[laynlo15]

Its going to be a long time before EVs take over and I doubt everyone is going to be forced to buy an EV. Don't believe everything you read online. Everyone has their agenda including the ones saying you'll have to buy an EV if the Climate bill passes. I'm not buying one and 80 percent of the driving public won't either. Chill out and have fun with your Camaro, life is short so don't live online, live on the highway and streets of America and be glad we still have the freedom to do so.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

Chill out and have fun with your Camaro, life is short so don't live online, live on the highway and streets of America and be glad we still have the freedom to do so.

Although you didn't address this to me, I did heed your advice and will continue to do so

[KingLT1]

Agree with Greg...EV isn't going to take over anytime soon. It's not as economical as it seems. America has one of the strongest power grids on the planet and it's still not enough to keep up with everyone owning a electric car. The resources are not there to mine enough mineral to build the batteries for everyone to buy an electric car. It's not any better for the environment until someone comes up with a better battery technology that is easier to produce and less toxic.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Mister Will

Currently only 2% of the vehicles on the road are EV. Of those, 20% of the owners would not want another EV vehicle. The inconvenience is real.

California has man made blackouts. How are you going to charge your car everyday if the electricity is turned off? During summer, we are told to not use our A/C. So apparently California's grid cannot handle everyone turning their A/C on at the same time. So how are we going to charge 2 or three EVs per house hold? What about people who don't own a house? How about College Dorm students with cars? People who live in high rise apartments? Is every parking spot going to be a charging station?

Will they build up the grid ? Maybe, but there is a law in California that all cars sold in California will be zero emissions by 2030. That's 8 years form now. Keep in mind they are not building new generating plants. They think that Solar and wind will give us the electricity we need.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/24/2...on-2030-newsom

The current presidential administration has legislatively shut down oil production in America. So America is deliberately limiting oil production while mandating the sale of Electric vehicles.

Just for the sake of accuracy, it is NOT a law. The governor cannot make law, only the legislative branch can make laws. And the target year is 2035, not 2030. What it is is an executive order directing the regulatory agencies (example: CARB) and the legislature to come up with a plan to make a ban on sales of new internal combustion engine powered vehicles feasible by 2035.

I should also point out that the US has been the #1 producer of oil since 2018 and the gap to #2 (Russia) has grown every year. Also, the US exports more oil than we import.

To respond to the question on the value of today’s performance vehicles in an EV world, I think the values will go up, but I wouldn’t venture to make a guess on how much. I base this on the fact that even though sales of new ICE vehicles will be drastically reduced by the transition to EVs, there will still be ICE vehicles produced for several more decades. Performance ICE vehicles will be among the first to die off, due to low volume and low profitability. Performance vehicles will also be among the last to show up in EV form. This is largely because they are typically low volume and low profit, but also because even the basest of base BEV vehicles will have more performance than most drivers can handle. At least as far as acceleration is concerned.

In any particular year, there are 15 - 18 million new vehicles sold in the US. But there are roughly 300 million vehicles in operation. If starting tomorrow every single vehicle sold was an EV, it would take more than 20 years to turn over the vehicles in operation to completely replace ICE vehicles on the road. We all know that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. So gasoline will still be available to power the ICE vehicles still on the road, including performance cars. I expect gasoline will still be available beyond the day I eventually get scooped into an ornamental urn.

