Future of Camaro, from Bob Lutz's lips...

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=2024949

Bob Lutz says big-horsepower cars in danger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got back from a lunch where Bob Lutz, GM co-chairman and the keeper of the speed flame at GM (as if we should expect anything else from a guy with two jet warbirds and a jet helicopter in his personal fleet).
Bob, as always, was entertaining and provocative -- he spun a wild tale about how Soviet disinformation the 1960s and '70s derailed nuclear power here and in much of Western Europe as a way to keep us dependent on foreign oil.
But he issued this warning about the new Camaro and, by extension, though not mentioned specifically, the Corvette: You better buy these cars now because when we have to meet the new federal 35 mpg mandate by 2015, we can't do that and keep producing high-horsepower cars.
Now before anyone flames me about what good gas mileage the Corvette gets now, Lutz is looking at the big picture, which means GM will have to produce a lot of small, fuel-efficient cars that get 40 or more miles per gallon to offset the inevitable fleet of crossover SUVs and the like that will get 30 mpg.
He says that in that environment, cars like the Camaro and "OTHER V8 VEHICLES'' (emphasis mine, but Bob's words) will have a short lifespan. Again, no mention directly of the Vette, but it's not hard to see that at least the new ZR1 could be short-lived and the
basic Vette could get scaled back to a V6 at some point.
Lutz remains a big believer in ethanol, though he's now put the emphasis on celulosic ethanol rather than corn-based ethanol. He believes that if Washington would put greater emphasis on E-85, by 2015 we could be free of imported oil and still provide the types of cars people want.
I'm not sure I agree with him on that, but his points are worth considering.
The other interesting tidbit -- GM is working on a way to make the 2010 Volt electric car have an artificial exhaust sound to satisfy drivers who don't want their cars to be silent. He also said the Volt, which he maintains is on track for the year 2010, will "be affordable,'' but will "cost a lot more'' than he'd like when it comes to market. He also
said that GM won't make a dime on the first generation of these vehicles

I'm not worried about horsepower. So long as the performance is there. We can't all drive little econo-cars that can barely get out of their own way. :p

The sky is falling....

In all seriousness even if things go in this direction, if there is a market (even a niche market) some business is going to cater to it.

I heard something very similar to this before, a couple of weeks ago. I checked and was told it wasn't definite confirmation of anything. I will be addressing this in a couple of days at the focus group just to make sure.

I don't think the Corvette is going to take a nosedive in power but I bet we will see a drop in displacement with the Gen V motors with perhaps a couple more revs in the base motor. I really don't think a V6 in the Corvette is going to happen anytime in the near future. Sporty cars slotted under it, like Camaro, are a completely different story though.

edit: Does anyone know what the current LS3 Corvette's CAFE rating is?

GM's Domestic passenger car average was 29.9 last year and imported passenger car was 31.9 mpg. Those are the NHTSA based numbers used for CAFE not really related to the EPA test. Trucks manages a whole 22.6 mpg.

In some ways it really makes me mad. This 2010 Zeta Camaro always had it's sights on the last gen '05 Mustang rather taking it's own path.

What a shame that after such a long and painful gestation period, (and I'm talking from 2002, not the concept's unveiling), within a couple of years after it's intro, it'll be on the CAFE hit list.

I mean, couldn't anyone see this coming?

I don't know, so could this be the beginning of the end of V8's ? I will wait until Jason comes back from the Focus Group. Hopefully more info can be provided.

I guess I just find it VERY hard to believe that after all the work, all the development in Austrailia..., etc - and now the merging of Sigma and Zeta - that they'd just axe the Camaro again..I don't see it happening. I love the guy for all he's done, but I'll be waiting until the focus group folks get back before I fall for another "Lutz-premium" comment. ;)

If the 6th gen shifts to Alpha, I don't see any reason why a smaller, more fuel-efficient V8 couldn't be used. Same goes for the base Corvette. Once new technology starts rolling out (direct injection, VVT, etc.), the V8 should have some life in it still.

He didn't say they would "axe" the Camaro, he was talking about high horsepower "V8" cars. Plus, the MY2015 would be the 6th year of the Camaros life cycle, so there will be a lot of years to get whatever big cube big hp engine you want. After the new numbers kick in though, I think all he's saying is expect smaller, lighter, less powerful cars, though hopefully w/ the same performance.

I guess I just find it VERY hard to believe that after all the work, all the development in Austrailia..., etc - and now the merging of Sigma and Zeta - that they'd just axe the Camaro again..I don't see it happening. I love the guy for all he's done, but I'll be waiting until the focus group folks get back before I fall for another "Lutz-premium" comment. ;)

GM pulls the plug on bigger programs than the Camaro all the time, if it deems it necessary. I think the Camaro is safe for afew years, but all the other Zetas which would have shared Oshawa are essentially dead. As far as the merging of Zeta and Sigma - that won't be until roughly 2015 - and at that point it'll probably be less "merge" than simply the next gen Sigma replacement architecture.

He didn't say they would "axe" the Camaro, he was talking about high horsepower "V8" cars. Plus, the MY2015 would be the 6th year of the Camaros life cycle, so there will be a lot of years to get whatever big cube big hp engine you want. After the new numbers kick in though, I think all he's saying is expect smaller, lighter, less powerful cars, though hopefully w/ the same performance.

I just can't see the current car lasting that long, especially if it's a porker.

The new ZR1 is only planned for a 3 year life. The Viper will be all through then and the high horsepower Mustang special editions will be gone then also.

He believes that if Washington would put greater emphasis on E-85, by 2015 we could be free of imported oil and still provide the types of cars people want.

what is he smoking? in 7 years we are gonna turn an oil-based economy into one free of imported oil? LOL I needed a good laugh today.

Is this beginning to look a little reminiscent of the ~1973 era?? :rolleyes: About the time when all the performance cars got neutered, and we didn't see real HP for almost another ~20 years?! :shrug:

I really don't want to do the "Chicken Little" cry, but the direction gov't/industry standards have been going lately ... I dunno ... I think the writing's on the wall?? Performance cars aren't a big enough segment of the market ... we'll have better odds of getting a performance CUV in a few years!! :lol:

The Corvettes sell in small enough numbers that their MPG average added into the MILLIONS of cars GM sells does not make a difference. Plus, they have a big enough profit margin to justify the hit. As for the ZR1, you are talking about 1,000 cars a year. Honestly, it could get 1-mpg and with only 1,000 cars a year it would not even make a dent in the FLEET average.

Unfortunately, the base V8 Camaro should sell in enough numbers to hurt GMs average...BUT, I think the top model 550hp Camaro will only be selling 6,000 cars a year? 8,000? Again, that is such a small number of cars that I can NOT see it hurting the average of a company that sells MILLIONS of cars a year.

Finally, I have already started writing letters to my congressmen fighting to get this crap overturned. Right now, all the tree huggers are freaking. As soon as the speculators move on like the locusts that they are to ruin some other part of the world, Oil will go back down to where it SHOULD be, and not $126 per freaking barrel.

Crap like this is the reason I'm going to keep my current GT instead of trading it in for my next ride. When all the enviro-nazis move into my part of the neighborhood I want them to look on my fleet of throaty non-green friendly V8s sitting there...waiting to rip the clean air right out of their children's lungs.

As soon as the speculators move on like the locusts that they are to ruin some other part of the world, Oil will go back down to where it SHOULD be, and not $126 per freaking barrel.
AMEN to that brother!! :irk:
I don't think a lot of people realize what's driving the price up. As a rule I think government regulation should be kept at a minimum, but I'm really wondering if maybe that's what's needed when it comes to oil.

:cool:Crap like this is the reason I'm going to keep my current GT instead of trading it in for my next ride. When all the enviro-nazis move into my part of the neighborhood I want them to look on my fleet of throaty non-green friendly V8s sitting there...waiting to rip the clean air right out of their children's lungs.

You're misguided. The issue here is not even CAFE. The issue is what the public will be buying. If fuel is going to be running $5 per gallon by years end, a likely $6 per gallon by the end of next year, and ALOT higher by 2015 (roughly the end of the next gen Camaro's life), it doesn't take much to see that GM is moving with the direction of the marketplace.

