[classicrockr]

They're having too many problems with EV's catching fire anymore. Rivian is laying off 800 workers at it's EV facilities, Ford is laying off workers to increase it's EV production (but I don't think that'll last long). Time is proving that the technology isn't safe & the grid can't handle it.

I personally think they will make a Gen 7 ICE Camaro

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by classicrockr

They're having too many problems with EV's catching fire anymore. Rivian is laying off 800 workers at it's EV facilities, Ford is laying off workers to increase it's EV production (but I don't think that'll last long). Time is proving that the technology isn't safe & the grid can't handle it.

I personally think they will make a Gen 7 ICE Camaro

How many ICE fires are there?

Oh yeah tons......

You're letting your confirmation bias get to you. You think EV's are not safe so every time the media covers an EV fire, it just confirms what you think already.

Truth be told, if the media covered every ICE vehicle fire it would dominate the cycle more than politics does. Just because the media covers something, it does not mean anything. It's just something that generates clicks and ratings and thus profit. That is all.

[Number 3]

To be fair, GM did have to stop Bolt production due to a battery defect that in a few cases led to fires.

Yes, when lithium batteries catch fire they are harder to put out so it gets more attention in the news.

If I recall transmission fluid has a flash point of about 300 degrees so that alone leads to ICE fires.

No the are not proving to unsafe and no GM will not be doing an ICE Gen7.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

How many ICE fires are there?

Oh yeah tons......

You're letting your confirmation bias get to you. You think EV's are not safe so every time the media covers an EV fire, it just confirms what you think already.

Truth be told, if the media covered every ICE vehicle fire it would dominate the cycle more than politics does. Just because the media covers something, it does not mean anything. It's just something that generates clicks and ratings and thus profit. That is all.

You have a point, and I won't undermine the possibility of an ICE vehicle catching fire, but the issue with EV fires, is that they're ALOT harder to extinguish than ICE fires. They often times have to let them burn out, taking everything else around the vehicle out with it.. ..in essence, they do a heck of alot more damage than ICE fires, even if there are fewer of them... ...especially if it were to happen in your home while you're asleep and the car is charging which is almost completely unlikely for an ICE vehicle... you pretty much lose your entire house as the Fire Dept is not going to be able to extinguish it before the fire extinguishes your home.

[Turkish01]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Just wasn’t meant to be…

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/2...in-195013.html

I’m proud of that mighty 6.2L rejecting that nonsense right from the start! Said if we couldn’t come undone, it would be mutual destruction

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a4...ule-not-e-ray/

Actually it was a ICE Vette that burned to the ground...

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Turkish01

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a4...ule-not-e-ray/

Actually it was a ICE Vette that burned to the ground...

Honestly, sounds like a coverup to me.

The first article clearly identified the supplier.

According to GMAuthority, the vehicle was tested by Bosch when the fire started in the engine bay, supposedly after an oil leak. Subsequently, the engineers pulled over, and the flames then spread to the battery pack.

Since the supplier (Bosch) was putting it through its paces in a remote area, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the local fire crews couldn't arrive on the scene in time to save the expensive ‘Vette prototype. As a result, by the time the fire was put out, it was turned into molten wreckage. A Chevy spokesperson told the quoted outlet that nobody was injured in this incident, which is now being investigated.

While the second article says:

Chevrolet did not disclose what the supplier was testing at the time of the incident, or what sort of powertrain the car was using.

Manufacturers will do anything they can to prevent the whole truth about current EV's from leaking to the public.

[Turkish01]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Honestly, sounds like a coverup to me.

The first article clearly identified the supplier.



While the second article says:

Chevrolet spokesperson, Trevor Thompkins, reached out to GM Authority shortly after our article was published to correct the record on some of the rumors that were circulating about the fire. Thompkins says the prototype that burnt down did not have any electrified components in it and is instead a pure internal combustion engine vehicle.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/08...e-ray-gm-says/

Even gmauthority corrected the article. It is possible that its a cover up but highly doubtful.

[classicrockr]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

How many ICE fires are there?

