[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Joe Remi

the whole package should be a significant improvement on the current one.

That would make it a completely DIFFERENT car, now wouldn't it?

There will be pushback from the diehard Camaro community if GM even thinks about making a Camaro - even a singular trim or version - with so much as electric assist or hybrid.

If you don't understand that, consider the fact that the current Camaro design was made with significant input from the Camaro community.

If GM goes away from that, and decides to ignore the Camaro community, they're going to get the wrath of God.

It must be either kept 100% internal combustion 4 stroke gasoline engine and ONLY ICE with ZERO alternative assist, or the nameplate MUST be retired.

There is no other option.

[pyroguy]

Originally Posted by IOMike

Why?

Originally Posted by DC5

Because every time GM brings back a retired nameplate people ask why? '04-'06 GTO, looked like a giant Sunfire, people say why?; '80's Nova, 4 cylinder econo car that SUCKED, people asked why?; Buick Regal came back, it's a front wheel drive Chevy Cruze equivalent, people asked why?; Blazer came back, looks like a bigger Equinox/small Traverse instead of a K5 Blazer, people asked why? The list goes on, but my point is the same as Hollywood movie producers. Can't you figure out something creative that is original and not just a revival of something old? Stop reliving the "glory days" and build something that makes the next generation want to copy you.

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’m not going to buy a car just because it’s electric.

I’m not going to not buy a car just because it’s electric.

I’m going to buy whatever checks my boxes. If it looks good, drives fast and corners like it’s on rails, then it will be in my consideration set. ICE, BEV, or something in between, I’m good.

Concern over charge time and range are way overplayed. Most EVs coming to market these days can handle a week’s worth of most people’s driving on one single charge. In essence, most take ZERO time to charge because the charging is done at a time when the vehicle wouldn’t be in use anyway, so the driver is never waiting for the car to finish charging. That’s been our experience since 2012 when we got our first Chevrolet Volt.

At this point fast charging, which should only be used on the occasional long trip that exceeds the full range of the vehicle, has improved to the point where vehicles can charge up to 80% of capacity in 30 minutes. Most times I take trips over 300 miles if I stop for gas, the stop usually takes 20 - 30 minutes since I’m also buying coffee or snacks and maybe even a quick meal. If my car is charging while I do that, fine.

The real issue with EV's is infrastructure. It's a catch 22. Fuel stations are not going to fully invest in charging stations until there enough EV's on the road. And people are not going to buy 'enough' EV's until they are sure they can recharge on the road. Then there might be that issue where that station only has one or maybe two charging stations. The thirty minute equation gets longer if you are #2, or #3 in line, you go from 30 minutes to two hours.

While the EV can be charged, at home, overnight, that concept severely limits who can buy an EV. People who live in multi-family communities don't have the ability to charge overnight. There are a lot of people in this situation, and this is a major hurdle in the progress of mass EV sales.

Then of course there is battery production, the finding and mining the rare minerals involved, and how much of these minerals actually exist. Then there is the problem with battery disposal when they die. Not to mention the increased demands on the power grid.

Now, I am certain that there many high level engineers, scientists, and developers working hard on all of these hurdles. But the rubber meets the road when money enters the picture. Thus the catch 22, investment on one side of the equation depends on the certainty of the other side. It seems to me that you need a little more than an "If you build it they will come" mentality to get investment necessary to ignite the global change.

Of course, the automobile itself, the light bulb, the telephone, heck, even the wheel had hurdles in the beginning.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Because every time GM brings back a retired nameplate people ask why? '04-'06 GTO, looked like a giant Sunfire, people say why?; '80's Nova, 4 cylinder econo car that SUCKED, people asked why?; Buick Regal came back, it's a front wheel drive Chevy Cruze equivalent, people asked why?; Blazer came back, looks like a bigger Equinox/small Traverse instead of a K5 Blazer, people asked why? The list goes on, but my point is the same as Hollywood movie producers. Can't you figure out something creative that is original and not just a revival of something old? Stop reliving the "glory days" and build something that makes the next generation want to copy you.

