An observation re: Camaro
02-12-2009, 12:11 PM
#46
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
people act like filling bankruptcy is a new thing. chrysler has done it 3 times and their still around.
yes i know it wouldnt be good if gm were to go under but its impossible for them to. maybe not impossible, but there will not be a time,in our life time, where there is no GM.
yes i know it wouldnt be good if gm were to go under but its impossible for them to. maybe not impossible, but there will not be a time,in our life time, where there is no GM.
Please look things up before you place wrong claims to prove a wrong point.
Also, GM can very easily crash and go under.
1. GM's debt far outstrips it's assets. That's why they need government loans... no one will lend them money.
2. GM has lost massive amounts of money over many, many years. It took nearly a decade for Studebaker to go under. Packard took about half that. AMC's popularity during the mid 70s energy crisis was followed by a steady decline till Chrysler bought what was left from Renault, and phased it out via the Eagle division.
In the latter, a number of years of losses, failure to respond to a changing market until it was too late and money was unavailable, selloffs, and merger (actual & attempts) are all the common thread with these companies and GM.
Ever since January 1st, GM owes it entire continued existence to the United States Federal Government... who can recall taxpayer investment on March 31st which will instantly end the General Motors Corperation as we know it.
So yes... not only can GM go under in our lifetime, it can easily go under before this summer.
i have to agree to disagree with you. the reason people buy hybrids is for an alternative fuel solution or to cut down fuel consumption. thats the reason they exist. is doesnt matter if a car has ZERO emissions or the worste in the world, there will still be some dumb *** complaining about it.
1. The Ford Escape group. These are people who, as you say, buy a vehicle to cut down fuel consumption and often want to genuinely help the enviroment. Ford Escape is the symbol I use, but it includes Chevrolet's Malibu and any other cars and trucks that hybrids are simply versions of regular vehicles, and simply blend in with traffic unless you get a close look at the fender or rear hatch badge.
2. The Toyota Prius group. These are the ones who want to show the world they are protecting the enviroment, who you simply can't explain to them how their car isn't cost effective. These guys aren't instrested in fuel economy, and to them it the EV1 was killed by GM and the oil companies in a conspiracy. These guys completely ignore vehicles that look like everything else... they absolutely have to stand out.
Last edited by guionM; 02-12-2009 at 12:22 PM.
02-12-2009, 12:41 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 4,482
Chrysler has never... and I repeat NEVER has filed for bankruptcy.
Please look things up before you place wrong claims to prove a wrong point.
Also, GM can very easily crash and go under.
1. GM's debt far outstrips it's assets. That's why they need government loans... no one will lend them money.
2. GM has lost massive amounts of money over many, many years. It took nearly a decade for Studebaker to go under. Packard took about half that. AMC's popularity during the mid 70s energy crisis was followed by a steady decline till Chrysler bought what was left from Renault, and phased it out via the Eagle division.
In the latter, a number of years of losses, failure to respond to a changing market until it was too late and money was unavailable, selloffs, and merger (actual & attempts) are all the common thread with these companies and GM.
Ever since January 1st, GM owes it entire continued existence to the United States Federal Government... who can recall taxpayer investment on March 31st which will instantly end the General Motors Corperation as we know it.
So yes... not only can GM go under in our lifetime, it can easily go under before this summer.
Actually living in a city and region chock full of Hybrid buyers, I can clearly tell you there are 2 types.
1. The Ford Escape group. These are people who, as you say, buy a vehicle to cut down fuel consumption and often want to genuinely help the enviroment. Ford Escape is the symbol I use, but it includes Chevrolet's Malibu and any other cars and trucks that hybrids are simply versions of regular vehicles, and simply blend in with traffic unless you get a close look at the fender or rear hatch badge.
2. The Toyota Prius group. These are the ones who want to show the world they are protecting the enviroment, who you simply can't explain to them how their car isn't cost effective. These guys aren't instrested in fuel economy, and to them it the EV1 was killed by GM and the oil companies in a conspiracy. These guys completely ignore vehicles that look like everything else... they absolutely have to stand out.
