[nancygrl]

It'll be interesting to see what the future holds for sure.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by RagingHawk

These crazy high HP/TQ numbers are intended to wow you guys in order to persuade you of the transition that will soon take place, that is the killing off of ICE sports/muscle cars. They are betting that most people will will see those numbers and the 0-60 and be impressed. Therefore, have a no hassle transition. And sadly modern 'car guys' are helping them.

This ^^^

It's aimed squarely at car enthusiasts to get them to come on board with EVs being everybody's solution, including theirs. Not necessarily overnight, but longer term through constant repetition and suggestion.

The straight line crowd in particular tends to be the most susceptible to advertising pitches that blatantly imply "if some's good, more's better, and too much is just enough". And they still represent the majority of enthusiasts.


Norm

[Zack46]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

This ^^^

It's aimed squarely at car enthusiasts to get them to come on board with EVs being everybody's solution, including theirs. Not necessarily overnight, but longer term through constant repetition and suggestion.

The straight line crowd in particular tends to be the most susceptible to advertising pitches that blatantly imply "if some's good, more's better, and too much is just enough". And they still represent the majority of enthusiasts.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

Huh? '67 Camaro's sure as hell weren't much of a road racer back when they hit the streets. The USA was very much into ground pounding drag racing back then and made very powerful (for the time) big blocks available to whomever wanted one. In those days the Dealer's would install whatever engine their parts department sold. Some enjoyed small blocks and some enjoyed big blocks and a few women drove the mundane straight 6, all 230 inches of it.

The road-race side to ponycars has always been undervalued. For a number of reasons. Road racing is not as brutal, it's not as much of a spectacle to watch, you usually can't see the entire track, races aren't over in just a few seconds, and there is more strategy and tactics involved (think in terms of attention span for those who are not road-racing enthusiasts already).

Road-race credibility actually was there pretty much from then beginning, through SCCA club racing and Trans-Am . . . Z/28, GT350, Boss 302, and eventually including Pontiac's Trans Am, AAR Cuda, Challenger T/A and AMC's Javelin. But it wasn't nearly as visible. Keep in mind that technologies important to road racing (tires, suspensions, brakes) weren't exactly advanced back then. 0.7 lateral-g back then was as impressive as 1.0x is today. Maybe more so.


Norm

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros have always existed for one purpose: to provide volume sales to support the production of the V8 models. That’s a fact. Just like the Mustang. From day one of both cars everyone knew the big selling versions of these cars would have to be 4 and 6 cylinder because not everyone can afford the gas/insurance or cold weather performance of a V8.

But make no mistake - not ONE of those 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros and Mustangs (and Firebirds too) - since 1964 and 1967 - were EVER purchased without the buyer’s eyes glazed over at least once to an SS, Z28, Formula/Trans Am, or GT.

And if they ever quit making the V8 versions while continuing the lesser models, there’d have been a massive revolt.

Just ask Ford..... what became the front wheel drive 4 cylinder Probe was going to be the new Mustang for 1988. It was in Motor Trend magazine. Ford was blindsided by so much hate mail they had to change their company plans and continue production of the Fox body while try to figure out what to do with the Mazda platform they’d already committed to. Hence came the Probe.

There has never been a 1s, 2nd Gen V6 camaro.

[Malbjey]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

There has never been a 1s, 2nd Gen V6 camaro.

Every Camaro gen has offered a 6 cylinder version, which is what he said.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

There has never been a 1s, 2nd Gen V6 camaro.

The first gen base engines were either the 230 or 250 straight 6.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by RagingHawk

These crazy high HP/TQ numbers are intended to wow you guys in order to persuade you of the transition that will soon take place, that is the killing off of ICE sports/muscle cars. They are betting that most people will will see those numbers and the 0-60 and be impressed. Therefore, have a no hassle transition. And sadly modern 'car guys' are helping them.

Once it is all over, the power figures(minus the specialty performance ones) will go down and we will be charged 45K MSRP for something stupid like the new base Mustang SUV. There will likely not be any coupes available for sale.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

This ^^^

It's aimed squarely at car enthusiasts to get them to come on board with EVs being everybody's solution, including theirs. Not necessarily overnight, but longer term through constant repetition and suggestion.

The straight line crowd in particular tends to be the most susceptible to advertising pitches that blatantly imply "if some's good, more's better, and too much is just enough". And they still represent the majority of enthusiasts.


Norm

Not sure if I would say "aimed at", only because the enthusiast crowd is such a small portion of the market. I think that Tesla has shown the rest of the industry that what has always been true for ICE is also true for EV. People will pay for performance, people will not pay for efficiency. For more mainstream customers, the efficiency has to be there to be considered for purchase, but money doesn't change hands until the performance is understood and confirmed.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros have always existed for one purpose: to provide volume sales to support the production of the V8 models. That’s a fact. Just like the Mustang. From day one of both cars everyone knew the big selling versions of these cars would have to be 4 and 6 cylinder because not everyone can afford the gas/insurance or cold weather performance of a V8.

But make no mistake - not ONE of those 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros and Mustangs (and Firebirds too) - since 1964 and 1967 - were EVER purchased without the buyer’s eyes glazed over at least once to an SS, Z28, Formula/Trans Am, or GT.

And if they ever quit making the V8 versions while continuing the lesser models, there’d have been a massive revolt.

Just ask Ford..... what became the front wheel drive 4 cylinder Probe was going to be the new Mustang for 1988. It was in Motor Trend magazine. Ford was blindsided by so much hate mail they had to change their company plans and continue production of the Fox body while try to figure out what to do with the Mazda platform they’d already committed to. Hence came the Probe.

The difference between now and then is that back then, what became the Probe was going to be THE Mustang. Meaning, there would be no Fox body available to people who wanted a rwd sporty coupe. With the addition of the Mustang Mach E to the current Mustang "lineup", the presence of the CUV does not keep enthusiasts from buying an EB, a GT, or a Shelby.

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

Every Camaro gen has offered a 6 cylinder version, which is what he said.

He said V6

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not sure if I would say "aimed at", only because the enthusiast crowd is such a small portion of the market. I think that Tesla has shown the rest of the industry that what has always been true for ICE is also true for EV. People will pay for performance, people will not pay for efficiency. For more mainstream customers, the efficiency has to be there to be considered for purchase, but money doesn't change hands until the performance is understood and confirmed.

Martin, will you be guest starring on anymore upcoming TV shows? Any Movie deals?

[internationlriders]

I'm a technology guy so I have zero qualms about an electric Camaro, I have a v8 already so I'm good to go. I could even see myself buying a performance hybrid sports car. Think Mclaren P1, Porsche 918, etc. but that tech trickling down into the affordable segment.

After reading through this long thread, I didn't see the following points mentioned.

1. When all of this carbon reduction is being purported by local governments, they are really talking about carbon offset not reduction. There are very few places in the world that have carbon neutral energy (hydro, solar, wind) to power these electric cars with. For the rest of the world, the actual goal is to remove the carbon emissions from the city core and to the countryside with a powerplant so instead of cars emmitting fumes in the city for us to breath, power plants are emitting fumes over the crops for us to eat. It preserves city life a bit longer and allows for a massive tax collection.

2. Thoughout all the talk of carbon footprints, why are factories rarely tagged as the major pollutant, but autos are always looked at as the lowest common denominator?

3. In many circumstances, upcycling old cars is far more environmentally friendly than building new ones. The problem with this is that we live in a consumer drivin world, and if people stop buying cars, it's bad for business.

4. The next generation doesn't care about driving, they would rather sit in the back seat of a car and turn their attention to social media or video games. Car manufacturers need to keep up with their consumers and as us dinosaur consuming folks reach the turn of our century, the manufacturers need to be relevant with the cars they sell. Most people I talk to these days who are in their 20s don't like to drive. It's sad but it's a fact.

5. This has been discussed but I want to reiterate it. Electric cars are fun but different way, and electric cars will be able to grip the corners too and are already quicker around a track although less composed and here is a prime example from Top Gear:

6. Electric is neck snapping thrilling to the point it hurts, like my 1LE in the corners. Drive my 1LE hard enough in the canyons and my passenger usually gets quite sick, I have even made myself sick after about 30 minutes of very windy roads.

7. I don't understand the hate on the quick 0-60 or 1/4 mile times that electric cars get, is it because ego-maniacs are butt hurt that they spent so much money on their Hellcat and yet in real street racing scenarios get beat almost every time by the little Model 3? I'm hearing some of my buddies with Hellcats even say they won't acknowlege Teslas, that doesn't make them not exist!

My final rant is that we can either get with the time or stay stuck in the past, whether the future is actually a good place or not is a whole different topic.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

He said V6

These old eyes just can't seem to find the 'V' part in Petrol's post or in later quotes of it. Could you track it down and highlight it for me?


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not sure if I would say "aimed at", only because the enthusiast crowd is such a small portion of the market. I think that Tesla has shown the rest of the industry that what has always been true for ICE is also true for EV. People will pay for performance, people will not pay for efficiency. For more mainstream customers, the efficiency has to be there to be considered for purchase, but money doesn't change hands until the performance is understood and confirmed.

I have my doubts that the power and torque numbers and the 0-60 times being bandied about for EVs today hold any real meaning for buyers who don't already hold some enthusiasm for cars in general.


Norm