I currently have an LS1 Camaro. If GM makes a 4 passenger Solstice-like coupe that performs at least as well in acceleration, better in handling (not hard to do considering the size difference) and it has a V6, gets far better fuel economy and is a blast to drive, count me in.

There is nothing in Bob Lutz's statement regarding the end of high horsepower V8s that should come as a surprise to anyone watching how quickly fuel prices are rising, almost daily. You simply aren't going to have a 450 horsepowered V8 Chevrolet Camaro and gas prices running 6, 7, or even $8 per gallon.

Yet, at the same time, that in no way means that "fun" cars are going away. If there's a market for them (and there always is), unlike the 1970s, cars today have alot of room to manuver and keep or improve performance. From weight reduction to more powerful engines to direct injection to turbochargers, superchargers, or even both. Smaller size and lighter weight means you woun't even need mega-dose horsepower to do the same job.


As for fears of a V6 Corvette, IMO that's actually silly. Corvette's 35,000 per year sales aren't even a drop in the bucket in a company that churned out 3,866,620 vehicles last year. The Chevrolet Corvette is something like 0.9% of GM's total sales. You'd need to strap General Electric GE-90 engine from a Boeing 777 to the roof of all Corvettes leaving Bowling Green before it would make an adverse dent on GM's CAFE number (but...on the positive side, you'd have an engine that set a new Guinness Record for jet engines of 123,000 pounds of steady thrust :think: ).

:cool:

You'd need to strap General Electric GE-90 engine from a Boeing 777 to the roof of all Corvettes leaving Bowling Green ....

I just had the coolest visual....:eek:

Bob, as always, was entertaining and provocative -- he spun a wild tale about how Soviet disinformation the 1960s and '70s derailed nuclear power here and in much of Western Europe as a way to keep us dependent on foreign oil.

I wonder if the Chernobyl meltdown was part of this disinformation campaign. :p

(Sorry I couldn't resist. I think we need more nuclear too, but the commie plot part is a little too hard to swallow.)

On topic,

First, realize that even the Camaro is going to be "CAFE-negative" when compared to a pickup truck or SUV, which is GM's bread-n-butter.

But, the problem, I guess, is that GM primarily pays for LS development primarily from truck sales. If trucks move to smaller, less-powerful engines, then the Camaro is going to have to move with them because the muscle car segment can't single-handedly finance it's own engine line.

You're misguided.
...
From weight reduction to more powerful engines to direct injection to turbochargers, superchargers, or even both. Smaller size and lighter weight means you woun't even need mega-dose horsepower to do the same job.
Um, what was that term again? Oh yeah, misguided ;).

Guy, have you not noticed that curb weights have been going up almost as fast as gas prices?! :rolleyes: Look at the Mustang. It's not gotten any lighter over its last couple re-models. Look at the GT500. You think you don't need mega-power to do the same job?! Ha! The GT500 HAS big power, and it's a big, heavy slug! Look at the Charger/Challenger line-up. HEAVY. Look at the new Camaro ..... PROBABLY not gonna be light-weight either ;).

AND, look at a car like the Honda Civic. Here's one of the most popular "sub-compacts" for 2 - 3 decades now, and even it's "grown-up" in the last few years (without getting out a ruler, I'm pretty sure a new Civic sedan is almost the same size as the Honda Accord of a few years ago).

All this "technology" and "space-age materials", and where's it gotten us? Heavier cars, not lighter.

The whole auto industry would have to do a 180 immediately to get back to small, light-weight cars.

On topic,

But, the problem, I guess, is that GM primarily pays for LS development primarily from truck sales. If trucks move to smaller, less-powerful engines, then the Camaro is going to have to move with them because the muscle car segment can't single-handedly finance it's own engine line.

EXCELLENT LOGIC! :bow:

I'd like to see a 180 on this no domestic drilling stuff. I'd like to see some new refineries built here. I'd like a government be less interested in what I can and can't have if I'm willing to pay for it.

I could go on, but this isn't the place for politics.

I'm officially depressed now.....:( and trust me, I'm not part of the "sky-is-falling" club, not in the least, but as part of my job I've done some market research into the new CAFE standards and it's not a pretty picture.

Today there are (approximately) 262 different nameplates on sale in the US. How many of those at within 10% or meet the CAFE standard of 30.5 mpg fleet average? 31 - nope, not a typo. There are no vans, trucks, SUVs, crossovers or luxury cars that make the cut - NONE. That's just phase one of this. The California Air Resources Board wants a tighter standard (and all two-and-a-half presidential candidates are in favor of it).....guess what that one is? They're looking at 36mpg as a fleet average by 2016. Guess how many cars make THAT cut? 10 The California standard's goal is even scarier - 43mpg fleet average by 2020. :death: Volt may be a game changer, but any leeway that GM gets from it will have to offset trucks, not sports cars.

The auto industry is facing a huge challenge - and I think the v8 is the first casualty. :cry: It's happened before and it will happen again. Cars in the 30's had 12 and 16 cylinder engines, but they were inefficient and were replaced. Next is the v8. We'll still have fun cars, there's no doubt, but they won't have v8 engines for very long.....:(:(:(:(

The auto industry is facing a huge challenge - and I think the v8 is the first casualty. :cry:

I'm not ready to say that the smallblock V8 is dead yet. Future, more efficient versions of it, will power trucks and Corvette. And therein, hopefully, lies the opportunity for a future Camaro.

I expect that the 5th gen will be too large, too heavy, too dependant on big inch powerplants, to last very long in our current environment. But I'm not ready to give up on the Camaro marque just yet.......

Time to start seriously thinking about what kind of Camaro can thrive in 5 or 6 dollar per gallon gas and 35mpg CAFE.

I hope that at least one version can still have a V8.

We'll still have fun cars, there's no doubt, but they won't have v8 engines for very long.....:(:(:(
We'll still have V8's. There just won't be any NEW V8's ;).

Good thing there's a slew of LSX engines already on the market!! :D

It's like the old hot-rods, muscle cars et.al. from the 50's, 60's & 70's. Even though the factory stopped building them, didn't mean the love for them died, and there has ALWAYS been aftermarket to appease the needs of those who want to play with the "big, expensive, gas-guzzling toys" ;). And I'm sure that isn't going to change for a LONG time :cool:.

CAFE won't apply to existing cars, unless there's something I'm missing?! :confused: And until the gov't stops issuing annual license stickers for cars older than xxxx year, then we'll continue to be able to drive our V8 powered modern muscle cars for many years to come :).

I'll happily drive a C6 Z06 to infinity!! :D

I'm not ready to say that the smallblock V8 is dead yet. Future, more efficient versions of it, will power trucks and Corvette.
They haven't even tapped into direct injection yet, but we know the potential there exists. Also, they haven't ventured anywhere near a turbo V8 for a long, long time (last time 'round was a bit of a flop IMO? :shrug: ) but that's always an efficient engine option. Even resorting to a supercharger would at least increase the efficiency of the power maker! :yes: AND, they could stop their recent trend of building bigger and bigger, and downsize to something along the lines of the 4.8L or 5.3L engines, which could still make respectable power with satisfying fuel efficiency.

And therein, hopefully, lies the opportunity for a future Camaro.
...
Time to start seriously thinking about what kind of Camaro can thrive in 5 or 6 dollar per gallon gas and 35mpg CAFE.
A smaller, lighter weight Camaro, like what the 5th-gen should have been in the first place? ;) :cool:

They haven't even tapped into direct injection yet, but we know the potential there exists.

Don't know if you read about it, yet - but the GenV small blocks have gotten approved for St. Catharines. Direct Injection, etc. Which means smaller size with similar output as today's 6+ Liter engines...They're comin'!!!:D

GM pulls the plug on bigger programs than the Camaro all the time, if it deems it necessary. I think the Camaro is safe for afew years, but all the other Zetas which would have shared Oshawa are essentially dead. As far as the merging of Zeta and Sigma - that won't be until roughly 2015 - and at that point it'll probably be less "merge" than simply the next gen Sigma replacement architecture.



I just can't see the current car lasting that long, especially if it's a porker.