Please look things up before you place wrong claims to prove a wrong point.
Also, GM can very easily crash and go under.
1. GM's debt far outstrips it's assets. That's why they need government loans... no one will lend them money.
2. GM has lost massive amounts of money over many, many years. It took nearly a decade for Studebaker to go under. Packard took about half that. AMC's popularity during the mid 70s energy crisis was followed by a steady decline till Chrysler bought what was left from Renault, and phased it out via the Eagle division.
In the latter, a number of years of losses, failure to respond to a changing market until it was too late and money was unavailable, selloffs, and merger (actual & attempts) are all the common thread with these companies and GM.
Ever since January 1st, GM owes it entire continued existence to the United States Federal Government... who can recall taxpayer investment on March 31st which will instantly end the General Motors Corperation as we know it.
So yes... not only can GM go under in our lifetime, it can easily go under before this summer.
Actually living in a city and region chock full of Hybrid buyers, I can clearly tell you there are 2 types.
1. The Ford Escape group. These are people who, as you say, buy a vehicle to cut down fuel consumption and often want to genuinely help the enviroment. Ford Escape is the symbol I use, but it includes Chevrolet's Malibu and any other cars and trucks that hybrids are simply versions of regular vehicles, and simply blend in with traffic unless you get a close look at the fender or rear hatch badge.
2. The Toyota Prius group. These are the ones who want to show the world they are protecting the enviroment, who you simply can't explain to them how their car isn't cost effective. These guys aren't instrested in fuel economy, and to them it the EV1 was killed by GM and the oil companies in a conspiracy. These guys completely ignore vehicles that look like everything else... they absolutely have to stand out.
ok sorry i had my information worng on the chrysler bankruptcy. but they did ask for bail outs before. and have been VERY VERY VERY close to bankruptcy.
02-12-2009, 12:59 PM
#49
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
The only irony I see is that you act like this is a surprise. What I find ironic is cars like camaro which are profitable will eventually have the V8s regulated out of them to the point where I wont want one anymore. Not to mention what damage may be done to the Truck line which we all know is the lion share of GM income. I believe loans will be tied to hippy cars like the Volt which at best will give GM bragging rights for being first to market with such a car and show they didnt "kill the electric car"
If there is a lesson to be learned it is that the EV1 shouldnt have been over promissed to the point its massive failure seemed like a conspiricy. Hind sight is 2020 but...
and before you make ANOTHER insulting assumtion that I dont do my own reasearch, choose not to agree with the news channels you agree with and therefore get my news from news channels you refer to as not real news.
here is the letter from John Sarbanes DEMOCRATIC Member of Congress when I sent the petition.
If there is a lesson to be learned it is that the EV1 shouldnt have been over promissed to the point its massive failure seemed like a conspiricy. Hind sight is 2020 but...
and before you make ANOTHER insulting assumtion that I dont do my own reasearch, choose not to agree with the news channels you agree with and therefore get my news from news channels you refer to as not real news.
here is the letter from John Sarbanes DEMOCRATIC Member of Congress when I sent the petition.
2. This is not an issue of disagreement. You stated that the US has more oil than the middle east. That (to be honest) is something that anyone who took a few minutes to look it up would know better.
3. You posted a bogus assertion as fact. Sorry if calling you out on that is insulting, but again... research before posting something that sounds incredible on a public site saves public insult when proof is readily available. Don't simply listen to something you hear on the radio and repeat it on a website full of people who will easily pull up real information (or in some instances, have done research on it before).
That haven been said, going to the rest of your post, I feel it's missing quite a few facts.
1. The MARKRTPLACE has abandoned the truck line, not regulations as you put it. IMHO, GM wins my personal award for "The most idiotic, put-my-b*lls-in-a-doorjam-and-dare-someone-to-slam-the-door-shut-on-them, shortsighted business model". Fuel prices jump around over the slightest thing. Fuel shortages can happen quickly. What does GM do? Pour all their resources and money into trucks while essentially abandoning cars. Truck sales suddenly drop in the spring of 2005. What does GM do? Stop work on everything else, and pour it all into trucks, then start cutting and eliminating car programs, and go back to dragging their feet...er...business as usual.
