Well I haven't researched them but FedEx being one. I know we're getting off topic here so research CLNE and you'll see their investment in NG highway fueling stations built and 2013 stations plan. GE is developing at home fueling stations for LNG as well. It's on the way, now I'm not sure about it working well in high performance.

As for same energy, one trucker mentioned conversion to LNG from gas and said he's lost no power and pays around $1.40 a gallon. Caterpillar is working on development of NG engines and I believe Westport?

Wonder whose fault that is...:rolleyes:

I half-wanted to remove all the political posts in here, but because there are so many - I'd be more justified in deleting the thread outright....however, I can't (and don't want to) do that. So - no infractions will be issued, either.

However - from this post on, all politically-fired posts will be removed, regardless of what was said above this post. It's only a few people who are instigating this...you know who you are: please stop. Let this thread right itself on the "GM CEO wants cars to get 15% lighter in 3 years" track.

Thank you.

I re-read the first post...what is this "body-in-white" thing?...lol

http://www.chevroletperformance.com/_res/pdf/BIW.pdf

15% in three years. That's awesome! Can't wait. If they also raise the power level by 25% at the same time that will be even better. :twitch:

I'm all for natural gas vehicles, and would love to see more of them available, with the higher volume reducing the prices.

But the nat gas angle does raise something that may be relevant to the original topic of weight reduction....given that larger, heavier tanks will be required to store it, how exactly does that reconcile with the move to downsize and make lighter? Is that a hint that nat gas cars are set to take a step back in favor of meeting CAFE for conventionally powered cars?

Not quite. Volume-wise, nat gas is less energy dense, so it will need a larger tank. But, nat gas is cheaper than gasoline, E85 is more expensive. Nat-gas has an existing pipeline infrastructure, ethanol doesn't. Nat-gas is cleaner, E85 increases some pollutants. Nat gas is not corrosive, E85 is. Nat gas will not require nearly the entire corn crop to be sacrificed just to displace about 10% of gasoline use, E85 does. And, large amounts of nat gas are required to produce the ethanol, so why not just burn it directly in cars, anyway, instead of losing energy having extra steps in the process?

Thank you...pretty cool deal...

Well on that note it's not going to benefit most of us who have already bought the car when most people don't arbitrarily go out and buy another one... you know?

It'll benefit the nameplate, the brand, and the company.

I'm not most people. So what you're saying is that no one that currently owns a 5th gen should complain about the weight because they can't do anything about it anyhow that wouldn't otherwise turn it into a full blown race car?

So then, why are there so many on this very forum and others that do? My guess would be in the hopes that GM would produce a lighter version of the car that they love so much. Thus a reason for all the weight whiners to rejoice.

As far as the overall weight...I'm still a little fuzzy on this...

Current Camaro weighs 3800lbs?...that's a v-8? v-6?

10% off is 380...3800-380= 3420
15% off is 570...3800-570= 3230

Alpha is gonna weigh less than has previously been known prior to the CEO's order?

May not be applicable to the Gen6 Camaro as far as "the rest of the fleet"?...

Too premature for any concrete number??? All bets are off??

Thanks....

2013 SS weighs 3900 curb weight. Now I haven't looked but I'm going to say that's with automatic.

OK..for everyone's review, in case you missed it!...lol....