2024 Camaro?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

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.

Not even close. GM declared their intent to go all EV in 2019. Trump was president and GOP controlled both houses. Please prove me wrong.

While I wait for that, I’ll post a couple statements from GM President Mark Reuss and others on the topic. Reuss would certainly be a bit more knowledgeable on the topic than most since it’s his job. Reuss is also a car guy. He pretty much single handily green lit the 5th Gen Z/28 and the ZL1 1LE and he is one of the best track drivers at GM, despite his faux pas with the ZR1 at the Detroit Grand Prix. And just as much as it’s Mark Reuss’s job to pilot GM product strategy, it’s my job to cover and consult on this stuff.

From January 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://electrek.co/2019/01/15/gm-mo...-all-electric/

From June 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://ecolodriver.com/gm-working-o...evy-silverado/

From December 2019 (before Biden Administration)
https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-12-...cles-2030.html

Please prove me wrong.

[90503]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

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.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not even close. GM declared their intent to go all EV in 2019. Trump was president and GOP controlled both houses. Please prove me wrong.

While I wait for that, I’ll post a couple statements from GM President Mark Reuss and others on the topic. Reuss would certainly be a bit more knowledgeable on the topic than most since it’s his job. Reuss is also a car guy. He pretty much single handily green lit the 5th Gen Z/28 and the ZL1 1LE and he is one of the best track drivers at GM, despite his faux pas with the ZR1 at the Detroit Grand Prix. And just as much as it’s Mark Reuss’s job to pilot GM product strategy, it’s my job to cover and consult on this stuff.

From January 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://electrek.co/2019/01/15/gm-mo...-all-electric/

From June 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://ecolodriver.com/gm-working-o...evy-silverado/

From December 2019 (before Biden Administration)
https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-12-...cles-2030.html

Please prove me wrong.

You forgot this one. And what a coincidence! Right after the Nov 3rd election!

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...-air-standards

GM had to go woke to appease the mob and the Biden administration. Prior to the election result they at least had some integrity. All that free money was just too good to risk by not being a good lackey and going all in with EVs sooner than later.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

You forgot this one. And what a coincidence! Right after the Nov 3rd election!

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...-air-standards

GM had to go woke to appease the mob and the Biden administration. Prior to the election result they at least had some integrity. All that free money was just too good to risk by not being a good lackey.

How do you account for all the strategy statements GM made in 2019? Nobody knew who would win the Nov. 2020 election when GM said “we’re going all electric”. Their decision was made based on global economics and concern for a reduction of carbon emissions. The interesting thing is GM is notoriously tight-lipped about future product, but there they were in 2019 laying it all out publicly. Again, a year and a half before an election, so they obviously didn’t know or care what administration would be in power.

In my opinion GM’s rationale for being so open about this was to signal to the supply community that change is coming. Now they have strategic agreements including joint ventures to develop and produce state-of-the-art batteries as well as supply agreements with mines and producers of metals and materials required to manufacture batteries and electric motors.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

How do you account for all the strategy statements GM made in 2019? Nobody knew who would win the Nov. 2020 election when GM said “we’re going all electric”. Their decision was made based on global economics and concern for a reduction of carbon emissions. The interesting thing is GM is notoriously tight-lipped about future product, but there they were in 2019 laying it all out publicly. Again, a year and a half before an election, so they obviously didn’t know or care what administration would be in power.

In my opinion GM’s rationale for being so open about this was to signal to the supply community that change is coming. Now they have strategic agreements including joint ventures to develop and produce state-of-the-art batteries as well as supply agreements with mines and producers of metals and materials required to manufacture batteries and electric motors.

Those 2019 articles and statements do not mention "going all electric" and announce any end to ICE production. It was "all electric" as opposed to hybrid. No mention of ending ICE.
That didn't happen until the Biden administration was in and the goal of ending fossil fuels was put into action. Sure, they could plan on EVs in 2019 (Tesla had been building them for years and GM and many others just couldn't wait for Tesla to fail). Only when the Biden administration artificially promoted EVs with subsidies and anti-fossil fuel policies and the woke New Green Deal and Paris Climate Accords agendas did GM (gm) go all in on EVs and start bragging about ending ICE.

[mlee]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) started in the 70's...

2012 is when these standards greatly increased, and we started seeing hybrids and anything high fuel economy to offset the SUV and Truck market. Unless CAFE changes the writing is on the wall. Seems to me GM just gave up and went all in.

[bigd1276]

It's all Administration driven.

On July 29, 2011, President Obama announced an agreement with thirteen large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025.

In early August 2018, the EPA and Department of Transportation, then operating under the Presidency of Donald Trump, issued a proposed ruling that, if enacted, would rollback some of the goals set in 2012 under President Obama. It proposed freezing the fuel economy goals to the 2021 target of 37 mpg, would halt requirements on the production of hybrid and electric cars, and would eliminate the legal waiver that allows states like California to set more stringent standards.

Upon taking office, the administration of President Biden stated an intention to set new fuel efficiency standards.[63] In August 2021 NHTSA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offering new standards for the 2024–2026 model years.

The final rule covering the 2024–2026 model years was signed on March 31, 2022. Fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks each increase 8 percent for 2024 MY, 8 percent for 2025 MY, and 10 percent for 2026 MY. NHTSA projects that the updated targets lead to an industry-wide average of 49 MPG by the 2026 model year given a fleet mix of 48 percent passenger cars and 52 percent light trucks.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Those 2019 articles and statements do not mention "going all electric" and announce any end to ICE production. It was "all electric" as opposed to hybrid. No mention of ending ICE.
That didn't happen until the Biden administration was in and the goal of ending fossil fuels was put into action. Sure, they could plan on EVs in 2019 (Tesla had been building them for years and GM and many others just couldn't wait for Tesla to fail). Only when the Biden administration artificially promoted EVs with subsidies and anti-fossil fuel policies and the woke New Green Deal and Paris Climate Accords agendas did GM (gm) go all in on EVs and start bragging about ending ICE.

Fair enough. I’ll find the exact quotes and dates of Mark Reuss announcing all electric and Carbon Neutrality. In all fairness, when he first talked about going all electric, I misinterpreted what he said and even said on this forum that what he meant was the electrified products would be all electric. I later received direct confirmation from someone very close to Mark that what he said and meant was that GM was moving to all electric. There was not a time frame put on it at then point. In later quotes he gave timing for Cadillac and then for all GM passenger vehicles going 100% electric. 2030 for Cadillac, 2035 for the whole company. Again these statements were made in 2019, some of them repeated in 2020. Again, before the Biden Administration.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Fair enough. I’ll find the exact quotes and dates of Mark Reuss announcing all electric and Carbon Neutrality. In all fairness, when he first talked about going all electric, I misinterpreted what he said and even said on this forum that what he meant was the electrified products would be all electric. I later received direct confirmation from someone very close to Mark that what he said and meant was that GM was moving to all electric. There was not a time frame put on it at then point. In later quotes he gave timing for Cadillac and then for all GM passenger vehicles going 100% electric. 2030 for Cadillac, 2035 for the whole company. Again these statements were made in 2019, some of them repeated in 2020. Again, before the Biden Administration.

Perhaps this article with statements from Reuss has some links you may be looking for. Still none have any plan (pre-Biden) for ending ICE. It appeared that we would continue to have a choice, etc., etc. EVs would have to gain acceptance on their own merit and not be dependent on anti fossil fuel policies (none exisited pre-Biden) with gas prices at the time being reasonable and non-punitive (pre-Biden).

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/01...eeable-future/

It was a full one year later that GM, (and not coincidentally after a year of seeing the severity of Biden policies and bureaucratic opposition to oil, gas and fossil fuels), went full simpatico with the woke left and virtue-signaled the end of ICE vehicles by 2035.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gene...s-by-2035.html

It's obvious that the Biden administration has made the policies parroted by GM and by default left the public with no choice other than EV.

To deny the Biden policies had no bearing on GM decisions to end ICE, that they were already set in stone pre-Biden is hardly believable. GM had no choice and soon neither will the rest of us.

With a different Congress and administration over the next few years, we can reverse the destructive transition to EVs that is dependent on bankrupting the country and the middle class for the platitudes and tyranny of the liberal global world order of the woke left in the U.S. and see a return to common sense and fossil fuel prosperity and economic security.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Perhaps this article with statements from Reuss has some links you may be looking for. Still none have any plan (pre-Biden) for ending ICE. It appeared that we would continue to have a choice, etc., etc. EVs would have to gain acceptance on their own merit and not be dependent on anti fossil fuel policies (none exisited pre-Biden) with gas prices at the time being reasonable and non-punitive (pre-Biden).

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/01...eeable-future/

It was a full one year later that GM, (and not coincidentally after a year of seeing the severity of Biden policies and bureaucratic opposition to oil, gas and fossil fuels), went full simpatico with the woke left and virtue-signaled the end of ICE vehicles by 2035.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gene...s-by-2035.html

It's obvious that the Biden administration has made the policies parroted by GM and by default left the public with no choice other than EV.

To deny the Biden policies had no bearing on GM decisions to end ICE, that they were already set in stone pre-Biden is hardly believable. GM had no choice and soon neither will the rest of us.

With a different Congress and administration over the next few years, we can reverse the destructive transition to EVs that is dependent on bankrupting the country and the middle class for the platitudes and tyranny of the liberal global world order of the woke left in the U.S. and see a return to common sense and fossil fuel prosperity and economic security.

October of 2017. These are the Reuss remarks that I originally misinterpreted. I interpreted them to mean that GM’s electrification plans only included EVs and fuel cells instead of hybrids. Others confirmed for me later that it meant no more ICE.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/aut...d-cars-n806806

There is no timing included in these remarks. Only that this is GM’s end game. In 2019 the remarks were clarified to include Cadillac being all electric by 2030. Then later Buick’s timeline was set at 2035. Then the whole passenger vehicle portfolio was described as being all EV by 2035.

Finally, here is GM’s Carbon Neutrality press release from January 2021. Yes, this was released after Biden took office. Days after. Anyone who thinks the strategy behind this started in November 2020 after the election and progressed to a press release in January doesn’t understand how corporate strategy works. This press release says that not only will all GM’s products be zero emissions (EV and fuel cell), but the plants that make them will be net zero in terms of carbon emissions. It takes years to develop, study and confirm a strategy of this magnitude. It could be that GM sat on this announcement until after the Biden Administration was in place, but there is no doubt it was a long time in development and scoping and was the direction of the company before the election even took place.

https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail....28-carbon.html

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by bigd1276

It's all Administration driven.

On July 29, 2011, President Obama announced an agreement with thirteen large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025.

In early August 2018, the EPA and Department of Transportation, then operating under the Presidency of Donald Trump, issued a proposed ruling that, if enacted, would rollback some of the goals set in 2012 under President Obama. It proposed freezing the fuel economy goals to the 2021 target of 37 mpg, would halt requirements on the production of hybrid and electric cars, and would eliminate the legal waiver that allows states like California to set more stringent standards.

Upon taking office, the administration of President Biden stated an intention to set new fuel efficiency standards.[63] In August 2021 NHTSA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offering new standards for the 2024–2026 model years.

The final rule covering the 2024–2026 model years was signed on March 31, 2022. Fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks each increase 8 percent for 2024 MY, 8 percent for 2025 MY, and 10 percent for 2026 MY. NHTSA projects that the updated targets lead to an industry-wide average of 49 MPG by the 2026 model year given a fleet mix of 48 percent passenger cars and 52 percent light trucks.

All of this is true, but GM had announced the intent to go 100% electric and to operate factories at zero net carbon emissions long before these changes to the rule making were finalized.

[lbls1]

I hope this is a prank article. It makes no sense at all to put the Camaro nameplate on a sedan. I would rather Chevrolet cancel the camaro line and experiment with newer concepts than to bastardize the Camaro's heritage.

On the other hand, I feel that there is a need for a new performance sedan. Chevrolet could easily develop a nameplate and put it on the new vehicle. With vigorous promotion the new model could be competitive.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

I hope this is a prank article. It makes no sense at all to put the Camaro nameplate on a sedan. I would rather Chevrolet cancel the camaro line and experiment with newer concepts than to bastardize the Camaro's heritage.

On the other hand, I feel that there is a need for a new performance sedan. Chevrolet could easily develop a nameplate and put it on the new vehicle. With vigorous promotion the new model could be competitive.

I don't think it's a prank. It may be a bit speculative, but most likely not a prank. GM has shown and spoken of an intent to offer a "low-roof performance EV". Low-roof is GM-ese for car. That opens the door for CT4 / CT5 replacements which could be named whatever, a Camaro replacement, which could be named whatever (including Camaro) or even a Corvette replacement or addition to the Corvette portfolio. Anyone who says they know for sure either has a very high paying job in GM Product Development or they're just guessing like the rest of us.

[SaReNi]

all I can say is, if I can't hear it, I don't want to drive it.

[KMPrenger]

When it comes to EVs...I just don't think I have an interest in owning a fast EV coupe, versus a fast EV SUV or sedan for that matter.

When I can get 500 or 600 HP and more torque in a low riding SUV, for a casual performance car enthusiast like myself the sports coupe no longer makes sense with certain assumptions.

Those assumptions being that:
1) A high powered sports sedan EV is not going to weigh much at all less than the SUV.
2) A high powered sports coupe EV is also not going to weigh a whole lot less either, unless it has a smaller batter, but I can also assume it's going to have the same number of motors as the fast SUV EV, so if it has a smaller battery the range would be much worse
3) Cost for a high performance EV sedan or coupe is going to be roughly the same. Blazer SS EV is what...$65K? I don't see the sedan or coupe with the same power rating costing much less.
4) Would handling really be THAT much better? No matter how you slice it, they are all going to be very heavy. The Blazer SS EV is already pretty low to the ground, although I'm guessing they could likely put the sedan/coupe another inch or two lower. Suspension would be more "sporty" which would result in better handling at the expensive of ride comfort.

I don't know. I guess the appeal of my Camaro SS is the size, the weight and the fact that you can actually get 450HP in a car that costs mid to upper 30K. Aside from Challenger, there is nothing else on the market in sedan or SUV form that is remotely close on price and performance. For me, now that we are heading into EV territory that appeal for an actual sports car dwindles... Seems like a high percentage of EVs all have fast trims, and even the not so fast versions are still quick, and have lots of the off the line torque we all love.