[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I still think manufacturers should offer a better way to increase your current vehicle's battery capabilities when newer battery tech comes out instead of completely replacing the car given how fast battery technology is improving. Some sort of package or subscription that you pay for that enables your battery to be swapped out to newer and more capable batteries when they arrive on the market.

Should ice manufacturers do this too? Because I would love to have an LT2 in my camaro. I’m sure mustang owners would have loved to get the next coyote put in their cars as well.

What you brought up isn’t a battery thing. It’s strictly a technology thing and it applies to every industry.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I still think manufacturers should offer a better way to increase your current vehicle's battery capabilities when newer battery tech comes out instead of completely replacing the car given how fast battery technology is improving. Some sort of package or subscription that you pay for that enables your battery to be swapped out to newer and more capable batteries when they arrive on the market.

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Should ice manufacturers do this too? Because I would love to have an LT2 in my camaro. I’m sure mustang owners would have loved to get the next coyote put in their cars as well.

What you brought up isn’t a battery thing. It’s strictly a technology thing and it applies to every industry.

The ironic thing is, this is more likely to happen with EVs than with ICE through the ability of automakers to provide Over The Air (OTA) updates and upgrades. Battery and electric motor functionality would be simpler to manage OTA than fuel system and intake system functionality on an ICE. Same process that would allow for subscription based heated seats could also allow for software enabled performance upgrades. Personally, I think OEMs would be smart to offer optional track performance packages that can be purchased when you are at a track or dragstrip. That way you only pay for what you use. Judging from the responses I see to the whole concept of OTA, most people on this board are totally against it and view it as OEM overreach.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The ironic thing is, this is more likely to happen with EVs than with ICE through the ability of automakers to provide Over The Air (OTA) updates and upgrades. Battery and electric motor functionality would be simpler to manage OTA than fuel system and intake system functionality on an ICE. Same process that would allow for subscription based heated seats could also allow for software enabled performance upgrades. Personally, I think OEMs would be smart to offer optional track performance packages that can be purchased when you are at a track or dragstrip. That way you only pay for what you use. Judging from the responses I see to the whole concept of OTA, most people on this board are totally against it and view it as OEM overreach.

Come on, you're painting with very broad strokes here

Nobody is against updatable architectures (well okay, a tiny fraction might, but they just want a 1960s hotrod anyway)—the actual problem and the overreach comes in when 1) owners are not informed and consulted about whether or what they want to update/enable/disable, and 2) the telemetry information being streamed out of the vehicle is used for purposes the owners would never consent to, often even without their knowledge.

BTW the continuous update approach is only applicable to software, so no suspension or track upgrades will be possible unless every vehicle already has the best possible hardware from the get-go, which is again moot, as OEMs continue to do R&D, making new hardware possible and available. I do understand there is a shift towards more features being possible using software, but it will never be a complete transition. The "free power bumps" that Tesla offers probably translate to a gradual lifting of artificial restrictions applied to their powertrain at the start, trying to maximize profits at every point; again, they already have to have the best possible hardware in the car for this.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Come on, you're painting with very broad strokes here

Nobody is against updatable architectures (well okay, a tiny fraction might, but they just want a 1960s hotrod anyway)—the actual problem and the overreach comes in when 1) owners are not informed and consulted about whether or what they want to update/enable/disable, and 2) the telemetry information being streamed out of the vehicle is used for purposes the owners would never consent to, often even without their knowledge.

I totally agree with this. Thing is, that ship has pretty much sailed. OEMs have the capability to do all of that right now, even with ICE vehicles. Whether and how they exercise it is the unanswered question. My company is by and large a data company. Where do you think a lot of that data comes from? At CES last week there were a number of seminars on monetizing consumer data. From cell phones, from autos, from basically anything electronic. My position is, if there is a cost advantage to be gained by using OTA for my purposes, not just the OEM, I'm listening.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

BTW the continuous update approach is only applicable to software, so no suspension or track upgrades will be possible unless every vehicle already has the best possible hardware from the get-go, which is again moot, as OEMs continue to do R&D, making new hardware possible and available.

Agreed. But more and more the hardware is being told what to do and when to do it by software. Just like the different modes in our cars react to the buttons we push or switches we flip through software based instructions, OTA track options would be software optimized instructions that recognize that since you are GPS identifiable as being on a track, energy focused on HVAC, lanekeeping, 360 degree cameras, and other niceties can be turned off, focusing energy use (battery depletion) on things that make the car go and stop. This could potentially increase (ever so slightly) the energy you have for funmaking. It would then revert back to normal operation when you leave the geo-fenced fun zone. Likewise, timing and intensity of acceleration and braking could be optimized for track usage versus street usage.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I do understand there is a shift towards more features being possible using software, but it will never be a complete transition. The "free power bumps" that Tesla offers probably translate to a gradual lifting of artificial restrictions applied to their powertrain at the start, trying to maximize profits at every point; again, they already have to have the best possible hardware in the car for this.

My take on the artificial restrictions is that they (Tesla) optimize the vehicle to provide the most energy efficient operation that most people would benefit from. But the power bumps allow drivers to bypass those restrictions for short periods of time. Likewise, as their own algorithms get better / more efficient at battery management, they can update product already on the road with the more efficient configurations.

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

OEMs have the capability to do all of that right now, even with ICE vehicles.

My 2020 Silverado gets updates pushed to it over the air. GM is doing it now.

-Geoff

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

My 2020 Silverado gets updates pushed to it over the air. GM is doing it now.

-Geoff

Hi Geoff. Yes I think we are all aware of automakers already doing OTA software updates. I was speaking specifically to arpad_m's concerns as quoted below...

1) owners are not informed and consulted about whether or what they want to update/enable/disable, and 2) the telemetry information being streamed out of the vehicle is used for purposes the owners would never consent to, often even without their knowledge.

