[AZCamaroFan]

smh
i'm sure people in GM are wondering why the kick ass Camaro6 they built that won car of the year didn't sell more, as opposed to , "GM has betrayed us !"
they built a great car, even if they were going with gas power going forward i'm not sure they could justify another one at the level that platform is selling.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 90503

Remember when we were told how much less expensive EVs would be to build? Fewer components than ICE cars, ease of assembly, common platforms, no mileage tests or certifications that ICE required, etc. What a cost savings bonanza!! Even the affordable Bolt is history. But wait! The Equinox will do the job! (Probably won't last long as profits are King)..lol And now this...Promises, promises...The EV Transition now comes to grips with reality and the platitudes and hype won't save it. Bring back the common sense of ICE cars and end this EV madness...

Probably all in the plan from the 2017 Decision to go all EV by gm...lol...Oh well. Not surprised really. The EV scam continues....

https://insideevs.com/news/670573/gm...arket-ev-soon/

From the article:

"GM CEO Mary Barra rarely talks about Tesla, and she almost never praises the company or gives it credit for any of the success EVs are having today. Nonetheless, she recently admitted that the US EV maker does currently hold the lead in the fully electric space when it comes to technology, profitability, and scale.

According to Electrek, Barra made the mention during a Sanford Bernstein conference. She spoke about the situation as it stands today and made it clear that she's aware Tesla is leading. She also hinted at General Motors overtaking that lead, but didn't come right out and say it.

If you've been following CEO Barra and GM's EV plans over the years, you may know that the automaker promised a whole host of electric cars coming to market by now, with many affordable enough for mass-market adoption. However, sadly, only a handful of copies of very pricey EVs have hit the market: the GMC Hummer EV and Cadillac Lyriq. Moreover, the company has decided to discontinue its most affordable options: the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV.

Soon, however, GM will woo audiences and attract buyers with its affordable Chevrolet Equinox EV, with many more similar options coming thereafter.

After admitting that Tesla is currently leading, Barra when on to say that she just doesn't see profitable EVs coming to market with $30,000 to $40,000 price tags until the end of the decade, or perhaps even later. It seems she's indirectly pointing out that even though Tesla has the lead now, it doesn't (and can't soon) offer affordable mass-market EVs, so its lead could be temporary.

Barra went on to talk about profits, noting that the cost of making an EV is still so high that you can't sell them at low prices and still make money. Yet, GM says it's bringing the Equinox EV to market soon with a $30,000 price tag. Meanwhile, Tesla has dropped its prices many times this year, it does offer "affordable" EVs, and it's still making lots of money.

There's not a whole lot about any of this that makes much sense. Should we expect to wait until the end of the decade or longer for Chevrolet to bring the Equinox EV base model to market? By then, is $45,000 the new $30,000? When will GM make a profit with EVs and bring an onslaught to market to be the true leader?"

You have to believe that "affordable" is whatever higher price they keep coming up with. The Bolt was 26K. The Equinox is said to be less expensive for them to build than the Bolt, but it costs 4K more just to start. Whatever their lowest priced unit is, it will be the least profitable and won't survive. Even Barra basically admits the Equinox is already a loser.

The car-buying public was sold a bill of goods about a mass-marketed, affordable EV. They will likely never exist, unless you believe their definition of affordable.

gm is kidding itself about its own reputation, success and popularity. If the public likes it and it's not expensive, you know, gm will just get rid of it.

Not much to disagree with. So far GM has over promised and underdelivered. Even the highly taughted Lyriq was rushed out with limited trims and drivertrains and if I read correctly sold fewer than 500 last year. Bolt and Bolt EUV sales are way up but combined less than 50,000 units.

As for cost? There will be 2 measures in the very near future. Will GM hold the sub $30,000 for the Equinox? And second, will they hold $39,000 for the Silverado EV Worktruck. Ford has already jacked the Lightning.

I’ve seen multiple crossover graphs that showed when batteries take over in cost over ICE none were years ago so they aren’t really behind. But the EV naysayers are locked into today only. Todays technology, todays infrastructure. All are being worked on every day. Hyundai/Kia, BMW and a few others have abandoned ICE development. GM thus far has not. But they didn’t do it for politics they did because they see the future, not today.

