Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2013, 01:29 PM   #76
motorhead
bars suck
 
motorhead's Avatar
 
Drives: ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: central, Pa
Posts: 7,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Let this thread right itself on the "GM CEO wants cars to get 15% lighter in 3 years" track.

Thank you.
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.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 01:45 PM   #77
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Nothing View Post
kinda like e85? it's cheaper but requires more to burn to get the same mileage
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?
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 01:50 PM   #78
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Thank you...pretty cool deal...
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:13 PM   #79
IMJ
 
IMJ's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 SS LS3 | Silver Frost Metallic
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
I'm extremely surprised by the reactions in this thread. I would have figured that the people of C5 would have been out dancing in the streets from this news with all the complaining I read about on here, on a daily basis about weight.
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?
__________________
__________________________________________
Ironman John
IMJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:20 PM   #80
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,083
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMJ View Post
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.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:21 PM   #81
motorhead
bars suck
 
motorhead's Avatar
 
Drives: ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: central, Pa
Posts: 7,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMJ View Post
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?
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.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 03:01 PM   #82
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
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....
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 04:26 PM   #83
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
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.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 05:37 PM   #84
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
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.
OK..for everyone's review, in case you missed it!...lol....
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 05:46 PM   #85
v6sonoma


 
v6sonoma's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS RS
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 7,837
Providence, RI!
__________________

Mods: BBK Intake, BBK LT's and High Flow Cats, Corsa Cat-back exhaust, Hurst short throw shifter, SLP skip-shift eliminator.

7/1/09 Placed order for IOM/IO int/ SS/RS 6M
9/26/09 Took delivery!
v6sonoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 09:48 PM   #86
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,858
....GM is taking the initiative for cleaner, more fuel efficient cars, with advanced technology, and is welcoming the Federal Government to join them in a National initiative....go to GM authority and read about it....
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:11 PM   #87
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
CAFE standards were not created to reduce pollution. Remember that when debating this stuff folks.

Weight reduction is a great way to increase performance and efficiency if they do it right. Removing weight in the right places can lower the center of gravity and removing weight in general will help in nearly all aspects of performance. I doubt they'll be able to cut fleet weights by 15% by then, but it's not like it is the end of the world if they don't quite meet the stated goal.
Also keep in mind FE = emissions and emissions = FE. In Europe the equivalent to CAFE is CO2. At the tailpipe they are exactly the same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
I may not have to use it (and never will, as I'm capable of driving all by my self), but I'll still have to pay for it. How does that make sense?



I know how light those mirrors are. I picked one up just last summer after it fell off.



You've hit on a defining characteristic of the regulatory state. And in the case of our specific one, what we get is generally more in line with what we deserve.



Those numbers sound more like total oil consumption, not imports. I'd have to do more research on exact numbers, but I think that around the late 70s, roughly 30% or so of the total use was from imports. 30 years later, it was more like 70% of the total was imports.

Today, the percent of use that is imported is rapidly going down, largely due to shale production, with a significant and growing percentage of the imports coming from Tar Sands from our friendly neighbor to the north. (Which is the reason WTI oil is around $20 a barrel cheaper than Brent). And the government and EPA are fighting both of these new sources of oil as hard as they can....which would suggest that despite claims that reducing imports is the purpose of CAFE, the actual motives are different.

Interesting addition to the point about CAFE driving the SUV craze. I've always held that opinion as well....And it makes you to wonder what affect it would have had on fuel consumption of people had still been able to find full size sedans that got low to mid 20s on the highway instead of SUVs that got upper teens at best.



It really got rolling with Ralph Nader's crusade against GM, which just happened to coincide with his quiet buying up of Ford stock. I'm sure the two were unrelated, though.



No, I want more. Keep it coming, Captain!!!
You said Shale Oil. Who is actually making Shale Oil into Oil in any reasonable amount? Even Tar Sands cost more money to make oil. Shale is even more expensive than that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by King Nothing View Post
which trucking fleets?? I work for one and have heard no such thing, I hope they'd tell me since I repair the tractors lol
It's in it's early stages but many of the Class 8 truck manufacturers are selling CNG fueled trucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
I re-read the first post...what is this "body-in-white" thing?...lol
BIW is essentially all of the metal in the body with no hardware at all. No chassis, no powertrain, no trim

Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
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.
Are we never satisfied?

Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
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.
You said, "why are so many on this forum". In all the threads of everyone listing the stuff they were going to take off their cars to make it lighter I can't recall one person actually doing it. No before and after threads of who actually took weight off their Camaro.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:21 PM   #88
RoadieWingZ
 
RoadieWingZ's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Black Camaro 1LS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 411
Screw the weight reduction !!..... I love my fat bottom girl just the way she is!!