Arpad was pointing out that in theory, automakers could remove functionality that you don't use often without asking you and without you noticing. And in theory they could collect data on you and sell it to whomever without your knowledge or permission. I was just stating that automakers have the capability to do those things now. It doesn't require going to EVs to be able to do any of that. The only things keeping them from doing that are integrity, respect for the laws in place, and fear of being sued.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Hops

Lethal Garage posted a video on youtube yesterday discussing a rumor about 2023 being the last year of the Camaro, with some 2023's being held over for a 2024 commemorative edition. Is there anything to this rumor? I normally don't like discussing rumors... but for me and others that are trying to time buying the last year of the Camaro, this rumor, if true, would make a 2023 a better buy, assuming held over 2024's would be in a short supply.

Once upon a time this thread asked the question "Is 2023 the last year for Camaro". Since I was heavily involved in taking it waaaay the hell of topic, here's my attempt to bring it back.

• 2023 is most likely NOT the last model year
• Lethal Camaro is NOT arriving at his position via anal extraction
• I've seen information to suggest that like Silverado / Silverado EV...Blazer / Blazer EV...Equinox / Equinox EV there will be Camaro / Camaro EV for a short period of time.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Once upon a time this thread asked the question "Is 2023 the last year for Camaro". Since I was heavily involved in taking it waaaay the hell of topic, here's my attempt to bring it back.

• 2023 is most likely NOT the last model year
• Lethal Camaro is NOT arriving at his position via anal extraction
• I've seen information to suggest that like Silverado / Silverado EV...Blazer / Blazer EV...Equinox / Equinox EV there will be Camaro / Camaro EV for a short period of time.

LOL I have an appointment tomorrow to get my 2019 appraisal, and then really considering a repeating my 2019 order on a 2023. It really seems financially dumb, I just want to maximize the time I have with a daily driven manual RWD v8 coupe. Thinking an official last year will be financially worse?

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Hops

LOL I have an appointment tomorrow to get my 2019 appraisal, and then really considering a repeating my 2019 order on a 2023. It really seems financially dumb, I just want to maximize the time I have with a daily driven manual RWD v8 coupe. Thinking an official last year will be financially worse?

I don't understand this, are you optimizing warranty coverage perhaps, willing to take on the cost of replacement in the process? What's wrong with your current Camaro, is it not a manual RWD v8 coupe? Or is it that a 2023 would last you that much longer, because you already have a ton of hard mileage on the 2019?

[Hops]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I don't understand this, are you optimizing warranty coverage perhaps, willing to take on the cost of replacement in the process? What's wrong with your current Camaro, is it not a manual RWD v8 coupe? Or is it that a 2023 would last you that much longer, because you already have a ton of hard mileage on the 2019?

I have 40k miles, I’m just thinking ahead 5 years from now when I usually get a new car after having my old one for 8-10years, what will my options be then?

I’m actually trying to talk myself out of it… there’s too much EV talk on here… LOL

[Casper the friendly G]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I need to come clean on this one. If Lethal got any of his information from published forecast data then he very well may have gotten that info from me, indirectly. When I was doing powertrain forecasting in 2018 and 2019 I had forecast the LT2 to go into Camaro. At some point in 2019 when I got better mechanical detail on some of the differences and it became clear that LT2 would not physically package in Camaro I changed the forecast back to LT1. Since GM is a customer of our forecast, he may have seen a chart created by someone at GM using our data. That could make it look like GM said it. I created charts and reports using IHS data all the time my last few years at GM and I often saw reports I created circulating for months and sometimes years after I originally created them. Lethal could very well have been looking at an old forecast I made.

I should also point out a point of weirdness. Before I left GM I sat in on a very detailed presentation that Small Block Chief Engineer Jordan Lee did for the LT6. He detailed displacement, FPC, design target range for output, and other details.

When I started doing the forecasting job at IHS the previous forecaster had forecast the LT6 displacement at 6.2L. Even though I knew it was 5.5L from the Jordan Lee meeting, I didn’t change it in the forecast because I got that info in a classified meeting. Eventually other information became available calling it a 5.5L so that was when I changed my forecast.

So is 2024 the last year or not?

[Casper the friendly G]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

They haven’t actually changed their mind on the Malibu. They have until December 31, 2034 to convert vehicles from ICE to BEV. They are not gonna shift them all over at the same time. They are working on shifting CUV, SUV, and Pickup to BEV because those are the higher volume, higher profit segments and that’s what competitors will target for new BEVs. But they are also keeping the high volume high profit ICE versions (Equinox, Silverado, Blazer) going at the same time. They’ll convert the lower volume, moderate profit vehicles next and probably won’t keep both ICE and BEV in market at the same time. Malibu, CT4, CT5 fall in this category. The last vehicles to totally shift over (other than commercial pickups) will likely be Escalade and Corvette.

EV Mandates will bite the dust. Its a fraudulent argument as being green. Those mandates will be rescinded when these clowns are kicked out of office.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G

So is 2024 the last year or not?

Well my dealer said nothing is official, but maybe 2024 or 2025. I decided against ordering a 2023.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G

EV Mandates will bite the dust. Its a fraudulent argument as being green. Those mandates will be rescinded when these clowns are kicked out of office.

It won’t matter. The major car companies made the decisions to go all electric, as well as multi billion dollar investments in their EV portfolios before the mandates were made. While a different set of clowns were in office. They’re not gonna just say “ooo…new guys in Washington. Let’s just flush the billions of dollars we just spent building battery plants and electric motor plants”.

Mark Reuss first announced GM’s plans to go all electric in 2017. Check and see who was in the White House and who was Senate Majority Leader when that announcement was made.