[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Yes, the I6 is definitely coming. Mazda has not yet clearly outlined their electric future. At least not in terms of if they are all in or if they will have a diverse portfolio. They are going to introduce a BEV that uses a rotary engine as a range extender. The rotary engine WILL NOT drive the wheels. It will charge the battery and provide power to the electric motors that will turn the wheels. Think Chevrolet Volt.

Yeah I have no idea what they are doing. I don't even think Mazda does, given their usual tendency.

You are referring to the MX-30. Mazda said it will be a short-range EV to address the concerns about the environmental impact of battery production. And yes, it will have a rotary range extender, and suicide doors, so I guess here are a few elements from the RX-8.

Speaking of which, most Mazda fans believe RX-8 is the last rotary sports car. No one believes RX-9 will happen at this point, given how broke Mazda is.

Sent from toaster or something

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by ariZona28

It boggles my mind that the hybrid seems to get pushed aside in this type of debate. Small engine, burn a small amount of fuel, charge your batteries yourself and not increase your dependence on the power company. Fuel options could be green weenie friendly like alcohol or some other form of rainbow/unicorn urine. If GM doesn't capitalize on the future hybrid market their competition will.

Sorry but hybrids have been around for ages, old tech old news. Problem is you carry the cost of an EV powertrain AND an ICE. GM will not be missing out.

[Chevca]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

What information do you have that shows people would have to pay a lot of money to upgrade their home electric circuit? Here’s the info I have that says they don’t. We added a Volt to our fleet in 2012. I paid an electrician about $475 to upgrade the circuit in my garage from 110 to 220. The charger cost me a few hundred dollars. Don’t remember exactly how much. The charger is still in place and has been charging Chevy Volts ever since.

So my references are my house built in the 60's when I wanted to add a welder and compressor to my garage, both on 240 quasi industrial units (don't worry why) and I worked with tesla briefly. So the problem is the utility starts at $700 to upgrade the line outside from 100 to 200 amps and I would need a licensed electrician to upgrade the panel at the minimum which was $2500. After that I could do as I wish, but my budget wouldn't allow that much so it stopped there. But as for the volt versus the tesla charger the battery of an full EV is significantly larger then a hybrid and therefore needs more power to charge back up. Basically it's a 240 install and at least 30 amps although 50 is makes more sense because 30 can still get into the 8 hour plus charging time.

Also, what data do you have to support the idea that the batteries are unserviceable? That is patently untrue, especially in the new skateboard platforms that most electric vehicles will be using from this point forward. In fact, GM’s Ultium system is set up so that instead of replacing the entire battery pack, individual modules can be easily replaced. It’s even set up so that as battery technology improves, new improved modules can be installed right along with original cells and integrated into the complete battery network. At the end of the day, instead of paying for an engine rebuild or a transmission overhaul, people will pay for battery module replacements and electric drive unit rebuilds.

Still comes down to wear and tear and how will it ultimately wear out as a complete unit, set of units or just one? You likely won't get very far with just one; compared to my engine that knocks, leaks or does something that give me a choice fix or sell while it's still drivable with some degree of plausible deniablty. The problem still comes down to how much risk are people going to take, like regular every day people who don't have thousands of dollars to walk away from.


No doubt the Cadillac dealers who have opted out did so because they don’t believe BEVs will sell. By contrast, the majority of Cadillac dealers are staying on and investing to prepare for the change. Apparently they think they will. And they are putting their money where their beliefs lie. Who is right? Time will tell. All are independent business owners with different comfort levels in investing in an emerging technology. The great minds on Shark Tank passed on Ring doorbells. How’d that work out?

Their are numerous products that succeed and fail, the point I was driving towards is that dealers have a lot of data about their local markets. Speaking from first hand experience, car companies will offer technology solutions that harvest this data in exchange for different conveniences for the dealer. It's also been said on numerous industry forums and trade journals that's its a lot more important now then ever to have that data as a dealer then it used to be, because the car companies just aren't providing it. Add in that they are multi million dollar or in some case billion dollar operations and you can see how important this is and we'll within their capability. In the end it's a business decision based on data from customers who would ultimately be the ones to buy their products.

Probably not the end of the ICE. But, apparently the end of GM’s participation in new ICE product. The global automotive industry produces almost 100 million new vehicles every year. At that level, a full scale shift will take decades. Any automaker who wants to remain a global player will have to embrace BEVs at some level or lose access to several very important markets (California, Europe, China). It doesn’t mean that everybody has to go 100% in. That’s GM’s choice, but it’s not every OEM’s choice and not likely to be.