My point exactly. I LOVE the original 1964-71 GTOs. Most people do. Many are extremely collectible and sought after.

To a T everyone who loves the original GTO HATED the ‘04-06 model, myself included. Great bones. Great engine/transmission combination. Horrible design and interior. Not worthy of the GTO nameplate.

[Turkish01]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

My point exactly. I LOVE the original 1964-71 GTOs. Most people do. Many are extremely collectible and sought after.

To a T everyone who loves the original GTO HATED the ‘04-06 model, myself included. Great bones. Great engine/transmission combination. Horrible design and interior. Not worthy of the GTO nameplate.

The interior was the best in the gm lineup at the time, better then any vette or caddy.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Because it’s history and heritage is all about some of the best gasoline engines ever made. Every great car in history has cemented its place there with gasoline engines. So it will be very hard for the general public to accept them with electric motors.

Again, I don’t think anyone here is saying don’t build electric cars. Just don’t put the Camaro nameplate on them.

I will be curious as to just exactly what Ford does with their “Mustang” SUV after a couple years. I know the hate mail is flowing in as we speak.

I disagree. Camaro has always been a statement of style and performance. It had a gas engine because everything has a gas engine. 4, 6 and 8 cylinders. Na, turbo and supercharged. Manual and automatic. Seems like it's already casting a pretty wide net already.

Electric Mustang is getting hatemail because it's a crossover.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

That would make it a completely DIFFERENT car, now wouldn't it?

There will be pushback from the diehard Camaro community if GM even thinks about making a Camaro - even a singular trim or version - with so much as electric assist or hybrid.

If you don't understand that, consider the fact that the current Camaro design was made with significant input from the Camaro community.

If GM goes away from that, and decides to ignore the Camaro community, they're going to get the wrath of God.

It must be either kept 100% internal combustion 4 stroke gasoline engine and ONLY ICE with ZERO alternative assist, or the nameplate MUST be retired.

There is no other option.

You can speak for yourself but not others.

Listening to the Camaro faithful is what got them in this mess to begin with, if they have half a brain they're going to speak to more than the couple people buying Camaros

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

My point exactly. I LOVE the original 1964-71 GTOs. Most people do. Many are extremely collectible and sought after.

To a T everyone who loves the original GTO HATED the ‘04-06 model, myself included. Great bones. Great engine/transmission combination. Horrible design and interior. Not worthy of the GTO nameplate.

I had a 70 GTO. And a 2005. Loved both and the 2005 GTO has an amazing interior, far far better than the 2010 Camaro.

If you don't think it was worthy of the nameplate you completely missed what the GTO was.

Again, stop speaking for others.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

The real issue with EV's is infrastructure. It's a catch 22. Fuel stations are not going to fully invest in charging stations until there enough EV's on the road. And people are not going to buy 'enough' EV's until they are sure they can recharge on the road. Then there might be that issue where that station only has one or maybe two charging stations. The thirty minute equation gets longer if you are #2, or #3 in line, you go from 30 minutes to two hours.

While EV volume is low (currently less than 2% of vehicles sold per year) that is a non-issue. In the meantime, most locations that are adding charging stations are not adding single charge points, they’re adding multiple charge points, so the odds of pulling into one exactly the moment after all the outlets were simultaneously taken is pretty small.

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

While the EV can be charged, at home, overnight, that concept severely limits who can buy an EV. People who live in multi-family communities don't have the ability to charge overnight. There are a lot of people in this situation, and this is a major hurdle in the progress of mass EV sales.