Didn't GM just guarantee another car along with the Camaro plus the extension of Impala to 2012 at Oshawa as part of the CAW deal? I guess if it's a flex line it doesn't have to be Zeta derived, though.

I had better preface what I'm going to post with some background info, or I risk being taken totally incorrectly about what will follow.

I have my absolute preferences about what I will buy and drive. You won't find a more passionate person when it comes to personal transportation.

When one gets involved in the very passionate side of vehicles, one can choose the tunnel visionary path that is all about what one personally wants and cares about. This sort of thinking drew me to GM vehicles.

The more I got into the passion for vehicles the more I reached the conclusion that other's tunnel vision for what they liked may have seemed misguided to me, but still genuine, and clearly a passion that was worthy of my respect. I figured they were better viewed as allies than enemies.

SO... here is an observation to all those here I view as friends and kindred spirits.

Truck and SUV fans have a right to love what they love in a vehicle. You don't have to go too far to find many that see what we like and want from a car seeming to be just the same foolishness and folly as what the truck/suv folks think is desirable.

I've been here a good while and have seen the distaste and redicule of those that buy trucks and suv's. This from folks that love the sort of cars that can be equally, or to a greater degree, be viewed as "why would anyone NEED that ?" kind of personal choice.

Trucks and SUV's have much to do with the fact that what we love and celebrate here is afforbable. There would be no LSx without trucks...at least there would be no afforable V-8 car option... Anything "V-8 interesting" from Ford is financed to a large degree by the F-150. Viper would not have a V-10 without a truck program at Chrysler to pay the biggest part of the bill, nor would the non-Hemi Hemi have seen the light of day in a car without the truck and SUV business being there to shoulder the lion's share of the expense.

I view what people want to be even more of a valid reason than what they need, in the final analysis.

Take the emotion out of a car or truck purchase and there is far less innovation and passion required in the design and manufacture. Remove the passion at every stage and there is no car business. At the extreme side of removing the passion from cars or killing trucks? Better to maintain what you have as it's a wasteland otherwise.

As for me, I will continue to embrace and try to expand the GM faithful. Be it through economy cars, high performance cars, or trucks and SUV's.

I see people being able to buy what they want being essential to me being able to drive what I want at a price I want to pay.

Trust me on this, I'm a realist...

Didn't GM just guarantee another car along with the Camaro plus the extension of Impala to 2012 at Oshawa as part of the CAW deal? I guess if it's a flex line it doesn't have to be Zeta derived, though.

All good news, for sure.

However, give me your honest opinion on whether Camaro would have been given a greenlight under the present governmental, etc. circumstances...:dead:

I affirm that the Camaro go ahead was the absolute correct decision. It's what many people want. I think the market will be stunned at how good the car actually is.

All good news, for sure.

However, give me your honest opinion on whether Camaro would have been given a greenlight under the present governmental, etc. circumstances...:dead:

I affirm that the Camaro go ahead was the absolute correct decision. It's what many people want. I think the market will be stunned at how good the car actually is.

I absolutely think the car will be great, but I'm going to say now that I think the last year for a v8 in the Camaro is 2014 unless volumes are dropped significantly.

I absolutely think the car will be great, but I'm going to say now that I think the last year for a v8 in the Camaro is 2014 unless volumes are dropped significantly.


I personally don't think the volumes will be so high (I would guess less than 40k, or approximately what the Corvette is) that they are going to have to drop the v-8 Camaro. Hopefully the DI v-8's will be able to marginalize any negative impact on CAFE once they are introduced.

All good news, for sure.

However, give me your honest opinion on whether Camaro would have been given a greenlight under the present governmental, etc. circumstances...:dead:



I think the cards would have been heavily stacked against it, (even moreso than they already were). It certainly would not have been Zeta based. It would have needed to be smaller and lighter, with various Ecotec versions as the prime movers. And wishfully, with an available V8, albeit, more high tech, more efficient, and with smaller displacement.

In today's environment and going forward, not only would a Camaro need to be fun and desirable, it also needs to be CAFE positive and be attractive to 100,000 or so buyers per year, at $5 (+) per gallon gas prices.

Enthusiasts pay for gas too.

Wasn't the third gen camaro's selling for around 20,000? That leaves alot of money on the table to put in your own drive train.

Forget CAFE it's not like they are going to check all of the cars on the road to make sure they meet CAFE. I wouldn't be surpised if GM performace because something more like a chain performace shop that you go after you buy your car.

I like being able to put something together that blows everything else on the street away. Plus I am sure that they will find an alternative to performace cars down the road.

Alternative? Ever heard of the tesla roadster? That things a mean sob and its totally electric, and some college student in NY built a K1 Attack kit car that was powered by corn based ethanol and ran low 13's.

Here is an interesting article I just found. Seems more people want V8's then V6's lately???

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051620081415480070&referrer_id=yahoofinance

Wasn't the third gen camaro's selling for around 20,000? That leaves a lot of money on the table to put in your own drive train.

$20,000 in 1987, kind of the heart of the third gen years (Firebird formula came back, GTA debuted, 350 TPI became available in IROC-Z) is $37,820.95 today.

$20,000 in 1991 is $31,545.23 today.

The 1989 20th Anniversary Turbo Trans Am would be $51,694.38 in today's dollars.

Third gens seem cheap now, but weren't then.

Um, what was that term again? Oh yeah, misguided ;).

Guy, have you not noticed that curb weights have been going up almost as fast as gas prices?! :rolleyes: Look at the Mustang. It's not gotten any lighter over its last couple re-models. Look at the GT500. You think you don't need mega-power to do the same job?! Ha! The GT500 HAS big power, and it's a big, heavy slug! Look at the Charger/Challenger line-up. HEAVY. Look at the new Camaro ..... PROBABLY not gonna be light-weight either ;).

AND, look at a car like the Honda Civic. Here's one of the most popular "sub-compacts" for 2 - 3 decades now, and even it's "grown-up" in the last few years (without getting out a ruler, I'm pretty sure a new Civic sedan is almost the same size as the Honda Accord of a few years ago).

All this "technology" and "space-age materials", and where's it gotten us? Heavier cars, not lighter.

The whole auto industry would have to do a 180 immediately to get back to small, light-weight cars.

You have great points al around. I've even argued those same points to others that cars today are as light as they can be because the public wants it. IRS, chassis capable of handling 400 & 500 horsepower V8 engines, even drivetrains themselves handling that much power while maintaining a warranty means added weight.

But... if a chassis and drivetrain don't need to handle large horsepower, it can be made lighter. If can be made to be roomy in a smaller package, it can be lighter. In even today's world, does a Mustang and Camaro take the same place in the market as it did in the late 60s (a subcompact, sporty, fun to drive coupe)? Of course not. Today both are externally midsized cars and V8s aren't in the same position as they were in the 1960s.


Exibit One: the Pontiac Solstice.
The Solstice doesn't have hyper expensive space age technology. Yet the top level, GXP weighs in at 2976#. Does 0-60 within a couple of tenths of a LS1 Camaro, & gets 31 mpg on the highway (28 mpg by the new restrictive standards).

Add a V8 engine, and you have a CAFE friendly Corvette. The Mallett Solstice has a 400 horse LS2, weighs 3010 pounds. Goes from 0-60 in 4.3 seconds. The whole thing is warrantied, so it goes beyond a simple hack and drop job. The current Corvette Z51 coupe weighs in at over 200 pounds more, has a more powerful LS3... and is slower than the Mallett to 60 and in the quarter. The Mallett also gets slightly better fuel economy.

A Corvette simply based on the low priced Solstice chassis would see improvement in CAFE with a smaller engine and no other changes. Add all the expensive tricks GM did to make the Corvette lightweight and pass on the price to a Corvette level would yield an even better result with the need for even less horsepower (and fuel) to achieve the same result.


Exibit 2: The G8 and Chrysler LX cars:
Both cars have proven beyond all doubt that if you design an affordable chassis that can handle 500 plus horsepower, it's going to weigh a ton...or in this case, two. Both are right at the 4000 pound mark with V8s attached.

