SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Also paying more for less effective products is a non starter for me. Most automakers can't keep up with the changing tech environment.
Bolt production to stop
- Thread starter stoveliker
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
Ford is expecting lots of revenue (I can’t remember but will post if I find it) from subscriptions.
I still have to pull my phone out because my Tesla cpu is to slow to plot routes. That’s been fixed and I could upgrade for $2500. The hardware is over 7 years old now.
Tesla is charging $15k for “full self driving” It came with mine but I haven’t been able to install it.
I don’t see how the roller skate platform is cheaper than teslas approach. And as for models aging. I really don’t think the Model X and S are in need of a refresh. At 7 years old mine looks almost the same as the 2023 models but there have been two versions since mine. The drive drain and suspension and batteries keep getting updated while the outer skin stays the same. The reason they will get away with this is because there is no competition to either the S or the X. That will change.
Ford got nailed on quality rankings previously with the Microsoft Sync system. It was crap out of the box and got even rose when someone had to pay for it. Unfortunately many industries have adopted the subscription model to keep folks paying past the initial purchase. That is main reason John Deere and other manufacturers dont want to give external access to the all the proprietary software adn data collection, its potential future revenue.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
Colorado is now a right to repair state. Tesla has the entire repair manual free.
Ugh.. as someone who has not owned a car newer than 2007... I am not looking forward to the subscription bs when I eventually have to replace my car. For me just the concept of being nickel and dimed for existing features really lowers the value of the car, and makes me want to keep my current one going as possible.
Everyone these days wants to attach a vacuum hose to your wallet. I refuse, particularly when they are skimming your personal data for a profit later on. Screw em.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I don't think it will take long for people to figure out ways around the "paywall" using coding. Back in 2011 when Chrysler changed to the 6.4L Hemi engines in the SRT8 lineup they also changed the can-bus and ECU systems to have a rolling firewall so tuners couldn't make changes to engine settings (for aftermarket parts). It took a few years, but people figured out how. I hear these days tuning stuff is scarce due to EPA crackdown on diesel truck tuning companies, but if the "tuner" not changing the emissions control equipment, I don't think anyone in the federal government will care at all if/when folks figure out how to "unlock" features. I can see dealers balking at warranty work, but the Magnussen Moss deal should protect consumers. Perhaps MFGs will try to sue, but I don't see how they could win in court with right to repair stuff coming forward. Even JD tractors have been getting "hacked" to allow third parties to access the engine software/tuning. What judge would rule against a consumer "unlocking" features present on the car that they paid for?
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
The security of Internet connected vehicles has resulted in complete lockdown in some platforms. Jail breaking a $1000 phone is one thing and risking bricking a $40k car is a different risk.
Oh yeah you can bet I'd not hesitate to hack my car to unlock whatever features it has. I'm just dismayed that it has come to the point where that's necessary. It's like buying a house but having to rent the keys to get inside. There are ways around it but it's just absurd and stupid.
I think the days of simply tuning or reprogramming a vehicle to access these features are long gone. Tuners are pretty much a thing of the past, most modern ECM's can't be read or written through the OBD port, at least not by anything other than OEM equipment. Reprogramming the ECM requires replacing the EEPROM within the ECM to allow reflashing, which coincidently locks the OEM equipment out of the ECM. I see no reason Manufacturers won't do the same with other features.
It is also copyright infringement, to modify the programming you must first read out the original programming to modify it and then reprogram. Which is usually done by a company and is then the service is sold to customers, effectively stealing the source code to modify and resell. John Deere has successfully used this argument to prevent right to repair. They simply won't allow access to the electronics or programming as they say "to protect their intellectual property". It's an old battle that has yet to be won, as it stands when you buy a vehicle you own it, but you certainly don't own the software held within it. Much in the same way you don't own the design or patents held by the manufacturer of said vehicle.
The scary part is where does this interconnectivity end? Take a Tesla for example, if it has self driving capabilities could Tesla have the car drive itself back to the dealer if you don't make a payment?
I think I read an article that Ford was working on shutting down vehicles for non payment.
I wonder what kind of hornets nest would be stirred up if somebody needed to be transported to a hospital in an emergency and died due to the car being bricked on purpose or accidentally.
Lots of media coverage but that is about it. Tesla is selling self driving cars that on occasion run into moving and stationary objects, folks get killed yet Tesla has made a decision that the profits exceed the potential financial risk. Folks forget, regular corporations are "people" in the eyes of the law, yet they do not have a bit of ethics or any other emotions. Ultimately they act like soulless machines, whose only goal is maximize return for the shareholders for the short and long run. If they can make more reward by bricking cars and can offset the risks by buying insurance and keeping a big staff of lawyers they will brick cars.
That would be the ID3. It was introduced in Europe 4 yrs ago. Last year they sold 60,086 in Europe and 16,514 in China. The sales are way above the big Touareg here. I don't know why it's not sold in the US. It would be popular.
Possibly, but Europe's safety regs are not that different. As far as I can tell, it's about market analysis. Crossover sales are at least twice that of compact cars in supersized US. That's why we get the ID.4 instead of the ID.3. So far, this leaves the US VW market with nothing to replace the Golf.
Aren't all other cars sold in the US subject to those safety standards as well?
yes, but in the case of the smart car their advertising way back when( around 2010) conveniently forgot about that. so when it hit the US shore it was about $8+ grand base price. I never looked into them as a purchase so no idea what they actually sold for- wasn't remotely functional for me. First one I saw at a grocery store parking lot, 2 massively overweight people got out of it ( at least 300 # + ea.) for the life of me I could not fathom where they would put any groceries in that unit plus themselves. Took about 10 minutes to recover from that shock.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
The ford focus sold well both here and abroad. So did the Honda fit. So the US will buy small cars. Right now all the competition is in the $40k and over market. Since manufacturing capacity is limited I one wants to be left out of what’s selling now.
The 7500$ tax credit is a killer for imported BEVs.
The 7500$ tax credit is a killer for imported BEVs.
With respect to the Focus, Ford was reportedly losing $5K each on average in order to get the higher fuel mileage to offset large truck sales. I really do not know if Honda played a similar game but expect not as their fleet average may not have needed the offset.
I got a double $7,500 credit albeit legal but very much unplanned and not recommended for my Rav 4 Prime. Therefore, once my taxes were done my cost was less than a Rav 4 Hybrid so my plug in aspect was free. I have all along speculated that Toyota lost money on everyone of the Primes at least for the first few years. They did it strictly to buy some credibility. Many firms are losing big dollars on EVs for California, Fiat reportedly lost $45K each for every EV they sold in CA but they did it so they could keep selling gas vehicles.
The choice is simple, aim the taxpayer money at the place it will do the most good in the long run and now that the pump has been "primed" send it to the US. I talked to a former coworker recently and he is involved with building three PV plants in the US that would have never got off the ground without IRA funding. The European firms are not happy about it now but they will fairly quickly move the production to make their product in the US. The big problem the US has always had is once they turn on the pump and see the prices come down, the politicians get used to handing out the pork and dont taper it down. Realistically PV should be in that category as its now competitive with fossil without subsidies.
I got a double $7,500 credit albeit legal but very much unplanned and not recommended for my Rav 4 Prime. Therefore, once my taxes were done my cost was less than a Rav 4 Hybrid so my plug in aspect was free. I have all along speculated that Toyota lost money on everyone of the Primes at least for the first few years. They did it strictly to buy some credibility. Many firms are losing big dollars on EVs for California, Fiat reportedly lost $45K each for every EV they sold in CA but they did it so they could keep selling gas vehicles.
The choice is simple, aim the taxpayer money at the place it will do the most good in the long run and now that the pump has been "primed" send it to the US. I talked to a former coworker recently and he is involved with building three PV plants in the US that would have never got off the ground without IRA funding. The European firms are not happy about it now but they will fairly quickly move the production to make their product in the US. The big problem the US has always had is once they turn on the pump and see the prices come down, the politicians get used to handing out the pork and dont taper it down. Realistically PV should be in that category as its now competitive with fossil without subsidies.
Last edited:
Agreed. but it begs the question, why are we still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry also?
From a cost perspective it's not hard to see why small EV's are being dropped. It costs about $16,000 to replace the battery in a Tesla Model 3, you can buy a Chevrolet Spark for less than that.
EV powertrains are expensive, a car manufacturer can build a small 4 banger pretty cheap.
EV powertrains are expensive, a car manufacturer can build a small 4 banger pretty cheap.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
Yes but the only car on Chevy’s website now is the Malibu. Starting at $25k USD. Will the small cars come back??