Are you gonna take me home tonight
Ah down beside that red firelight
Are you gonna let it all hang out
Fat bottomed girls You make the rockin' world go round
__________________


2013 Camaro LS
RoadieWingZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 02:35 PM   #89
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Also keep in mind FE = emissions and emissions = FE. In Europe the equivalent to CAFE is CO2. At the tailpipe they are exactly the same thing.
Only if you define emissions as CO2. I personally don't consider to CO2 to be a "pollutant" like CO, NOX, hydrocarbons, and things like that that actually "pollute" and lead to health problems and smog.

And with that definition of emissions, FE and emissions have little correlation. A new V8 powered pickup today is much cleaner than a Honda Civic 15 or 20 years ago was.

And in the 1970s, FE and emissions worked against each other. In the 70s, emissions regulations meant low octane gas, low compression ratios, and large, inefficient air pumps, all of which torpedoed efficiency.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
You said Shale Oil. Who is actually making Shale Oil into Oil in any reasonable amount? Even Tar Sands cost more money to make oil. Shale is even more expensive than that.
Perhaps Shale oil isn't exactly the right terminology. It is my understanding that oil companies are figuring out how to use fracking to produce oil similar to what began with natural gas a few years earlier. The basic process has been know for decades, but only recently has the technology become advanced enough, and the price of oil high enough to make the economics of it work.

These sources are indeed more expensive than conventional oil, but at today's prices, they are still very profitable. Production from places like North Dakota is sky-rocketing (hence the need to build new pipelines), and could be in the millions of barrels a day in just a few short years.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 03:31 PM   #90
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
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....
V6 typically around 3,750 give or take some. V8 100 lbs more than that give or take.

I realistically see the next gen base Camaro (if the base is the Turbo 4) in the high to mid 3,300 range and V6 in low to mid 3,400. If they get it less than that and manage not to noticeably shink the Camaro (I'd guess it at near ATS size) then I'll be very surprised, but happy!
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 03:58 PM   #91
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
V6 typically around 3,750 give or take some. V8 100 lbs more than that give or take.

I realistically see the next gen base Camaro (if the base is the Turbo 4) in the high to mid 3,300 range and V6 in low to mid 3,400. If they get it less than that and manage not to noticeably shink the Camaro (I'd guess it at near ATS size) then I'll be very surprised, but happy!
Yeah, thanks...Just trying to see what rules the day as far a "15%" off...the base model only?...other, heavier engines get a pass?....I could see a new 4 hitting the mark of 15% off, compared to a _____?...It's a car that doesn't exist yet...lol...
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 04:07 PM   #92
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 18,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
V6 typically around 3,750 give or take some. V8 100 lbs more than that give or take.

I realistically see the next gen base Camaro (if the base is the Turbo 4) in the high to mid 3,300 range and V6 in low to mid 3,400. If they get it less than that and manage not to noticeably shink the Camaro (I'd guess it at near ATS size) then I'll be very surprised, but happy!
If your talking a Convertible your talking about 3900 to 4000Lbs. If you get an automatic.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 04:16 PM   #93
FL1CK
Switchin' n Twitchin'
 
FL1CK's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA (Eastlake)
Posts: 3,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
I bet you a week's pay it is something more akin to this:

"Say, that's a nice lookin' corporation ya gots there.... it would be a shame if sumptin' waz ta happen to it!"

Magnesium costs about 50% more than Aluminum. I just don't want to have to hear a lot of complaints when people get sticker shock. It also kinda can catch fire and burn up an entire car. They make fireworks out of that nifty metal.
Seems as the autoignition temperature of magnesium ribbon is approximately 473 °C (746 K; 883 °F) good luck getting it to burn in anything being used in vehicle applications. The powered or shaved form is much easier to burn, but that's not what's being used here.
__________________
I am not childish, you're just being a poopy head!
FL1CK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 04:35 PM   #94
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
Pretty sure how good of a quality, or grade of aluminum you get depends on how much magnesium is in it...Magnesium is nothing new...mag wheels, trans cases, etc....It does raise the price, though!...lol...Aluminum blocks (I've seen many burn up in my day...VW's, Porsches...lol...all high mag content)...It's a sight to behold...lol
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 07:26 PM   #95
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
I thought the flash point of magnesium was around 2500 degrees F? 880 isn't enough heat to get it to burn like magnesium can burn now if the entire car is on fire? Then maybe it'll get high enough but I wouldn't worry about it being a hazard.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 07:43 PM   #96
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
I thought the flash point of magnesium was around 2500 degrees F? 880 isn't enough heat to get it to burn like magnesium can burn now if the entire car is on fire? Then maybe it'll get high enough but I wouldn't worry about it being a hazard.
lol...not a hazard by itself at all...on a car fire, for sure, started by a ruptured gas line or whatever....
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 09:09 PM   #97
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Only if you define emissions as CO2. I personally don't consider to CO2 to be a "pollutant" like CO, NOX, hydrocarbons, and things like that that actually "pollute" and lead to health problems and smog.

