[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

I would be willing to bet that most of the people buying them, make more than 150k a year. I would also be willing to bet that at least 50% of them are people who bought them because they aren't making long trips on a daily basis.

I think the Lucid cars are amazing, but for the price they're asking, I could actually buy a Z06, a trailer, and a truck to haul it...

I actually have access to data to disprove this. Thing is, our demographic data is very sensitive for personal privacy reasons. If I were to post it and it was found out I’d probably get fired (or allowed to retire again) which I’m sure would make a lot of folks here very happy.

Totally agreed on the Lucid.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

How about, "Consumers do not want enough EVs, by a large margin, to sustain the rate of production the regulatory state and the OEMs hope to push them out."?

I think you’re getting closer. I would say consumers do not want enough EVs to justify / sustain the volume that automakers chasing Tesla hoped they could build. It’s actually a common theme. If we built our forecasts based on what OEMs say they will sell, we’d forecast 20 million vehicles sold every year. By comparison, the best sales years were in the 2016 thru 2018 timeframe where the US saw just over 17 million sales each of those years.

So OEMs over-projected and in some cases (Ford) built to their aggressive projections. Only to find out that it’s hard enough to take Tesla head on, but then when they out of nowhere drop prices…by thousands of dollars per vehicle…TWICE. And that’s why Ford is sitting on inventory and backing of on F150 Lightning production.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

So the hiring of Waggoner, who oversaw the death of Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saturn plus losing the sales lead to Toyota was what? A diversity hire for morons?

Originally Posted by Alan47717

When the government says your CEO (a member of the superior gender according to some here) has to go before you get the
money, criticizing Barra all the time is pretty lame. She's navigating deep and stormy waters and keeping the ship afloat. Her predecessors were not.

Automaker CEOs rarely get directly involved in which products live or die. They listen to the recommendations of the executives that run product development (which Mary Barra did before becoming CEO) and either accept those recommendations or push back on them. I can say that I have personally witnessed two times where a GM CEO specifically said “We are building this vehicle, now figure it out”. The Chevrolet SSR (huge bomb) and C6 ZR1 pretty decent success and great halo vehicle. Same CEO.

[Classic Muscle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Far from being a diversity hire, GM’s CEO started with the company right out of high school as an engineering student at General Motors Institute (now Kettering University) which was then and now still is one of the country’s leading engineering schools. At one point she very famously did stand up to tell government to piss off. This happened in early 2020 when she stated that GM would not support efforts to block California’s waiver allowing them to set their own emissions and air quality standards.

As I recall GM was part of a suit led by the previous administration to block California's waiver. When Biden came to office, GM capitulated along with other manufacturers that were party to the suit and withdrew from the suit.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Classic Muscle

As I recall GM was part of a suit led by the previous administration to block California's waiver. When Biden came to office, GM capitulated along with other manufacturers that were party to the suit and withdrew from the suit.

Actually Mary Barra pulled GM’s support from that initiative before Biden came to office and was called everything but a child of God by Biden’s predecessor.

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Automaker CEOs rarely get directly involved in which products live or die. They listen to the recommendations of the executives that run product development (which Mary Barra did before becoming CEO) and either accept those recommendations or push back on them. I can say that I have personally witnessed two times where a GM CEO specifically said “We are building this vehicle, now figure it out”. The Chevrolet SSR (huge bomb) and C6 ZR1 pretty decent success and great halo vehicle. Same CEO.

The SSR and C6 ZR1 were individual models, not entire car lines.

I saw the "thou shall build this, go away" a number of times during my thirty years in engineering. Retraining management in the laws of physics periodically was a job
requirement for many of us. The supercharger drive on the C6 ZR1 was actually a classic example. "What do you mean, you can't just add an additional 100 hp to the drive and use a longer belt?"

Getting back to my actual point, all of this Barra bashing, particularly the gender part, is nuts, compared to the performance of some of her predecessors. Waggoner was obsessed with keeping Toyota from taking over the sales lead long after it was a foregone conclusion that the cause was lost instead of planning for how we could get it back. We know the results of that folly.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

The SSR and C6 ZR1 were individual models, not entire car lines.

I saw the "thou shall build this, go away" a number of times during my thirty years in engineering. Retraining management in the laws of physics periodically was a job
requirement for many of us. The supercharger drive on the C6 ZR1 was actually a classic example. "What do you mean, you can't just add an additional 100 hp to the drive and use a longer belt?"

Getting back to my actual point, all of this Barra bashing, particularly the gender part, is nuts, compared to the performance of some of her predecessors. Waggoner was obsessed with keeping Toyota from taking over the sales lead long after it was a foregone conclusion that the cause was lost instead of planning for how we could get it back. We know the results of that folly.

Amen to that! Wow! I’ve invoked God’s name and “amen” in the same thread and it ain’t even Sunday. I get your point about SSR and ZR1 being single models. The broader point still is, the CEO starts decision making on vehicle platforms and programs based on the recommendations of Product Development.

To use a “local” example…For the transition from Camaro 5 to Camaro 6, Al Oppenheiser needed to “sell” the product content details, the design, the performance levels, the trim level details including roll-out timing of the high performing models, the financial business case including the price targets and the profit margins to Product Development leadership. At the time that included Bob Lutz and Mark Reuss. Once they greenlit it is reviewed at the Executive Staff level. Unless there was something glaringly wrong or too risky, particularly with the financials, the recommendations as greenlit by Product Development leadership prevail. If not, the Program Team (led by Al) would have an opportunity to come back with an improved business case. Rinse repeat. Rarely (as in I’ve never seen it happen) does a CEO get to decree “We are going to get rid of this product line”.