2. The MARKETPLACE is what turned away from V8 engines. Save Mustangs and Corvettes, sales of V8 powered cars have been in steady decline for well over a decade. The drop of V8 sales in recent years is best shown in retail sales of the Dodge Charger. The Hemi V8 once took over half of the Charger's sales. Today, V6 Chargers far outnumber V8s in retail... and have for some time (as gas climbed towards $5 per gallon).
3. There's no such thing as Hippies anymore, and Hippies never bought new cars. The buyers of cars like the Volt and Prius tend to be people who have money in the bank.
I will give you that GM may be trying to make up for the bad press they got for almost forcibly taking EV1s (which were leased, not sold to customers) and crushing all of them. Again, if GM had money in the bank, or at least was staying afloat, the Volt would be a very good idea because it would generate alot of great press.
But for a company that had serious problems getting a loan even when credit was easy, and now has bondholders (far more than the government) holding their survival at the brink, moving the Cruze up, getting a Camaro & CTS coupe to build up showroom traffic, and accelerating the introduction of the new Impala the way Ford did with the Taurus would do far more to improve the health of GM than the resources they are funneling to the Volt.
Big difference between being close and actually going into bankruptcy. Crossing that line pretty much ends the prospect of customers. It's not like buying a $200 or even $400 ticket from a bankrupt airline. It's a big difference in risking a few hundred dollars betting a company will stay in business a few days or a few weeks, versus putting up $30,000+ betting a bankrupt company will stay around for 5-6 years when there are plenty of other car makers whose have no bankruptcy issues.
Last edited by guionM; 02-12-2009 at 01:18 PM.
02-12-2009, 06:28 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
3. You posted a bogus assertion as fact. Sorry if calling you out on that is insulting, but again... research before posting something that sounds incredible on a public site saves public insult when proof is readily available. Don't simply listen to something you hear on the radio and repeat it on a website full of people who will easily pull up real information (or in some instances, have done research on it before). .
1.) I am almost afraid to ask what "bogus" assertion youre refering to because I dont know if you are confusing someone elses post with something I actually posted.
2.) What I posted was NOT from radio. Yes they do mention it but what I posted which YOU quoted was DEMOCRATIC Contgresssmans reply to my email. Part of my reasearch was the email you quoted. Did you read what you quoted?.
3.) I am under the assumption based on what several here have said that the rest of the Zeta cars that were supposed to be come over now wont because they wont meet CAFE standards. Scott mentioned that CAFE standards will eventually effect cars like camaro. Again that email also shows to me Congressmen are interested in tieing the loans to the green technology. Doesnt matter whether you agree. Its not a news source. That was HIS email in my post that you quoted.
Here it is again EMAIL from John Sarbanes Democratic Member of Congress from Maryland. Not to single Congressman Sarbanes out. And I want to be fair. This is a email responce to my petition for the AUTO LOAN. I dont think he is unique but he is a DEMOCRATIC member of congress who obvious knows his motivation for voting and this was his email reply to ME. NOT a radio show. http://sarbanes.house.gov/
Originally Posted by John Sarbanes Democratic Member of Congress EMAIL in responce to Government Loans
November 25, 2008
Dear :
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
Dear :
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
Originally Posted by fbodfather
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...60&postcount=1.....oh - by the way -- CAFE will play a role in future years of the Camaro -- but right now, we're safe.......
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=24
There are other sources but to me those are far and away the most credible.
Edited to readd the email as a source. Again not single Congressman Sarbanes who knows his motivation for voting for something out or to put Scott on the spot.
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 02-13-2009 at 02:44 PM.
02-13-2009, 03:55 AM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Sorry I didnt finish this earlier but I was at work and really couldnt believe what I was reading. Anyway, the last part was mostly about you lecturing that I should do more reasearch to back up a points I didnt make in what Im quessing was something posted by someone else. The rest of this is what appears to be a responce to my actual post, you either didnt understand what I said, or you simply ignored to make your own point about the free market. Consequently I will address the rest of the points I didnt make which you feel I should do more reasearch on.
1 and 2 are the same. 3 is rediculous and getting off topic. I never said anything about abandoning the truck line or V8 powered cars. My father bought new a 2500 series Silverado, and new heavy duty Chevy work van.(cant remember if its the 2500 or 3500) My uncle bought new a Ford F350 Crew Cab Dually. All 3 are used for their business and are likely hopefully be replaced with similar capable vehicles. Camaros V6 numbers always (unless Im missing a freak year) outnumbered the V8. Im surprised Chargers V8 sales were ever over half. I actually wonder if there is something else to that because I didnt think that was the norm. Its irrelevant anyway. If the Market is abandoning the V8 powered vehicles it doesnt need Overregulation helping them fail or making them too expensive. Such as the Gas Guzzler tax. Its already the reason as I understand it from a Lutz interview Deisel cars arent worth pursuing or wont be eventually because as what is needed is added to meet regulation you loose any advantage you were looking for to begin with. Also I think it was Motor trend a while back that mentioned Chrysler was the only of the big 3 that had diesels that would meet regulation. The reason the article gave was Chrysler got the technology from Deimler Benz. I think it was either the ram or the Jeep line. (again a while back)
Yeah Volt will be good for great press being first to market and hopefully killing the EV1 bad image I think. But also I hope it will give GM a leg up in experience and refining that technology. I also agree GM put all its eggs in the SUV market. Hind sight is 20/20, however I thought this mid to late 90s when the current colbalt would have been ideal. IMO a CTS coupe would be really nice, but unless Im missing something Cruze would be my pick if you could only sell one car or truck from the whole of GM even not being crazy about the front.
1. The MARKRTPLACE has abandoned the truck line, not regulations as you put it. IMHO, GM wins my personal award for "The most idiotic, put-my-b*lls-in-a-doorjam-and-dare-someone-to-slam-the-door-shut-on-them, shortsighted business model". Fuel prices jump around over the slightest thing. Fuel shortages can happen quickly. What does GM do? Pour all their resources and money into trucks while essentially abandoning cars. Truck sales suddenly drop in the spring of 2005. What does GM do? Stop work on everything else, and pour it all into trucks, then start cutting and eliminating car programs, and go back to dragging their feet...er...business as usual.
2. The MARKETPLACE is what turned away from V8 engines. Save Mustangs and Corvettes, sales of V8 powered cars have been in steady decline for well over a decade. The drop of V8 sales in recent years is best shown in retail sales of the Dodge Charger. The Hemi V8 once took over half of the Charger's sales. Today, V6 Chargers far outnumber V8s in retail... and have for some time (as gas climbed towards $5 per gallon).
3. There's no such thing as Hippies anymore, and Hippies never bought new cars. The buyers of cars like the Volt and Prius tend to be people who have money in the bank.
2. The MARKETPLACE is what turned away from V8 engines. Save Mustangs and Corvettes, sales of V8 powered cars have been in steady decline for well over a decade. The drop of V8 sales in recent years is best shown in retail sales of the Dodge Charger. The Hemi V8 once took over half of the Charger's sales. Today, V6 Chargers far outnumber V8s in retail... and have for some time (as gas climbed towards $5 per gallon).
3. There's no such thing as Hippies anymore, and Hippies never bought new cars. The buyers of cars like the Volt and Prius tend to be people who have money in the bank.
I will give you that GM may be trying to make up for the bad press they got for almost forcibly taking EV1s (which were leased, not sold to customers) and crushing all of them. Again, if GM had money in the bank, or at least was staying afloat, the Volt would be a very good idea because it would generate alot of great press.
But for a company that had serious problems getting a loan even when credit was easy, and now has bondholders (far more than the government) holding their survival at the brink, moving the Cruze up, getting a Camaro & CTS coupe to build up showroom traffic, and accelerating the introduction of the new Impala the way Ford did with the Taurus would do far more to improve the health of GM than the resources they are funneling to the Volt.
But for a company that had serious problems getting a loan even when credit was easy, and now has bondholders (far more than the government) holding their survival at the brink, moving the Cruze up, getting a Camaro & CTS coupe to build up showroom traffic, and accelerating the introduction of the new Impala the way Ford did with the Taurus would do far more to improve the health of GM than the resources they are funneling to the Volt.
02-13-2009, 04:38 AM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 394
68 - 50,937 6cyl 184,178 8cyl
69 - 36,500 6cyl 206,500 8cyl
70 - 12,615 6cyl 112,286 8cyl
71 - 11,177 6cyl 103,466 8cyl
72 - 4,821 6cyl 63,830 8cyl
73 - 3,614 6cyl 93,138 8cyl
74 - 22,210 6cyl 128,798 8cyl
75 - 29,749 6cyl 116,021 8cyl
76 - 38,047 6cyl 144,912 8cyl
77 - 31,389 6cyl 187,464 8cyl
78 - 36,982 6cyl 235,649 8cyl
79 - 22,041 6cyl 260,541 8cyl
80 - 51,104 6cyl 100,901 8cyl
81 - 58% 8cyl
82 - 51.7% 8cyl
83 - 58.4% 8cyl
84 - 57.4% 8cyl
86 - 77,478 6cyl 114,741 8cyl
87 - 56.1% 8cyl
88 - 55.5% 8cyl
89 - 61.5% 8cyl
90 - 66% 8cyl
91 - 68.5% 8cyl
92 - 65.9% 8cyl
02-13-2009, 12:20 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
67 - 58,761 6cyl 162,145 8cyl
68 - 50,937 6cyl 184,178 8cyl
69 - 36,500 6cyl 206,500 8cyl
70 - 12,615 6cyl 112,286 8cyl
71 - 11,177 6cyl 103,466 8cyl
72 - 4,821 6cyl 63,830 8cyl
73 - 3,614 6cyl 93,138 8cyl
74 - 22,210 6cyl 128,798 8cyl
75 - 29,749 6cyl 116,021 8cyl
76 - 38,047 6cyl 144,912 8cyl
77 - 31,389 6cyl 187,464 8cyl
78 - 36,982 6cyl 235,649 8cyl
79 - 22,041 6cyl 260,541 8cyl
80 - 51,104 6cyl 100,901 8cyl
81 - 58% 8cyl
82 - 51.7% 8cyl
83 - 58.4% 8cyl
84 - 57.4% 8cyl
86 - 77,478 6cyl 114,741 8cyl
87 - 56.1% 8cyl
88 - 55.5% 8cyl
89 - 61.5% 8cyl
90 - 66% 8cyl
91 - 68.5% 8cyl
92 - 65.9% 8cyl
68 - 50,937 6cyl 184,178 8cyl
69 - 36,500 6cyl 206,500 8cyl
70 - 12,615 6cyl 112,286 8cyl
71 - 11,177 6cyl 103,466 8cyl
72 - 4,821 6cyl 63,830 8cyl
73 - 3,614 6cyl 93,138 8cyl
74 - 22,210 6cyl 128,798 8cyl
75 - 29,749 6cyl 116,021 8cyl
76 - 38,047 6cyl 144,912 8cyl
77 - 31,389 6cyl 187,464 8cyl
78 - 36,982 6cyl 235,649 8cyl
79 - 22,041 6cyl 260,541 8cyl
80 - 51,104 6cyl 100,901 8cyl
81 - 58% 8cyl
82 - 51.7% 8cyl
83 - 58.4% 8cyl
84 - 57.4% 8cyl
86 - 77,478 6cyl 114,741 8cyl
87 - 56.1% 8cyl
88 - 55.5% 8cyl
89 - 61.5% 8cyl
90 - 66% 8cyl
91 - 68.5% 8cyl
92 - 65.9% 8cyl
This discussion came up before and I provided data from the Camaro White Book... not until the 4th gens did 6-cylinders ever out number V8s.
