Forget it. The retro ship has already sailed, and will be long gone by the time Camaro returns..

 

Have you guys seen the Camaro and Trans AM with C5R engines that GM is showing now? I really believe that if they would have done the body more like those instead of how the 98+ is, that these cars would have sold a LOT better!

 

The only standard the current F-body was lacking in for 03 was some side impact standards. It would have taken some retrofit and redesign to engineer a door that could pass. Not impossible but not cheap either. And for a car line doomed since 96 the idea was to let the car run until it wasn't legal anymore. So while this may be the reason why we didn't have the cam produced in 03, its not the reason why the car was dropped.

guionM, CAW / UAW same thing differnet package.....

 

Details, details...

Actually, it was the upper edge of the "A" pillar's proximity to our noggin that didn't pass 2003 standards. Adding an air bag to help cover that problem would have made the "A" pillar about as wide as a billboard (an exageration, but you get the idea).

As far as the side impact standards, that would have been passed simply by installing a slightly larger beam in the door. Hardly an issue. As for the rest of the crash standards, F-bodies exceeded pretty much everything else. F-bodies have a MASSIVE double box beam under the door stills, and the "B" pillar is heavy guage steel. Not a single piece, but double! Go to a junk yard & check it out! The F-body, though plastic skinned, is a virtual tank!

While the side impact standard would have been simple to solve, that "A" pillar wasn't. That little thing would have required a major investment because it's part of the car's inner structure. For all the work that would have went into it (keep in mind the F-body's inner structure dates back 20 years) it simply wasn't worth it.

If all else was right with the F-body & it's production, then no doubt GM would have sprang for it (automakers are aware of major new government standards 5 years or more in advance), and it would still continue. However, GM had far less to loose in discontinuing the 4th gen.

Just to give you an idea as to how great an impact making the A pillars compliant: The roof of the f-body would have either had to be raised a couple of inches (if the same rake angle was to be kept) making the car look very awkward, or the rake would have had to become less severe, meaning the rest of the car would have had to been reengineered to bring it back to decent proportions.

Combine that with the manufacturing problems I posted last week in a different thread, then add to all this the internal politics, and you will see what a near miracle it was that Kurt Ritter, Redplanet, and the rest of the Chevrolet team kept Camaro (and by association, Pontiac's Firebird) in production as long as they did. Till almost the very last moment as it turns out.

 

UM!They did that last time remember?

 

As long as a 5th gen isnt retro. Its ugly and I wouldnt want to buy one and that would suck because I want my first brand new car to be a brand new Z28.

 

I think the CAW involvement is overstated. Gives people someone/something to blame If GM wanted the f-body to continue they could have recieved money from the Province of Quebec to do so (that's been done in the past). Add to that the fact that Quebec at the time had accelerated depreciation (to the tune of 125% - Yes one hundred and twenty five percent). The feds too would have thorwn cash their way .... GM clearly wanted it to die ...

Future crash test requirements were known well in advance. On www.f-body.com this was posted two years ago by Ken (most people with a hawk will know that this guy knows). They knew the end was in 2003 and did nothing to create a new model.

Management just didn't see the value in having an f-body. The f-body is an early 90's design that was left to expire .....

Ted

 

As much as I like the old cars and the 1st generation is still by far my favorite, I'd rather see the Gen-V Camaro as an evolution of the previous four.

 

Why couldn't they have just stuffed a small one in there? Its not that hard to stuff an airbag into a confined space such as the a-pillar is it?

 

I repectfully disagree. They are not 100% to blame, but they MUST hold a large and fair share of it.
Let me explain MY PERSPECTIVE...

100-150 years ago, people were dying at an alarming rate from working in coal mines, steel mills, lumber yards, ship yards, etc. due to poor working conditions, lack of safety equipment, and general lack of concern from top management. In short, the labor worker's human life was expendable. There was no OSHA, there was no Federal Dept. of Labor, no state labor boards, or letigious attorneys willing to bring a suit against a company for mistreating the worker. Unions were a necessity then, exercising strength in numbers to keep monarchial ditators that owned big companies from literally killing the work force with poor work conditions and inhumane treatment to afford himself huge profits.

Forward into the '50s - we have these governmental agencies that regulate work conditions now. Dust and particulate limitations on air quality, safety equipment, lighting, and exposure limitations are established. The Dept. of Labor mandates a 40-hour work week as the maximum required - anything beyond requires additional charge and must be concentual or pre-established to the worker upon hiring. In short, the government has begun to put LAWS in place to protect the worker. This lessens the need for the union.

Forward to todays climate - with MSDS sheets everywhere, labels on every container, safety shoes required in plants, lighting that must pass intensity inspection, air quality monitors and reports required constantly and oodles of other work-area regulations, the modern corporation has incredible burden to provide evidence of safe workplace effort. Heaven knows in this letigious society we have today, there are countless attorneys just begging to have a wrongful death or injury suit to persue for $millions$.

The same really applies for wage issues. 100 years ago, there was no minimum wage. People worked for what the company offered, or they didn't work there. Ref to Ford's $5/day wage that almost upended Detroit's economy 95 years ago. Today, there is a minimum wage law - employers must comply with. If you are more skilled and capable, your work should make you marketable for more money. If you feel you are worth so much more than you are getting paid and nobody will pay you what you are worth, start your own business and put them out of business! The government will even help you get started! So conversely, just because you have a diploma or degree, that should not guarantee that you will make $100k/year. Your skill should determine your value, not your union leader IMO. And for workers to receive $millions$ in descrimination suits, sexual harassment suits, equal wages for women, and the like - who's not protected if they want it?

