[triggerjerk]

Originally Posted by Xaxas

~Sent from my smartphone

Fasle equivalency. Government isn't mandating new smartphones or laptops.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by 302crossram

looks green to me

Except for where it's not.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Guessing you don’t own GM stock, lol.

Nope. GM has decided to settle for being an ‘also ran.’ They build by committee, and hence produce bland unappealing transportation for the masses.

There are no DeLoreans or Shelbys with vision. Just accountants wearing green visored hats and counting pennies.

There will be no more Al’s producing 6th gen fire breathing Camaros.

Welcome to the world of cars as appliances. Ugly little generic people boxes as far as the eye can see. OTAs to restrict power, 15 minute cities where your vehicle ceases to operate if you leave your approved driving area. Adaptive speed limiters.

You will drive what you’re told to drive, where and how you’re told to drive it.

Funniest of all are the supposed driving enthusiasts who embrace this boring future.

[Mike818]

What makes you all so optimistic that you think we will even be allowed to drive in the future.

Writing is on the wall, the days of human drivers and personal ownership are numbered. Automakers have already started rebranding themselves as "Mobility Providers"

I truly believe the vast majority of people already would happily give up the responsibility so they could spend more time scrolling their feed etc.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Funny how this "shadow" business was never mentioned as a justification for ending sedans like the Cruz. It was going to be replaced with the Blazer SUV. It was always that sedans were out of favor and SUVs were all the public was "choosing" to buy. Guess there was more to it. Even early EVs designed as sedans was explained away as being in the works and built before sedans became unpopular....lol

My how stories change. This whole automotive world is complete croc with EVs leading they way.

Don't forget...: 2 + 2 = 5.

Why would they mention it? Most people don’t care to go that deep. I had to because it was my job, both at GM and at S&P Global. For most people the impact of CAFE shadow curves is the equivalent of “inside baseball”. I still don’t understand the balk rule. Shadow area is the automotive equivalent of the balk rule.

For the record, both things were happening at the same time. Consumers first discovered larger SUVs like Explorer, Trailblazer (the rear drive version of the mid 90s), and Envoy. Those vehicles all but killed the minivan. Then the front wheel drive versions (crossovers) like Buick Enclave and Ford Edge started to take volume away from sedans. Combine that with the fact that a Ford Edge would have an easier shot at meeting Truck based CAFE targets than Fusion would have meeting Car based CAFE targets even though they have very similar shadow area and you can start to see the logic.

As for the earliest EVs being sedans instead of CUVs that we see today, there are several reasons for that. In order of importance…

1. Sedans weigh less than CUVs so if you’re trying to maximize battery range, you go with the lightest possible vehicle. (Google Mitsubishi iMiev). Now that battery technology has dramatically improved range from those earliest days, we’re seeing EVs start to come to market in every configuration from 3-wheelers to 10,000 lb pickup trucks to Class 8 semis.
2. The great sedan purge had not yet happened by the time early EV makers started development of their EVs. Even so, luxury sedans still haven’t seen the same level of decline as mainstream sedans and early EVs specifically target luxury brands (Tesla Model S, Lucid Air). Luxury sedan makers just eat the CAFE fine, pass it off on the cost of the vehicle, and keep it moving. You can bury the cost of EPA fines in the price of an S550 or an M5. You can’t bury EPA fines in the base price of a Ford Fusion or Chevy Impala.
3. EVs are not subject to the CAFE shadow curves because they have no emissions and they don’t have an CAFE target to hit.

Ever notice that the Chevy Cruze and the Chevy Impala are gone but the Malibu stayed? And did you also notice that the current Malibu is about the same length and width as the Impala? Cruze is gone because its shadow area would have required CAFE targets in the 50 mpg range. Even though in its last few years highway mpg was about 41 mpg, it wasn’t enough. Impala had a really big shadow area which lowered the target, but it was also pretty heavy, being off an older variant of the Epsilon platform. The same variant that was used for the Cadillac DTS. Malibu is off of an updated and more mass efficient version of Epsilon. Increasing the wheelbase and track to be near Impala size lowered the CAFE target making it easier to achieve. The extra size did add some mass, but it is still significantly lighter than Impala was. So Malibu lives, Cruze (too small) and Impala (too heavy) are dead.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

A germane example of how government intervention invariably 1) distorts the market by moving goalposts arbitrarily and 2) achieves the opposite of the stated goal, ie helping the environment—manufacturers moved towards big, polluting, gas guzzling SUVs and truck because those were exempt or less affected by regulation.

Sadly true. The thought behind it was somewhat forward thinking, but I’m amazed that NHTSA / EPA couldn’t foresee the outcome of basing everything on footprint curves. The original drafts of the regulation would have strongly favored smaller lighter cars over larger trucks and utilities. Then the automakers, especially domestic, said “you’re penalizing trucks. The US is a uniquely predominant truck market and trucks are used for commercial purposes as well as personal transportation” so separate Car and Truck CAFE portfolios were included. Then there was a discussion on the laws of physics with a bit of economics thrown in. “Forcing larger capacity vehicles to meet the same targets as smaller vehicles will require adding more costly tech to larger vehicles. This disadvantage large families unless they are affluent enough to purchase the larger more expensive vehicles. The targets should be scalable to the size of the vehicle.”

