[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

That stuff you are talking about might make a tiny shift, but just doing EGR isn't going to gain you 10% of sales shifted from EV to ICE. If you read the link I posted, they even included a lot of that tech in their projections. The numbers of 67% EV by 2032 (from the chart I posted) and leaving 33% ICE, that is the MAXIMUM number of ICE vehicles you can build. a plug-In hybrid isn't a 1:1 replacement for an EV. It is roughly 2:1 in 2028, and 3:1 by 2032. So if you want to go hybrid, by 2032 your mix is 100% EV's and hybrids, and zero ICE. Or as Ford motor Company likes to say, zero profit.

The reason why Ford and GM went all in on EV, is because if they can still sell 1/3 ICE, and 2/3 EV, they can still make a profit. The push you are seeing for hybrids all of a sudden, is due to the new rule drop earlier this year (that I posted), and if you read them (which I did, and you obviously haven't), you will see that from 2028-32, doing hybrids matters. But once it is 3:1 in 2032, the OEMs are better off with a pure EV and ICE mix in terms of profit.

In summary, being forced into a bad choice isn't a choice. It is a mandate. Luckily, the mandate is going in the garbage where it belongs soon, and the big three can focus on building the cars and trucks the American people want, not what the unelected bureaucrats want.

-Geoff

So GM went all EV knowing in 4 years when they made the announcement in 2017 these rules would be put into place?

[Gen6cyl]

GM has not gone all ev , they have a new small block in development for their money making SUV and truck models.Who knows if it will be available in a car. I imagine they are looking at Dodge charger ev sales.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Thank you, that is exactly my point. When you enforce a metric that has only one way known to man to meet, it is an effective mandate.

Sure, in 10-20-30 years someone may invent something or make something work that can finally satisfy the metric, however, deferring to that is not only weaselly but cynical to its core. Like when Don Corleone makes "suggestions" to businesses that want to retain their "safety". Does he order them to pay, oh no, he never said that, but everyone knows the deal.

(Also, even the metric itself is disingenous, it's not "zero emission" when you just shift all emissions elsewhere.)

Well in theory (and actual practice) you are converting your power to the grid. I actually researched it and only like 60% of the national average is fossil fuel based. Surprisingly we are 10% nuclear as a nation.

But I know what you are both saying. And you are both right IMO. Factually, no one has mandated an EV in the US. But if you mandate a ZEV AND you know there is currently no known solution for that other than BEV and FCEV ANNNNNND you know there is no infrastructure to support FCEVs you have created what you (and others.......mannnnny others) interpret as a BEV mandate.

All that being said, EVs are not bad. They drive very nicely, perform wonderfully and if you can charge at home there is only one issue with a BEV right now and that's cost. And if Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit (which he did NOT do first time around) that problem only gets worse orrrrrrrrr the OEMs take a few more years to get profitable on EVs. I don't see GM somehow stopping the Lyriq, Celestiq, Optiq and Escalade IQ etc. just because there is no tax incentive. They will adjust. Case in point, the Ford Lightning price was going up and down weekly it seemed as the Inflation Reduction Act Impacted who and what got the credit. And for those that weren't paying attention it's already fewer EVs. It is now based on price of the vehicle, where the battery is made, and I think how much you make.

Good discussion btw and it has thus far remained civil. I like these discussions, but often they get political and are closed by the Mods. So, I'll say it again, thanks for keeping this on the good side.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well in theory (and actual practice) you are converting your power to the grid. I actually researched it and only like 60% of the national average is fossil fuel based. Surprisingly we are 10% nuclear as a nation.

But I know what you are both saying. And you are both right IMO. Factually, no one has mandated an EV in the US. But if you mandate a ZEV AND you know there is currently no known solution for that other than BEV and FCEV ANNNNNND you know there is no infrastructure to support FCEVs you have created what you (and others.......mannnnny others) interpret as a BEV mandate.