All of this boils down to my position that the unions are doing more harm than good for the US economy as a whole these days. I readily agree that they were of great importance and they helped shape America and our industrial revolution, but so did the Musket and the Steamshovel yet you don't see us still using them today.

Who in this forum can honestly tell me they haven't heard stories or jokes about union workers that "wouldn't plug in the saw because that is not in his job description - he's the sawer, not the electrician." These stories are TRUE, I've seen it. I'm not in a union (duh ), yet I've had grievances filed against me because I did somebody else's job while running a machine test or some such. Well no chit, I'm not the kind of guy who's gonna stand there looking stupid if something needs to be done. If my machine needs to be loaded with parts or a switch flipped to cycle the parts for a test, by God I'm gonna do it, I'm not going to fill out a request form and wait for the appropriately certified worker to come do it for me. Where's the efficiency in that?!?!

Which closes the loop for my argument - EFFICIENCY. The beaurocracy that modern unions promote is utterly wasteful. To the union, it is totally acceptable to have a machine costing $2500/hour in lost production to sit and wait on the specified mechanic to come and fix a guard interlock, when a competent mechanic with a screwdriver could adjust it in 5 minutes. But if the mechanic with the screwdriver does fix it and starts running again, the union worker whos job it was to fix the thing will not only NOT get reprimanded for being slow, but he will have grounds to file a grievance against the guy who fixed it, get that guy in trouble, AND still get paid for the job he didn't even do. Efficient?!?! PLEASE.
Somebody explain how such things help a company remain lean, efficient, and profitable.
In my eyes, unless the guy had a damn good reason for not being there quick and fixing the machine, the pokey-**** slacker should be gone. Not only that, but give the guy with the screwdriver a token raise to show your appreciation for his efforts. He will often return the favor many fold.

There often comes a time when products become obsolete or lose market capacity. In certain cases where the entire plant is designed and built to create that sole product, the entire plant unfortunately perishes too. Here in NC, we have lived this all to much lately with tobacco processors, textile mills, and furniture mills closing down almost weekly. It's dreadful that so many are losing employment. But what makes the car industry different than these industries? Why is it that a textile mill that specializes in polyester yarn can be forced to shut down, but a car plant cannot? Is there a special set of economic circumstances that car plants operate under and nobody else does? I'm thinking not. So why is it that union leaders wage entire campaigns and contracts to prevent a corporation from closing a plant? And you can bet they do too!
Look HERE for todays story about just that.
QUOTE - "But the industry landscape is far bleaker than four years ago when the UAW emerged from talks with one of its most generous pacts in decades. It included 3 percent annual pay hikes, a ban on plant closings and nearly cost-free health care. "
A BAN on plant closings !?!? Gimme a freakin' break!

What company making a good profit in a facility would WANT to close it down? But organized labor won't let them close it - OK, so they are supposed to run in the negative, or what? Let's look at GM and Ford pension issues for starters. St. Therese is a great example too. Don't even bring the airline industry into this - they are worse at it, and worse off than the carmakers! I know there are exceptions, but not THAT many. Economics is pretty well studied these days.

I guess in all this rant, I'm trying to say that I appreciate what unions did for America and industry years ago, but they are outdated now and not needed IMO. Unions are forcing companies to make economically unsound decisions in some cases. And I beleive that the pension issues that GM and Ford are currently suffering from are largely (not 100% but largely) due as a result of union and organized labor agreements from the last 4 to 6 decades. They danced the dance then, now it's coming time to pay the bills, and it sucks! I don't think you will see Honda, Toyota, BMW, or any of these newcomer-US-built imports having the pension issues that the big 2.5 are having, because they won't tolerate the union methodologies. They will run their businesses on sound economical data and principles. Anybody in here ever heard of the Toyota Lean program? THERE'S a model manufacturing plan if I've seen one. And since Toyota could buy GM or Ford with the CASH from their cars sales last year alone ($41 billion ), I'd say they are on to something, hmm?

Just .02 worth of rant, rave, and opinion.
Flamesuit tested and flamethrower loaded, sir. Which way to the enemy?

 

Nice rant ...

Ted

 

But how do you REALLY feel...

nice ...

 

Obviously you don't work in Oakland. What better way to protect one's self than with a firearm.

Around here, not only will that get you a grievance, but do someone's else's job or hire a contractor to do so... they'll get paid for the hours in which they didn't work.

And we call that progress? Preach on brother!

 

Good rant ProudPony, I agree the Union's time has passed. They are now inhibiting the automakers from making business decisions that could help everyone. There is no doubt to their importance and the value of what the union did but must we all apy for that.

I had a grievence filed against me and 3 other co-workers at GM because after 2 weeks of trying to get our trash taken out and the room swept. We took it upon ourselves to pick up a broom and sweep then take out the trash to a dumpster 50ft down the hallway. A job we stayed back from lunch to do. But we were spotted by the union workers kicking back from their busy day eating chips in the hallway. The same union workers who told us they were too busy to sweep the floor in our office or take the trash out. Yet had plenty of time to BS in the hallway and sleep in the bathroom every morning on a couch they made during company time with company materials...

Unfortunetly I have several more stories like this so if my opinion of the UAW isn't the best I gave them several opportunites to change it but it has not happened. Sorry the Union as a whole is ok but the very fact that they try to protect lazy and unmotivited workers is reason enough to cut them off. Especially for the money they make.

 

LOL! Good rant ProudPony.