2024 Camaro?

[Slippy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Should car manufacturers be free to name their products whatever they want?

A rose by any other name...
I'm surprised at how much angst there is over a name, couldn't matter less to me.

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No argument here. People should be able to buy and drive whatever they want. ICE vehicles will be available for several more decades, but there will be fewer choices. Which raises my questions to you…

Should car manufacturers have free choice to produce whatever they want?
Should car manufacturers be free to name their products whatever they want?

To your first question…manufacturers should be making whatever the population wants to buy. And make no mistake the manufacturers are being pushed into more EV production Hard by the current administration. I do not agree with that. I am for a free market.

To your second question….I have no interest or opinion on anything to do with naming products. Don’t care in any shape or form.

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

I have two issues with the whole EV push and it’s more to do with the delivery than it is with the end result.
One, I don’t like how it’s being shoved down our throats, with the the war on fossil fuels and the intentional jacking up of gas prices to force the issue. I think everyone should be able to make the free choice to drive whatever they want. If gas was still $2.75 a gallon and EV use was skyrocketing with people freely choosing it then kudos to all.
Two, the shortfall in power generation is coming. And wind/solar cannot make up the difference it’s less than 20% already. So that means that the shortfall HAS to be carried by nuclear, gas and coal. So think about that……we are going to burn more nuclear, gas and coal in order to charge more EVs and save the environment. Oh the irony, LOL.

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by 90503

Here's a fun Tesla/EV story. Looking to upgrade or mod your EV? Buyer beware. Even used is not out of their reach. Just a sample of what can happen without your approval or knowledge.

Big EV Brother is always watching....

https://futurism.com/tesla-range-reduce-remote

Buying a used Tesla comes with some inherent risks.

A major one is that you can't count on being able to access all of the features the car was originally sold with, in an unfortunate side effect of the increasingly internet-connected vehicles that Tesla itself pioneered.

In the latest example, a motorist who bought a used 2013 Model S is now being forced to pay $4,500 to unlock the full range of the vehicle, according to a now-viral Twitter thread by Jason Hughes, the founder of unofficial Tesla service center 057 Technology.

Here's how it went down, according to Hughes. The vehicle, which had been been sold twice before, originally came with a 60 kWh battery that was upgraded under warranty years later to a 90 kWh one by Tesla.

In other words, it was still technically a Model S 60, but with the battery and range of a Model S 90.

The latest owner then had the onboard computer upgraded at Tesla — and that's when the problems started.

"Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car," Hughes wrote. "They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years."

"He now has [about] 80 miles less range," Hughes continued, which is the equivalent of losing a third of the vehicle's usable range "remotely with no warning."

"They basically robbed him and are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before," the self-described "head tinkerer" argued. "That's just wrong."

According to Hughes, the owner tried to reason with Tesla for a while "with no progress."

Hughes attempted to solve the issue himself, but didn't get far.

"There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal," he tweeted. "Tesla won't help him at all."

It's far from the first time Tesla remotely disabled features in used vehicles. In 2020, for instance, a dealer found that both Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving Capabilities, roughly $8,000 in value at the time, were suddenly removed from a used 2017 Model S.

It's not good for the reputation of the company's customer service, and also raises serious questions about the resale, maintenance and long term value of its vehicles.

According to a recent survey by retail service tracking company Pied Piper, EV makers like Tesla and Rivian are falling behind other traditional automakers when it comes to customer satisfaction. Tesla came in at 21 out of 25 premium automotive brands represented in the survey.

Hughes is clearly interested in Teslas — he runs a garage for them, after all — but even he expressed mixed feelings about the range issue.

"I'm not a fanboy or hater," Hughes admitted. "I'm just realistic. They do something dumb, I point it out. Something awesome? Yeah, I note that too."

Futurism has reached out to Tesla for comment, but we're not holding our breath, as the company dissolved its PR department in 2020.

Indeed. EVs are cloud managed devices. Also, note there are internal cabin camera and recoding of your driving. Supposedly it is in a closed loop and not shared. You can opt out of sharing your driving data as well, which can be used in the event on a crash/air bag deployment.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/27/te...ing-autopilot/

https://www.tesla.com/legal/privacy

[ZED SLED]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I was having an interesting conversation with a fellow gearhead friend last week. The first car I paid money for was a ‘74 Mustang 2.3L. My most current car (MR2 notwithstanding) is a slightly modified 2017 Camaro SS Vert. Here’s some spec comparisons.