Oh yeah tons......

You're letting your confirmation bias get to you. You think EV's are not safe so every time the media covers an EV fire, it just confirms what you think already.

Truth be told, if the media covered every ICE vehicle fire it would dominate the cycle more than politics does. Just because the media covers something, it does not mean anything. It's just something that generates clicks and ratings and thus profit. That is all.

and how easy is it to refuel on a long trip in an ICE versus an EV? oh yeah, the infrastructure is already there for an ICE, but it is sorely lacking for EV's. And cities in CA & TX that have these rolling blackouts because the electric grid can't handle things currently - yeah, that really helps the EV revolution - "no recharging cars for ___days/weeks because the grid can't handle it!". and it takes nearly 10x more water to extinguish an EV vs ICE fire....yeah, that really helps too.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by classicrockr

and how easy is it to refuel on a long trip in an ICE versus an EV? oh yeah, the infrastructure is already there for an ICE, but it is sorely lacking for EV's. And cities in CA & TX that have these rolling blackouts because the electric grid can't handle things currently - yeah, that really helps the EV revolution - "no recharging cars for ___days/weeks because the grid can't handle it!". and it takes nearly 10x more water to extinguish an EV vs ICE fire....yeah, that really helps too.

And how about the ICE vehicle during its infancy days?

Would you be a defender of the horse and buggy because there were no gas stations? What about cell phones? Would you board a jet aircraft back in the 1950's or think they are unsafe due to no propellers?

Yes there are challenges to need working on. EV's are not practical for everyone today. But tired of the detractors going since it isn't ready today, why bother? No progress can ever be made with that attitude. Charging stations can be built up( and they are every year), the grid can be upgraded. Research is ongoing into new battery technology that very well be able to reduce charging times.

And good news, you won't have to turn into your ICE vehicle tomorrow and get an EV. The transition will be over the next 2-3 decades. I think infrastructure wise, we can get it built up in that timeframe. Certainly did when the ICE powered car came out. We certainly have done a lot more complex projects in less time.

[Gen6cyl]

The ev would be easier to accept if the government would stay out of it. It should make should make it on it's own merit in the market, not be forced on us with our tax dollars.

[Slippy]

Originally Posted by Gen6cyl

The ev would be easier to accept if the government would stay out of it. It should make should make it on it's own merit in the market, not be forced on us with our tax dollars.

The tax breaks and accounting allowed in the oil industry is pretty wild if you get a chance to read into it. The oil industry and market would be different if the government stayed out of it, I think it’s an equal knock on both ICE and EV.

This bill lists specific examples:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...ouse-bill/2184

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Gen6cyl

The ev would be easier to accept if the government would stay out of it. It should make should make it on it's own merit in the market, not be forced on us with our tax dollars.

I agree. I don’t want some government moron dictating what kind of car I can drive. It’s bad enough with CAFE standards.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Gen6cyl

The ev would be easier to accept if the government would stay out of it. It should make should make it on it's own merit in the market, not be forced on us with our tax dollars.

I would suggest it isn’t being forced on you with tax dollars but encouraged……which I am dead set against.

I believe, other than the NVH issue, it will prove to be the better solution. But it should earn its way. It needs to win with the consumer and I am concerned that the OEMs that are going “ all in” are complaining they aren’t getting the $7500 on their products. Hint, hey Mary, shouldn’t have gone all in if you needed government tax breaks to make it work. Not a stock holder but if I were, WTF?

[Gen6cyl]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I would suggest it isn’t being forced on you with tax dollars but encouraged……which I am dead set against.

I believe, other than the NVH issue, it will prove to be the better solution. But it should earn its way. It needs to win with the consumer and I am concerned that the OEMs that are going “ all in” are complaining they aren’t getting the $7500 on their products. Hint, hey Mary, shouldn’t have gone all in if you needed government tax breaks to make it work. Not a stock holder but if I were, WTF?

They definitely should not get a tax break if not built in the us. Scotty Killer has done a review on the way stang mach e it is built in Mexico.