Limits? Yes, absolutely. Severely? No. But enough to ensure that ICE vehicles will be around for a long time. EV is not the answer for a lot of people. And it is the absolute best answer for a lot of people. Usually these discussions turn into “ICEs will be banned and everybody will be forced to have one” versus “No infrastructure + electricity is generated from coal so it’s dirtier than gas” arguments. Thing is, neither of those extremes is true. EVs are getting better at a rapid rate. Also ICE technology is advancing impressively, though at a slower rate. Both variants will be around. My company is not forecasting > 10% EV penetration before 2026. We don’t forecast out far enough to accurately suggest when it will be 100% (because it probably never will be)

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

Then of course there is battery production, the finding and mining the rare minerals involved, and how much of these minerals actually exist. Then there is the problem with battery disposal when they die. Not to mention the increased demands on the power grid.

GM just recently had their EV Day for media and investors. I was just watching the video again yesterday. Here’s a few points from their discussion

1. The Lordstown, Ohio battery plant they are currently building will have the capacity to produce 30 gWh of battery capacity per year.
2. That translates to 1/4 billion cells/yr
3. Their newest battery chemistry is NMCA. That means Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt, Aluminum. It’s chemistry involves a 70% reduction in cobalt from the batteries currently used in the Chevrolet Bolt EV. Development continues to reduce the requirements for hard to mine elements.
4. They are working towards development of cathodes that require 0% cobalt and 0% nickel.
5. GM has re-purposed 100% of the batteries replaced in Chevrolet Volts and Bolts, both company owned development vehicle and customer owned vehicles with batteries replaced under warranty. Batteries have an 8 year warranty, so that is pretty much every Volt and Bolt ever produced. Since 2010.

At the end of the day, the battery capacity / mineral content issue is a producer problem, not a consumer problem. If it is the problem that you suggest it is, then the EV problem takes care of itself. There won’t be enough material to produce enough batteries to displace ICE cars. Until there is.

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

Now, I am certain that there many high level engineers, scientists, and developers working hard on all of these hurdles. But the rubber meets the road when money enters the picture. Thus the catch 22, investment on one side of the equation depends on the certainty of the other side. It seems to me that you need a little more than an "If you build it they will come" mentality to get investment necessary to ignite the global change.

Of course, the automobile itself, the light bulb, the telephone, heck, even the wheel had hurdles in the beginning.

Spot on. The investment is already there on the infrastructure end. BMW, Volkswagen, Porsche, GM, Ford, Volvo. Just a few of the brands that have invested money into construction of fast-charging infrastructure across the US.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by IOMike

You can speak for yourself but not others.

Listening to the Camaro faithful is what got them in this mess to begin with, if they have half a brain they're going to speak to more than the couple people buying Camaros

Originally Posted by IOMike

I had a 70 GTO. And a 2005. Loved both and the 2005 GTO has an amazing interior, far far better than the 2010 Camaro.

If you don't think it was worthy of the nameplate you completely missed what the GTO was.

Again, stop speaking for others.

I'm not the only one who didn't like the new GTO. You like yours, many people didn't like them at all.

The '04-06 GTO was panned for it's generic styling and very plasticy interior. Again, the chassis and drivetrain are great, no one argues about that. But it's execution was just bad.The 2010 Camaro interior wasn't very good either so it's kind of a wash. I did like the automatic forward releasing seats in the GTO though, that was a very good idea that all coupes should have adapted by now.

[pyroguy]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

My point exactly. I LOVE the original 1964-71 GTOs. Most people do. Many are extremely collectible and sought after.

To a T everyone who loves the original GTO HATED the ‘04-06 model, myself included. Great bones. Great engine/transmission combination. Horrible design and interior. Not worthy of the GTO nameplate.

For me I loved the '66-'69. The taillights on the early 1st gen GTO's didn't do it for me and after '69 I didn't care for the 2nd gens as much.

Conversely, I actually liked the '05-'06 GTO's. I didn't care too much for the '04 because it literally was an oversized Sunfire with a LS1. I just wish they had come up with something original and gave it some styling. The '05-'06 at least had some hood scoops and dual exhaust that actually looked like dual exhaust. What genius decided to put dual exhaust exiting on the same side through tiny pipes?