Displacement: Mustang 2.3L. Camaro 6.2L (almost triple)
Output: Mustang 88 hp Camaro 500+ (more than 5x)
Mass: Mustang 2,700. Camaro 3,800-ish
Fuel econ: Mustang 25 hwy Camaro 23 hwy (E85) to 27 (93)

So 43 years of progress delivers similar fuel economy in a significantly heavier vehicle, with 5 times the output.

And EVs start there and continue to improve.

Couple of years ago a coworker with a Honda Fit and I were comparing it to my ZL1. He said his has 13" inch wheels. I said mine has 15.5" brake rotors. He said his engine was 1.3L. I said my supercharger is rated 1.7L He said his engine was 100 HP. I said it probably takes that much to operate my supercharger.
We then had a good laugh.
Then I parked beside a another coworker's Prius and made it pee itself

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

Indeed. EVs are cloud managed devices. Also, note there are internal cabin camera and recoding of your driving. Supposedly it is in a closed loop and not shared. You can opt out of sharing your driving data as well, which can be used in the event on a crash/air bag deployment.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/27/te...ing-autopilot/

https://www.tesla.com/legal/privacy

Going forward any type of vehicle can and will most likely be a cloud managed device. This isn’t exclusive to EV. Automakers were already heading down that path before I retired in 2017. You just see it more in EVs because most EV companies are new companies and they started using vehicle operating systems and electrical architecture that support cloud management. Traditional automakers are in the process of migrating to them with new product introductions.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

To your first question…manufacturers should be making whatever the population wants to buy. And make no mistake the manufacturers are being pushed into more EV production Hard by the current administration. I do not agree with that. I am for a free market.

To your second question….I have no interest or opinion on anything to do with naming products. Don’t care in any shape or form.

That would have ended Camaro 3 years ago. Meanwhile Cadillac Lyriq (an EV) is sold out for 2023 and taking orders for 2024. And that’s a vehicle that is so far only available in two colors.

[Zybane]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

The strange thing is companies like GM are now "all-in" on EVs now. At least Ford is dividing their company into two divisions, EV and ICE. I find GMs approach to be pretty extreme.

Ford is doing this so that they can sell EV's direct and let their dealerships eventually die away along with their ICE division. Their ICE division and dealerships days are numbered.

[zain]

Originally Posted by Dan82679

No thanks. I'm a master Electrician and believe me EV is not the future. Our power grid does not have the capacity to charge the entire populations electric cars. It can't even keep up when everyone AC is running. We don't have the charging system infrastructure in place so basically you cannot drive cross country in a EV. The electricity used to charge the EV comes from Coal power plants and all the machines used to dig for the battery minerals use lots of diesel fuel.

Now lets forget about all that and think about all the Toxic waste that the batteries produce at the end of there lifecycle. This honestly is a step backwards.

Believe it or not, nuclear energy will be considered renewable very soon! the new generation of nuclear plants has a much better technology and they are much safer too, yes the radioactive waste is an issue. We cant use fossil fuel for ever. I do believe in solar energy but with the available technology its not enough for the demand.

[Zybane]

Originally Posted by zain

Believe it or not, nuclear energy will be considered renewable very soon! the new generation of nuclear plants has a much better technology and they are much safer too, yes the radioactive waste is an issue. We cant use fossil fuel for ever. I do believe in solar energy but with the available technology its not enough for the demand.

Nuclear is by far the best option right now. Yet almost the whole world is against it, crazy stuff.

Germany is really feeling the pain now of them shutting down their nuclear reactors.

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Going forward any type of vehicle can and will most likely be a cloud managed device. This isn’t exclusive to EV. Automakers were already heading down that path before I retired in 2017. You just see it more in EVs because most EV companies are new companies and they started using vehicle operating systems and electrical architecture that support cloud management. Traditional automakers are in the process of migrating to them with new product introductions.

Understood, pros and cons of course. For example, being able to push a mag-ride suspension update, some improvement to a Track Mode or patches and new infotainment features sounds really nice vs. having to visit a dealer. On the flip side, we have to pay for all this software development and cloud management, which means manufacturers will be trying to monetize for features left and right.