GM's W-chassis was by no means meant to handle 500 horsepower. It barely was made capable to handle 300. Yet, a full dress 2008 V8 powered, Impala SS (and GXP) weighs in at just under 3700 pounds. It's as quick (or marginally quicker) as the current Hemi R/T Charger (despite a 50 horsepower deficit), and gets better fuel economy with a smaller engine.

Best guess is that trading out weight of the existing W rear suspension components for a RWD Solstice GXP IRS setup would probally add 100-150 pounds. Another guess is that the power going to the rear wheels instead of the front would make up for any weight gain since under hard acceleration, weight would shift to the back which in RWD cars would add traction and shorten time as opposed to FWD cars where all else is the same.

In both instances there is no new technology or even abandoning V8 engines achieve better numbers. Both examples are on low priced chassis.

But say in the case of a RWD Impala, instead of using the existing 5.3 V8, we subsitute a DI 3.6? Lighter weight, better fuel economy, and the same power. Suppose we add this engine along with Corvette's tricks to a Solstice-like Corvette? You'd likely have LS2 performance. LS3s would probally perform like Z06s.

Rant time.

The next Camaro is the result of everyone wanting their cake and eating it too. IRS, 500 horsepower capablility, big honking V8, all the toys from power everything to heated seats and SatNav, all at a Mustang-like price. The size and weight is what you ended up with. It's not GM's fault, it's from the feedback of people who would actually be the buying customers combined with the reality of trying to make the thing actually make money.

If when the dust settles on all of this, we get a new Camaro the size of a Chevrolet Cobalt, weighs 3200 pounds in top form, has a new gen DI V6 engine getting 340 horsepower that turns out to be the quickest non-special edition Camaro that's ever left the factory, and handles as it's weight and horsepower numbers suggest, the Camaro would have come back to where it started in the marketplace.

It's a shame that it took a threefold plus increase in the price of gas in a short time to get some thinking about returning Camaro to it's spiritial roots.

I don't see what the panic is for. Does it really matter if they have a V8 option in 2015? Will there be a V8 option in 2009? Yes just purchase your V8 before that deadline occurs whenever that is. This news isn’t anything we haven't heard before. Sooner or later you knew it was coming.

The next Camaro is the result of everyone wanting their cake and eating it too. IRS, 500 horsepower capablility, big honking V8, all the toys from power everything to heated seats and SatNav, all at a Mustang-like price. The size and weight is what you ended up with. It's not GM's fault, it's from the feedback of people who would actually be the buying customers combined with the reality of trying to make the thing actually make money.

If when the dust settles on all of this, we get a new Camaro the size of a Chevrolet Cobalt, weighs 3200 pounds in top form, has a new gen DI V6 engine getting 340 horsepower that turns out to be the quickest non-special edition Camaro that's ever left the factory, and handles as it's weight and horsepower numbers suggest, the Camaro would have come back to where it started in the marketplace.

It's a shame that it took a threefold plus increase in the price of gas in a short time to get some thinking about returning Camaro to it's spiritial roots.

We should be able to have everything we want, we waited a long time for this car. There should also be many options available to keep weight down instead of throwing everything in loaded packages they way they do. It's just a shame that the most powerful country on this planet is a complete wuss today and buys oil from its enemies instead of drilling and using it's own to save a few trees. So instead, we're letting ourselves be controlled and robbed left and right as the economy is tanking, gas sets daily records along with food prices and every other aspect of cost of living until there seemingly is no more middle class. I don't see salaries going up to match this. This in turn is also going to rob us of one of the things the US has always prided most, the V8 gas powered automobile and the "fun car." With recent projections we'll all be riding bikes, walking, or taking buses anyway. Or driving cars with fake exhaust sounds.

A DIV6 is not in the concept of the Camaro at any stage, neither is a Cobalt sized car. The car basically always kept true to the formula except today there's just so much more to put in a car, so there's not much you can do to stop the weight, not if you want a Camaro that is what it's supposed to be.

Some times less is more!

V8 engines are not everyting as some of the best racing engines were six cylinders.

Also less mass is the biggest area where performance is gained as a big engine may make the car faster but it does nothing for handling or stopping the car. Less weight adds in all three areas.

I drove a HHR SS the other day and even though I am not a FWD fan this little engine is a joy. With GM adding another 40 HP to the Kappa and putting out 300 HP with only 2.0 liters it is amazing how fun this engine is.

If one does not have an open mind your going to miss some real great cars.

Rant time.

The next Camaro is the result of everyone wanting their cake and eating it too. IRS, 500 horsepower capablility, big honking V8, all the toys from power everything to heated seats and SatNav, all at a Mustang-like price. The size and weight is what you ended up with. It's not GM's fault, it's from the feedback of people who would actually be the buying customers combined with the reality of trying to make the thing actually make money.



Feedback?

From who, Guy? I've been preaching this size/mass thing, since..well...forever. Can't imagine anyone at GM did anything about that bit-o-feedback.

The interior? E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E I spoke to at the unveiling, hated the damned thing with a passion. I mean, you were there, you know. So what interior do they go with?

I think that whatever 'feedback' was given, was listened to very politely, the person giving it was thanked for their enthusiasm - and then GM ultimately did whatever the fark they wanted.

The reason that GM finds itself in this Camaro/CAFE predicament was the decision to use a fullsized sedan architecture for the Camaro. And a big hefty architecture requires big hefty motors to move around. And now that all of the Zeta sedans are essentially dead, it's the Camaro which is left holding all of this baggage.

GM could have taken a different course. Remember the Torana concept? Lots of people within GM thought this would make a great foundation for a Camaro - IF - such an architecture could spawn other cars. Of course, that particular notion, was quickly killed by those who felt that Americans would not buy smaller 'premium' cars. Whatever that means.

Not GM's fault? I disagree.

Alternative? Ever heard of the tesla roadster? That things a mean sob and its totally electric, and some college student in NY built a K1 Attack kit car that was powered by corn based ethanol and ran low 13's.

Tesla? Sure I have heard of it. An electric Lotus Elise. $89,000.00. Right?
Electric is certainly a future, positive, part of the mix. I don't think it's my idea of an affordable performance car. I'b be inclined to think a $30k car and $60k in change might be a better way to go with $89k. YMMV:lol:

If you can drop 89 large on 2 seater car it ain't about the gas...

CAFE isn't about the gas either, IMO. Why the only real trade deficit the government seems really interested in stemming with legislation is oil... baffles me.

Polls are neither good or bad, but they can be interesting. I saw one that aske folks how much more would they be willing to pay over the regular price they consider for a car if it were guranteed to get 35 MPG.:

$1,000 - 16%

$2,000 - 25%

$3,000 - 14%

More than $4,000 - 11%

Don't want to pay a penny more - 34%

We have went from a 375 hp car from the 60's getting 8 or 10 mpg plus or minus, to a 400 hp car today getting 27 mpg (Guessing). I still remember a trip to Florida I made in a 94 TA. I got 31 mpg. That would have been unthinkable 30 or 40 years ago in a car that could turn mid to low 13's in the quarter. The year before I made the trip in my four cylinder Ford Ranger. Got 23 mpg. If anyone can find a way to bring high horse power and great gas mileage together its GM. GM and other car makers are posturing and playing politics, as they should when you have to deal with politicians. I have great respect for GM's engineers. They can and will find a way.:bow:

A DIV6 is not in the concept of the Camaro at any stage, neither is a Cobalt sized car. The car basically always kept true to the formula except today there's just so much more to put in a car, so there's not much you can do to stop the weight, not if you want a Camaro that is what it's supposed to be.


I don't know, the 3rd gen was a huge departure from the bloated early '80s 2nd gens which they replaced.

They were smaller. They were 500 lbs lighter. They had smaller displacement engines. Hell, they even had a 4 cylinder.

The reason that GM finds itself in this Camaro/CAFE predicament was the decision to use a fullsized sedan architecture for the Camaro. And a big hefty architecture requires big hefty motors to move around. And now that all of the Zeta sedans are essentially dead, it's the Camaro which is left holding all of this baggage.



I don't see the Camaro as being in a predicament at all. It will come and it will sell and happy owners will enjoy their purchase.

Any notion that CAFE is some karma sent from on high to GM because they didn't do the Camaro Charlie's way is a bit ludricrous. Yes I'm being facetious.

