Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Correct me if I am wrong, are they going to put heated seats in for free and hope you pay for it? or do they charge you for the hardware then on top of it, charge you to use it?


The latter is what I see mfgs doing. Double dipping

At the end of the day it comes down to a question of what your are paying for... warm seats or the hardware to enable warm seats?

Two examples near and dear(?) to Camaro owners' hearts...

1. Every LT1 has hardened valves and valve seats that are E85 capable. Why? Because all the L87 truck engines that use the same basic components are E85 capable, so rather than having two different heat treatments for valves and valve seats, they're all hardened.
2. All LT1 and LT4 engines have AFM hardware. Why? Same reason. No need to set up processing in the plant to put one set of parts on AFM engines and another set of parts on non-AFM engines. Those that use it, great, those who don't aren't harmed in the process.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

At the end of the day it comes down to a question of what your are paying for... warm seats or the hardware to enable warm seats? Similar examples regarding foglights...

I have an SRX. It does not have foglights. Some SRX do have foglights. All the hardware to connect the foglights is there except for the lights themselves and the switch on the interior to turn them on and off. Should I be pissed that I "paid" for the wiring for something I'll never use? Opposite issue with my MR2. It has foglights. About half of all MR2s do not, but they are wired for foglights. Should those MR2 buyers have been pissed because they had to "pay" for wiring for a feature they don't have?

Hardly a similar example. You forgot one thing. The similarity to the heated seats would be having to pay a subscription fee to use the fog-lights that you already paid for. That would be a reason to be pissed.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Hardly a similar example. You forgot one thing. The similarity to the heated seats would be having to pay a subscription fee to use the fog-lights that you already paid for. That would be a reason to be pissed.

I updated the post with a better example.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Only issue is fully bet the cost of the hardware is included in the MSRP of the car. So how much money is saved with eating the added cost vs car is cheaper then buy heated seats?

Probably pennies.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by 90503

How stupid do they really believe the customer is? Apparently quite a bit. Do they really expect the customer to believe that if they don't subscribe they aren't buying something already factory installed just because it isn't turned on?...lol

FWIW BMW have done this for years with Cruise Control, Carplay, Bluetooth*, USB, Voice Command - the hardware is there but its not active in the CAN system unless you pay for the option.

* BT usually needs a microphone added

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by 90503

...and for good reason. It's a blatant rip-off. If US brands attempt this same thing I hope it receives similar negative response. GM making On-Star a mandatory subscription is an epic example of corporate huberous.

How stupid do they really believe the customer is? Apparently quite a bit. Do they really expect the customer to believe that if they don't subscribe they aren't buying something already factory installed just because it isn't turned on?...lol

It's worse than double-dipping. The expense for something you've already paid for once would have no end in sight.

The mfrs already openly refer to it as a "new revenue stream" with subscriptions. The old version of revenue, selling a product to the customer who would own it, just isn't good enough anymore...lol

I'm sure we'll see this new shell-game-double-talk-intentional-confusion over and over again to slip in these never before seen subscriptions as some sort of savings...lol

LOL. Very stupid.

[FarmerFran]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...e/69954785007/

[genxer]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

This is pretty relevant to this conversation. This is HUGE and I wonder if Blackrock will follow?

Vanguard CEO Abandons ESG Investing Alliance
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/va...-game-politics

I'm taking those words with a grain of salt. The market indexes are sideways this year, fewer winners on the sell side. It might just be CYA for the debt bubble to inflation wealth transfer.

[snizzle]

Not EV specific necessarily but your automaker will be able to let outside entities (finance agencies, gov, etc) activate autonomous features to deactivate or drive your car away when they see fit.

https://www.motor1.com/news/654915/f...ks-out-owners/

New tech coming to a car soon near you ��

I guess this stuff is no longer a conspiracy theory.

[Wyzz Kydd]

“EVs are environmental rapists. Mining and refining the minerals needed to make EV batteries is also an environmental disaster. To make just one EV battery requires 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic.

Writing in these pages, Ronald Stein noted that “you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery.”

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

“EVs are environmental rapists. Mining and refining the minerals needed to make EV batteries is also an environmental disaster. To make just one EV battery requires 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic.

Writing in these pages, Ronald Stein noted that “you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery.”

The numbers are staggering sure, but it does not quite work like that, just saying.

[90503]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Not EV specific necessarily but your automaker will be able to let outside entities (finance agencies, gov, etc) activate autonomous features to deactivate or drive your car away when they see fit.

https://www.motor1.com/news/654915/f...ks-out-owners/

New tech coming to a car soon near you ��

I guess this stuff is no longer a conspiracy theory.

The repossession justification provides a convenient gateway to get this Trojan horse into all vehicles at some point.

The technology and endless other "uses" are beyond Orwellian.

Certainly any type of freedom to travel can be removed at any time for a variety of reasons over which the so-called "owner" would have no control.

Private ownership and automotive freedom is doomed..https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...fa1b2232&ei=56

The patent application outlines a series of strategies to resolve nonpayment. Those include:

Sending reminder messages and a warning from banks or lending institutions to the owner's smartphone or vehicle display screen.
After days or weeks, the strategy could evolve to include audio that makes an "unpleasant" sound to get the owner to contact the lender about arranging payment.
Then the car may disable features such as window or seat controls, GPS or radio dials to "cause discomfort," the patent said.

"The first thing to know is that if your vehicle is connected to the internet in any way, this system could theoretically work on it. The application likewise describes a 'repossession computer' that could be installed on future cars to make this system function smoothly, but it also states no extra hardware necessarily needs to be installed on the vehicle for it to function," said thedrive.com, which first reported the news Monday. "Basically, if your car has an infotainment system already set up to receive something like over-the-air updates, this could probably work without physical modifications."

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by 90503

The technology and endless other "uses" are beyond Orwellian.

And as we've seen over the past 2-3 years, the pursuit of absolute power and control is strong.

Now, to be honest, i'm intrigued by the potential to activate autonomous features on long trips or in stop and go traffic for example, but it is clear others with the right credentials can control these vehicles as a result unfortunately. The article I posted makes it clear they're developing those pathways.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Not EV specific necessarily but your automaker will be able to let outside entities (finance agencies, gov, etc) activate autonomous features to deactivate or drive your car away when they see fit.

https://www.motor1.com/news/654915/f...ks-out-owners/

New tech coming to a car soon near you ��

I guess this stuff is no longer a conspiracy theory.

Back in the '90s and '00s there was a former NFL player who owned a number of car dealerships, both new and used. On his used car lots he set up a scheme where his dealerships self-financed used car loans to people who really couldn't afford a car but had to have one to get to and from work. Payments were made weekly, either by direct deposit (it was fairly new back then) or by physically coming to the dealership to make payment in person. He also equipped every used vehicle that was self-financed with a remote turn-off device. If the customer missed two consecutive payments (remember, payments were weekly) they would disable the car.

He eventually was run out of business. Ironically, not because of the remote disabling thing, but more because the interest rates that they charged were borderline usury.

This sort of scheme can and likely will apply to ICE vehicles as much as BEV. The one new take I've seen on it that is specific to BEV is that Vinfast has a thing where if you fall behind on your payments, they can disable the vehicle's ability to charge. It'll be interesting to see if they actually get away with that.