Cadillac to become GM's EV brand, here comes the Electric "C8"...
 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...-architecture/

Expect Cadillac's version of the C8, likely full electric and or/hybrid, I'm thinking 1 year after C8 release. In comes some new performance luxury EV's from Cadillac as well.

Looks like a nice wedge of cheese.

LOL, not the vehicle pictured. The one pictured was Cadillac's crack at the Chevy Volt. It failed. Now they're going to try to make the entire fleet EV. Not a surprise, we know the industry is going full swing towards EV. Big $$ potential in performance and luxury.

Its kind of surprising how many times Cadillac attempts to repeat the Cadillac Cimarron debacle. The fact is, because of the tremendous failure of the Cimarron and the horrid approach taken, if Cadillac comes anywhere near a cheap chevy repackage, the car media will slaughter it and it'll die a quick death.

Pushing EVs on the Cadillac division should finish it off. After 20 years, EVs are still only 1% of the market. People don't like EVs. Governments do.

After 20 years, EV battery tech is finally to the point where the bulk of the population can get by on their daily needs with one. There are still some issues to hash out, namely quick charging for people on long trips, but the technology is no longer limiting for most of what a person does on an average day. Every manufacturer is jumping on the tech, as much as ICE stalwarts may scream and shout, it is coming.

When they get the price down to what an entry level decent sedan costs now, somewhere in the low-mid 20's, I'll readily jump on one. I'd love to no longer pay for gas on my 100 mile daily commute.

People do want EV, but they want more than what the currently available EV's offer. People want more than 15 miles of full electric driving before having to plug their car in. People want high performance, something that hybrids and lower-cost EV's have not specialized in. People want to know that they will not have to pay and exorbitant cost to replace the batteries, ever.

There is a race, right now, to be the first major manufacturer to offer an EV vehicle that is practical, fun, and checks all of the boxes I mentioned above at a cost that most people can afford. Like any revolution, there are early adapters and those who jump on the band wagon. Early adopters are right now, band wagon is coming, fast.

This is more of a play to China and China $$$.

The so far un-talked-about biggest hurdle is the lack of charging capability in most urban areas and in all suburban homes with more than 2 cars.
In most large urban areas, like NYC and it boroughs, where people don't have driveways, much less garages and park wherever they can within 3 blocks of where the live, there are currently zero charging facilities available and there will never be enough unless the governments spend on the order of $5 trillion to upgrade the grid and infrastructure to install 50 million charging stations.
While in suburban homes, most have at most 200 amp electric service to run everything - each car charger requires 50 amps, and all houses use at least 50 amps for just regular daily items and about 100 amps during the summer for AC plus everything else - if like many with college age kids living at home, you have four cars, then at most only 2 can be charged per night. Upgrading the distribution grid and homes to support 300 amp service for the 135 million houses in this country is another $4-7 trillion.
Inconvenient facts are - there isn't enough money or electricity to support even 25% of the population having only electric cars - but maybe that is the point: we return to life as it existed in the 1910's, when only 5% of the population could afford cars, and let the other people fend for themselves on public transportation.

Woh, that is a dire storyline, LIStingray! More than upgrading the grid, isn't it so that the electrical grid is antiquated and wasteful as to how it transmit energy throughout the grid? THAT cost alone would be huge, not even counting upgrading it to have X number of charging stations. On the other hand, couldn't the cost of charging stations be borne by the station-companies and, of course, the buyers of these vehicles (a veritable "tax" on the buyers of these cars)?

I think you have severely overstated the case. Not all of us live in boroughs in NYC, thank God for that. Many people in NYC don't even have cars and find it mystifying whenever they visit the rest of the country. First of all, you don't need 50 million charging stations. Finding charging stations at grocery stores is just laughable and jumping the gun. You drive 10 miles to the grocery store and need to charge your car? of course not. Second, you don't need 300 amp service. Just charge at night when usage is low. A simple timer will accomplish that. And you don't need to upgrade the grid, which is designed for peak capacity, not average capacity. There, you just saved $3-7 trillion. Third, you don't need to charge EVERY car because it will be a good long while before they are all electric. The commuter car will be an EV, but the rest needn't be immediately changed. They will, but the change over will be gradual. If you achieve a rate of 50% you will change the world. The rest will follow.

This range anxiety issue is psychological, not real. The average EV today has in excess of 200 miles in range. Indeed, they are pushing 300. Soon it will be 400. It's not like you take a cross-country road trip every day. This is a short-term issue that isn't even an issue at all if you pay attention. Companies like GM are really being two-faced about this. On the one hand they say they are moving to EVs, and on the other they say they are dumping sedans for SUVs and trucks. There are some studies out that suggest people are not exactly abandoning sedans; they're waiting for EVs. Actually, I think comments like that from GM are just for public consumption. I'd be very surprised if they did not have secret projects designing the next EV pickup. If they don't, they are going to get a big surprise from Rivian and Tesla.

