[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Toyota are smart, staying behind the bleeding edge and letting others take the high and useless risk of pushing agenda driven strategies. If that still pans out for some reason, they can still go "all in" later—they're Toyota with a genuine reputation, they will be loved for it; if not, well, they have meaningful plans B and C, unlike others.

I agree. For Toyota it doesn't make sense to go "all-in" on any one powertrain. They serve a global market where drivers haven't different requirements. They also have enough money and engineering talent to pivot as needed.

This is basically what Microsoft does all the time. They don't really innovate anymore. They wait for the market transitions and then go build a "good enough" software solution and leverage their install base.

[Gen6cyl]

The U.S. has enough oil to power our ic engines for many years , they say over 100 years. Our country does not have the ability to keep the power grid up reliably right now ,not to mention lack of charging stations. Our current government administration doesn't have the ability to do anything right. As I see it right now, we are screwed.

[Aragorn]

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

Product management at GM should be fired. They do not understand the market.

Lol, yes they do. But we’ve discussed that for years on this site.

[Chrome383Z]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Lol, yes they do. But we’ve discussed that for years on this site.

lol. No they don’t if they did they would be working on hybrid options, etc. GM went full woke. That’s a mistake.

[bigd1276]

No fear, the government can bail them out, again.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

lol. No they don’t if they did they would be working on hybrid options, etc. GM went full woke. That’s a mistake.

Sorry to disappoint, but EVs aren’t “woke” any more than a hybrid.

A hybrid gets good FE, but to do so you need two powertrains including, yes, a battery. You are also likely forgetting that GM has done hybrids and even had a hybrid FST years ago that led the industry. So GM has done it.

And then there is the Volt. Technological marvel in many respects. Beyond a hybrid. Sold like crap

The only hybrid that has sold well is the Prius.

Now when GM comes out with the hybrid Corvette……….

If you aren’t hung up on the NVH issue like many on this site, an EV is the better choice with one remaining issue and that’s charge time. That’s it. Smoother, quieter, less maintenance. Oh yeah and THE metric we all use (or used to until now) faster.

I do agree GM and Ford (and others) are making a big play here. It could backfire. But as GM and Ford make most of their profit on FSTs, the finial risk is small. Notice both GM and Ford introduced supplemental EV pickups. And from what I’ve read, the EBlazer will be sold with the current Blazer.

Annnnnnd then there is Fuel Cell waiting in the weeds for cheap hydrogen. But do you ean5 a 10,000 psi pressure vessel in your trunk? Still in play though.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Lol, yes they do. But we’ve discussed that for years on this site.

Right. That's why they had to be bailed out by the government.

That's why Camaro sales are doing so much better than Mustang sales.

GM has an idiot for a CEO, and the fish rots from the head. Based on their financials GM is in worse shape than any other major automobile manufacturer.

GM market cap is $56 billion. Stellantis is $42 billion. Toyota is $241 billion. So if you take the two early movers to all electric and add their market caps together you get a company that is still worth less than half of what 'behind the times' Toyota is worth.

The day after Stellantis revealed their barf looking and sounding Emuscle their stock price fell 10% and has fallen further since.

LOL. Do you ever do reality much, or is the bubble you live in impenetrable?

[Devstrike]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Toyota are smart, staying behind the bleeding edge and letting others take the high and useless risk of pushing agenda driven strategies. If that still pans out for some reason, they can still go "all in" later—they're Toyota with a genuine reputation, they will be loved for it; if not, well, they have meaningful plans B and C, unlike others.

I agree with what you said. People can say what they want about Toyota but I also will admit they have been pretty smart with how they do things. Every company has their issues and mistakes but Toyota seems to always have that plan and mostly know when and when not to do things.

[redcoats1976]

soooo,where the electric fr-86 and BRZ? if they could fit a battery pack/electric motor into something like that it might be worth having.im not totally opposed to EVs,but i dont like 4 doors,and wont spent 110k for an electric vette.

[90503]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

With the exception for road trippers going to fast chargers, this just needs education. You can program the car to charge at 1 am for example. You can tell the car when off peak hours are and only charge at those times. So when you plug in at home, the car won't charge until that programmed time.

For instance, my moms Y is set to charge at 11 PM and mine is scheduled to charge at 3:30 am.

This should be an easy sell for people because it has a money saving aspect to it. So they will want to charge when it is the cheapest.

Just curious, as you are familiar with the features, instead of the owner setting the hours to charge the EV at home on a voluntary basis, is this something that could be taken out of the owner's hands with a software command to the EV that would make it impossible to charge during certain hours? I mean, specifically to the EV, not the grid or the power in the home in general.

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch, and child's play with the technology, for this to go from voluntary to mandatory. If the ability to charge at the owner's discretion is removed in the name of protecting the grid, helping to avoid outages, etc.,

First to save the grid....after that the possibilities for when and how much you could charge...(have the ability to freely travel when and where you choose) would easily be out of your control and subject to "greater needs" for the "greater good"....

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just curious, as you are familiar with the features, instead of the owner setting the hours to charge the EV at home on a voluntary basis, is this something that could be taken out of the owner's hands with a software command to the EV that would make it impossible to charge during certain hours? I mean, specifically to the EV, not the grid or the power in the home in general.

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch, and child's play with the technology, for this to go from voluntary to mandatory. If the ability to charge at the owner's discretion is removed in the name of protecting the grid, helping to avoid outages, etc.,

First to save the grid....after that the possibilities for when and how much you could charge...(have the ability to freely travel when and where you choose) would easily be out of your control and subject to "greater needs" for the "greater good"....

With cars slowly becoming more connected, your scenario is on paper possible.

Right now no EV to my knowledge has such a feature implemented. Tesla sends alerts to the car to ask the driver to avoid charging between 4 PM to 9 PM during peak hours in CA, etc. But nothing to actually prevent the person from still charging the car. The closest feature Tesla has to your scenario is when it is busy at a supercharger, it will automatically set the charge limit to 80%. But the owner can override that default charge limit and set it higher.

So possible? Yes, but no such feature has been implemented yet by Tesla or any OEM.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Right. That's why they had to be bailed out by the government.

That's why Camaro sales are doing so much better than Mustang sales.

GM has an idiot for a CEO, and the fish rots from the head. Based on their financials GM is in worse shape than any other major automobile manufacturer.

GM market cap is $56 billion. Stellantis is $42 billion. Toyota is $241 billion. So if you take the two early movers to all electric and add their market caps together you get a company that is still worth less than half of what 'behind the times' Toyota is worth.

The day after Stellantis revealed their barf looking and sounding Emuscle their stock price fell 10% and has fallen further since.

LOL. Do you ever do reality much, or is the bubble you live in impenetrable?

But you forgot to mention Tesla market cap is $1T.

And you are trying to inject multiple long conversations into one post that have nothing to do with one another. Good tactic though.

And as I work in the industry, I have a fairly solid handle on this topic, but if you have good technical (meaning non political) view on EVs I’m happy to hear and discuss them. But your name calling and anger would indicate you don’t.

And to be clear Camaro sales have zero to do with future EVs………unless they make EVs with no rear seat, horrible trunk space and crappy visibility. ��

[Wyzz Kydd]

Tesla market cap isn’t an apples to apples comparison given it’s much more diversified outside the automotive industry. Market cap is a valid measure of assessing a corporation, as is P/E ratio: Toyota is at 8, GM and Stellantis at 6. Leverage matters too, Toyota’s debt to equity is much better than either GM or Stellantis.

Everything points to the global equity markets preferring Toyota’s approach. Why? Because going all electric is a big gamble, one the markets don’t think is going to pay off.