Some offerings make sense but I think its important to make our points known on places like this because companies and governments who can search these forums (they search here again seen the service another story) so they are sure they are making the right decisions.

I get thr idea is to save the environment but personally I think they need to attack other avenues. One that actually makes more sense to me then anything else is no till farming, it's something to look into and what's particularly interesting is the science even explains why some ancient civilizations disappeared. I don't think this is the place to go into great detail about it so I'll just say Google it.

[Martinjlm]

@Chevca, you seem to have incorporated your remarks into my quotes. FWIW, my house was built in the 1920’s. Don’t know when the garage was added and it is separate from the house. As I pointed out, my charger install cost me $475 plus the cost of the charger. I upgraded the main box for the house years before we considered getting an EV and tha was a couple grand, but again, done for more than just EV charging.

The company I do consulting for has done analysis on expectations for serviceability of EVs. Actually it’s included in a larger scale study on Total Cost of Ownership. Cutting to the chase, we’re expecting maintenance and repair costs of BEVs long term to be significantly less than ICE / HEV / PHEV. All of the battery pack examples we are looking at have some degree of modularity, GM’s Ultium being out front in that respect. In any event, battery wholesale replacement is expected to be on par with and at similar cost, probably slightly higher, to complete engine replacement.

[Need4Camaro]

Soooo... ...just wondering but is it possible to run a internal combustion engine purely on Hydrogen? I'm about to play around with electrolysis on my beater Prius (not my 6th Gen) just to see if I truly squeeze more MPG because this is going to get bad for gasoline powered folks.

Originally Posted by puppykat33

well gents its not the performance aspect most have a problem with. The ISSUE MOST people have a problem with is the gov mandating this EV crap on the premis that it is better for the environment which if you have done any real research into lithium you would know it is in fact NOT better. It takes massive amounts of energy to properly dispose of, and it and puts off toxic gases that are worse for the environment than the emission put out by car engines. The reason you don't hear about it is that no one is effectively disposing of these lithium battery's yet, they are just piling up... I think china has some 5 million tons per yer produced and just sitting around because they cant dispose of it properly. Not to mention the lithium mines are horrific.. so this is the problem, when the government say its better and low information masses of people just buy what they are selling without actually looking into it.


The problem with agendas pushed like this is the people pushing them rarely ever consider the 2nd 3rd 4th order long term consequences of them. So lets take California's no gas engines by 2025/2035 and play a game. 1st order effect= all gas engine producers/manufactures in the state will half to close or convert resulting a loss of jobs, Gas engine aftermarket parts industries again loss of jobs. 2nd = gas stations will now half to convert to charging stations/gas stations in turn the price goes up of they simply close because they cant afford to keep up again loss of jobs. 3rd=price/cost for truckers delivering goods to the state will go up due to increased fuel cost in the state so now the price of everything goes up. 4th California already has an unstable power grid which cannot keep up with current demand at times so where are they going to find all the extra power so ppl can charge their cars at night? 5th since we have established the 1000% increase in demand for power where will it come from? are they going to build a nuclear plant? Hydro? ??? All horrible for the enviroment.. ALL of which defeat the clean green power initiate which they are trying to accomplish. not to mention how toxic lithium production/disposal is
Wake up people and research for your self.

I could go into who holds controlling interest in lithium ie stock holders from mining to charging stations and i bet you will find a lot of senators with stock holdings in these markets but this sounds like conspiracy theory and i like to just stick with FACTS
FACT= EV is not better for the environment..

FACT= since most of the us power comes from fossil fuels you are actually putting off more pollution charging your car than if you had a regular engine. Dont believe me? go look it up.


Speculation=But i bet this EV push it is better for someones wallet..

The bolded is what I feel too unfortunately. I'm pretty worried about the coming years.

I personally don't mind driving or owning a EV but I do mind having the government 'make' me do it just to fill their wallets and scarcify a plentiful fuel source a vast majority of American's currently exceedingly depend on so abruptly without concern to the financial well being of the general populous. Maybe this is why they are trying to push remote work so hard. Its not new news that gasoline powered vehicles do damage the environment but don't just outright uproot them from the public en-masse and force everyone to what suites 'you' better. There needs to be steady transition and most importantly, practicality which still isn't there for many EV's

Regarding the original topic

I don't want the Camaro to become an EV. I would rather it die with its legacy along with the American legacy as an icon of what our nation truly stood for. Freedom, Power, Boastful, and Exhilarating. I don't mind an EV sports coop, but don't call it a Camaro.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Soooo... ...just wondering but is it possible to run a internal combustion engine purely on Hydrogen? ....

