Camaro cancelled?
12-28-2008, 08:09 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 90
Camaro cancelled?
I haven't seen anything on the site about this, so I think it is false, but I have to check for sure.
My gf's stepdad said he heard that one of the stipulations for the "auto bailout" was that the cars they are going to produce must meet a certain gas mileage requirement to be produced and that because Camaro doesn't meet it, they weren't making it anymore. Or the Corvette for that matter.
I told him whoever told him that or where he read it was pulling his leg because they already had so much money invested in these two cars.
But I still have to ask is it true that the gov't put this stipulation on their bailout loans?
*Prays its all BS*
My gf's stepdad said he heard that one of the stipulations for the "auto bailout" was that the cars they are going to produce must meet a certain gas mileage requirement to be produced and that because Camaro doesn't meet it, they weren't making it anymore. Or the Corvette for that matter.
I told him whoever told him that or where he read it was pulling his leg because they already had so much money invested in these two cars.
But I still have to ask is it true that the gov't put this stipulation on their bailout loans?
*Prays its all BS*
12-28-2008, 08:16 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 527
I haven't seen anything on the site about this, so I think it is false, but I have to check for sure.
My gf's stepdad said he heard that one of the stipulations for the "auto bailout" was that the cars they are going to produce must meet a certain gas mileage requirement to be produced and that because Camaro doesn't meet it, they weren't making it anymore. Or the Corvette for that matter.
I told him whoever told him that or where he read it was pulling his leg because they already had so much money invested in these two cars.
But I still have to ask is it true that the gov't put this stipulation on their bailout loans?
*Prays its all BS*
My gf's stepdad said he heard that one of the stipulations for the "auto bailout" was that the cars they are going to produce must meet a certain gas mileage requirement to be produced and that because Camaro doesn't meet it, they weren't making it anymore. Or the Corvette for that matter.
I told him whoever told him that or where he read it was pulling his leg because they already had so much money invested in these two cars.
But I still have to ask is it true that the gov't put this stipulation on their bailout loans?
*Prays its all BS*
That is 100% false! There are no such stipulations whatsoever. There is only one thing that could alter the production of the Camaro and that is the whole supplier thing that GM is fighting with, but that will almost certainly work itself out in time for the start of production in February.
12-28-2008, 08:23 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 388
In my last job I had to do a lot of strategic review of the CAFE standards that have been proposed, and neither Camaro nor Corvette meet even the mildest of those standards (if I recall, 35 mpg by 2012). GM can control this by structuring their fleet to minimize sales of both cars (and trucks) and produce more cars that meet the mileage requirements. That way GM makes Corvettes, Camaros, trucks but makes far more Cobalts, Aveos and hybrids so their fleet average satisfies the requirements. So from that standpoint that rumor is BS.
Having said that, knowing the HUGE environmental agenda that this administration is pushing and the fact that they've got a ton of congressional support - IMHO it is only a matter of time (I give it 1 year tops) before this new car czar decides that selling the Camaro and Corvette is environmentally irresponsible and that other, greener cars, can be made in those plants. It's complete nonsense, I know, but I totally see it happening because no one involved in the decision making process in Washington has bothered to see beyond their own ignorance.
Having said that, knowing the HUGE environmental agenda that this administration is pushing and the fact that they've got a ton of congressional support - IMHO it is only a matter of time (I give it 1 year tops) before this new car czar decides that selling the Camaro and Corvette is environmentally irresponsible and that other, greener cars, can be made in those plants. It's complete nonsense, I know, but I totally see it happening because no one involved in the decision making process in Washington has bothered to see beyond their own ignorance.
12-28-2008, 08:28 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
I could be wrong, but I think the "Car Czar" was a component of the package that was defeated in the Senate. The plan that Bush put through on his own doesn't include an entity resembling a Car Czar.
12-29-2008, 01:09 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Having said that, knowing the HUGE environmental agenda that this administration is pushing and the fact that they've got a ton of congressional support - IMHO it is only a matter of time (I give it 1 year tops) before this new car czar decides that selling the Camaro and Corvette is environmentally irresponsible and that other, greener cars, can be made in those plants. It's complete nonsense, I know, but I totally see it happening because no one involved in the decision making process in Washington has bothered to see beyond their own ignorance.