For example, in the future you may buy a car that doesn't even have a Track Mode but if you want it you can subscribe or pay a one-time fee of $1000. Tesla charges $9.99 per month if you want the streaming music, Satellite maps with real-time traffic, all the cool apps, etc. and just about every Tesla owner subscribes to this package. Think about that for a minute. They have supposedly have about 2.5M cars on the road. Assuming a very high take rate on that $9.99 Connectivity package, we are talking like $25M per month in recurring revenue. Then you have the folks subscribing to FSD, at a much lower take rate of course, but $199.00 per month. The fleet of vehicles just became a platform that they can monetize. You can see why they all want to connect the cars to the cloud and start charging us for all sorts of stuff.

I am not sure I can take any more subscriptions, I think I have lost track of all the online content providers.

[zain]

Originally Posted by Zybane

Yet almost the whole world is against it

This will change after the war in Ukraine

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by 90503

Here's a fun Tesla/EV story. Looking to upgrade or mod your EV? Buyer beware. Even used is not out of their reach. Just a sample of what can happen without your approval or knowledge.

Big EV Brother is always watching....

https://futurism.com/tesla-range-reduce-remote

Buying a used Tesla comes with some inherent risks.

A major one is that you can't count on being able to access all of the features the car was originally sold with, in an unfortunate side effect of the increasingly internet-connected vehicles that Tesla itself pioneered.

In the latest example, a motorist who bought a used 2013 Model S is now being forced to pay $4,500 to unlock the full range of the vehicle, according to a now-viral Twitter thread by Jason Hughes, the founder of unofficial Tesla service center 057 Technology.

Here's how it went down, according to Hughes. The vehicle, which had been been sold twice before, originally came with a 60 kWh battery that was upgraded under warranty years later to a 90 kWh one by Tesla.

In other words, it was still technically a Model S 60, but with the battery and range of a Model S 90.

The latest owner then had the onboard computer upgraded at Tesla — and that's when the problems started.

"Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car," Hughes wrote. "They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years."

"He now has [about] 80 miles less range," Hughes continued, which is the equivalent of losing a third of the vehicle's usable range "remotely with no warning."

"They basically robbed him and are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before," the self-described "head tinkerer" argued. "That's just wrong."

According to Hughes, the owner tried to reason with Tesla for a while "with no progress."

Hughes attempted to solve the issue himself, but didn't get far.

"There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal," he tweeted. "Tesla won't help him at all."

It's far from the first time Tesla remotely disabled features in used vehicles. In 2020, for instance, a dealer found that both Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving Capabilities, roughly $8,000 in value at the time, were suddenly removed from a used 2017 Model S.

It's not good for the reputation of the company's customer service, and also raises serious questions about the resale, maintenance and long term value of its vehicles.

According to a recent survey by retail service tracking company Pied Piper, EV makers like Tesla and Rivian are falling behind other traditional automakers when it comes to customer satisfaction. Tesla came in at 21 out of 25 premium automotive brands represented in the survey.

Hughes is clearly interested in Teslas — he runs a garage for them, after all — but even he expressed mixed feelings about the range issue.

"I'm not a fanboy or hater," Hughes admitted. "I'm just realistic. They do something dumb, I point it out. Something awesome? Yeah, I note that too."

Futurism has reached out to Tesla for comment, but we're not holding our breath, as the company dissolved its PR department in 2020.

Yeah that is absolutely shitty of Tesla to do.

Now I don’t have an issue with the practice of swapping the 60 kWh battery with a 90 kWh battery because a 60 is no longer produced and then software lock it to act like a 60 kWh. But that should have been done at the time of replacement. Or at the very least with the original owner still. But the moment it changed hands, Tesla should have eaten their mistake.

As the saying goes, Tesla make great EV’s, but absolutely crappy customer service. Hopefully with more competition, Tesla wises up or go out of business.

[Evansa22]

Don't forget to throw in the issues with materials needed for the batteries ( un-environmentally friendly practices to mine the precious metals and limited quantities), as well as eventual disposal of said batteries. Developing nations are starting to get aggravated with the push for clean energy and the cost when the already developed nations are the ones trying to force it on them.