02-13-2009, 01:41 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
02-13-2009, 01:55 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
02-13-2009, 01:55 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
67 - 58,761 6cyl 162,145 8cyl
68 - 50,937 6cyl 184,178 8cyl
69 - 36,500 6cyl 206,500 8cyl
70 - 12,615 6cyl 112,286 8cyl
71 - 11,177 6cyl 103,466 8cyl
72 - 4,821 6cyl 63,830 8cyl
73 - 3,614 6cyl 93,138 8cyl
74 - 22,210 6cyl 128,798 8cyl
75 - 29,749 6cyl 116,021 8cyl
76 - 38,047 6cyl 144,912 8cyl
77 - 31,389 6cyl 187,464 8cyl
78 - 36,982 6cyl 235,649 8cyl
79 - 22,041 6cyl 260,541 8cyl
80 - 51,104 6cyl 100,901 8cyl
81 - 58% 8cyl
82 - 51.7% 8cyl
83 - 58.4% 8cyl
84 - 57.4% 8cyl
86 - 77,478 6cyl 114,741 8cyl
87 - 56.1% 8cyl
88 - 55.5% 8cyl
89 - 61.5% 8cyl
90 - 66% 8cyl
91 - 68.5% 8cyl
92 - 65.9% 8cyl
68 - 50,937 6cyl 184,178 8cyl
69 - 36,500 6cyl 206,500 8cyl
70 - 12,615 6cyl 112,286 8cyl
71 - 11,177 6cyl 103,466 8cyl
72 - 4,821 6cyl 63,830 8cyl
73 - 3,614 6cyl 93,138 8cyl
74 - 22,210 6cyl 128,798 8cyl
75 - 29,749 6cyl 116,021 8cyl
76 - 38,047 6cyl 144,912 8cyl
77 - 31,389 6cyl 187,464 8cyl
78 - 36,982 6cyl 235,649 8cyl
79 - 22,041 6cyl 260,541 8cyl
80 - 51,104 6cyl 100,901 8cyl
81 - 58% 8cyl
82 - 51.7% 8cyl
83 - 58.4% 8cyl
84 - 57.4% 8cyl
86 - 77,478 6cyl 114,741 8cyl
87 - 56.1% 8cyl
88 - 55.5% 8cyl
89 - 61.5% 8cyl
90 - 66% 8cyl
91 - 68.5% 8cyl
92 - 65.9% 8cyl
You could have just gave the year it reversed. Well I had always assumed sports car insurance was a factor for V6s outselling the V8s.. at least relatively recently. Then again I was way off on the numbers and years... Did sports car insurance rates change maybe? I dont see anything in the whitebook under 94 that references a reason. The 200hp V6 wasnt an option until 95
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 02-13-2009 at 02:06 PM.
02-13-2009, 02:12 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Well I had always assumed sports car insurance was a factor for V6s outselling the V8s.. at least relatively recently. Then again I was way off on the numbers and years... Did sports car insurance rates change maybe? I dont see anything in the white book under 94 that references a reason. The 200hp V6 wasn't an option until 95
02-13-2009, 02:41 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
That's an old wives tale that has been disproved before. Insurance rates have more to do with the number of reported incidents for each trim line than the size of the motor. Case in point, when I went to insure my then 16-year old stepson on a 1995 Mustang, the V6 was twice as expensive to insure than the V8. Yep, its true... $1300/yr for a GT, and $2600 for the V6. They didn't even increase it that much 6 months later when we sold the 95 GT and bought him a supercharged 96 GT.
weird.
02-13-2009, 03:20 PM
#59
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
Prior to the ready availability of computers and data mining software, it was far too difficult to do it any other way.