Even though the newer EVs will be faster than our SS and ZL1 cars, they may still draw great resale values. Pretty sure my 2017 SS would curb stomp a 1978 Trans Am SE. But look at what happened a couple weeks ago. A 44 year old Trans Am SE sold for $155k. That’s because raw performance is only part of the story. Emotional attachment to previous generations of cool cars is and will likely continue to be a thing. Not saying that all of us will be able to sell our cars for $155k in 2066, but they should hold their value during the gap years when there are no new performance ICE vehicles being produced and before performance BEVs are seriously introduced.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

Meanwhile 70% of EV would not qualify for the tax credit.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...le-2022-08-05/

That article is true but misleading. If you snapped a chalk line and only considered the EVs that are available today, that would be true. That’s because most of the EVs available today are priced more than $55k (cars) and $80k (trucks and SUVs) with batteries made in China. If you look at what’s coming (literally, this is my job these days) GM, Ford and Stellantis have vehicles coming in the next 1-5 years that will very neatly fit within those parameters. For example, I have a reservation for a Blazer EV. I will spec it as an SS. Blazer SS has an MSRP of $66k. Well below the $80k mark. And the batteries will be produced in Spring Hill, TN. The electric motors will be produced in a GM plant in the US. It will be available in about a year and will qualify for the incentives. The Equinox EV will be available around the same time and will start at $30k. It will easily qualify for the incentive. Several models from Ford, Honda, and Dodge (yes, Dodge) will also qualify within the next couple years.

[JBones81]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That article is true but misleading. If you snapped a chalk line and only considered the EVs that are available today, that would be true. That’s because most of the EVs available today are priced more than $55k (cars) and $80k (trucks and SUVs) with batteries made in China. If you look at what’s coming (literally, this is my job these days) GM, Ford and Stellantis have vehicles coming in the next 1-5 years that will very neatly fit within those parameters. For example, I have a reservation for a Blazer EV. I will spec it as an SS. Blazer SS has an MSRP of $66k. Well below the $80k mark. And the batteries will be produced in Spring Hill, TN. The electric motors will be produced in a GM plant in the US. It will be available in about a year and will qualify for the incentives. The Equinox EV will be available around the same time and will start at $30k. It will easily qualify for the incentive. Several models from Ford, Honda, and Dodge (yes, Dodge) will also qualify within the next couple years.

That's good info.

I've never understood why people are so resistant to change. We already have some amazing EV options, but they're pricey. If we continue to innovate and get the costs down, EVs will be a fantastic option for like 80% of drivers. I completely agree that we don't have it all figured out yet, but we have to try. The world is getting so out of whack. I'd rather that our country leads this industry and profits from it than somewhere else like Japan or Germany

[raptor5244]

The part that has me scratching my head is if we are battery constrained and it will take many years to convert to EV then why is GM going all in on EVs so soon? Until we have BEVs that cost the same as Toyota Camry and can be driven cross country with no concerns folks will continue to buy ICE and Hybrids.

For example, most people who live in an apartment complex or smaller home without enough power to add a 50amp circuit or drive long distances, etc. will opt for an ICE/Hybrid vehicle. GMs all EV business plan basically eliminates those potential buyers. I have nothing against BEVs as I have owned a Tesla for the past 3 years but I don’t get the drastic move GM is making. They could simply add BEVs as an option to the lineup vs killing off anything that has a tailpipe.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

The part that has me scratching my head is if we are battery constrained and it will take many years to convert to EV then why is GM going all in on EVs so soon? Until we have BEVs that cost the same as Toyota Camry and can be driven cross country with no concerns folks will continue to buy ICE and Hybrids.

For example, most people who live in an apartment complex or smaller home without enough power to add a 50amp circuit or drive long distances, etc. will opt for an ICE/Hybrid vehicle. GMs all EV business plan basically eliminates those potential buyers. I have nothing against BEVs as I have owned a Tesla for the past 3 years but I don’t get the drastic move GM is making. They could simply add BEVs as an option to the lineup vs killing off anything that has a tailpipe.

This is my studied opinion…

Look at GM’s current vehicle line-up at a vehicle platform level:
Alpha, Chi, Delta, Gamma, Epsilon, GMT7XX, T1, Y-car. Most of these platforms have multiple configurations (Camaro is on Alpha 1, CT4/CT5 are on Alpha 2). Each costs one to several billions to maintain and update.

