It is going into a pit because all those goods and services being consumed are for the destruction not production of wealth. Money going to contractors is just a transfer of wealth from productive industry (taxes on us) to non productive.

On a personal level it would be like hiring a security guard that you don't need for $50,000 instead of putting a $50,000 addition on to your house. Which one is money down the drain and which building personal wealth.

When you talk WWII you have to look at the amount of debt we went into for that. WWII boom was all debt based.

Fed is increasing the M3 money supply by 16% a year, and other countries are getting tired of holding depreciating US paper assets. Once they start dumping US bonds and cash on the market the dollar will sink even further (price inflation).

 

I saw it. I don't see any signs of that situation repeating itself. I see the opposite effect. Every day, our debt to foriegn country's (like China) grows, so that we may fund Iraq.

No. That's a pit.

As for Camaro's future...I really believe this car will be around for some time to come. It's gonna be a smash-hit success, from the 4banger level all the way up to our beloved 8. Plus, Zeta's a relatively new platform. And they've got to have some cars riding on it.

 

It's not a bad looking torque curve, at least once you hit 2000 rpm. It actually peaks lower than many NA engines. Of course, dynos are done at full throttle so that doesn't tell you how the engine's going to feel at part throttle or how good its response is.

 

its amazing how you guys can take a thread about how will car company's like gm deal with changes in the future and turn it into a thread about the war in Iraq and the economy.


in my opinion we will see a decline in muscle cars for a while. i think the push for a 4,6,8 cyl is a great idea in the camaro. i mean common even the new 260hp 4cyl put out more then then 4th gen 160 hp v6 and im sure gets way better gas millage.

i think as car companies move forward it will be ever greater for them to find a viable alternative fuel. there are a lot of people waiting for a good alternative fuel car to come out. i think the momentent one comes along people will jump on it.we only need to lower are consomption of oil and then over time completly get off of it.

 

Actually, a more accurate way to look at it would be:
Hire a security guard for $50k/year who pays you rent to live in your house and buys food, clothing, and everything else from you.

How is the current situation any different?

I'm not saying that I agree that we should go to war to further our economy, but it does work.

Government spending can do a lot to support a weak economy. But, it does have its drawbacks.

Also, keep in mind that devalued currency can have benefits as well. It can reduce outsourcing and the trade deficit. Thus, creating more jobs at home.

 

I think that cars will need to get smaller, lighter, and less powerful, and that people will need to get smarter about how they use them. Driving a single person around in a 3500-5000lb vehicle with 300HP is borderline retarded.

At some point, we'll need to get a whole lot smarter about how we use our hydrocarbon resources. A single barrel of oil contains about 425,000 watt-hours when burned in an internal combustion engine; that's the equivalent of about 3500 man-hours of work at a brisk pace - and yet we bitch about paying $100 for this amount of energy. That's a obvious sign that we're taking this resource for granted. And frankly, I think anyone who doesn't at least consider the possibility of the end of cheap and easy oil - and plans accordingly - is foolish at best.

Frankly, I think we'll be damn lucky if we can afford to be driving around in turbo I4 G8s in another decade.

I also think we'll see an adjustment in how cars are purchased. It takes about of year of average gross pay to afford the average new car, and the only reason that this is somewhat sustainable is that we're awash in easy credit (don't forget to add in the fact that the value of the car is going to depreciate by half in the first four years of ownership, at which point people will gladly take the hit and sell the vehicle so that they can buy something newer and more fashionable). At some point in the future, I suspect that we'll be buying cheaper cars and keeping them longer (indeed, alternative-fuel cars will be built with expensive and exotic materials, and will need to be used to the fullest extent and then recycled properly due to the cost and rarity of the materials involved).

We can probably prolong this future for another decade or so by tapping into what little oil remains in ANWR and the outer continental shelf, but that will only make matters worse.

Fortunately, for smart companies, there exists a lot of potential in this scenario Whether GM is one of those companies remains to be seen.

 

The "extremist" threat is just like the Cold War. Create a boogeyman so you can give a bunch of money to your friends in the defense industry. The extremists though are even less a threat to the United States than the Commies were, and they turned out to be a lot closer to a paper tiger than was believed here (except those commies in countries in which we were fighting unjust wars).

 

Trying to focus on the V8 topic here... but somehow I think it's a little premature to think the V8 is destined for the scrap heap. If you are realistic you would know that turbos are not really any more economical than V8s.

The GM smallblock is probably the most fuel efficient V8 in the world, not to mention the most affordable. I can't see how the V6 will take the place of the V8, no matter if future powertrains get extra motivation in the form of hybrid power, and fuel prices continue to rise.

Given the right applications, the V8 can be more frugal than the V6 or turbo engine. I guess what I'm saying is that the V8 is not exactly the bane of powertrains that should be immediately killed off for the sake of appeasing the environmentalists.

I hope I'm right but even I need to be convinced, hence my question.

 

You may be right, but I tend to blame the North American Free Trade Agreement for the start of our slide that has brought us to where we are now (except for fuel prices).

Not long after Nafta passed i gave up on business courses at community college and went straight to work for my father selling and mfg'ing corrugated and related products to the furniture industry rich North Mississippi.

Initially they couldn't get to Mexico fast enough but within a year they made several trips to China and found a nest to start building in. We lost about 60% of our sales within a year.

Thus my hate of certain federal legislation, and strive for reverse legislation to bring it back.

 

Nice post I think there is going to be a lot of creative destruction in coming decade. The trend, whether it is Civics, Malibus, Dodge Rams, or Toyota Sequoias, has been to get bigger, heavier, and more powerful with every new generation. At some point this has to end and I think that point is now with the current generation. Hybrids and electrics need to get the most bang for their kWh so we will defiantly see weight dropping now that the practically free energy party that is oil is coming to an end.

As far as V8s go they have been getting bigger and bigger since the mid 90's. 5.7L in 1997 to 7.0L today. I laugh every time I hear the 320HP 5.3L called not powerful enough. I don't see the V8 dieing but I do think it will get smaller, especially when paired with a turbo or hybrid setup. In 2015 a 5.0L might be considered a huge engine. Of course VVT, DI, and HCCI engines will keep power in the 400HP range.

guionM had a great thread about diminishing returns on these ever bigger more powerful V8s. The current HP war has kind of hit its peak.

Imagine a 2015 Z06, 3000lbs. 4.5L Camless/electronic valves, HCCI, 450HP, 8 speed auto, 35mpg hwy

 

Fixed that for you Biggie

 

I'm all for alternative fuels and means of transportation. (Well I do happen to work for a mass transit agency who's vehicles are powered by electricity. ) I'd buy an electric car today as my primary means of transportation if it met all my needs. (Nothing on the market does.) However, if we are going to go down that road (and I believe we will within the next 20-years) we are going to need to make it affordable for the masses. Otherwise, we'll never get there.

 

Not to mention convincing people that they want to live in a townhome or an apartment building conviently located next to thier favorite wateringholes while providing centralized areas for shopping that are easily accessed via public transportation.

 

We're trying out Transit Oriented Development (TOD) here. I'm not convinced it will be easy to sell in the US as it is in Europe. Especially here in California where the automobile is more than an appliance to get you from point A to point B. We're also going all about it the wrong way, but that's a political issue I can't discuss.

 

The concept is great, but the method is flawed