are people that think that way. Thing is, they have zero power in the actual development and manufacture of automobiles. They’re the loud fringe. Just like the fringe who are saying that vehicles would be safer if they were all autonomous and personal driving was banned or heavily restricted. I can find “thought leadership” pieces from people with that mindset. But at the end of the day they’re tilting at windmills and nobody who’s spending money on product development is listening to them. Same for the people who are advocating 70% of population not own cars by 2050. Loud voices…empty pockets…zero traction.