You haven't driven the finished product, but I hope you will.

The sky is not falling. I have never suggested anything of the kind.

What I am trying to put out for thought is that things really do work best when the market directs the product.

I don't know, the 3rd gen was a huge departure from the bloated early '80s 2nd gens which they replaced.

They were smaller. They were 500 lbs lighter. They had smaller displacement engines. Hell, they even had a 4 cylinder.

And I think the fast ones were about 3500 pounds... or a taste under.

I found the 3rd gen 4 bangers less than interesting from a performance point of view...

I thought it was an answer to a question no one was asking.:confused:

Here is an interesting article I just found. Seems more people want V8's then V6's lately???

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051620081415480070&referrer_id=yahoofinance

Holden are selling 25/75% V8s/V6s. which I believe is record levels of V8 sales. We have record fuel prices too, so what does this say? Other than the V8 is a better engine, it says some people don't care about the cost of fuel.

Its the price you pay to play!

Feedback?

From who, Guy? I've been preaching this size/mass thing, since..well...forever. Can't imagine anyone at GM did anything about that bit-o-feedback.

The interior? E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E I spoke to at the unveiling, hated the damned thing with a passion. I mean, you were there, you know. So what interior do they go with?

I think that whatever 'feedback' was given, was listened to very politely, the person giving it was thanked for their enthusiasm - and then GM ultimately did whatever the fark they wanted.

The reason that GM finds itself in this Camaro/CAFE predicament was the decision to use a fullsized sedan architecture for the Camaro. And a big hefty architecture requires big hefty motors to move around. And now that all of the Zeta sedans are essentially dead, it's the Camaro which is left holding all of this baggage.

GM could have taken a different course. Remember the Torana concept? Lots of people within GM thought this would make a great foundation for a Camaro - IF - such an architecture could spawn other cars. Of course, that particular notion, was quickly killed by those who felt that Americans would not buy smaller 'premium' cars. Whatever that means.

Not GM's fault? I disagree.

I have to disagree with you on this again Charlie. No one can or should simply ignore the money aspect in all this. One can not use a $40,000+ Corvette and a even higher priced BMW as an example of what GM should be doing with a car that must sell at for $20,000 and still make a profit even at that base model level.

We just simply aren't going to get a high powered, rear drive vehicle that's going to be both light weight and sell at a low price. But yet, not only was ultyra-high horsepower all but demanded by Camaro enthusiasts, we also demanded independent rear suspension. More weight. A drivetrain that produces massive horsepower, stands up to repeated abuse related to drag strips and severe performance driving, and has a 100K mile warranty, on top of having power everything, heated seats, mirrors, etc, satalite navigation, pounds of whisper quiet insulation, and finally mandated safety equptment.

The Ford Shelby GT500, believe it or not, is the lightest car on the planet that has at least 500 horsepower, seats more than 2 people, and sells for under $100,000.

The closest is a BMW M5. It also has 500 horsepower.... but also weighs 4,000 pounds, gets 17 mpg on the highway, and costs $82,900.

In short, if it was possible to have it all, someone would have done it already.

It's ludicrous to even attempt to say that GM didn't check what Camaro buyers wanted. Alot of those very people posted right here on this site!!

Back in the days of of $1.50 to $2 per gallon which the bulk of the new Camaro's development took place, the emphasis was on getting more horsepower out of the same fuel economy, not getting more fuel economy while maintaining or improving performance.


GM is in no prediciment regarding the Camaro. They did the best to give everyone what they wanted while making the car as light as possible given the price points it had to sell at. It was based on a midsized sedan because that was the only chassis available that met the criteria. Camaro is going to be just fine over it's current expected lifespan of 4-5 years.


As for the unveiling, I heard nothing but positive things about the car. I don't know who you spoke to, but I didn't hear anyone say they hated the interior. I actually listened to a couple of guys praising the interior as well as the car itself as I was pearing into the passenger window while Doug was across from me looking into the driver's side. I'm sure Scott or anyone else who was there can chime in on what they heard. But until days after introduction when someone posted some comments on it, I thought I was the only person who wasn't crazy about the guages on the console.


But let's play what if.

What if when GM began development in earnest back 2-3 years ago, they decided to say:
"Hell with what Camaro enthusisats say, we're going to make Camaro relevent! We aren't going to make it the size it it, we're going to take the Kappa components and make a Camaro the size of a Cobalt. Instead of a 425 horse LS3 V8, we're going to make top power a high output 3.6 liter V6. Instead of a supercharged LSa based engine for a super Camaro, we'll use a supercharged V6. The Camaro will be 500 pounds lighter because of all this, will have the same performance as the proposed Zeta-based version. But most important, not only will we compete head to head with any import brand, but we'll be ahead of the game if CAFE returns, or the price of gas unexpectedly skyrockets!"

What would happen?

It wouldn't be pretty, and it wouldn't win GM many applauds from the so-called Camaro faithful, that's for sure.

I don't know, the 3rd gen was a huge departure from the bloated early '80s 2nd gens which they replaced.

They were smaller. They were 500 lbs lighter. They had smaller displacement engines. Hell, they even had a 4 cylinder.

They were closer to 1st Gen size and weight yes, but not Cobalt size and weight as Guion suggested. :) :D I personally feel 1st/3rd Gen dimensions are the Camaro sweet spot.

No one really bought the I4 then and even with gas prices high it's unlikely people would buy them now. People still want V8's and power regardless.

Forget CAFE it's not like they are going to check all of the cars on the road to make sure they meet CAFE. I wouldn't be surpised if GM performace because something more like a chain performace shop that you go after you buy your car.

I don't think you understand what CAFE is, or how it works.

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It means that the average fuel economy of all the vehicles a car company sells has to meet a certain level, or else that company faces fines for failing to comply.

The fuel economy of each vehicle model is tested by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in controlled lab conditions. It is not tested at your local inspection station, nor will you ever have to pay a fine for having sub-par fuel economy (except for a gas guzzler tax, which isn't the same thing). CAFE is a extremely misguided way of forcing auto makers to improve the fuel economy of their products.

I don't see the Camaro as being in a predicament at all. It will come and it will sell and happy owners will enjoy their purchase.

Any notion that CAFE is some karma sent from on high to GM because they didn't do the Camaro Charlie's way is a bit ludricrous. Yes I'm being facetious.

You haven't driven the finished product, but I hope you will.

The sky is not falling. I have never suggested anything of the kind.

What I am trying to put out for thought is that things really do work best when the market directs the product.


Oh, don't worry. I don't see CAFE as any sort of good karma at all. I fact , I think it sucks. But since you bring it up Paul, had they built the Camaro "Charlie's way", my favorite car brand would be finding itself in a much more secure position now, IMO.

And of course I plan on driving the finished product.

And I think the fast ones were about 3500 pounds... or a taste under.

I found the 3rd gen 4 bangers less than interesting from a performance point of view...

I thought it was an answer to a question no one was asking.:confused:

Yeah, that's about right. Mine is about 3350 lbs.

You know, I've driven many dozens of 3rd gens - perhaps even 100. But I've never driven an Iron Duke version. I'm told that they were painfully slow.

GM is in no prediciment regarding the Camaro.

Sadly, I disagree.

It's on an architecure which itself is a dead man walking. It finds itself on a lonely assembly line, sans the several hundred thousand platform-mates it was envisaged to have. It's going to be a big, bulky sporty car - just when big, bulky, (let alone sporty), vehicles are rapidly falling from favor.

I'm sure it'll be a fine car, but it already has a bullseye on its back.

Sadly, I disagree.

It's on an architecure which itself is a dead man walking. It finds itself on a lonely assembly line, sans the several hundred thousand platform-mates it was envisaged to have.
The state of turmoil in Oshawa right now surrounding GM is very concerning to me. I'm not convinced that "it's over" but things have been VERY shaky there the last ~few months. The strike at American Axle certainly didn't help things, as it forced line shut-downs due to lack of parts.