Logical arguments. But taken to their extreme, companies sized their vehicles to specific points on the curve, resulting in almost every class of vehicle growing to the largest it could be without crossing into the next vehicle class. For the chart I have posted below, look at the mpg requirement for a car with a 40 sqft area versus a vehicle with a 50 sqft area. This is why Malibu got bigger. Then look at the difference in mpg requirement for a 55 sqft area car versus a 55 sqft area truck for 2025. This is why there is still a Ford Edge but not a Ford Fusion.

[50MileSmile]

Thanks for another overly deep analysis. Try this:
There weren’t enough buyers, so GM quit making them.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Nope. GM has decided to settle for being an ‘also ran.’ They build by committee, and hence produce bland unappealing transportation for the masses.

There are no DeLoreans or Shelbys with vision. Just accountants wearing green visored hats and counting pennies.

There will be no more Al’s producing 6th gen fire breathing Camaros.

Welcome to the world of cars as appliances. Ugly little generic people boxes as far as the eye can see. OTAs to restrict power, 15 minute cities where your vehicle ceases to operate if you leave your approved driving area. Adaptive speed limiters.

You will drive what you’re told to drive, where and how you’re told to drive it.

Funniest of all are the supposed driving enthusiasts who embrace this boring future.

Sorry but have to disagree. Politely. If you take the politics out of the EV discussion, GM currently has some awesome stuff.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 50MileSmile

Thanks for another overly deep analysis. Try this:
There weren’t enough buyers, so GM quit making them.

Between Cruze, Malibu, and Impala, Cruze was the better seller. But Cruze was cancelled after 2019 while Malibu continues on.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry but have to disagree. Politely. If you take the politics out of the EV discussion, GM currently has some awesome stuff.

Different strokes.

The Camaro will soon be gone, no more Blackwing, the Vette lacks a manual transmission and is likely headed to full electrification. What’s left that’s awesome?

Equinox? Pfff. Driven one as a loaner. Garbage build quality and butt ugly.

Trucks? GM has always played second fiddle to Ford. Zero chance I would buy GM over an F150.

EVs? If I were going that route I would buy from a company that knows how to build them: Tesla.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Different strokes.

The Camaro will soon be gone, no more Blackwing, the Vette lacks a manual transmission and is likely headed to full electrification. What’s left that’s awesome?

Equinox? Pfff. Driven one as a loaner. Garbage build quality and butt ugly.

Trucks? GM has always played second fiddle to Ford. Zero chance I would buy GM over an F150.

EVs? If I were going that route I would buy from a company that knows how to build them: Tesla.

Again, if you can't accept any EV, you are correct. But there for sure will be Blackwing(ish) replacements and I do believe we will see a coupe Camaro replacement (not an SUV).

Equinox? One of GM's best selling vehicles. Most people I know that own one love them. But different strokes as you say. And the EV Equinox looks very promising especially if they are able to keep the price below $30k.

GM has never really been 2nd to Ford. Most years if you added Chevy AND GMC, GM was often number 1 for very close to Ford. And if you include the Suburban/Tahoe Ford has never been able to compete. Same architecture and powertrains and GM has always owned that segment.

And other than some tech (downloading video games lol) Tesla makes a pretty crappy car. I laugh that they are considered a luxury car simply because of the price, not the car. When they try to push the envelope (yoke steering wheel) they almost immediately made it optional and had Toyota (Lexus) give them a lesson in automotive engineering. But understand why you would think they make a decent EV, it's just not a decent car unless you are buying for only for the technology they offer, which is substantial. But UltiFi will put GM on par with that as well.

Always interesting to be on a pro Chevy Camaro site with so much negativity about GM and it's other brands and models.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Again, if you can't accept any EV, you are correct. But there for sure will be Blackwing(ish) replacements and I do believe we will see a coupe Camaro replacement (not an SUV).

Equinox? One of GM's best selling vehicles. Most people I know that own one love them. But different strokes as you say. And the EV Equinox looks very promising especially if they are able to keep the price below $30k.

GM has never really been 2nd to Ford. Most years if you added Chevy AND GMC, GM was often number 1 for very close to Ford. And if you include the Suburban/Tahoe Ford has never been able to compete. Same architecture and powertrains and GM has always owned that segment.

And other than some tech (downloading video games lol) Tesla makes a pretty crappy car. I laugh that they are considered a luxury car simply because of the price, not the car. When they try to push the envelope (yoke steering wheel) they almost immediately made it optional and had Toyota (Lexus) give them a lesson in automotive engineering. But understand why you would think they make a decent EV, it's just not a decent car unless you are buying for only for the technology they offer, which is substantial. But UltiFi will put GM on par with that as well.

Always interesting to be on a pro Chevy Camaro site with so much negativity about GM and it's other brands and models.

It's hard to have positive feelings about a company that is basically spitting in your face.

[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.

[jamala00]

Originally Posted by 90503

Remember when we were told how much less inexpensive 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 success and popularity. If the public likes it and it's not expensive, you know, gm will just get rid of it.

You're going to get someone all worked up, just seething to respond to you... LOL