The barriers to an EV culture are not that high. And we'll adapt where we need to. Solar is on the brink of being seriously cost-effective. There's plenty of electricity raining down on us from the sky every day. It's not really a serious issue any more than the lack of gas stations held back the adoption of the automobile. And today things move fast. Be prepared because the C9 will be The Electric Vette.

I wonder if the "electric": problem the C8 has is actually the result of having to modify theC8 platform to a 48V system to enable an eCadillac? If the GM decision for a mid engined eCadillac came a bit late in the game of the C8 Vett development, the decision may well have been to hold the Vett introduction while a common electric system for the platform is developed that can support both the ic and the e version of the same platform.

Just wondering.

We hear a lot about those that charge their EV at home for around $0.12 KWH. A recent survey showed that only 45% of EV owners charge their cars at home, in their garage.

There are several private companies with EV charging stations that are for-profit. One of the latest I read about will be supplying fast charging stations similar to Tesla's but for all EV's. They said they will charge around $0.30-$0.35 KWH, but will still not be able to charge as fast as one can put gas in an ICE vehicle.

2.5 to 3 times the cost of charging at home.

Appears that the so-called battery design revolution has stalled out. In 2015 Musk said by 2017 Tesla would have a 600 mile range with super duper fast charging. It's 2019 and the low cost Model 3(that is still not for sale) with it's measly 220 mile range hasn't met Musk's claims about 600 miles, and the Model 3 is Tesla's. newest and greatest.. For an additional $9,000, you get 90 additional miles of range. What would be the cost to have a model 3 with a 600 mile range? An additional $20,000 and no rear seat or trunk space because of the much larger additional battery that would be required?

Also read about the new EV's on the way for next year and the year after. Seems that they are more expensive than a Camry and still only have around 200-250 mile range. Well short of the driving range of a Camry. Want a 300-350 mile range and the price of the EV goes up significantly. What about 450-500 mile range? Doesn't seem that any of the other car companies have discovered this revolutionary battery technology either.

With an ICE vehicle, if the manufacturer wants to increase the driving range by, say, 90 miles, all he has to do is add in another $20 in for a slightly larger gas tank(0.3 cubic feet), not $9,000 for a larger battery, like with the Model 3.

Electric vehicles are amazing - go drive a purpose-built electric vehicle, not a 'conversion' done after the fact (looking at you, Fiat 500e). Range is not an issue and charge times are dramatically lowering with new battery tech.

The Porsche Taycan is on my list, and this time next year, you will see affordable VW purpose-built vehicles on sale. Go watch a few technical videos on Rimac to get an idea of the current tech (Rimac is working with Pininfarina and Porsche on their upcoming electric cars).

There is not enough money to pay for charging electric vehicles? Really?

This study: https://www.inl.gov/article/charging...ructure-needs/ suggests otherwise. It makes sense for people to charge at work if there is a charger at work. It might work fine if the owner does not want to spend the grand it would take to wire up a circuit at home. But this study suggests people would much rather and do in fact charge at home. It doesn't make economic sense to pay 2.5 times as much for a commercial charge. That negates the whole point of buying an EV. So I'm not convinced the figure above is true at all. And of course they won't charge as fast as putting gas in a vehicle. Why should they have to? If you charge over night or at work, it doesn't matter.

People still get hung up on this non-issue. Unless you are traveling cross-country you don't need a 600 mile range. You don't even need a 200 mile range. All you need to do is get to work and back. All you need to do is get to the grocery store and back, to the mall and back. That is the vast majority of driving that we do. This kind of driving is what an EV is meant to accommodate and this accounts for the vast majority of gallons used. I have a friend who still has an ELR (not XLR: Thanks, prinz.) This thing has a range of 90 miles only. After a year the car messaged him that it was going to force him to burn a tank of gas because the gas in the tank was over a year old. In a solid year he had NEVER used the gasoline engine. That's what most people will encounter.

One big mistake I see being made is that people judge EVs based on what is available today as if nothing will change, and they also judge EVs based on the most extreme practice that is possible, e.g. driving 600 miles a day. Here you drive 50 miles a day for 50 weeks a year, but once a year you drive cross country and if an EV won't do it on a single charge it won't work for you. Really? You don't stop for lunch? I mean, take the other car. By the time all your cars are EVs, range won't be an issue. Battery design has NOT stagnated at all. Advances are being made all the time.

This is the most cerebral post that I have read to date regarding the viability of EVs. EVs are here, now, and they are fantastic whether the internal combustion engine fist pounders understand it or not. Anyone who seriously doubts this reality has never driven a Tesla S. They are absolutely phenomenal. There will be a smorgasbord of EVs from various manufacturers to choose from in the very near future. This isn't a phenomenon that will be self evident in a decade or two. That future has left the station and is gathering steam and inertia with each passing day. Embrace it.

I think Elon is smart. While pretending to be a car company he is installing supercharging stations everywhere. Imagine in a decade owning what is equivalent to all the gas stations in America . I see it as an infrastructure company with a side car business