But the thing that gets me is that they poured A BUNCH of money into the Oshawa plant, built a big, fancy new paint shop, and heck, the region is even re-building a section of Hwy. 401 (the major highway that runs from Toronto right through Oshawa) with a grand new link directly onto the road that the GM plant is on (this is something that's been long overdue) and YET, now the truck plant has been cut down from 3 shifts to 2, and the car plant has been cut from building SEVERAL models, to only building TWO (I think?) in a matter of a few months?! :shrug:

The "dreams" of a full-capacity plant, building the RWD/Zeta Camaro, Impala, Buick (Lucerne?), Pontiac (G8?) and possibly a Cadillac are long gone at this point. I'm curious WHAT, if anything, is going to fill the huge void in such an under-utilized plant? :confused:

You know, I've driven many dozens of 3rd gens - perhaps even 100. But I've never driven an Iron Duke version. I'm told that they were painfully slow.

Painfully slow is a bit generous. They had a hard time with hills...:eek:

Sadly, I disagree.

It's on an architecure which itself is a dead man walking. It finds itself on a lonely assembly line, sans the several hundred thousand platform-mates it was envisaged to have. It's going to be a big, bulky sporty car - just when big, bulky, (let alone sporty), vehicles are rapidly falling from favor.

I'm sure it'll be a fine car, but it already has a bullseye on its back.

Not sure why you so have such a vile hatred of the 5th gen. :shrug:

It's NOT big. It's smaller than the 4th gen, and roughly the size of the Mustang. It's not bulky. Anyone who has seen the pictures of the new Camaro next to other vehicles will agree. Some have even said so.

The 5th gen Camaro is no doubt going to be the hottest handling Camaro in history. As predicted, independant rear suspension added weight as well as a stronger structure for both impact standards and the high horsepower the "Super Camaro" will have.

The vehicles that are falling from favor are SUVs and V8 powered vehicles.

Sales of the Cadillac's STS is now dominated by V6s. Charger's Hemi engines are now in balence with V6s in retail sales last I heard (Hemis apparently took up 2/3s or more not too long ago).

Being that we're talking about a architecture that comitted decisions had to be made at least back in 2003 (5 years ago), back when gas was cheap compared to today, and then 4 years ago when (after Chrysler took a very serious gamble) the new LX cars were burning up the charts and ending up in Newsweek and Time as "The Return of the American Car", it's insane to sit here today and blame GM for following the market.

You want a V8 powered car that seats 4 people, has 430 horsepower, independent suspension, & meets all government regulations? It's going to weigh well over 3500 pounds. Start taking away horsepower, IRS, large heavy 20" wheels and brakes the size of manhole covers and calipers that look like a major hydralic part from a 747, or electronic gizmos, then we can start talking less weight.



On the other point, the Camaro is on an assembly line all to itself not because the chassis is a mistake. It's because of "1 mile per gallon" (Bob Lutz's own words.

The V6 Zeta weighs barely more than a loaded V6 Impala LTZ. The fact was that with the RWD Impala, GM expected to sell more V8s. Also, the Zeta has certain people at GM that aren't fans because of that NIH (Not Invented Here) mentality as well as the group who believe strongly that creating a RWD line is a waste of money while GM has perfectly good and modern FWD architrectures that not only take fewer dollars to develop cars off of, but can also be made on existing assembly lines and OEM networks already making vehicles on those platforms.

The Zeta program was indeed over ambitious. Every division was going to have a sedan and coupe. There were going to be station wagons and a new El Camino. It would be made in at least 3 factories in North America while also being produced in Australia, Korea, China, and Europe. In retrospect, Bob Lutz was 100% correct when he said the program was getting out of hand and ordered everyone to put their pens down while GM product planners tried to make heads and tails of things.

But you can't say that Zeta isn't an exceptional architecture.

The new Camaro is an exceptional car.

Not sure why you so have such a vile hatred of the 5th gen. :shrug:



What would make you say something so strongly worded? I haven't even seen or driven a production version yet, to form such an extreme opinion.

Vile hatred? I feel that way about Al Qaeda, not the Camaro.

Alot of gloom and doom seems like it's on the horizon for the V8 muscle cars. Still, I can't say I'm all that worried, where mustangs are concerned the V8s outselling the V6. Assuming the following link isn't full of it of course.

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051620081415480070&page=1

I really wouldn't be surprised if the base V8 outdoes the V6 in sales or at least stays close.

What would make you say something so strongly worded? I haven't even seen or driven a production version yet, to form such an extreme opinion.

Vile hatred? I feel that way about Al Qaeda, not the Camaro.

You just called it a big bulky sports car.

You said "had they built the Camaro "Charlie's way", my favorite car brand would be finding itself in a much more secure position now".

You posted "The interior? E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E I spoke to at the unveiling, hated the damned thing with a passion", though that's not true from my standpoint.

OK...perhaps there's no vile in there, but there seems to be a disgust below the surface against the new Camaro just because it's over an arbitrary weight and because it came off of Zeta and wasn't based on a unique high tech chassis.

You point to the Torana as an alternative. However, anything like the Torana is still a few years away. Camaro will be out in a matter of months.

Again, we wanted things on the next Camaro, and GM delivered. Focus groups are being pulled from enthusiasts websites, vehicle registration, and informal meetings at cart shows and Camaro gatherings. The input GM solicitited and the feedback they listened to by Camaro owners and enthusiasts reminds me of the way Ford does it with the Mustang.

Sure, the Camaro wasn't made "Charlie's Way". But it wasn't made "Guy's way" either. My way would be a RWD DI V6 powered car the size of a Eclipse or Cobalt. However, my version would have never sold to Camaro faithful any more than a high tech (and high priced) lightweight Camaro would have.

We gotta understand that GM is a business that has to allocate resources while balencing that with what will actually sell and make a profit. We can always come up with dreams of what "our" Camaro should be, and it takes no effort to curse GM for not making things "our" way.

But at the end of the day, no one looks at how much a vehicle weighs. They look at the bottom line: How does it feel? How well is it made? How does it handle? What's the fuel economy? and most importantly.. Do I like the styling?

The Torana-like architecture you mentioned will be out after the Camaro is 2 or 3 years old. It's going to be a small sports sedan first. Then later we'll probally see the coupe architecture based on that. That will correspond to the early projected due date of the 6th gen Camaro (middle of next decade) after a normal-for-today 5 year lifespan.

I wouldn't support GM going without a Camaro and giving the market to Mustang for 13 years just waiting for a chassis. I don't think there's too much support for that here either, based on the words we're getting, not from GM's press machine, but from members of this and other sites who have actually had close contact with the car through hands on development to being called in to give feedback.

Perhaps you don't have the same hatred for Camaro as you do Al Queda. But your posts seem to make it clear that you don't like what we're getting much. I feel we should hold our guns and final opinion until we actually DO see what we actually got, see how it actually performs, and actually see how it looks on the streets.

Just an opinion. :)

The state of turmoil in Oshawa right now surrounding GM is very concerning to me. I'm not convinced that "it's over" but things have been VERY shaky there the last ~few months. The strike at American Axle certainly didn't help things, as it forced line shut-downs due to lack of parts.

But the thing that gets me is that they poured A BUNCH of money into the Oshawa plant, built a big, fancy new paint shop, and heck, the region is even re-building a section of Hwy. 401 (the major highway that runs from Toronto right through Oshawa) with a grand new link directly onto the road that the GM plant is on (this is something that's been long overdue) and YET, now the truck plant has been cut down from 3 shifts to 2, and the car plant has been cut from building SEVERAL models, to only building TWO (I think?) in a matter of a few months?! :shrug:

The "dreams" of a full-capacity plant, building the RWD/Zeta Camaro, Impala, Buick (Lucerne?), Pontiac (G8?) and possibly a Cadillac are long gone at this point. I'm curious WHAT, if anything, is going to fill the huge void in such an under-utilized plant? :confused:

Don't forget that it's now cheaper to make cars in the US instead of Canada now.

Throw in the fact the CAW tends to be more radical than the UAW here, and that makes things even more uncertain.

You just called it a big bulky sports car.

You said "had they built the Camaro "Charlie's way", my favorite car brand would be finding itself in a much more secure position now".

You posted "The interior? E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E I spoke to at the unveiling, hated the damned thing with a passion", though that's not true from my standpoint.

