Now we're back to GM having secret development programs kept in the black that no one knows about.

We've known about the sigma->zeta development for over a year. We knew about the Solstice chassis and that it's producing the Solstice/Saturn twins. So somehow there's still ANOTHER secret development going on?

Not likely. In fact, any hope of additional development added on for a Camaro probably went out the window in a $2Billion bag to Fiat.


Nope. Confirmation of the zeta NOT being used for a Camaro is confirmation that the Camaro is DEAD. The GTO is the GM performance coupe.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.

Sorry, but that is simply not the case.

You want to put money on that?

 

The Chevy GTO is going to be one car. The Zeta that will become a certain ponycar is a completely different car.

 

We didn't know anything about the Solstice or the Kappa platform until it was right under our noses at last year's NAIAS. Has Ford "officially" anounced the next Mustang Cobra? Of course not. Do we all agree it's coming? Of course. Just because something hasn't been announced or shown doesn't mean it isn't being worked on. Hell, talking about Ford/Mustang vaporware and how it will crush this and that has become a big sport around here.

 

The D2C(stang) chassis has been public info for the last 2 years. I'm not talkin specific vehicles and variants.

I'm saying there is NO CHASSIS to put an acceptable Camaro on. And no cheap way to get there.

You got big - zeta
you got little - kappa
you got expensive - sigma
and you got vette

None of which were a secret from sites like this years before the actual car showed. There's no chassis for the Camaro. There's no secret chassis development going on. Lutz and Co. are betting that you all and the public will accept the Monte Carlo and GTO as replacements for the F-bod.

Actually, they don't care much about what you all think considering gear head enthusiast sales don't matter much to begin with.

 

Right that's the Monte Carlo.

 

There are so many possible scenerios floating around that I'm not so sure anyone can predict how it all shakes out.

Maybe....

The Zeta sedans and coupes will go their seperate ways....or maybe not.

Maybe....

The Zeta coupes will be based on Sigma, vs the Zeta sedans......or maybe not.

Maybe....

Zeta will evolve into merely a W-car replacement program....or maybe not.

Maybe....

Camaro will be sacrificed on the alter of CAW negotiations.....or maybe not.

Maybe....

Caddy will want to develop it's own coupe, and you can bet the farm that this coupe architecture won't be based on Zeta.......or maybe not.

Honestly, even if Rick Wagoner or Bob lutz posted here.....THEY might not even know.

Lots to chew on...and it might take half of a year to sort out.

 

That's not my understanding.

 

Wasn't Rick Wagoner the guy who though buying Fiat would be a great idea?

Didn't Bob Lutz say that the Chrysler 300C would never have been approved if he'd had anything to do with it?

I think that says it all.

 

Wow, look at redzed mocking the intelligence of the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world. I'm sure he got there by being a moron...

As for Lutz, I think he meant the 300 would not have LOOKED that way (i.e. fugly) had he been in charge. I'd bet he would have been all over a V8 powered, rear drive, American family/luxury sedan, and it still would have sold well. See, DCX can sell just about anything nowadays if it has the "hemi" in it. Put 4 wheels on a steaming pile of dog poo and drop a "hemi" in it, and a bunch of people would still buy it (see: Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum). But if it had been Lutz, it might have been rear drive, V8 "hemi" powered, AND good looking. But anyway...

 

Roger Smith....Jack Smith....Robert Stemple....

....Judging by this sort of roll call of "past talent" I have to wonder about the hiring process for chief execs at GM.


It turns out that 96_Camaro_B4C thinks you actually can argue with success.

Like it or not, the Chrysler 300 is a huge sales success. Like-it-or-not, the German management had to rid Daimler-Chrysler of elderly Americans (like Eaton and Lutz) to make this sort of success happen.

 

Didn't you just try to argue about the successful DTS?

 

I didn't say it wasn't a success, I just said it was ugly. Putting into context what I thought Lutz meant about not approving the car. Lutz is a design-oriented guy, not an engineering guy. He is concerned with tumble-home and body lines and curves and perceived interior quality (grains on plastics, how surfaces and ***** feel, etc.), in addition to the fun-to-drive qualities enabled by the "hemi" and the rwd chassis. So when he says the 300 wouldn't have been approved by him, I take that to mean he would not have approved such an ugly design (even if it would have sold well based on its technical merits and decent price). He would have made it better looking (if possible on the LX platform) before letting it out the door.

 

Bahahahah! Thanks, I forgot to mention that in my reply.

Oh yeah, it is so tempting to pull out our favorite smilie in such a situation... but I'll restrain myself.

 

I argued against GM's strategy to allow the DTS to slowly wither away without a substantial redesign. There's no excuse for underinvesting in such a profitable carline.