SILVERADO EV RST

ZR2BIZON

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2023
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
4,091
Location
Colorado
Fellas,
I was at my local Stealership for an oil change and they had this RST. Looks badass in person. Miles ahead of the WT (obviously).
I wouldn't mind one in my driveway but it needs to be discounted atleast 20k.

I can't see it being worth 100k

Side note. The bowtie is a bit different. It has rounded wings.

1000039470.jpg
1000039471-jpg.15547
1000039475.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000039471.jpg
    1000039471.jpg
    265.3 KB · Views: 168
  • 1000039472.jpg
    1000039472.jpg
    262.9 KB · Views: 15
I just drove 12 hours to NY and I stopped at a rural rest stop in PA for fuel. An EV Hummer was sitting in the lot and there were no charging stations around. I wonder how many Energizers he had to buy to get that thing moving…. No thanks.
 
When the infrastructure is in place, and they quit trying to force us to go electric, I would LOVE to have a Lucid Air. Those cars are incredibly cool to me. Something with 4 doors that can absolutely blister about anything out there right now.
 
When the infrastructure is in place, and they quit trying to force us to go electric, I would LOVE to have a Lucid Air. Those cars are incredibly cool to me. Something with 4 doors that can absolutely blister about anything out there right now.
That’s why they should’ve rolled out mostly hybrids and let the market get used to the idea before slamming full electric edicts.
 
I wonder why GM is posting the battery aspects of this rig against SAE J1634 revision 2017 and not most recent revision 2021? Anyone familiar with SAE standards that can break that down in human speak?

EDIT:
I ran my question through AI... interesting...

Differences Between J1634_201707 and J1634_202104

1. Purpose and Scope
The J1634 standard outlines procedures for measuring the energy consumption and range of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The 201707 version primarily focused on establishing baseline methodologies for testing BEVs under specific conditions. In contrast, the 202104 version expands upon these methodologies, incorporating more recent advancements in technology and testing practices to provide a more comprehensive framework for evaluating BEV performance.

2. Testing Procedures The J1634_201707 version included basic testing protocols that were somewhat limited in scope. It provided guidelines for controlled laboratory conditions but did not fully address real-world driving scenarios. The J1634_202104 version introduces enhanced testing procedures that account for a wider variety of driving conditions, including urban, highway, and mixed environments. This change reflects an understanding that real-world performance can differ significantly from laboratory results.

3. Data Collection and Analysis In the earlier version (J1634_201707), data collection methods were relatively straightforward, focusing on key metrics like energy consumption per distance traveled. The updated version (J1634_202104) emphasizes a more sophisticated approach to data analysis, encouraging the use of advanced telemetry systems to gather detailed information about vehicle performance during tests. This includes factors such as temperature effects, battery state of charge variations, and other dynamic parameters that influence energy consumption.

4. Inclusion of New Technologies The 202104 revision incorporates considerations for newer technologies in electric vehicles, such as regenerative braking systems and advanced battery management systems. These technologies were either not addressed or only minimally covered in the 201707 version. By including these elements, the updated standard aims to provide a more accurate representation of modern BEV capabilities.

5. Regulatory Compliance The J1634_202104 version also aligns with evolving regulatory requirements concerning emissions and efficiency standards set by various governing bodies around the world. This ensures that manufacturers can utilize this standard to meet compliance obligations while also providing consumers with reliable information regarding vehicle performance.

In summary, the differences between J1634_201707 and J1634_202104 lie in their scope, testing procedures, data collection methods, inclusion of new technologies, and alignment with regulatory compliance, reflecting advancements in electric vehicle technology and a greater emphasis on real-world applicability.
 
I had its partner in RC crime... the grasshoper

View attachment 15566
They were so damn much fun! Battery life and charging was a problem 40 years ago......LOL.

I got my boys these when they were young. They were so much faster and more durable. Good times!
 

Attachments

  • SmartSelect_20240823_075108_Chrome.jpg
    SmartSelect_20240823_075108_Chrome.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 5
They were so damn much fun! Battery life and charging was a problem 40 years ago......LOL.

I got my boys these when they were young. They were so much faster and more durable. Good times!
I might have to find an original just to relive the good times!
 
I'd drive it if it had a 6.2. Loved my avalanche. I could haul lumber, and even my kayak in it with the tailgate up. I could also crash in the back when road tripping easy enough. Very handy vehicle because of the midgate. Wish they still made them
 
Fellas,
I was at my local Stealership for an oil change and they had this RST. Looks badass in person. Miles ahead of the WT (obviously).
I wouldn't mind one in my driveway but it needs to be discounted atleast 20k.

I can't see it being worth 100k

Side note. The bowtie is a bit different. It has rounded wings.

View attachment 15545
1000039471-jpg.15547
View attachment 15550
IF I were to buy electric today? It would be a car for local use only. Not a truck. Simply no use vs Cost and limited use. When batteries last 1k miles and includes towing? Maybe. The time spent on the charger vs putting in work? Nope. Not happening.
 

Most Member Reactions

Back
Top