OK...perhaps there's no vile in there, but there seems to be a disgust below the surface against the new Camaro just because it's over an arbitrary weight and because it came off of Zeta and wasn't based on a unique high tech chassis.

You point to the Torana as an alternative. However, anything like the Torana is still a few years away. Camaro will be out in a matter of months.

Again, we wanted things on the next Camaro, and GM delivered. Focus groups are being pulled from enthusiasts websites, vehicle registration, and informal meetings at cart shows and Camaro gatherings. The input GM solicitited and the feedback they listened to by Camaro owners and enthusiasts reminds me of the way Ford does it with the Mustang.

Sure, the Camaro wasn't made "Charlie's Way". But it wasn't made "Guy's way" either. My way would be a RWD DI V6 powered car the size of a Eclipse or Cobalt. However, my version would have never sold to Camaro faithful any more than a high tech (and high priced) lightweight Camaro would have.

We gotta understand that GM is a business that has to allocate resources while balencing that with what will actually sell and make a profit. We can always come up with dreams of what "our" Camaro should be, and it takes no effort to curse GM for not making things "our" way.

But at the end of the day, no one looks at how much a vehicle weighs. They look at the bottom line: How does it feel? How well is it made? How does it handle? What's the fuel economy? and most importantly.. Do I like the styling?

The Torana-like architecture you mentioned will be out after the Camaro is 2 or 3 years old. It's going to be a small sports sedan first. Then later we'll probally see the coupe architecture based on that. That will correspond to the early projected due date of the 6th gen Camaro (middle of next decade) after a normal-for-today 5 year lifespan.

I wouldn't support GM going without a Camaro and giving the market to Mustang for 13 years just waiting for a chassis. I don't think there's too much support for that here either, based on the words we're getting, not from GM's press machine, but from members of this and other sites who have actually had close contact with the car through hands on development to being called in to give feedback.

Perhaps you don't have the same hatred for Camaro as you do Al Queda. But your posts seem to make it clear that you don't like what we're getting much. I feel we should hold our guns and final opinion until we actually DO see what we actually got, see how it actually performs, and actually see how it looks on the streets.

Just an opinion. :)

There is nothing that I said which is not true. There is nothing that I said that you even think is not true. We're discussing this in the context of Lutz's assertion that THIS Camaro in THIS environment will have a short lifespan. Something I agree with and something you apparently agree with. I said it'll be a fine car and I'm waiting to drive one.

So what's the beef? Or do you just feel like typing? :blahblah:

A couple of interesting articles by Fortune magazine, both directly pertaining to this discussion:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/companies/taylor_cube.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008052105

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/13/news/companies/taylor_epa.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008051414

I find the articles interesting at $4 a gallon prices but much more realistic with $5 gas. With oil prices going out of control (it went up over $6 a barrel to $135.04 in the past 24 hours) I can see the projections as more of a reality than fiction.

A couple of interesting articles by Fortune magazine, both directly pertaining to this discussion:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/companies/taylor_cube.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008052105

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/13/news/companies/taylor_epa.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008051414

I find the articles interesting at $4 a gallon prices but much more realistic with $5 gas. With oil prices going out of control (it went up over $6 a barrel to $135.04 in the past 24 hours) I can see the projections as more of a reality than fiction.

Look on the bright side. Maybe 10 years from now the only Mustang competition that camaro will have will come on 4 legs :eek:

haha I kid I kid.

Honestly I think that the "oil crisis" will last about as long as it did the last time, and then we'll be back to business as usual. With smaller, lighter performance cars as a result. This pleases me. Either that, or something will happen that will divert our attention away from the automotive. I hope that does NOT happen but we are about due, aren't we...

Agreed on that. Something will happen eventually, it has to. Hopefully the entire economy will start going back in the right direction with it. It certainly can't all stay the way it is now.

Honestly I think that the "oil crisis" will last about as long as it did the last time, and then we'll be back to business as usual. With smaller, lighter performance cars as a result. This pleases me. ...

That would be a pretty nice scenario.

LOL!! You guys are wishful thinkers. The "last time" was due to an embargo artifically creating more demand then supply. It's a completely diffrent situation. In reality there is no shortage of oil on the market. There are 2 main reasons it's costing US so much more. Investors and the weak dollar. The speculators are using oil as a hedge against the weak dollar so it's self feeding. So you got to build strength in the dollar to fix this. Might be hard to do and hurt us in the long run. The weak dollar has added benefits that may make that hard. Off shore outsourcing has become less profitable for tech and mfg.

Also, something to think about.......look at the price today with oil at record highs and look at it a few months ago when it was MUCH cheaper. The funny thing is that gas has not gone up proportinately even though it has made us uncomfortable. Why is that? Its well known that oil is only a fraction of the cost but prior to this jump gas jumped when oil jumped a dollar. Not so much now.

LOL!! You guys are wishful thinkers. The "last time" was due to an embargo artifically creating more demand then supply. It's a completely diffrent situation. In reality there is no shortage of oil on the market. There are 2 main reasons it's costing US so much more. Investors and the weak dollar. The speculators are using oil as a hedge against the weak dollar so it's self feeding. So you got to build strength in the dollar to fix this. Might be hard to do and hurt us in the long run. The weak dollar has added benefits that may make that hard. Off shore outsourcing has become less profitable for tech and mfg.

Also, something to think about.......look at the price today with oil at record highs and look at it a few months ago when it was MUCH cheaper. The funny thing is that gas has not gone up proportinately even though it has made us uncomfortable. Why is that? Its well known that oil is only a fraction of the cost but prior to this jump gas jumped when oil jumped a dollar. Not so much now.

The embargo was the result of several factors, and it's not too different now. Some of the factors are the same, some are different, but the overall situation is not dissimilar. It will either go back to normal or not, and if it doesn't, then the only solution is a major shift in policy, which will undoubtedly result in lots of political unrest...here and overseas. And that could turn out very poorly. What we need is a smaller shift in policy, to bring the prices back under control over the course of a decade. I just hope that things don't get TOO bad, otherwise we WILL see a major, abrupt shift in policy...and shifts like that always have big repercussions.

We're teetering on the edge here, and I hope the people in control realize the danger. We've had an overall shift in policy that displeased many americans and especially many foreign countries. Approval ratings are extremely low. The knee-jerk reaction would be to take a polar opposite position on many affairs, especially foreign, but like any system, if a political system inches it's way too far to one side, you get problems....but the REAL danger is trying to snap it back to the opposite, which always proves a much bigger shock than the original shift. It's seen as a return to normalcy, but it's not really. It's just an abrupt shift. Intentions might be good (or they might not be), but an abrupt, violent shift always begets an abrupt violent reaction...from SOMEBODY. We need a gradual shift, one that the markets can prepare for and adjust to. It's the same reason that you have problems when you go in and try to change a governmental system of another country. Something or somebody always fights the abrupt shift. It'd be no different in our country.

*hops off soapbox*

I assume that SOME of the people in charge know this, and so I think we will see a gradual shift back to regular development (maybe not a shift back to how things were but a shift back to having the system gradually evolve instead of being forced to make quick changes). Like how the automotive industry has grown back from the last "crisis" to make more power and much more economy in spite of emissions regs. So. Gradual! Also, give me a Camaro. :)

The embargo was the result of several factors, and it's not too different now. Some of the factors are the same, some are different, but the overall situation is not dissimilar. It will either go back to normal or not, and if it doesn't, then the only solution is a major shift in policy, which will undoubtedly result in lots of political unrest...here and overseas. And that could turn out very poorly. What we need is a smaller shift in policy, to bring the prices back under control over the course of a decade. I just hope that things don't get TOO bad, otherwise we WILL see a major, abrupt shift in policy...and shifts like that always have big repercussions.