In the case of EVs, and the strategy shift from ICE to EV, including no hybrids (except ERay), that is a more strategic decision and it does start in the C-Suite. That includes the heads of Product Development, Manufacturing, Finance, Product Planning, Corporate Strategy and the CEO. Those decisions are data heavy. Most of the data coming through Product Planning based on information pulled from all the other disciplines as well as external data. Recommendations are weighed and the Executive Committee makes a decision. It’s more like a Supreme Court than a dictatorship, so the CEO doesn’t have the only voice in the room. Possibly the loudest voice, depending on the CEO, but not the definitive voice. That’s just how product producing companies tend to work. Tech companies (Apple, Tesla, Amazon) behave differently.

[Classic Muscle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually Mary Barra pulled GM’s support from that initiative before Biden came to office and was called everything but a child of God by Biden’s predecessor.

Semantics. After the election, before he took office
https://apnews.com/general-news-f304...05b12c178621e8

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by bigd1276

I feel better now knowing that you have confidence in the grid. Please keep this post handy....

Stop with this. Yes the current grid might have problems IF every car were an EV. They aren’t and it’s probably 2045 or so before they are. Do you seriously believe that nothing will change in the next 20 years? No changes at all to adapt to electrical use?

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Are you doing this calculation based on an additive / depletion model or are you assuming that the entire car parc shifts from ICE to BEV? The latter would take several decades. Barring significant medical advances none of us will be alive by then.

By your estimation, how many decades to convert to say, 20% remaining ICE vehicles on the road?

[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Stop with this. Yes the current grid might have problems IF every car were an EV. They aren’t and it’s probably 2045 or so before they are. Do you seriously believe that nothing will change in the next 20 years? No changes at all to adapt to electrical use?

Oh I think a lot will change. Stay tuned…

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by Classic Muscle

Semantics. After the election, before he took office
https://apnews.com/general-news-f304...05b12c178621e8

All of these American corporations were strong armed by the government to make products approved by the government. Heck, even the decisions to eliminate brands was mandated by the government. No, there wasnt a memo from Obama saying "you have to kill Pontiac" for taking a bailout but it was coerced, just like the mandates to build EV's are. There's a reason why corporations are losing billions investing in EV's and it isnt because they love the earth!

At any rate, all of this is based on the false premise that CO2 is a pollutant. Its amazing how many people have bought into this absurdity.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

All of these American corporations were strong armed by the government to make products approved by the government. Heck, even the decisions to eliminate brands was mandated by the government. No, there wasnt a memo from Obama saying "you have to kill Pontiac" for taking a bailout but it was coerced, just like the mandates to build EV's are. There's a reason why corporations are losing billions investing in EV's and it isnt because they love the earth!

At any rate, all of this is based on the false premise that CO2 is a pollutant. Its amazing how many people have bought into this absurdity.

As much as people may have hated their favorite brand was the one that got chopped, GM absolutely needed to shed brands.

Them going down to 4 brands was one of the best things GM did.

The government officials wanted to axe GMC too, but then they saw the books and the printing press GMC is.

Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer had nothing to justify their continued existence. Before you mention, " What about Buick!?!?!" China is why Buick survived.

It's funny though people constantly think GM went full EV just because of this administration. You do know GM announced going full EV in 2017 right?

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

As much as people may have hated their favorite brand was the one that got chopped, GM absolutely needed to shed brands.

Them going down to 4 brands was one of the best things GM did.

The government officials wanted to axe GMC too, but then they saw the books and the printing press GMC is.

Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer had nothing to justify their continued existence. Before you mention, " What about Buick!?!?!" China is why Buick survived.

It's funny though people constantly think GM went full EV just because of this administration. You do know GM announced going full EV in 2017 right?

I couldnt disagree more, simply because I dont think I'm unlucky enough to have every car I'm a fan of cancelled. Every. Car.

My wife owned mostly Pontiacs from 1990 to 2010. IMO they were viewed as an upscale chevy. She and I loved her Grand Prix and would have kept buying them forever. Pontiac got cancelled. Side note, her family's dealership lost that brand. We had to move her into a Buick.

My grandparents loved Buick. They bought several Park Ave's and I even got 1 as a hand me down. Excellent car, great mileage, fantastic reliability. Cancelled. I had to move into a used Regal after that.

In 2017, we bought an Impala Premier and LaCrosse Essence, brand new. My son bought an Impala too. Loved the Impala, HATE the LaCrosse. Its the WORST! I just dont like the car, whatsoever. My son owns his Impala to this day because he cant find anything GM makes he wants so he's driving it till its dead. 140,000 on his car. Very reliable.

My wife needed a new car in 2022. She would have bought a Pontiac but they're dead, she would have even bought another LaCrosse or Impala, but both were killed off. We settled for a new Acadia. She doesnt like it. I'm mediocre about it. I'd like a sedan with a trunk so when I transport my guns, the cops cant see them. Well, unless I buy a malibu, there's no chance of that. Plus, my 300Win Mag wont fit in a Malibu and if we travel, there's not enough room in the back for the 2 youngest kids who are late teens.

Rather than spend boatloads of money on EV tooling for Buicks, my family took the buyout.

GM completely killed everything I preferred to buy as primary transportation. We have an Equinox and an Acadia, 2 vehicles we dont like or want. Are we the 10% of America that wants these cancelled vehicles? I think not.

Moving forward, our next purchases will be foreign sedans, no matter if it kills my family members that own the GM dealership. GM has managed to completely kill 100% of the business from my family, even though our extended family own a GM dealership!

IMO, GM should sell itself off to china and just go away. china would probably market a new Park Avenue clone built with slave labor and we'd sign off on selling it here!