If you look into it, you will find the batteries that will go in vehicles 5 years from now don’t exist yet. It’s that dynamic.

As for the Bolt and Bolt EUV (EUV is in consideration for my retirement mobile but mostly because used Corvettes are ridiculous or you get one that’s affordable but has 120,000 miles ), Mary hinted they might be back but on the Ultium platform.

But you do make a great point. Today you can still get a decent car for $25,000. Spark and Cruise are gone so not sure a sub $20,000 even exists anymore. Maybe a cheap Hyundai? So it’s not so much EVs are expensive, but also it simply isn’t profitable to make cheap cars in the US.

Time will tell how this plays out. Hydrogen still lurks in the background and IF we ever get cheap hydrogen the equation may shift. But just like today where fast charging require water cooled cable for the heat, hydrogen require 10,000 psi to store. Both a bit more daunting than sticking a fuel nozzle in a fuel neck and pumping gas for a few minutes.

The hardest part is even at todays prices gasoline/diesel is super cheap, easy to store and transport. Nothing comes close for cost or convenience.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Hyundai/Kia, BMW and a few others have abandoned ICE development. GM thus far has not. But they didn’t do it for politics they did because they see the future, not today.

Bmw is still investing in ICE development. Some companies that originally said they were going to stop investing in ICE have backtracked because they see the writing on the wall in the near future (<15 years.). You physically cannot make as many electric cars as all these manufacturers are talking about developing due to actual raw material shortage. Toyota especially gets it.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Bmw is still investing in ICE development. Some companies that originally said they were going to stop investing in ICE have backtracked because they see the writing on the wall in the near future (<15 years.). You physically cannot make as many electric cars as all these manufacturers are talking about developing due to actual raw material shortage. Toyota especially gets it.

I expect this will follow a similar path to the one the industry followed in the 70s. They eviscerated automobile power output in the pursuit of reduced emissions and spawned a generation of boring, slow cars. Anyone want a Mustang II? How about a 205 horsepower 255 torque 1975 Corvette? How about a 145 horsepower V8 Camaro? It was a sorry decade for cars, and I suspect the next 7-10 years will probably be pretty ugly, but BEVs will fade into the sunset and we'll see plenty of high performance hybrids at some point.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I expect this will follow a similar path to the one the industry followed in the 70s. They eviscerated automobile power output in the pursuit of reduced emissions and spawned a generation of boring, slow cars. Anyone want a Mustang II? How about a 205 horsepower 255 torque 1975 Corvette? How about a 145 horsepower V8 Camaro? It was a sorry decade for cars, and I suspect the next 7-10 years will probably be pretty ugly, but BEVs will fade into the sunset and we'll see plenty of high performance hybrids at some point.

An odd selection of examples you've chosen to attempt to make your point. I do believe that the Mustang II was quite the sales success, topping over 1.1M sales in its 5 year run. The C3 Corvette also sold rather well, it wasn't until the C4 where sales fell off.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Bmw is still investing in ICE development. Some companies that originally said they were going to stop investing in ICE have backtracked because they see the writing on the wall in the near future (<15 years.). You physically cannot make as many electric cars as all these manufacturers are talking about developing due to actual raw material shortage. Toyota especially gets it.

Toyota is covering all of the bases.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...020b28ea&ei=14

Note 10 minute or less charging.

And although you don't see it, so is GM. GM is currently launching ICE vehicles, and just invested in new Full Size Pickups and SUVs and GM still has a major play in hydrogen.

https://www.gmhydrotec.com/product/p...otec/Home.html

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

An odd selection of examples you've chosen to attempt to make your point. I do believe that the Mustang II was quite the sales success, topping over 1.1M sales in its 5 year run. The C3 Corvette also sold rather well, it wasn't until the C4 where sales fell off.

My point is about manufacturing 'sports' cars that have crappy performance. The 70s was known for that and the cars I chose are great examples. My point was not about whether they sold well. PT Barnum wasn't wrong.

Who is buying a 1974-1982 'sports car' because they're great performers? The automobile malaise era was a direct result of government mandates and the oil crisis.

The upcoming malaise era will be a direct result of government mandates and a self manufactured oil crisis.

The difference is that although power may not drop like it did in the 80s, convenience and range will while prices will skyrocket. Eventually the pendulum will swing back.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

My point is about manufacturing 'sports' cars that have crappy performance. The 70s was known for that and the cars I chose are great examples. My point was not about whether they sold well. PT Barnum wasn't wrong.

Who is buying a 1974-1982 'sports car' because they're great performers? The automobile malaise era was a direct result of government mandates and the oil crisis.

The upcoming malaise era will be a direct result of government mandates and a self manufactured oil crisis.

The difference is that although power may not drop like it did in the 80s, convenience and range will while prices will skyrocket. Eventually the pendulum will swing back.

Oh, I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, just that the way you worded the original post; "Anyone want a Mustang II? How about a 205 horsepower 255 torque 1975 Corvette?. . .", made it seem as though the point you were making was that no one would want to purchase the equivalent of those lacklustre examples. People obviously did want them was all I was illuding to.

[TooleyOnDeck]

I see an awful lot of pony cars (albeit, much more V6s than V8s) driving around on a daily basis to buy into the declining sales hype. Perhaps NEW sales have taken a dive, but I would relate that to situations like mine: I scoured the Southeast for a new 1LE and for the life of me could not find one that was 1: on the lot and not "in transit" or 2: priced way over MSRP due to "market value adjustments". I ended up buying a 2018 2SS 1LE with low miles, saved over 15K compared to new, and I'm perfectly fine with the 18.

I believe that dealerships kill the sales far surer than government regulations. Look up the price of a new Scat Pack

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by TooleyOnDeck

I see an awful lot of pony cars (albeit, much more V6s than V8s) driving around on a daily basis to buy into the declining sales hype. Perhaps NEW sales have taken a dive, but I would relate that to situations like mine: I scoured the Southeast for a new 1LE and for the life of me could not find one that was 1: on the lot and not "in transit" or 2: priced way over MSRP due to "market value adjustments". I ended up buying a 2018 2SS 1LE with low miles, saved over 15K compared to new, and I'm perfectly fine with the 18.

I believe that dealerships kill the sales far surer than government regulations. Look up the price of a new Scat Pack

Government is pushing for EV's. They want to the public to believe that they are protecting the planet by "hiding" the fact that the bulk of the electricity being used to charge these vehicles is produced by fossil fuels and the manufacture of the batteries is a massive contributor to e-waste and has negative impacts on the planet. "Out of sight, our of mind"

With the manufacturers reducing / eliminating production, the vehicles become more scarce. Low supply, high demand, and general "stupidity" on the part of the public to pay these dumb mark-ups is why the dealerships jack the prices so high.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Toyota is covering all of the bases.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...020b28ea&ei=14

Note 10 minute or less charging.

And although you don't see it, so is GM. GM is currently launching ICE vehicles, and just invested in new Full Size Pickups and SUVs and GM still has a major play in hydrogen.

https://www.gmhydrotec.com/product/p...otec/Home.html

Hey Number 3. Regarding more ICE, There are current rumors that a 5.5 V8 with CPC and DOHC’s will be added to the C8 lineup in addition to the 5.5 FPC.

[plus1zero]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Government is pushing for EV's. They want to the public to believe that they are protecting the planet by "hiding" the fact that the bulk of the electricity being used to charge these vehicles is produced by fossil fuels and the manufacture of the batteries is a massive contributor to e-waste and has negative impacts on the planet. "Out of sight, our of mind"

With the manufacturers reducing / eliminating production, the vehicles become more scarce. Low supply, high demand, and general "stupidity" on the part of the public to pay these dumb mark-ups is why the dealerships jack the prices so high.

It's all part of the subscription model they're pushing so hard as well nowadays. When an EV battery dies, it costs as much to replace it as it does a whole new vehicle. They can produce one vehicle and lock you out of options you can just pay for when you want. Reduce electricity, keeping you from driving if you need to.

I don't mind EVs honestly if they'd just allow them to be produced harmoniously alongside ICE vehicles. Having a cheap EV for running around in or for 30-40 minute daily trips to save the mileage and wear on your main vehicle and save a few bucks, but to force them when we're clearly not even ready to handle it is just infuriating.

And of course the "saving the planet" thing when the mines are worse for the environment along with all the private jets. If it were truly for the environment we'd be investing in hydrogen powered autos.