Hi Mr Settlemire..

Not that I am aware of.

Ok.

Once again - ok.

BTW, I had a Grandfather too (two of them in fact).

From time to time, I hear lots of folks say "trust me". I bet you do to - safe to say? Some of them are very powerful. Must are quite trustworthy. Let me ask you a question - do you always believe them? Blindly even?

Scott, as it pertains to information concerning the new Camaro, all I've seen from you so far (that wasn't known anyway) is "trust me" and "keep the faith". I'm sorry, but there isn't much there to sink the ole teeth in to. Why? You've already stated it above - you can't "spill the beans".

It's easy to be factual and trustworthy when one cannot (rightfully) say much of substance. Do you not agree? Thus, what is it that I should trust? That I shouldn't believe what I read - unless it comes from you?

Ok.

No thanks - I kind of like that little moniker. I bet some of them even like it too.

Wait....I'll make a deal with you.....I'll stop with the "winkie club", you stop with the "keep the faith". How's that?

Obviously you are referring to yourself. However, as has been noted many times, you're not saying. Thus the relevance of that statement is.......what?

Have a great day - and perhaps some day you'll tell us who we should believe (of the folks that actually try to provide information....not just promote faith).

Bob

 

Bob I don't know if we have met we may have I remember faces better than names . I agree its hard to trust people now days as politics is a good example, but I can tell you this I have known Scott for many years now and can tell you I know he will not lead you wrong. Not many people in this country I would trust as much as I do him. I know the man and he is one of us and has proved it in so many ways over the years.
Some things you only take at face value but if Scott says something I will take it to the bank. In his job he walks a very tight rope between job and friends and how many out here do you think he can trust with his future on the line when we on the other hand have nothing to lose other than betray one of the best friends you could ever have.
Very few people in this world today live up to his standards and maybe thats why you don't blindly trust.
I really hope you get to know him as some of us have over the years because you will not find a better friend in this life time nor one more honest.

 

You can simulate until your face turns blue, but manufacturers MUST validate with hardware to meet federal standards.

 

I believe that you're right. But they won't be a Camaro with a bra, they will be heavily disguised engineering mules - perhaps even in sedan bodywork.

 

Better have a buddy "down under"....because I think that's where this'll take place.....

All of you Aussie's need to keep your camaeras at the ready.

 

OK, found it, thanks.
Now I want an LS9!

I'm encouraged by what Lutz said; "Any V-8 engine that General Motors manufactures today is potentially slated for this car."

In January I started making car payments into a bank account. By the time the Camaro comes out, whenever that is, I should have a nice down payment saved up .

I'm going for the top end one, whatever that is .

 

Hi Mike,

Scott mentioned something about lying. Where I have said that he was lying, not telling the truth, etc? What I have said is that he has basically not said anything. I followed that up with the obvious reality that he CANNOT say much of anything. I understand that, and have no issues with it.

What he did say (as it pertains to what I am writing here) is that we shouldn't believe everything we read. Roger that. So what do we believe? Who do we believe? You can believe "keep the faith" all you wish, but what does that really tell you? For me, it says that a Camaro is coming. That's not earth-shattering news to me - is it to you? Then there are folks that try and lay out their version of when it will happen. Some say sooner, some say later, some say in between. That was the meat of what I was originally replying too. I don't think anyone in the "winkie club" is lying or intentionally deceiving. However, some are certainly wrong - I'm curious as to who is right (or most right). Not say that I can say "neeener neeener neeener, you were wrong", but rather out of enthusiastic curiosity.

Again, I'm not accusing Scott or anybody else of lying. If I have said or implied that, please quote me, and if necessary, I'll clarify/retract/apologize/whatever. I'm simply after what I believe most folks here are also after: Information.

Bob

PS....the only people I will put full trust in (outside of Family) are those that could save my butt over the next 14 months or so. And even then, you can bet I'll be keenly aware of what is going on around me, as they must trust in me too.

 

Bob I can understand where you are coming from and some that know more than others like you would like to know more than they do as well so nothing wrong with that.
I take it you are in for a tour of Iraq and do keep your head down over there and we will be praying for you and your team. I for one thanks you for what you are doing for our country and the rest of the world. My son has been there for sometime now and with luck he will be back home 1st week in April.
When you get there try and stay in touch with the board when ever posible.

 

The 777 design, somebody who's 2 months from having an aerospace engineering degree wouldn't know anything about that.

The 777 was completely designed and the assembly validated in CATIA (a very high end CAD package). That means they didn't spend time/money manufacturing rough prototype components to test fit but the plane still underwent a full structural and flight testing regime.

Simulation is great if you can account for all the variables, but the thing about the real world is its nearly impossible to account for all the variations. Even when you're talking about something simple like performing FEA on isotropic materials like metals, you've got an infinite number of variations in crystaline structure, inclusions, etc. that effect the outcome but that you can't reasonably take into the parameters of the simulation.

Simulation is a great tool to help you get to the proper configuration but you can't get by on simulation alone. There's nothing exactly like an air molecule hitting a wing or rubber hitting the road.

 

Pacer, question I hope you can answer: When vehicles are crash tested, emissions tested... are they production models coming off the line or something like an alpha built in a GM warehouse somewhere in Michigan where most things that are produced don't see the light of day?

 

I can answer that

as the cars are being prototyped, they run prototypes through the crash testing(so they can find areas they need to improve, ect.), but in the end, yes, they do crash test production level cars (at ford, they call these CP cars{current production})


as for emissions, there are prototype ones going through the fed emissions tests, but just to test systems, they do run the final production level cars through the complete series of tests

 

OK, so the company runs the prototypes through 'trial runs' before the car comes close to produciton and then the beta builds, testers built at the factory but not sold to the public and typically driven around by company staff, are crash tested, right?

 

pretty much

 

[QUOTE=PacerX]Me.

The Camaro will be powered by a twin-nacelle, chain pulsed warp core with dilithium control crystals and a positron flywheel.

Faster-than-light cruising speeds will obviate the usage of radar and laser detectors, but there will be significant advantages in that you will actually be able to travel back in time to your highschool years and bang old Mary Jane Rottencrotch in a Camaro... and THAT TIME she'll still have most of her teeth, so it's win/win/win.

[QUOTE=PacerX]


Ha! You are soooo wrong!!!! It will not be a chain pulsed warp core- you twit!! ITs a quad unit Electo-neomechanical FLUX CAPACITOR!!!!! Hello??!!! McFly!!!!!

 

Everyone keeps saying 3.9L base engine...250-280hp. Does anyone else see the problem with this? The camaro is supposed to be a high volume car, and that volume will never happen with those kind of horsepower numbers in the base, bottom of the line camaro. Is their even a car right now that offers the 3.9L close to a base 19g mustang?

I think, since this is suppose to be priced with the mustang, chances are its going to be the 3.5L. First reason...it has better power then every other camaro's base model.
Second Reason...its going to have to be close to $19k as they can get. And i dont see that happening with the 3.9L.
Another reason...its the base...and i dont see GM making a base camaro that is supposed to generate the majority of the sales with that much horsepower.
By the time of the release of the camaro, im sure they will massage the 3.5L to get more hp then the base mustang at that time, but 3.9L...theirs no way they can price that with the mustang.

Then that would leave a nice boost in hp/performance to the 5.3L...which should be able to be marketed close to $25K. Finally, the LS2 or whatever else they have at the time that can be had for HOPEFULLY $29K pending ur option list. Special edition/low volume car LS7 (or whatever is necessary to beat mustang) above $35K...probably closer to $40'K+ for the people that must have. I see this line up being more realistic and cost effective then 3.9L 260hp and up.......