All that being said, EVs are not bad. They drive very nicely, perform wonderfully and if you can charge at home there is only one issue with a BEV right now and that's cost. And if Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit (which he did NOT do first time around) that problem only gets worse orrrrrrrrr the OEMs take a few more years to get profitable on EVs. I don't see GM somehow stopping the Lyriq, Celestiq, Optiq and Escalade IQ etc. just because there is no tax incentive. They will adjust. Case in point, the Ford Lightning price was going up and down weekly it seemed as the Inflation Reduction Act Impacted who and what got the credit. And for those that weren't paying attention it's already fewer EVs. It is now based on price of the vehicle, where the battery is made, and I think how much you make.

Good discussion btw and it has thus far remained civil. I like these discussions, but often they get political and are closed by the Mods. So, I'll say it again, thanks for keeping this on the good side.

Yes, I even said it earlier, nothing wrong with EVs per se and I'm glad that they are now a realistic option.

Great discussion indeed. There's no need to resort to ad hominem, and while I've seen what you guys are saying for a while, it's even better to now have some meaningful feedback. I am not an anti-EV zealot, it's just that along with many others here, I value freedom more than a bit of extra comfort and safety, and prefer to call a spade a spade, feelings notwithstanding (including mine).

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Gen6cyl

GM has not gone all ev , they have a new small block in development for their money making SUV and truck models.Who knows if it will be available in a car. I imagine they are looking at Dodge charger ev sales.

When GM announced they were going all EV they were very specific in stating that this applied to passenger vehicles. They have still not said a word about their plans for commercial vehicles. The 6.6L V8 has design elements and emissions reducing content specifically engineered to address the new regulations for commercial vehicle that hit in 2027. The primary users of these engines will be 2500, 3500, 4500 and 5500 series trucks. The engine plant is even located right next to the assembly plant for commercial trucks, so go figure. Everything beyond 2500 is pretty much commercial vehicle only. 2500 sorta straddles the line between passenger vehicle and commercial vehicle. Similarly, Ford introduced their 7.3L V8 just a little bit before GM introduced the 6.6L. Same story.

It is very much possible that GM could replace the LT2 with a version of the 6.6L for Corvette. Actually, we’ve had that in our forecast for a little over a year now. Not sure if it will find it’s way into 1500 series trucks though.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Thank you, that is exactly my point. When you enforce a metric that has only one way known to man to meet, it is an effective mandate.

Sure, in 10-20-30 years someone may invent something or make something work that can finally satisfy the metric, however, deferring to that is not only weaselly but cynical to its core. Like when Don Corleone makes "suggestions" to businesses that want to retain their "safety". Does he order them to pay, oh no, he never said that, but everyone knows the deal.

(Also, even the metric itself is disingenous, it's not "zero emission" when you just shift all emissions elsewhere.)

Actually there is more than one way to meet the FEDERAL EMISSIONS mandate. But it happens to be prohibitively expensive and automakers cannot charge for all the technology they would have to add. So they choose to not go that route. And electric tech is now mature enough that most automakers can at least see a path to profitability.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Easy as pie. Send minimum fleet mpg standards the way of the dodo, along with whatever mandatory penetration rates and zero emissions goals may exist at the federal level, plus the $7500 subsidy on EVs, done.

What happens after you remove all this is businesses will start producing what people actually want and need. If that's a bunch of 3-4 ton EVs, so be it. I'm sure many people will still buy Teslas, and good for them. But there will be a clear opportunity to produce what actually sells and turns real profit.

I'd give some leeway here, too: some emissions (not fuel economy) standards could be allowed to remain, but those have to be established by serious and unbiased sources, not industry and political shills. Not particularly easy to do, for sure.

I doubt that there will ever be a move to go backward on emissions standards. It’s more likely that they will be maintained where they are starting in about 2026. No doubt the $7,500 incentive is most likely toast, but tbh, most EVs didn’t qualify for that in the first place. Still Ford and GM have both stated that even with the incentives removed and emissions regulations relaxed, they are maintaining their strategy to shift to BEV. Most likely in a more relaxed manner, but that is still their long term strategies.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well in theory (and actual practice) you are converting your power to the grid. I actually researched it and only like 60% of the national average is fossil fuel based. Surprisingly we are 10% nuclear as a nation.

But I know what you are both saying. And you are both right IMO. Factually, no one has mandated an EV in the US. But if you mandate a ZEV AND you know there is currently no known solution for that other than BEV and FCEV ANNNNNND you know there is no infrastructure to support FCEVs you have created what you (and others.......mannnnny others) interpret as a BEV mandate.

All that being said, EVs are not bad. They drive very nicely, perform wonderfully and if you can charge at home there is only one issue with a BEV right now and that's cost. And if Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit (which he did NOT do first time around) that problem only gets worse orrrrrrrrr the OEMs take a few more years to get profitable on EVs. I don't see GM somehow stopping the Lyriq, Celestiq, Optiq and Escalade IQ etc. just because there is no tax incentive. They will adjust. Case in point, the Ford Lightning price was going up and down weekly it seemed as the Inflation Reduction Act Impacted who and what got the credit. And for those that weren't paying attention it's already fewer EVs. It is now based on price of the vehicle, where the battery is made, and I think how much you make.

Good discussion btw and it has thus far remained civil. I like these discussions, but often they get political and are closed by the Mods. So, I'll say it again, thanks for keeping this on the good side.

I have to second the part in bold. Great discussion and I really appreciate that people are bringing facts to the discussion instead of a lot of the posturing that this thread saw in its earlier days. Too bad we can’t be in a dark hall around a table with a couple pitchers of beer for this one.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It is very much possible that GM could replace the LT2 with a version of the 6.6L for Corvette. Actually, we’ve had that in our forecast for a little over a year now. Not sure if it will find it’s way into 1500 series trucks though.

It may not be the 6.6, but we do know new engines are coming for the trucks and SUV's. When GM officially made it known the Gen VI Small Block's were coming, they cited the SUV and truck lineup for the application for the engines.

Corvette will probably gain Gen VI too, but it is just a matter of C8 or C9. But either way GM wouldn't cite Corvette anyway as an application until it was happening in the next model year.

Then of course it is a matter of what architecture the Gen VI will be. Evolution of the OHV's or a CPC version based off the Gemini family?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I have to second the part in bold. Great discussion and I really appreciate that people are bringing facts to the discussion instead of a lot of the posturing that this thread saw in its earlier days. Too bad we can’t be in a dark hall around a table with a couple pitchers of beer for this one.

Well back in the COVID days, we actually had Teams meetings Friday afternoons with alcohol. But for the most part, the internet, including FB is not conducive to conversations that would probably go better over a beer or even coffee. Now if we could invent that...................

[Alan47717]

[QUOTE=Number 3;11457

All that being said, EVs are not bad. They drive very nicely, perform wonderfully and if you can charge at home there is only one issue with a BEV right now and that's cost. And if Trump eliminates the $7,500 tax credit (which he did NOT do first time around) that problem only gets worse orrrrrrrrr the OEMs take a few more years to get profitable on EVs. I don't see GM somehow stopping the Lyriq, Celestiq, Optiq and Escalade IQ etc. just because there is no tax incentive. They will adjust. Case in point, the Ford Lightning price was going up and down weekly it seemed as the Inflation Reduction Act Impacted who and what got the credit. And for those that weren't paying attention it's already fewer EVs. It is now based on price of the vehicle, where the battery is made, and I think how much you make.

Good discussion btw and it has thus far remained civil. I like these discussions, but often they get political and are closed by the Mods. So, I'll say it again, thanks for keeping this on the good side.[/QUOTE]

Having driven my uncle's Kia Niro I can agree with the driving and performance comments in general but the experience was still boring. My 2.0t Equinox is much more engaging to drive. The Niro would be great for stop and go city traffic between the smooth off the line characteristics and the regen braking if one had to do that a lot.

My uncle just returned from a trip to CA and ran into a number of the charging infrastructure difficulties we hear about (having to wait for a charger, chargers not working, etc.). He was not particularly upset by these issues but said if he had a second car it would be an ICE and that would be the trip vehicle. He had also been surprised by how much his battery range is reduced by heater and headlight usage.

Overall he is very happy with the car, just wants the infrastructure kinks to be worked out faster.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

Having driven my uncle's Kia Niro I can agree with the driving and performance comments in general but the experience was still boring. My 2.0t Equinox is much more engaging to drive. The Niro would be great for stop and go city traffic between the smooth off the line characteristics and the regen braking if one had to do that a lot.

The 2.0T is nice, but EV vs the 1.5T?

I will take the EV over the 150 HP 4 cylinder powered vehicle. The 1.5T doesn't sound good, sure you have shift points, but with no power behind it, meh.

I can totally see why car people with sports or performance vehicles resist EV's. I could have had a Model S Plaid for a crap ton less money than my Z06. But stupid fast acceleration isn't what I was after. The sound of the FPC V8, the shifts of the DCT, the crackles, etc. That was the experience I was after. I am not against an EV that can drive like a Z06( fast, handles, great steering, etc) though. Great to have options and experiences.

But for a daily driver and maximizing fuel/cost savings, etc like Civic vs Model 3, I will take the Model 3.

[tenargo57]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

I can totally see why car people with sports or performance vehicles resist EV's. I could have had a Model Plaid S for a crap ton less money than my Z06. But stupid fast acceleration isn't what I was after. The sound of the FPC V8, the shifts of the DCT, the crackles, etc. That was the experience I was after. I am not against an EV that can drive like a Z06( fast, handles, great steering, etc) though. Great to have options and experiences.
.

Performance hybrids seem to be a nice middleground with mostly upsides other than cost. I really want to drive an E-Ray, although if I was in the market for a car like that I'd probably end up with a Z06. If GM does reboot the Camaro it would be pretty cool to see a hybrid option, even if it's not putting down the same numbers as the E-Ray.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by tenargo57

Performance hybrids seem to be a nice middleground with mostly upsides other than cost. I really want to drive an E-Ray, although if I was in the market for a car like that I'd probably end up with a Z06. If GM does reboot the Camaro it would be pretty cool to see a hybrid option, even if it's not putting down the same numbers as the E-Ray.

I’m surprised at the resistance to performance hybrids like the E-Ray, but I bet that is more tied into the perception of the E-Ray being used to get the corvette fan base to warm up to an all EV Corvette or ignorance into thinking it’s an EV( see many people think it’s full EV).

E-Ray satisfies what people who liked about the C7Z which was the ogles of torque down low that the C8Z lacks and is offering C8Z performance in a more street/daily driver package. Z06 is always on wanting you to open her up. E-Ray can be civilized then be wild if let loose.

What is keeping the E-Ray down though is probably the price being close to Z06. Unless you want more of a traditional Small Block driving experience or a softer riding vehicle, the Z06 is the more “special” car and might as well spend that kind of money on. If E-Ray didn’t have the ceramic brakes as standard, $95K price would be more attractive.

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

The 2.0T is nice, but EV vs the 1.5T?

I will take the EV over the 150 HP 4 cylinder powered vehicle. The 1.5T doesn't sound good, sure you have shift points, but with no power behind it, meh.

I can totally see why car people with sports or performance vehicles resist EV's. I could have had a Model S Plaid for a crap ton less money than my Z06. But stupid fast acceleration isn't what I was after. The sound of the FPC V8, the shifts of the DCT, the crackles, etc. That was the experience I was after. I am not against an EV that can drive like a Z06( fast, handles, great steering, etc) though. Great to have options and experiences.

But for a daily driver and maximizing fuel/cost savings, etc like Civic vs Model 3, I will take the Model 3.

I never even considered the 1.5L when was looking at buying an Equinox. The power to weight ratio was similar to the 2012 Malibu I was trading in and I was looking for better performance. Dropping the optional engine for the Equinox was a stupid move by GM. Not a single review of that car by any source has ever had a good thing to say about the 1.5L engine's performance.