Ford eating its own to feed EVs...

[Flyguy]

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 11:03:15 AM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

They haven\'t figure out the logistic for optional (money) charging yet. For example, $10,000 for almost FSD, $500 for remote locking, $1000 for heated seats, $999 for wind shield wipers, $55 to open the window each time. Opportunities are endless.

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

I want to know who will be designing the new EV stuff. If they have 3000
extra engineers and designers just to essentially make cosmetic changes to
a mature product line yearly, how many does it take to make a completely
new product?

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

On the other hand it does show some foresight, which is not a concept that Gnatguy understands. If the currently profitable part of the business is going to go away, it\'s less valuable than it looks,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.

The things-were-better-in-the-old-days demographic is a difficult one to
please and it might not be spending nearly as much money as a
demographic as they believe they do. Ford has those numbers, we don\'t.

Shaking things up once in a while, to the horror of long-time
supporters, often tends to be the key to business longevity. Business
isn\'t loyal and like Dylan trading his acoustic for an electric guitar,
will give the finger to the fans no problem if it feels its in its best
interests to do that.

 

[bitrex]

On 8/22/2022 11:51 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2

\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.

Should have mentioned the new gas Mustang too, since we\'re on the
subject of Ford. The base model has a turbo four for goodness sake,
scandalous.

 

[bitrex]

On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.

The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

How do you sell the customer on the next big thing when the current
thing is already so good? The difference between a 2015 F-150 and 2022
F-150 is what, exactly. Beats me.

 

[bitrex]

On 8/22/2022 11:58 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2

\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part
of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.


The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

How do you sell the customer on the next big thing when the current
thing is already so good? The difference between a 2015 F-150 and 2022
F-150 is what, exactly. Beats me.

I\'m sorry one difference in New England is the 2022 probably has less
rust. Maybe. Vehicles corrode out pretty fast up here

 

[server]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 23:58:55 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.


The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

Spoons and hammers and chairs are at their end of engineering
evolution too.

How do you sell the customer on the next big thing when the current
thing is already so good? The difference between a 2015 F-150 and 2022
F-150 is what, exactly. Beats me.

The 2022 is a newer truck.

 

[rbowman]

On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2

\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.

Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 11:59:02 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.

The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

That is very true. Automobiles have improved so much from when I started driving. You used to have to replace many parts on a car on a regular basis, and each time requiring a \"tune up\". Now it is basically plugs, an exhaust system and battery every four to six years and no real fiddling with \"tune ups\", all while reducing the hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. You have to hand it to the automotive engineers to have managed to tame such an unruly beast.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 8/23/2022 12:47 PM, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 11:59:02 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2
\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.

The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

That is very true. Automobiles have improved so much from when I started driving. You used to have to replace many parts on a car on a regular basis, and each time requiring a \"tune up\". Now it is basically plugs, an exhaust system and battery every four to six years and no real fiddling with \"tune ups\", all while reducing the hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. You have to hand it to the automotive engineers to have managed to tame such an unruly beast.

My first car was a secondhand 1990 Chevy Celebrity, it wasn\'t too bad
but it didn\'t make you feel like a celebrity that\'s for sure. Had a
single fuel injector in the intake manifold and its base 4 cylinder
rattled its way up to speed eventually. I remember it getting stuck in
the snow & ice in my driveway sometimes, like sometimes in even just a
sad amount of snow, lol.


I\'m too young to have ever owned or regularly driven a car that didn\'t
have power steering. I think the Celebrity may have had some early type
of ABS but certainly no traction control.

I slid hard into a snowbank in it one time, but the front end was fine
and Mom & Dad didn\'t find out, I suppose if it had been a modern car
with a plastic fascia probably would have been at least a grand in
damage, so for a teenage novice driver there were some upsides like that.

The Volt feels like going from a DC-3 to a 737 by comparison to my first
Chevy. My GF traded in a 20 year old Hyundai on a late model one, same
thing.

A friend of a friend let me drive his \'72 Super Beetle around a bit, a
car from well before my time, it felt like a half-scale car, one of
those cars for children they drive around a track at Disneyland, like a
lil clown car

 

[bitrex]

On 8/23/2022 1:35 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 8/23/2022 12:47 PM, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 11:59:02 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 8:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2

\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part
of the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

One pattern I see a lot: The BeanCount Corporation decides that senior
engineers cost too much. So force them to retire and pay their
pensions. Then discover they can\'t get anything done without them, so
hire them back as consultants.

The gas engine could be seen as a victim of its own success. It\'s a
marvel of engineering evolution. And it\'s approaching an asymptotic
limit of what they can do with the tech, for a price the average car
buyer can afford.

That is very true.  Automobiles have improved so much from when I
started driving.  You used to have to replace many parts on a car on a
regular basis, and each time requiring a \"tune up\".  Now it is
basically plugs, an exhaust system and battery every four to six years
and no real fiddling with \"tune ups\", all while reducing the
hydrocarbon and NOx emissions.  You have to hand it to the automotive
engineers to have managed to tame such an unruly beast.