We're teetering on the edge here, and I hope the people in control realize the danger. We've had an overall shift in policy that displeased many americans and especially many foreign countries. Approval ratings are extremely low. The knee-jerk reaction would be to take a polar opposite position on many affairs, especially foreign, but like any system, if a political system inches it's way too far to one side, you get problems....but the REAL danger is trying to snap it back to the opposite, which always proves a much bigger shock than the original shift. It's seen as a return to normalcy, but it's not really. It's just an abrupt shift. Intentions might be good (or they might not be), but an abrupt, violent shift always begets an abrupt violent reaction...from SOMEBODY. We need a gradual shift, one that the markets can prepare for and adjust to. It's the same reason that you have problems when you go in and try to change a governmental system of another country. Something or somebody always fights the abrupt shift. It'd be no different in our country.

*hops off soapbox*

I assume that SOME of the people in charge know this, and so I think we will see a gradual shift back to regular development (maybe not a shift back to how things were but a shift back to having the system gradually evolve instead of being forced to make quick changes). Like how the automotive industry has grown back from the last "crisis" to make more power and much more economy in spite of emissions regs. So. Gradual! Also, give me a Camaro. :)


Watch and see. The only way gas can go lower is for the dollar to get stronger. It was intentionally devalued in the first place for a reason. There is no political situation that diplomacy can address to bring this under contol like in the 70's. Again, supply was cut off. The supply is running fine today. Totally diffrent.

Watch and see. The only way gas can go lower is for the dollar to get stronger. It was intentionally devalued in the first place for a reason. There is no political situation that diplomacy can address to bring this under contol like in the 70's. Again, supply was cut off. The supply is running fine today. Totally diffrent.

Think about what you're saying. We're seeing skyrocketing prices, but supply is fine. Demand is going up but not at the same rate that prices are. Commodities control the global economy. Oil is a commodity. Our economy is going to crap because commodities like gasoline are artificially spiking. It raises the price of food and transportation, and causes an overall slump. The only way to stop this is to get out of the slump by cutting money somewhere else, equalizing, and returning the dollar to value. Then gasoline will come down in price for america, as the rest of the markets, like the housing market, recover. The country as a whole has overextended itself.

The problem is getting things to equalize without cutting so much funding from other areas that it forces dangerous snap changes in policies....especially when many policies are based on the oil supply issue to begin with. Gradual! Otherwise you run into disastrous results....

Essentially what seems to be happening is the global economy is forcing OURS to quit overextending itself. The question is where are we overextended. Where do we have cyclic policy/problem issues? Where are our policies which aim to help us...causing long term damage which ends up backfiring, causing more money to be poured into that policy...which results in more damage, and so on. That, I think, is where the problem lies. It's up to us to make up our minds where that kind of thing is happening though.

As for me, whenever any kind of sudden shortage happens, be it of a commodity, power, value, etc.....I look to who is GAINING power, value, etc. It's always the ones who's profit margins are skyrocketing who you should look to when you run into sudden problems like this. Always.

Think about what you're saying. We're seeing skyrocketing prices, but supply is fine. Demand is going up but not at the same rate that prices are. Commodities control the global economy. Oil is a commodity. Our economy is going to crap because commodities like gasoline are artificially spiking. It raises the price of food and transportation, and causes an overall slump. The only way to stop this is to get out of the slump by cutting money somewhere else, equalizing, and returning the dollar to value. Then gasoline will come down in price for america, as the rest of the markets, like the housing market, recover. The country as a whole has overextended itself.

The problem is getting things to equalize without cutting so much funding from other areas that it forces dangerous snap changes in policies....especially when many policies are based on the oil supply issue to begin with. Gradual! Otherwise you run into disastrous results....

Essentially what seems to be happening is the global economy is forcing OURS to quit overextending itself. The question is where are we overextended. Where do we have cyclic policy/problem issues? Where are our policies which aim to help us...causing long term damage which ends up backfiring, causing more money to be poured into that policy...which results in more damage, and so on. That, I think, is where the problem lies. It's up to us to make up our minds where that kind of thing is happening though.

As for me, whenever any kind of sudden shortage happens, be it of a commodity, power, value, etc.....I look to who is GAINING power, value, etc. It's always the ones who's profit margins are skyrocketing who you should look to when you run into sudden problems like this. Always.


You are not getting it. It's the investors hedging their bets against the losses the dollar is taking that is causing this as well as the value of the dollar. Who do you think is profiting? Just the investors not OPEC. Oil is tied to the dollar and maintaining constant value. The dollar is declining so the price of oil per dollar increases. What diplomatic solotuion do you think exists? Honestly I would love an easy way out of this but there is none. If you have one tell us. Dont just say there must be an out. That is wishful thinking.

You are not getting it. It's the investors hedging their bets against the losses the dollar is taking that is causing this as well as the value of the dollar. Who do you think is profiting? Just the investors not OPEC. Oil is tied to the dollar and maintaining constant value. The dollar is declining so the price of oil per dollar increases. What diplomatic solotuion do you think exists? Honestly I would love an easy way out of this but there is none. If you have one tell us. Dont just say there must be an out. That is wishful thinking.

OPEC is switching to the Euro, for the very reasons you just stated and I KNOW OPEC arent the ones profiting. That's why they keep raising prices. It's the investors, and there's a whole hell of a lot of them in our own government.

And there's no quick way out. We can divert a complete collapse of our economy and ride out the recession and recover within a decade though---IF we don't try to snap away from it super quick and unbalance things completely. No quick way out though.

The oil companies themselves are having record profits but it's not going to the actual countries with the oil.

OPEC is switching to the Euro, for the very reasons you just stated and I KNOW OPEC arent the ones profiting. That's why they keep raising prices. It's the investors, and there's a whole hell of a lot of them in our own government.

And there's no quick way out. We can divert a complete collapse of our economy and ride out the recession and recover within a decade though---IF we don't try to snap away from it super quick and unbalance things completely. No quick way out though.

The oil companies themselves are having record profits but it's not going to the actual countries with the oil.

LOL! Yes, they WANT to hitch oil to the Euro. But it's not to help us or keep oil prices in check. It's to get stability in the valuation. Even if end up doing this, our price wont be affected. Oil will remain a stable value and the dollar will still be the same valuation. That means we will still pay more dollars for the oil as opposed to when the dollar was strong. As I said, the only way to stop this is to make the dollar stronger and cause pain elsewhere in the economy. We are lose lose on this one.

LOL! Yes, they WANT to hitch oil to the Euro. But it's not to help us or keep oil prices in check. It's to get stability in the valuation. Even if end up doing this, our price wont be affected. Oil will remain a stable value and the dollar will still be the same valuation. That means we will still pay more dollars for the oil as opposed to when the dollar was strong. As I said, the only way to stop this is to make the dollar stronger and cause pain elsewhere in the economy. We are lose lose on this one.

Yes, on that part I agree completely. I'm purposely being vague about what I'm saying because the last thing I want on these boards is some kind of political debate.

To be more plain, there is a way out, but it does not involve the oil industry. Gas prices may eventually come down, but not due to anything we do involving the oil industry or any of the things directly connected to it. And there's one VERY good reason why the dollar is losing value the way it is, and it involves the investors and something they know, but not many other people do. ;)

Yes, on that part I agree completely. I'm purposely being vague about what I'm saying because the last thing I want on these boards is some kind of political debate.

To be more plain, there is a way out, but it does not involve the oil industry. Gas prices may eventually come down, but not due to anything we do involving the oil industry or any of the things directly connected to it. And there's one VERY good reason why the dollar is losing value the way it is, and it involves the investors and something they know, but not many other people do. ;)


The dollar is weak because there was an effort from our own goverment to make it so. There were good reasons to do it. It just happens to have side effects......oil proces being one of them. If you are counting on the elections to change the direction of the dollar, it's not likely. The dollar was over valued even during the clinton years where the economy was flying high. Our whole economy is going through a correction period due to the multiple bubbles that have burst in the last decade.

Feedback?



The interior? E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E I spoke to at the unveiling, hated the damned thing with a passion. I mean, you were there, you know. So what interior do they go with?



I was at the unveil and the GM style event a year later and I DIDN'T hate the interior, I liked many thing about it.

We can divert a complete collapse of our economy and ride out the recession and recover within a decade though---I

Our economy is not even close to a collapse. Are there parts of the economy that
are hurting, of course, but let's not get carried away like so many doom and gloomers.
Oh wait, it's an election year. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. OMG I guess it's
all over for all of us. :rolleyes: