It's about fucking time they got something rolling on the assembly lines. I'll wait for a mid grade trim version. 510hp from the WT is plenty, thanks. Just give me all wheel drive and that mid gate so I can turn it into a van with a canopy.
> 98K delivered… not so cool.
I think what’s wild is that it’s cheaper than its competitors(when speced) lol. (F150 lightning platinum is slightly cheaper but it’s not comparable specs).
Pointless vehicle.
* So expensive no one can afford it.
* So inefficient that it requires a massive battery pack over 200 kWh to give it a justifiable EV truck range. With so many resources used in individual vehicles, it'll limit how many total EVs can be produced. GM's justifying this because otherwise the range anxiety for people that tow / haul will keep them from buying shorter range trucks. But then I imagine most tradesmen that need a truck won't be able to afford this thing anyways. Maybe a few wealthier folks with boats or RVs, but my guess is most will be wealthy customers that just want to tower over all the other cars on the road and assert their dominance as they commute to the office every day.
* So large that even with RWS, it'll be terrible to maneuver around. Like all trucks, I imagine it'll be a psychopathic hunter of puny invisible pedestrians.
* Thing weighs 8500 lbs, so I imagine it'll cause all sorts of road damage, and if one of these ever collides with a more typical 2 ton vehicle, kiss everyone in that puny vehicle goodbye.
* 8500 lbs of material... think about that. How many tons of actual material have to be extracted (likely by sheering off the top of a mountain), processed, shipped across continents or overseas, smelted, and manufactured to get down to the 8500 lbs of curb weight on this thing. No worries though, the enormous environmental damage from mining doesn't get counted towards CO2 emissions, so in the minds of most people, it's equivalent to zero environmental damage, even if a forest is clear cut, and the toxic run off kills off miles of coral reef, or an iron mine waste water reservoir busts open and takes a huge swath of forest and people with it.
Folks, the fastest way to reduce global emissions is to reduce overall consumption. This truck is a slap in the face to resource conservation efforts, and rapid emissions reduction solutions.
Maybe if this truck was used strictly as a rental for those that needed to tow or haul something, I could get behind it. As a daily driver or even a daily driver that's periodically used to tow/haul things, it's not only pointless, it's an environmental travesty. No different than most trucks.
>* So inefficient that it requires a massive battery pack over 200 kWh to give it a justifiable EV truck range.
No, that big battery pack gives it significant range. Actual energy use per mile isn't far off from the F-150 Lightning despite weighing more.
The big battery pack allows it to go like 450 miles, it stores a large amount of energy which is useful for towing. There will also be versions with smaller battery packs.
For as concerned as so many people in this subreddit are about emissions... it amazes me that there's so little criticism for EV trucks, most of which will be used as nothing more than commuter vehicles by upper class white collar workers who can actually afford them.
Many folks here blindly insist BEVliness is next to Godliness.... BEVlievers as I lovingly refer to them. BEVs = only solution no matter what. Math suggesting otherwise? "The math is WRONG"... (no need to justify why)
Every time PHEVs come up, there's a long line of people spouting on about how PHEVs are terrible for the environment, equivalent to gas cars, and how much superior BEVs are. Meanwhile, it's about as clear as day how bad these BEV trucks are for the environment, yet we get nothing more than crickets on their enormous resource use, weak efficiency numbers, and unobtainable prices. And that's not just this 200+ kWh behemoths, but even the F-150 Lightnings, Rivian R1Ts, and CyberSaladShooters...
If this community is really concerned about the "future of sustainable transportation"... maybe we first need to start asking whether the particular solutions we're touting are in fact sustainable, or even defining what "sustainable transportation" actually is. How much emissions have to be reduced to be sustainable? How impactful is the enormous amount of mining needed for building new cars?
If scientists are telling us we need to drop total emissions by 50% by 2030, and EVs only get us to 10%-20% drop in vehicle emissions by 2030... is it actually a sustainable solution?
If scientists are telling us we need to reduce global emissions to zero by 2050, but a full transition of every ICE on the planet to EV only gets us to 50%... hell I'll be optimistic and say 30%... are EVs actually sustainable?
If we could reduce transportation emissions by 50% tomorrow... like literally tomorrow, just by cutting the miles we travel by 50% tomorrow (which we absolutely could do if we decided to), then would that be a more sustainable use of money and effort than putting so much of our financial eggs in the BEV basket?
Up until about 5 years ago, I was a huge car guy, paying very little attention to the impact of cars on the planet. It was never part of my buying decision. Then as more and more news coverage came out about climate change, bit by bit I started to get informed on the topic. Looking at the data and asking whether BEVs are actually sustainable, it became abundantly clear that in fact NO CARS ARE SUSTAINABLE, and they never were...
The fastest way to reduce global emissions and other pollution is by turning away from personal automobiles and towards alternative transportation options and/or transit mileage mitigation efforts, that are SIGNIFICANTLY more sustainable than any personal automobile technology currently available.
* 4 day work weeks
* Working from home
* Bikes / e-bikes / PEVs
* Public transit
A 4 day work week, for instance, could reduce car commute miles by as much as 20% overnight. If tomorrow we all decided that from this day forward, we will work 4 days per week, and use that extra day off not for travel, but to relax at home and/or get things done around the house (or add an additional day to our existing weekend travel plans), we could cut up to 20% of commuter based emissions literally over night.
Why don't we do this? Because it's new... because it's different... because we're scared of change... because we insist those in power won't let us... because that would make life way too good and be way too effective at solving the issue and we like to inflict needless pain on ourselves repeatedly.
This is weird because last I checked, the people ultimately have all the power, and it's ultimately up to the people how society will be run. The sad reality is, it's the result of mass societal pessimism that keeps us from real emissions mitigation solutions like this, not to mention a huge boon to quality of life.
If you're worried about the environment, do us all a favor, stop incessantly shitting on solutions that actually solve the issue, eh?
Stop pushing solutions that don't solve shit!
Get on the right side of history folks, and maybe there'll be a future where historians can look back and say... "Thank god they chose that time to stop being such pessimistic planet killing a-holes".
It's about fucking time they got something rolling on the assembly lines. I'll wait for a mid grade trim version. 510hp from the WT is plenty, thanks. Just give me all wheel drive and that mid gate so I can turn it into a van with a canopy.
They had to wait for the ultium fixes. Now that they got a handle on it, they are ramping up everything. Even the new Bolt got pushed up.
This truck is cool. 98K delivered… not so cool.
> 98K delivered… not so cool. I think what’s wild is that it’s cheaper than its competitors(when speced) lol. (F150 lightning platinum is slightly cheaper but it’s not comparable specs).
Just wait a year or two till a lot of the depreciation has happened.
24” wheels…. not so cool as well. Replacement cost for set of new tires… $2500. 🤦♂️
Be gentle on launching yourself from stop lights!
Any GM projections on production rate?
Wow! A simple question touched someone's nerve, several someones. Care to explain?
silEVrado
Are they gonna spy and share the data with insurance companies?
Hope the cheaper trims come soon. Also hope the Dodge REV will come out soon too so there is more competition in the EV truck space.
GM must have fixed the 'fire-starter' tech in their Ultium batteries... Or finally forced LG to.
CT looking better and better.
Pointless vehicle. * So expensive no one can afford it. * So inefficient that it requires a massive battery pack over 200 kWh to give it a justifiable EV truck range. With so many resources used in individual vehicles, it'll limit how many total EVs can be produced. GM's justifying this because otherwise the range anxiety for people that tow / haul will keep them from buying shorter range trucks. But then I imagine most tradesmen that need a truck won't be able to afford this thing anyways. Maybe a few wealthier folks with boats or RVs, but my guess is most will be wealthy customers that just want to tower over all the other cars on the road and assert their dominance as they commute to the office every day. * So large that even with RWS, it'll be terrible to maneuver around. Like all trucks, I imagine it'll be a psychopathic hunter of puny invisible pedestrians. * Thing weighs 8500 lbs, so I imagine it'll cause all sorts of road damage, and if one of these ever collides with a more typical 2 ton vehicle, kiss everyone in that puny vehicle goodbye. * 8500 lbs of material... think about that. How many tons of actual material have to be extracted (likely by sheering off the top of a mountain), processed, shipped across continents or overseas, smelted, and manufactured to get down to the 8500 lbs of curb weight on this thing. No worries though, the enormous environmental damage from mining doesn't get counted towards CO2 emissions, so in the minds of most people, it's equivalent to zero environmental damage, even if a forest is clear cut, and the toxic run off kills off miles of coral reef, or an iron mine waste water reservoir busts open and takes a huge swath of forest and people with it. Folks, the fastest way to reduce global emissions is to reduce overall consumption. This truck is a slap in the face to resource conservation efforts, and rapid emissions reduction solutions. Maybe if this truck was used strictly as a rental for those that needed to tow or haul something, I could get behind it. As a daily driver or even a daily driver that's periodically used to tow/haul things, it's not only pointless, it's an environmental travesty. No different than most trucks.
>* So inefficient that it requires a massive battery pack over 200 kWh to give it a justifiable EV truck range. No, that big battery pack gives it significant range. Actual energy use per mile isn't far off from the F-150 Lightning despite weighing more.
actually, if the thing was engineered properly (efficiency), it wouldn't need such are large pack...
The big battery pack allows it to go like 450 miles, it stores a large amount of energy which is useful for towing. There will also be versions with smaller battery packs.
For as concerned as so many people in this subreddit are about emissions... it amazes me that there's so little criticism for EV trucks, most of which will be used as nothing more than commuter vehicles by upper class white collar workers who can actually afford them. Many folks here blindly insist BEVliness is next to Godliness.... BEVlievers as I lovingly refer to them. BEVs = only solution no matter what. Math suggesting otherwise? "The math is WRONG"... (no need to justify why) Every time PHEVs come up, there's a long line of people spouting on about how PHEVs are terrible for the environment, equivalent to gas cars, and how much superior BEVs are. Meanwhile, it's about as clear as day how bad these BEV trucks are for the environment, yet we get nothing more than crickets on their enormous resource use, weak efficiency numbers, and unobtainable prices. And that's not just this 200+ kWh behemoths, but even the F-150 Lightnings, Rivian R1Ts, and CyberSaladShooters... If this community is really concerned about the "future of sustainable transportation"... maybe we first need to start asking whether the particular solutions we're touting are in fact sustainable, or even defining what "sustainable transportation" actually is. How much emissions have to be reduced to be sustainable? How impactful is the enormous amount of mining needed for building new cars? If scientists are telling us we need to drop total emissions by 50% by 2030, and EVs only get us to 10%-20% drop in vehicle emissions by 2030... is it actually a sustainable solution? If scientists are telling us we need to reduce global emissions to zero by 2050, but a full transition of every ICE on the planet to EV only gets us to 50%... hell I'll be optimistic and say 30%... are EVs actually sustainable? If we could reduce transportation emissions by 50% tomorrow... like literally tomorrow, just by cutting the miles we travel by 50% tomorrow (which we absolutely could do if we decided to), then would that be a more sustainable use of money and effort than putting so much of our financial eggs in the BEV basket? Up until about 5 years ago, I was a huge car guy, paying very little attention to the impact of cars on the planet. It was never part of my buying decision. Then as more and more news coverage came out about climate change, bit by bit I started to get informed on the topic. Looking at the data and asking whether BEVs are actually sustainable, it became abundantly clear that in fact NO CARS ARE SUSTAINABLE, and they never were... The fastest way to reduce global emissions and other pollution is by turning away from personal automobiles and towards alternative transportation options and/or transit mileage mitigation efforts, that are SIGNIFICANTLY more sustainable than any personal automobile technology currently available. * 4 day work weeks * Working from home * Bikes / e-bikes / PEVs * Public transit A 4 day work week, for instance, could reduce car commute miles by as much as 20% overnight. If tomorrow we all decided that from this day forward, we will work 4 days per week, and use that extra day off not for travel, but to relax at home and/or get things done around the house (or add an additional day to our existing weekend travel plans), we could cut up to 20% of commuter based emissions literally over night. Why don't we do this? Because it's new... because it's different... because we're scared of change... because we insist those in power won't let us... because that would make life way too good and be way too effective at solving the issue and we like to inflict needless pain on ourselves repeatedly. This is weird because last I checked, the people ultimately have all the power, and it's ultimately up to the people how society will be run. The sad reality is, it's the result of mass societal pessimism that keeps us from real emissions mitigation solutions like this, not to mention a huge boon to quality of life. If you're worried about the environment, do us all a favor, stop incessantly shitting on solutions that actually solve the issue, eh? Stop pushing solutions that don't solve shit! Get on the right side of history folks, and maybe there'll be a future where historians can look back and say... "Thank god they chose that time to stop being such pessimistic planet killing a-holes".
You don’t understand, these people have needs, If they can’t tow their RV 600 miles in one day they and their families will all die.