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 12-29-2008 at 01:11 AM.
12-29-2008, 07:09 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 253
Doubt VERY much that'll happen.
The ammount of Camaro's and Corvettes are a drop in the bucket, compared to the mainstream/everyday cars that have a bigger impact on CAFE averages.
If anything it would be delayed due to various issues, but other than that,
it'd be MORE of a waste to cancel it than to actually sell it.
The ammount of Camaro's and Corvettes are a drop in the bucket, compared to the mainstream/everyday cars that have a bigger impact on CAFE averages.
If anything it would be delayed due to various issues, but other than that,
it'd be MORE of a waste to cancel it than to actually sell it.
12-29-2008, 08:05 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 95
Not true. The automakers just need to reach a certain average fuel economy across their lineup. GM should be able to reach CAFE standards with the Chevy Volt/Cruze and other fuel efficient cars they have up their sleeve.
12-29-2008, 11:32 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lenoir NC
Posts: 19
Please Change Thread Title to: I Heard A Rumour by Bananarama
That "Car Czar" crap was part of the Senate package that loser congress failed to pass. CLEAN is correct - C'Mon Camaro! Should have a garage for you in the country by next Christmas !! 
12-29-2008, 11:50 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
A "Car Czar" purpose is to bring the autoi industry back to health. That means profits. As far as restrictions, anything that cost over $100,000,000 would be up for review by the "Czar" to ensure profitability or that it would be in the best intrest of the company.
The Czar (the way it was structured) was to be in the position of a bankruptcy judge, and in addition to reviewing large budget projects of the company this person was overseaing, the Czar would also have the power to force concessions from suppliers, unions, lenders, dealers, and anyone else related to whatever company fell under his or her jurisdiction. Anyone who didn't negotiate in good faith would be bought before Congress (since they're the ones financing the thing) to explain WTF the problem is. Just as a bankruptcy judge would bring someone before his court to explain at the risk of facing sanctions.
As is common with most car related sites, there are going to be a small contengent of people whose hysteria will always make it easier for them to believe rumor that fits into a preconcieved view that everything is an assult instead of actually reading up on things.
Then there's the internet's ability to take a opinion and within hours it spreads throughout hyperspace and evolves into a "fact". Like a bunch of gossiping housewives with nothing else going on in their lives, things take on a life of their own.
If you want to know the details of something, the answer is only a few keystrokes away.
There's even multiple sources available, so you don't even have to depend on one news site.
You're clicking on a keyboard anyway.... may as well get correct information for the effort, right?
12-29-2008, 03:50 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Please don't give in to those mindless idiots who see a conspiracy against the auto industry around every bend and those who have a psychological paranoia against anything that has the word "government" in the sentence.
A "Car Czar" purpose is to bring the autoi industry back to health. That means profits. As far as restrictions, anything that cost over $100,000,000 would be up for review by the "Czar" to ensure profitability or that it would be in the best intrest of the company.
A "Car Czar" purpose is to bring the autoi industry back to health. That means profits. As far as restrictions, anything that cost over $100,000,000 would be up for review by the "Czar" to ensure profitability or that it would be in the best intrest of the company.
Now I dont know if a Car Czar would push for greener vehicles or what politians would over see that Car Czar but Im skeptical. Even if the Czar is as advertised, the only thing the Govt runs effectively is the Military.
If you want to know the details of something, the answer is only a few keystrokes away.
There's even multiple sources available, so you don't even have to depend on one news site.
You're clicking on a keyboard anyway.... may as well get correct information for the effort, right?
There's even multiple sources available, so you don't even have to depend on one news site.
You're clicking on a keyboard anyway.... may as well get correct information for the effort, right?