When their electrification rollout is complete GM will have two platforms. BEV3 for body frame integral (unibody) vehicles and BET for body on frame vehicles. The economies of scale of building everything off of two platforms is mind boggling.

Let’s look at the Powertrain side of it. GM has the CSS family of 3,4 and 6 cylinder engines, the HFV6 engines, the Small Block family of V8 engines, Duramax V8 engines, and a few other low volume products in South America and China. There are also 6, 8, and 10 speed FWD and RWD transmissions and a 9 speed FWD transmission. All of that will be replaced by 4 or 5 electric motor sizes and 2 or 3 drive units. All of these can be mixed and matched to produce various capabilities of FWD, RWD, and AWD vehicles. They really tipped their hand with the options for Blazer EV. Some trim levels are available in either FWD or RWD. In essence, GM is saying “which axle do you want your motor on?”

By reducing the need to engineer and maintain more than a dozen platform configurations down to just a couple platforms that are super flexible for length and track, GM reduces their cost base by billions of dollars. BEV3 will spawn everything from a $30k Equinox EV to a Cadillac Lyriq and everything in between, car and utility. BET will carry everything from the Hummer EV that launched the platform to an eventual Canyon Colorado replacement.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by JBones81

That's good info.

I've never understood why people are so resistant to change. We already have some amazing EV options, but they're pricey. If we continue to innovate and get the costs down, EVs will be a fantastic option for like 80% of drivers. I completely agree that we don't have it all figured out yet, but we have to try. The world is getting so out of whack. I'd rather that our country leads this industry and profits from it than somewhere else like Japan or Germany

In a sense I can understand the resistance. A ginormous number of people are under the impression that the government is forcing the EV transition. If that were true, resistance is certainly understandable. Thing is, it’s not true. The government has gotten on board with it and are trying to put US manufacturers and suppliers in a position to benefit from the transition. The current administration is on board with it and supportive of it, but they are definitely not leading it. That would be the automakers who are publicly pledging billions of dollars to EV development and publicly stating that their ICE products are going away.

What’s driving it in the US is the fact that almost all major automakers are transitioning their portfolios to EV. Some faster than others. What’s driving the manufacturers is that most nations, including the largest automobile markets, have adopted the findings of the Paris Accord and acknowledged that the path to saving the global environment includes eventual elimination of internal combustion engine based transportation. The US is way behind larger automotive markets (China, EU Big 5) in adopting electric vehicles. If Ford, GM, and Stellantis do nothing, they’d be buried under Volkswagen, PSA, Mercedes, BMW, and Volvo when those companies bring their EU based EVs to the US. That is a large part of the reason the bill passed a couple days ago provides incentives only for vehicles manufactured in North America plus a few free trade partner countries.

I think it’s sort of naive to hold on to the idea that the move to electrification is driven by domestic policy when the driving force is vehicles being developed in Europe and China. Areas where US administrations, be they blue or be they red, have ZERO influence.

[JBones81]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

In a sense I can understand the resistance. A ginormous number of people are under the impression that the government is forcing the EV transition. If that were true, resistance is certainly understandable. Thing is, it’s not true. The government has gotten on board with it and are trying to put US manufacturers and suppliers in a position to benefit from the transition. The current administration is on board with it and supportive of it, but they are definitely not leading it. That would be the automakers who are publicly pledging billions of dollars to EV development and publicly stating that their ICE products are going away.

What’s driving it in the US is the fact that almost all major automakers are transitioning their portfolios to EV. Some faster than others. What’s driving the manufacturers is that most nations, including the largest automobile markets, have adopted the findings of the Paris Accord and acknowledged that the path to saving the global environment includes eventual elimination of internal combustion engine based transportation. The US is way behind larger automotive markets (China, EU Big 5) in adopting electric vehicles. If Ford, GM, and Stellantis do nothing, they’d be buried under Volkswagen, PSA, Mercedes, BMW, and Volvo when those companies bring their EU based EVs to the US. That is a large part of the reason the bill passed a couple days ago provides incentives only for vehicles manufactured in North America plus a few free trade partner countries.

I think it’s sort of naive to hold on to the idea that the move to electrification is driven by domestic policy when the driving force is vehicles being developed in Europe and China. Areas where US administrations, be they blue or be they red, have ZERO influence.

Very true

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This is my studied opinion…

Look at GM’s current vehicle line-up at a vehicle platform level:
Alpha, Chi, Delta, Gamma, Epsilon, GMT7XX, T1, Y-car. Most of these platforms have multiple configurations (Camaro is on Alpha 1, CT4/CT5 are on Alpha 2). Each costs one to several billions to maintain and update.

When their electrification rollout is complete GM will have two platforms. BEV3 for body frame integral (unibody) vehicles and BET for body on frame vehicles. The economies of scale of building everything off of two platforms is mind boggling.

Let’s look at the Powertrain side of it. GM has the CSS family of 3,4 and 6 cylinder engines, the HFV6 engines, the Small Block family of V8 engines, Duramax V8 engines, and a few other low volume products in South America and China. There are also 6, 8, and 10 speed FWD and RWD transmissions and a 9 speed FWD transmission. All of that will be replaced by 4 or 5 electric motor sizes and 2 or 3 drive units. All of these can be mixed and matched to produce various capabilities of FWD, RWD, and AWD vehicles. They really tipped their hand with the options for Blazer EV. Some trim levels are available in either FWD or RWD. In essence, GM is saying “which axle do you want your motor on?”

By reducing the need to engineer and maintain more than a dozen platform configurations down to just a couple platforms that are super flexible for length and track, GM reduces their cost base by billions of dollars. BEV3 will spawn everything from a $30k Equinox EV to a Cadillac Lyriq and everything in between, car and utility. BET will carry everything from the Hummer EV that launched the platform to an eventual Canyon Colorado replacement.

That makes sense. Eliminating a bunch technical debt and optimizing the production process will save a tremendous amount of money for sure. On one hand this skateboard architecture allows you to build anything you want, but I wonder if it will be enough for enthusiasts? I can see this working for typical SUVs, sedans and pickups but driving dynamics will be more important than ever for enthusiasts in an EV world since you are losing a ton of personality without the ICE engine and gearing.

One other big difference that I found with EVs is that the differentiation is harder to appreciate between the trim levels. For example, from a driving perspective, I don't think you will notice a whole lot of difference between a $66k Blazer SS and $45k base model. Yes, the Blazer SS will be quicker on paper and you will get a bit more shove in the seat between 0-60mph. I experienced this with our Tesla Model 3 Performance and Model 3 Standard. While the Model 3 Performance is quicker, the Model 3 SR is actually bit more entertaining to drive since it is lighter with only the rear motor it feels more like a mid engine car and still offers that instant torque experience. It is hard to explain unless you own and drive them. The issue with Tesla is they call it a Performance trim but all it offers it a bit quicker to 60mph. They have the same performance from 60-120mph, no HUD, no adaptive dampers, no sporty seats, no drive modes, etc. Hopefully GM does more to differentiate the trim levels besides just interior options.

If you compare this to a Camaro with 2.0L Turbo, 3.6L V6, 6.2L V8 and ZL1 LT4, they all have different personalities. Then you add in manual or paddle shifting automatics, exhaust note, etc. EVs will pretty much feel all the same and very little driving engagement and that saddens me. In fact, most are working on software to reduce the amount of driving engagement required.
Hopefully, EV manufactures will find a way to appeal to an enthusiast like me.

[NG329]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

A ginormous number of people are under the impression that the government is forcing the EV transition. If that were true, resistance is certainly understandable. Thing is, it’s not true. The government has gotten on board with it and are trying to put US manufacturers and suppliers in a position to benefit from the transition. The current administration is on board with it and supportive of it, but they are definitely not leading it.

Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ret...35-2021-07-14/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/busin...ntl/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/good...from-2035.html

These are just a sample of many articles identifying lawmakers as the driving force behind this.

The European Union kicked it off and other countries are following suit. it'll be tougher here in the USA because I think that each State will have the final say.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

In a sense I can understand the resistance. A ginormous number of people are under the impression that the government is forcing the EV transition. If that were true, resistance is certainly understandable. Thing is, it’s not true. The government has gotten on board with it and are trying to put US manufacturers and suppliers in a position to benefit from the transition. The current administration is on board with it and supportive of it, but they are definitely not leading it. That would be the automakers who are publicly pledging billions of dollars to EV development and publicly stating that their ICE products are going away.

What’s driving it in the US is the fact that almost all major automakers are transitioning their portfolios to EV. Some faster than others. What’s driving the manufacturers is that most nations, including the largest automobile markets, have adopted the findings of the Paris Accord and acknowledged that the path to saving the global environment includes eventual elimination of internal combustion engine based transportation. The US is way behind larger automotive markets (China, EU Big 5) in adopting electric vehicles. If Ford, GM, and Stellantis do nothing, they’d be buried under Volkswagen, PSA, Mercedes, BMW, and Volvo when those companies bring their EU based EVs to the US. That is a large part of the reason the bill passed a couple days ago provides incentives only for vehicles manufactured in North America plus a few free trade partner countries.

I think it’s sort of naive to hold on to the idea that the move to electrification is driven by domestic policy when the driving force is vehicles being developed in Europe and China. Areas where US administrations, be they blue or be they red, have ZERO influence.

Originally Posted by NG329

Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ret...35-2021-07-14/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/busin...ntl/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/good...from-2035.html

These are just a sample of many articles identifying lawmakers as the driving force behind this.

The European Union kicked it off and other countries are following suit. it'll be tougher here in the USA because I think that each State will have the final say.

So the cool thing here is not only did you confirm my point, but the first article you referenced actually cites the company I work for as a source of their information.

Lawmakers are DEFINITELY involved in the push for EV in China and Europe. Sorta exactly what I said here… What’s driving the manufacturers is that most nations, including the largest automobile markets, have adopted the findings of the Paris Accord and acknowledged that the path to saving the global environment includes eventual elimination of internal combustion engine based transportation. The US is way behind larger automotive markets (China, EU Big 5) in adopting electric vehicles.. Lawmakers in multiple European countries are setting law consistent with Paris Accord findings. Those laws are pushing manufacturers to pivot their portfolios away from ICE to BEV. And because maintaining two dramatically different product portfolios is ridiculously expensive, they’re going all in on electric because that’s where their two largest markets are taking them. And it doesn’t matter what US administrations do because the US is no longer their largest market.

Your point is lawmakers ARE behind the move to EVs. My point is US lawmakers are not behind it, they’re reacting to it. Reacting means you’re behind. The reason European lawmakers and Chinese policymakers are pushing it is centered around the Paris Accord. The 2008-2016 administration had the US included in following the Paris Accord. The 2016-2020 administration removed the US from the Paris Accord. The 2020-2024 administration returned the US to the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord will continue to progress whether the US is part of it or not. Automakers looking to sell product globally have all pledge concurrence to the findings of the Paris Accord and will continue to do so no matter who sits where in Washington D.C.

[ZX-10R]

The reality is "climate change" is largely another boogeyman crisis that cedes more power to big government. China and India aren't slowing their rates of pollution and climate change "science" is more extrapolation of some facts. We would need thousands of years of data to assess overall trends, not 50 to 100 years of data. Puny little man isn't going to kill the planet, wait until you see what God does to it.

I see this as just more of the relentless march toward globalism and ultimately a centrally controlled, socioeconomic system. Everyone will be a number. CBDCs are the next shoe to drop, bitcoin is stupid