Been done. Didn’t end well.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...en-7-car-news/

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I don't want the Camaro to become an EV. I would rather it die with its legacy along with the American legacy as an icon of what our nation truly stood for. Freedom, Power, Boastful, and Exhilarating. I don't mind an EV sports coop, but don't call it a Camaro.

Not going to happen.

Chevy/GM will not throw away a brand with the name recognition that camaro has and start a new one up or a less known one so it makes a tiny group of people happy (so long as they dont sell the name to someone else).

GM will most definitely keep using the name Camaro in some below corvette tier of performance vehicle forever unless it becomes a hinderance to sales rather than a benefit. Might be CUV ..might be a coupe. Might be an SUV. Car companies do not care. They've invested a lot of time and money in a name, they're not putting it out to pasture if they dont have to.

[ZED SLED]

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by ZED SLED

Attachment 1057535

So that is why they are ditching ICE, they need all the oil for the windies!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

Not going to happen.

Chevy/GM will not throw away a brand with the name recognition that camaro has and start a new one up or a less known one so it makes a tiny group of people happy (so long as they dont sell the name to someone else).

GM will most definitely keep using the name Camaro in some below corvette tier of performance vehicle forever unless it becomes a hinderance to sales rather than a benefit. Might be CUV ..might be a coupe. Might be an SUV. Car companies do not care. They've invested a lot of time and money in a name, they're not putting it out to pasture if they dont have to.

Impala, Regal, Bonnevile, Grand Prix, Grand Am, GTO, Century, Eldorado, Coupe deVille, Fleetwood, Firebird, Riviera, Toronado. They’ve done it before, they may very well do it again.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Impala, Regal, Bonnevile, Grand Prix, Grand Am, GTO, Century, Eldorado, Coupe deVille, Fleetwood, Firebird, Riviera, Toronado. They’ve done it before, they may very well do it again.

those were killed because of consolidating lineup or the "company" associated with those cars were killed and the surviving company wants nothing to do with them (just because they're all owned by GM doesn't mean they play well together). Not ditching something and starting a new name out of respect.

If they get rid of a sub-corvette performance vehicle, they'll name it something that already has that connection to the sales positioning they want to use if they have it.

They'll do some consumer tests and if it does well ..it'll be used. They're not going to throw that away out of respect.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Love all the posts on how TODAYS power grid can’t handle TOMORROWS energy needs. It won’t stay the same. Time and demand will address the need. It always does.

I live in California.

Today’s power grid can’t handle today’s needs. California can’t meet the demands of its citizens now. It won’t be able to handle the population growth AND addition of electric cars.

[ZED SLED]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Impala, Regal, Bonnevile, Grand Prix, Grand Am, GTO, Century, Eldorado, Coupe deVille, Fleetwood, Firebird, Riviera, Toronado. They’ve done it before, they may very well do it again.

You left off the Nova, that joint venture abomination between Toyota and Chevrolet, otherwise known as the Toy-Let

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I live in California.

Today’s power grid can’t handle today’s needs. California can’t meet the demands of its citizens now. It won’t be able to handle the population growth AND addition of electric cars.

most days the peak demand is about 2/3 of available supply. Most times you have rolling blackouts in the past few years, it's not due to the availability of electricity but rather fire prevention.

Obviously, a black out is a black out ...but solving why they're needed for fire prevention is probably more rapidly solvable than ramping up new power plants.

and the population is trending towards a 0% growth lately. only barely positive. Which is not surprising given how expensive it is to have a home large enough for a family along the coast (where most people in the state live).

in any case, necessity drives innovation and in this case, investment in infrastructure. The necessity has to come first. Better that it be voluntary (artificially required) rather than not. That way if the ask is truly beyond capability, it can be un-asked. You dont get that option when the reason you have the need is real and immediate. And in the case of moving off fossil fuels, it's not a question of if..but when it becomes real and immediate.

or in the case of cars specifically, it's a matter for car companies to be concerned about allowing other companies that make the switch first to take market from those that currently hold leading shares of the market. Being last to the game is a mistake for longterm corporate survival.