Originally Posted by John Sarbanes Member of Congress reply to auto bailout letter
Dear xxxxxx:
Thank you for contacting me about possible government loans or assistance to the U.S. auto manufacturing industry. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
First and foremost, I believe that any investment of taxpayer dollars in such an enterprise must be contingent upon strict accountability on the part of the auto industry to ensure that their future business models and balance sheets are in working order. On November 19, 2008, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled "Stabilizing the Financial Condition of the American Automobile Industry". As a result of the testimony presented by the CEOs of these companies, and as a condition of any future assistance that would be offered by the government, the auto companies have been asked to present a detailed and realistic plan for the future success of their industry to the Congress and the Administration by December 2nd.
While I will withhold judgment until I see the specifics of any plan, I do believe that the development of new battery technology and the production of the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles here in the United States, if done correctly, could save countless American jobs. It could also help us achieve several U.S. policy goals as they pertain to our national security, environment, and economic strength. Just as growth in information technology was the force behind economic prosperity in the 1990's, the development of green technology and green jobs will spur tremendous growth and offer long-term relief to the American economy.
Again, I appreciate hearing from you. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as Congress continues to consider possible measures related to the U.S. automakers. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other issues of concern to you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Sarbanes
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me about possible government loans or assistance to the U.S. auto manufacturing industry. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
First and foremost, I believe that any investment of taxpayer dollars in such an enterprise must be contingent upon strict accountability on the part of the auto industry to ensure that their future business models and balance sheets are in working order. On November 19, 2008, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled "Stabilizing the Financial Condition of the American Automobile Industry". As a result of the testimony presented by the CEOs of these companies, and as a condition of any future assistance that would be offered by the government, the auto companies have been asked to present a detailed and realistic plan for the future success of their industry to the Congress and the Administration by December 2nd.
While I will withhold judgment until I see the specifics of any plan, I do believe that the development of new battery technology and the production of the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles here in the United States, if done correctly, could save countless American jobs. It could also help us achieve several U.S. policy goals as they pertain to our national security, environment, and economic strength. Just as growth in information technology was the force behind economic prosperity in the 1990's, the development of green technology and green jobs will spur tremendous growth and offer long-term relief to the American economy.
Again, I appreciate hearing from you. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as Congress continues to consider possible measures related to the U.S. automakers. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other issues of concern to you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Sarbanes
Member of Congress
Regaurdless of what regulation will be used, I firmly believe some are going to continue to push for alternative fuels trying to regulate out less friendly vehicles. Bob Lutz said something to the extent of " if you want these vehicles buy them now" I took that to be in regaurds to ZR1 and other types may be regulated out.
Feel free to correct any of this if any is factually inacurate.
12-29-2008, 07:19 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 527
In my last job I had to do a lot of strategic review of the CAFE standards that have been proposed, and neither Camaro nor Corvette meet even the mildest of those standards (if I recall, 35 mpg by 2012). GM can control this by structuring their fleet to minimize sales of both cars (and trucks) and produce more cars that meet the mileage requirements. That way GM makes Corvettes, Camaros, trucks but makes far more Cobalts, Aveos and hybrids so their fleet average satisfies the requirements. So from that standpoint that rumor is BS.
Having said that, knowing the HUGE environmental agenda that this administration is pushing and the fact that they've got a ton of congressional support - IMHO it is only a matter of time (I give it 1 year tops) before this new car czar decides that selling the Camaro and Corvette is environmentally irresponsible and that other, greener cars, can be made in those plants. It's complete nonsense, I know, but I totally see it happening because no one involved in the decision making process in Washington has bothered to see beyond their own ignorance.
Having said that, knowing the HUGE environmental agenda that this administration is pushing and the fact that they've got a ton of congressional support - IMHO it is only a matter of time (I give it 1 year tops) before this new car czar decides that selling the Camaro and Corvette is environmentally irresponsible and that other, greener cars, can be made in those plants. It's complete nonsense, I know, but I totally see it happening because no one involved in the decision making process in Washington has bothered to see beyond their own ignorance.
And they can take there so called "green cars" and shove them, along with the global warming BS! I might be keeping my '10 SS for a very long time
12-29-2008, 07:21 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 527