And with that definition of emissions, FE and emissions have little correlation. A new V8 powered pickup today is much cleaner than a Honda Civic 15 or 20 years ago was.

And in the 1970s, FE and emissions worked against each other. In the 70s, emissions regulations meant low octane gas, low compression ratios, and large, inefficient air pumps, all of which torpedoed efficiency.




Perhaps Shale oil isn't exactly the right terminology. It is my understanding that oil companies are figuring out how to use fracking to produce oil similar to what began with natural gas a few years earlier. The basic process has been know for decades, but only recently has the technology become advanced enough, and the price of oil high enough to make the economics of it work.

These sources are indeed more expensive than conventional oil, but at today's prices, they are still very profitable. Production from places like North Dakota is sky-rocketing (hence the need to build new pipelines), and could be in the millions of barrels a day in just a few short years.
Don't disagree with you on CO2. But Europe disagrees with both of us. And reduction in CO2 is the same as CAFE. Reduction in CO2 requires the same reduction in FE.

Fracking is not the same as shale oil. Yes, I agree there are more alternatives that are now available as oil prices go up. But OPEC controls that. If they wanted the price to go down to the point that they would put Canadien Tar Sands out of business they could.

So yes, Tar Sands and North Dakota oil are all awesome. But they aren't "Jed Clampett Oil". That is the oil you can find by "shootin' at some food". It is expensive. And the Dakatos only add up to a 4 or 5 year supply of oil at our current consumption. Not the endless (LOL) supply that the 500 year supply of Shale Oil in the Rockies promises..
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:45 PM   #98
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,858
...talk is the previously protected and Federaly banned areas of off shore drilling sights are slated to be opened <rights for drilling, proceeds> to pay for the CA shale oil production pipeline project. NA independence from foreign oil imports. That, with todays press release to incorporate a more robust initiative to further battery technology is some progress towards solving our energy dependance on an uncertain future with third world suppliers who are undoubtably unpredictable for an uninterrupted supply.
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 03:08 AM   #99
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Don't disagree with you on CO2. But Europe disagrees with both of us. And reduction in CO2 is the same as CAFE. Reduction in CO2 requires the same reduction in FE.

Fracking is not the same as shale oil. Yes, I agree there are more alternatives that are now available as oil prices go up. But OPEC controls that. If they wanted the price to go down to the point that they would put Canadien Tar Sands out of business they could.

So yes, Tar Sands and North Dakota oil are all awesome. But they aren't "Jed Clampett Oil". That is the oil you can find by "shootin' at some food". It is expensive. And the Dakatos only add up to a 4 or 5 year supply of oil at our current consumption. Not the endless (LOL) supply that the 500 year supply of Shale Oil in the Rockies promises..
CO2 and fuel economy are closely correlated, but figuring gas vs diesel powered cars muddles it a little when only looking at miles per gallon. And that is also just tailpipe emissions of CO2. As these new, lighter weight, more energy intensive metals become more widespread, the tailpipe emissions will go down, but that will be offset somewhat by increases in what it takes to actually build the car.

You're right on the shale vs. fracking. Two completely different technologies. Sometimes my mind wanders and mixes up the terminology if I'm not thinking about it hard enough.

And yes, the Dakotas alone may only be 5 years or so total usage, but that could be 10% of total usage for the next 50 years, with technology improvements over those decades likely adding to what can be recovered. And that is just the Dakotas. Combine that with other locations that could be developed in the coming years, and the Canadian Tar Sands, all the natural gas we've suddenly come into, and you've got a nice long bridge to cover the gap until the real big shale deposits can be developed. It's not that far out there to imagine North American energy independence within 10-20 years.

Long term, I'm actually optimistic about oil and gas supplies. These unconventional supplies coming online are already eroding OPEC's real world influence, which isn't functionally as great anymore as people think. I only see this trend continuing. And the US actually gets very little oil from the Middle East today.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 08:40 AM   #100
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,359
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
lol...not a hazard by itself at all...on a car fire, for sure, started by a ruptured gas line or whatever....
And how often does this happen that we should be concerned? Lol you're talking final destination bs. Most ppl who's vehicles catch fire are not in it. Those that are and get burned to death, well... That was fate
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.