I just want to see something that is epic from my generation. Those that grew up in the 60's had 409 Impalas, the dawn of the GTO, 442, Chevelle, GSX, the awesome Nova, Mustang, Challenger, Road Runner, Charger, Yenko Chevy, Berger Chevy, Gibb Chevy, etc. Those born in the 70's have the Buick Grand National and GNX to be proud of, but it was killed off and the Regal is kind of lame now and disappearing again. The 1 thing to come out of my generation, which is pretty significant, is the LS engine platform. However, why can't we have something original, iconic, AND new to drive? Yes the LS is a great platform, but the newest LT is starting to make it obsolete. Give me a truly iconic new idea or something at least mostly new like my idea of calling the EV muscle car the Panther and keep the trend going with awesomeness instead of copy and paste previous generation's icons.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Limits? Yes, absolutely. Severely? No. But enough to ensure that ICE vehicles will be around for a long time. EV is not the answer for a lot of people. And it is the absolute best answer for a lot of people.

Usually these discussions turn into “ICEs will be banned and everybody will be forced to have one” versus “No infrastructure + electricity is generated from coal so it’s dirtier than gas” arguments. Thing is, neither of those extremes is true.

No severe problems or extremes?....Then why are they working on solving them?

It's not the answer for some, but the answer for a lot?....OK, but is there really a question in the first place?

EVs will lose their attraction without subsidies, tax-breaks, commuter perks, etc, and will surely be heavily taxed and regulated based on miles driven, etc. The electricity used at a charging station can easily be made more expensive than a gallon of gas, and shut off and unavailable for a variety of unforeseen reasons. There is no competitive or economic reason to go electric over ICE. Say what you want about gas, but overall it has been the best, least expensive and reliable source of transportation energy.
EV needs to be artificially promoted by govt to be a success. An open market will not support it alone. At some point, ICE will have to be banned. That's not what they are calling for now, but it is subtly happening with the future models and baked in decisions to go all electric at some point in the years ahead....Like the next Gen Camaro, perhaps.

[mikeman]

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Because every time GM brings back a retired nameplate people ask why? '04-'06 GTO, looked like a giant Sunfire, people say why?; '80's Nova, 4 cylinder econo car that SUCKED, people asked why?; Buick Regal came back, it's a front wheel drive Chevy Cruze equivalent, people asked why?; Blazer came back, looks like a bigger Equinox/small Traverse instead of a K5 Blazer, people asked why? The list goes on, but my point is the same as Hollywood movie producers. Can't you figure out something creative that is original and not just a revival of something old? Stop reliving the "glory days" and build something that makes the next generation want to copy you.

Lol! I agree, especially regarding the GTO. However, at least it gave us a 2 dr RWD coupe with a big V8 engine unlike the FWD only W-body Monte Carlo SS. The Nova was an egregious example though. That was just slapping the Nova badge on an import. And, they say the Cimmaron was bad. At least it was a GM sourced design. GM was trying everything under the sun to raise their CAFE numbers back then.

I never expected the Regal to go back to RWD though. Once that model turned FWD in '88, there was no turning back. GM was all about FWD except for the Camaro, Corvette and the trucks. It was Bob Lutz who brought the Holden Monaro based GTO over here. Even though it looked very bland for the U.S. market, I'm glad he did it. You can take this sentiment one step further and talk about how they used the "SS" nameplate on everything as well. From trucks to 4 door sedans, it got kind of ridiculous.

The new Blazer could've been a modern interpretion of the classic K5 Blazer, but you know what? I bet it probably wouldn't have sold for chit. The Camaro like front grill styling on the current CUV Blazer foreshadows what may be coming to the Camaro nameplate in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but with 6th gen sales tanking the way they have been the last few years, I see no other choice.

[AZCamaroFan]

i wish that was the Camaro front end. a Blazer shouldn't look more modern than a Camaro.