2024 Camaro?

[raptor5244]

Just throwing this out there. If you can't charge at home, don't even bother. The inconvenience and added cost of having to sit at a Supercharger/public charging is not worth it. The cost per KWh just keeps going up and in some locations it is like .60 per KWh during peak hours. When you can charge at home in your garage while you sleep for .12 per KWh is a very different story and can save you quite a bit of money. Also, unlike a gas vehicle these EVs use up energy even when you are not driving them. Alarm system, cabin overheat protection, battery cooling systems, etc. The vehicle also has to wake up if it detects the 12V battery needs a charge and uses the main battery to charge the 12V accessory battery. These cars also wake up when you use the Tesla mobile app. You need to think of them kind of like you cell phone, even when you are not using them they still drain a bit. This needs to be factored into the total cost.

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/te...25%20per%20kWh.

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by NG329

Lots of good discussion here. Honestly, I definitely think battery technology could work but I don't think we're quite there yet. As was already mentioned, our infrastructure can't really support it. I vaguely recall last year California advised against EV owners charging their vehicles during peak hours due to strain on the grid.

Here are my concerns:

1 - Battery technology is not cheap manufacturer. Lower income families are priced out of the market.

2 - Battery Technology is not clean to manufacture or recycle.

3 - Charging algorithms are very slow. Tesla's 70% quick charge is 20 minutes, but that is an eternity at a gas station on a road trip.

4 - Risks of overcharging and fires.

5 - Health risks of radiation and emissions; Cancer etc.

6 - Expensive to replace batteries

7 - Availability of charging stations.


I'm honestly not against innovation. I just don't think this is a 5-10 year process.

I agree, which is why I scratch my head when I hear GM is going all EV right away. Even if the demand is there, they will be battery production constrained for years. It just doesn't seem like a smart business move to cannibalize your entire ICE business overnight and try to become a Tesla. GM still has to prove they can even build reliable EVs. The Bolt does not inspire a lot of confidence and GM does not have a Supercharger network like Tesla does. It is a bold move IMO. I think Ford strategy strike a better balance even though they may have some higher costs as a result of running two divisions.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38252...vidual%20cells.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

Just throwing this out there. If you can't charge at home, don't even bother. The inconvenience and added cost of having to sit at a Supercharger/public charging is not worth it. The cost per KWh just keeps going up and in some locations it is like .60 per KWh during peak hours. When you can charge at home in your garage while you sleep for .12 per KWh is a very different story and can save you quite a bit of money. Also, unlike a gas vehicle these EVs use up energy even when you are not driving them. Alarm system, cabin overheat protection, battery cooling systems, etc. The vehicle also has to wake up if it detects the 12V battery needs a charge and uses the main battery to charge the 12V accessory battery. These cars also wake up when you use the Tesla mobile app. You need to think of them kind of like you cell phone, even when you are not using them they still drain a bit. This needs to be factored into the total cost.

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/te...25%20per%20kWh.

100% agreed.

If you can’t charge from home, EV’s are not a good choice.

[cooldawg]

Originally Posted by CCG Garnet Red

Ford debuting new updated 2024 Mustang and 2024 model looks like death date #2 for Camaro. EV crazy gm gives up another car market. Very sad!

Yep sounds like Ford is going to offer a NA V8. Great! A feather in their cap, for sure. I would prefer that to an IL6 TT in a Dodge.

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

I agree, which is why I scratch my head when I hear GM is going all EV right away. Even if the demand is there, they will be battery production constrained for years. It just doesn't seem like a smart business move to cannibalize your entire ICE business overnight and try to become a Tesla. GM still has to prove they can even build reliable EVs. The Bolt does not inspire a lot of confidence and GM does not have a Supercharger network like Tesla does. It is a bold move IMO. I think Ford strategy strike a better balance even though they may have some higher costs as a result of running two divisions.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38252...vidual%20cells.

They are being forced into it by the current administration. They know all manufacturers are, and they don’t want to miss out on any potential market share so they really have no choice but to go all in.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

Are you talking about downloading via an OBD2 connector or are they violating privacy and downloading and installing OTA connection without consent?

So much dark thinking here.

GM has used OnStar to download updates that save the customer from having to go to the dealer.

Agree that the downside of what I think GM is calling Ultifi is to monetize your car.

There is no evidence that GM (or Tesla for that matter) has done any more than that.

The one case of the 60D vs 90D is this. You think you bought hardware so therefore you should have the functionality. No. You bought software and you are paying for the function.

And to be very clear I think it’s stupid business model, and would have serious reservations about paying asubscription fee as GM intends with Supercruise.

The market will determine if this is acceptable.

But to be clear you will get your car under the terms and conditions you bought it under. Although Tesla gets a lot of press for charging $4500 to “enable” auto pilot, it just not any more likely an EV gets changed any more than an ICE. An Escalade right now with Supercruise has all of the dystopian capability of a Tesla.

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So much dark thinking here.

GM has used OnStar to download updates that save the customer from having to go to the dealer.

Agree that the downside of what I think GM is calling Ultifi is to monetize your car.

There is no evidence that GM (or Tesla for that matter) has done any more than that.

The one case of the 60D vs 90D is this. You think you bought hardware so therefore you should have the functionality. No. You bought software and you are paying for the function.

And to be very clear I think it’s stupid business model, and would have serious reservations about paying asubscription fee as GM intends with Supercruise.

The market will determine if this is acceptable.

But to be clear you will get your car under the terms and conditions you bought it under. Although Tesla gets a lot of press for charging $4500 to “enable” auto pilot, it just not any more likely an EV gets changed any more than an ICE. An Escalade right now with Supercruise has all of the dystopian capability of a Tesla.

I get a software update on my Tesla Model 3 about every other month. Some updates add features and make useful improvements to driving functionality and some are just for fun like when Tesla add a holiday music and light show mode.

Yeah, Autopilot is included in the price of the car now but now but you can spend $12k for FSD or subscribe to it for $199 a month. A crazy price for some software that doesn’t actually enable full self driving. I can also go into the Tesla app on my phone and purchase rear heated seats if I want. If you can subscribe to a feature for a month at a reasonable price it may not be too bad. For example, if I was taking a family road trip and could subscribe to navigate on autopilot feature and the heated seats and then unsubscribe after the trip. However, it just seems stupid that all the hardware is there in the car but you have to pay extra to use it. It would be like comparing the content between a Camaro 1SS and 2SS. Imagine both trims have the rear view mirror camera but it only works if you subscribe to the feature. Same thing for heated and ventilated seats and lighted door sills, subscribe and the features work, otherwise no. This is a common model with computers and software but it still feels weird in a car.

[JKSully]

Originally Posted by Slippy

Just state the temperature, show everyone that you are correct and I’m ignorant.

Considering it will invariably have multiple misspellings and incorrect usage of the "your/you're" and "there/their/they're" variations, will it really convince anybody that he's correct about anything?

[arpad_m]

Looks like the question of what software is, or what the ownership model for such intangibles should be is still undetermined after 40+ years... the original problems of infinite, no (effective) cost duplication and trivial modifiability compared to physical materials have never been addressed.

And, people don't take these "subscription" models well, as they are simply thinly veiled continuous extortion attempts. Heck, even the entertainment industry isn't going that far, a channel subscription will always give you new content, nobody is trying to charge you for the exact same song every day, even though there are some repetitions in programs.

I'd be absolutely fine with selling a feature after the fact for more than it originally would've cost if ordered with the car, but charging a monthly fee for heated seats or navigation or really anything that already works and isn't changed once enabled...

[Vigilante375]

You have those that are against simmering and will feed information on why it is wrong but then when their "facts" are proven to be questionable then they will back off.

Like I said before, people will be against EVs for things like "The government will control you easier" or they aren't reliable or safe or harm the environment, etc...etc...

Just look up how many of the common things we use these days that people were against when they first came out.

[David Gordon]

Originally Posted by Vigilante375

You have those that are against simmering and will feed information on why it is wrong but then when their "facts" are proven to be questionable then they will back off.

Like I said before, people will be against EVs for things like "The government will control you easier" or they aren't reliable or safe or harm the environment, etc...etc...

Just look up how many of the common things we use these days that people were against when they first came out.

I still think cell phones were a bad idea, Video games, bad idea. This world was a better place before those happened. Yes I have a cell phone.

[Blackdevil77]

Originally Posted by David Gordon

I still think cell phones were a bad idea, Video games, bad idea. This world was a better place before those happened. Yes I have a cell phone.

Smart phones and social media I think is much worse than cell phones in general. Having a phone on you in case of an emergency isn’t a bad thing. But like everything, it becomes too much.

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by JKSully

Considering it will invariably have multiple misspellings and incorrect usage of the "your/you're" and "there/their/they're" variations, will it really convince anybody that he's correct about anything?

Slippy Google's an article and he's an expert. What he's bringing up has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm using my phone so and I don't really care about misspellings.I just read his article and the way I interpet it is the the best temperature for effeincy is 59 degrees the effeincy range is between 59-95 and the average temperature that companies use the list their coefficient ratings is 77. They way I see it after 59 degree's effeincy decreases and after 95 degrees they are useless.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune...peratures/amp/

[90503]

The inevitable future with it's driver assistance features marches on...The designers, sellers, and promoters of these death-mobiles that cater to the smug lazy drivers should all be in prison.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-...s-motorcyclist

Another Death
A motorcyclist in Utah was killed over the weekend after a Tesla driver crashed into him from the back — while the car's Autopilot system was turned on.

It's yet another crash involving the highly controversial driver assistance feature, and which has already been added to the lengthy list of crashes being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

According to local news, the motorcyclist was hit just after 1 am on Sunday, local time. The Tesla driver reportedly didn't see the rider, who died at the scene after sustaining fatal injuries, according to police.

The Numbers
As of this week, the NHTSA's Special Crash investigations (SCI) list of collisions includes 48 crashes, 39 of which involve Tesla vehicles. In total, it's tracking 19 deaths involving Tesla vehicles.

Sixteen of these crashes involved Tesla vehicles colliding with stationary emergency vehicles while Autopilot was turned on.

And those are just the crashes actively being investigated by the NHTSA's SCI unit. According to the regulator, it's aware of 273 crashes involving Autopilot between July 2021 and May 2022 in the US.

Total Recall
The regulator's investigation is raising the specter of a potential recall of massive proportions. The NHTSA is investigating 830,000 cars now, which includes every single car the electric carmaker has sold between 2014 and 2021, including the Model S, X, 3, and Y.

It's still unclear what such a recall could end up looking like, or whether Tesla will be forced to physically take possession of these vehicles to make changes or simply issue an over-the-air software update.

Tesla is also going through a major restructuring. The news comes just two weeks after Andrej Karpathy, the head of Tesla's AI department, which oversee the company's controversial Autopilot feature, abruptly left the company.

As the latest fatal crash goes to show, there are clear risks to using these driver-assistance features, particularly when it comes to Tesla's Full Self-Driving package, an optional $12,000 add-on that is being beta tested by a selected group of drivers on public streets.

The crashes are starting to pile up — and so is the pressure on Tesla to ensure its driver assistance software won't lead to yet another avoidable death.