My first car was a secondhand 1990 Chevy Celebrity, it wasn\'t too bad
but it didn\'t make you feel like a celebrity that\'s for sure. Had a
single fuel injector in the intake manifold

Rather, single point injection in the throttle body I think it was

 

[bitrex]

On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:

On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.

Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.

One thing Ford and GM do tend to offer is a lot customization options on
their vehicles, though how many people special-order them vs just buy
whatever is on the lot I don\'t know.

You can use their configuration to design some nice cars/grotesque
monstrosities, depending on one\'s artistic sense:

<https://imgur.com/a/AaozSSw>

I had fun designing it in the \"sim\" but at 43 I think I\'m already too
old to feel comfortable driving a car this flashy around town

 

[bitrex]

On 8/23/2022 1:46 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk
big enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new
Camaro was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch.
The rear seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a
mini-pickup. Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau
cover to keep your powder dry.



Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.

One thing Ford and GM do tend to offer is a lot customization options on
their vehicles, though how many people special-order them vs just buy
whatever is on the lot I don\'t know.

You can use their configuration to design some nice cars/grotesque
monstrosities, depending on one\'s artistic sense:

https://imgur.com/a/AaozSSw

I had fun designing it in the \"sim\" but at 43 I think I\'m already too
old to feel comfortable driving a car this flashy around town

That configuration has a V6 so the quad tips are totally flagrant and
unnecessary but you can have \'em if you want.

You can factory-order some huge rip-roaring V8s for the Camaro these
days but the price increases substantially until you\'re getting into
Corvette-money and it\'s like why put a Corvette engine in a Camaro when
you can just get the Corvette for not too much more.

Dodge put smaller V8s in their muscle cars and sold them for less money
and their sales did better I believe, their marketing understood that
people wanted the sizzle and didn\'t care so much about the steak.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

tirsdag den 23. august 2022 kl. 19.47.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:

On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.


Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.

with mirrors on both sides and maybe a rear view cam for parking, what do you even need a rear window for?

 

[bitrex]

On 8/23/2022 1:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 23. august 2022 kl. 19.47.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.


Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.

with mirrors on both sides and maybe a rear view cam for parking, what do you even need a rear window for?

Ah yes, I\'ve heard of the \"Italian School\" of driving: \"what\'s in front
of me is my business, what\'s behind me is God\'s business.\"

Bean-counter secret, the stock rear-view camera on GM products IME has
low resolution and lousy dynamic range. Been meaning to try to upgrade
mine for a while

 

[Ed Lee]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:58:41 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

tirsdag den 23. august 2022 kl. 19.47.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.


Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.
with mirrors on both sides and maybe a rear view cam for parking, what do you even need a rear window for?

I wish there is a button to enable rear view cam without putting it in \'R\'. Sometimes i want to look at who\'s following me.

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 23 August 2022 at 20:09:10 UTC+2, Ed Lee wrote:

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:58:41 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
tirsdag den 23. august 2022 kl. 19.47.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 8/23/2022 12:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/22/2022 09:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 8/22/2022 2:03 PM, Flyguy wrote:
Ford is firing 3000 engineers and designers to help pay for EV
expansion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-confirms-layoffs-says-it-is-cutting-about-3-000-jobs-primarily-in-u-s-and-canada-11661180161?mod=hp_lead_pos2


\"He (CEO Ford) has said profits from its lineup of gas and
diesel-engine vehicles will help fund the transition, but that part of
the business must operate more efficiently.\"

Obviously EVs are not profitable now do to low sales and very high
development costs, but cannibalizing the profitable part of the
business is a very bad idea.

People who like old cars and trucks tend to prefer to buy old cars and
trucks. They don\'t like the new gas Camaro, they don\'t like the new gas
Corvette, they don\'t like the new F-150, either.


Back in the day I traded a \'80 Camaro in on an \'82 Firebird. A trunk big
enough for two dead mice or a hatchback? No brainer. If the new Camaro
was a hatch, I\'d be interested. As is, I drive a Toyota hatch. The rear
seats got folded down the day I bought it and it became a mini-pickup.
Unlike the Cowboy Cadillac, you don\'t need a tonneau cover to keep your
powder dry.


Last I checked out the late-model Camaro it had a decent-sized trunk,
but the rear windows were like tank slits. Pretty dreadful visibility.
They\'ve made it a little better more recently I think.
with mirrors on both sides and maybe a rear view cam for parking, what do you even need a rear window for?
I wish there is a button to enable rear view cam without putting it in \'R\'. Sometimes i want to look at who\'s following me.

I use front/rear cameras window installed to the default read view window
If touch screen feature is enabled, you can select front/rear camera with one clic k
and get full window view.


I have developed 4-8 camera surround set up for a car,
run on small 12V PC computer with 4 or 8 usb inputs, since I use usb web cams

Surround view is supported by web html5 application
and you can select a number of preselected multi cameras setups

Surround 360 view is supported by 7 inch monitor or any touch screen , featuring video input