[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Mark R

LOL. But could you drive your Camaro through the chemical spill on your way to California to save that bank? That is the question on my mind.

Depends…GY Supercar3 or Conti ExtremeContact? You’d probably make it on the Contis, but the GY SC3 wet performance might tank you.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Matos1LE

Yep, this thread derailed rather quickly

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Au contraire, I think it's still very much on track

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Matos1LE

Yep, this thread derailed rather quickly

What a trainwreck.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by N Camarolina

I'm sure there's an element of truth to this, but it isn't the only factor that determines what's put up for sale in the market place, not by a long shot.

Take for example the rise of the SUV (I like this example in particular because I hate SUVs, even though we own one). The concept first appeared in the late 80s. Heavily advertised over the next 20 years. By the early 2000s, they had certainly caught on, but there were still plenty of sedans and sports cars being built each year. Fast forward to the 2010s and sedan/sports car market sees decreasing demand and dwindling new offerings. Today it seems nearly everyone is perfectly happy either driving a boring SUV or an oversized pick up truck (most guys aren't even hauling anything in them). I don't think the government had much to do with these changes (think about it, these vehicles are less fuel efficient than a sedan, so why would the government promote or engineer their demise). It's just humans having preferences in the type of vehicle they drive and/or responding to advertising.

CAFE gives mpg breaks for height (CUV, trucks) or footprint (double, crewcabs). Government had a lot to do with segment or body style strength.

Ever drive a truck and notice calm air in the front of an 8' bed? Crew cab shorty beds are the Prius bodies of the pickup world.

Vehicle trend ironies:
-That many crossover buyers are green virtue signalers, overpaying for less mpg.
-That pickup buyers care about over-regulation, only since they're the last ones getting handcuffed.

Trucks will be hurt by banks tightening lending for vehicles and homes, or worse inflation outpacing income.

[taylorforschool@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by genxer

CAFE gives mpg breaks for height (CUV, trucks) or footprint (double, crewcabs). Government had a lot to do with segment or body style strength.

Ever drive a truck and notice calm air in the front of an 8' bed? Crew cab shorty beds are the Prius bodies of the pickup world.

Vehicle trend ironies:
-That many crossover buyers are green virtue signalers, overpaying for less mpg.
-That pickup buyers care about over-regulation, only since they're the last ones getting handcuffed.

Trucks will be hurt by banks tightening lending for vehicles and homes, or worse inflation outpacing income.

Inflation has already been consistently outpacing the COLA raises under my current contract with my employer.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

CAFE gives mpg breaks for height (CUV, trucks) or footprint (double, crewcabs). Government had a lot to do with segment or body style strength.

Ever drive a truck and notice calm air in the front of an 8' bed? Crew cab shorty beds are the Prius bodies of the pickup world.

Vehicle trend ironies:
-That many crossover buyers are green virtue signalers, overpaying for less mpg.
-That pickup buyers care about over-regulation, only since they're the last ones getting handcuffed.

Trucks will be hurt by banks tightening lending for vehicles and homes, or worse inflation outpacing income.

Interesting how this part came about. While the government had to “sign off” on it, the pen was pretty much held by domestic OEM lobbying groups. The original versions of the legislation would have pushed everyone to smaller cars, ala 1977. The lobbying groups were successful in pointing out that this would essentially kill the pickup truck market and that pickup trucks were not only the essential element in the profitability and jobs outlook for domestic automakers, but a required part of the US economy.

Pickup sales are, for example, tightly tied to housing starts which are basically the canary in the coal mine of US economic forecasting. So government agencies agreed to the footprint approach which prescribed lower fuel economy targets for vehicles with larger shadow areas (roughly wheelbase x track). Smaller vehicles like Cruze and Focus would need to meet the targets on the left side of the chart. Larger vehicles like pickups and SUVs would need to meet the targets moving towards the right of the chart. One of the reasons Cruze and Focus exist no more and pickups and SUVs are offered in 31 flavors. To spice things up a bit, Cars and Trucks follow different curves. This is the curve for Cars. Trucks have lower targets just for being trucks. So a sedan with a 45 sqft shadow area will have a more difficult fuel economy target than a CUV with a 45 sgft shadow area because it has a lower target on the Truck FE curve than the sedan has on the Car FE curve. Any wonder why CUVs are blowing up while sedans (and coupes) are dying off?

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Interesting how this part came about. While the government had to “sign off” on it, the pen was pretty much held by domestic OEM lobbying groups. The original versions of the legislation would have pushed everyone to smaller cars, ala 1977. The lobbying groups were successful in pointing out that this would essentially kill the pickup truck market and that pickup trucks were not only the essential element in the profitability and jobs outlook for domestic automakers, but a required part of the US economy.

Pickup sales are, for example, tightly tied to housing starts which are basically the canary in the coal mine of US economic forecasting. So government agencies agreed to the footprint approach which prescribed lower fuel economy targets for vehicles with larger shadow areas (roughly wheelbase x track). Smaller vehicles like Cruze and Focus would need to meet the targets on the left side of the chart. Larger vehicles like pickups and SUVs would need to meet the targets moving towards the right of the chart. One of the reasons Cruze and Focus exist no more and pickups and SUVs are offered in 31 flavors. To spice things up a bit, Cars and Trucks follow different curves. This is the curve for Cars. Trucks have lower targets just for being trucks. So a sedan with a 45 sqft shadow area will have a more difficult fuel economy target than a CUV with a 45 sgft shadow area because it has a lower target on the Truck FE curve than the sedan has on the Car FE curve. Any wonder why CUVs are blowing up while sedans (and coupes) are dying off?

Thanks a lot for the insight, James. This is a perfect illustration of how "market" trends are essentially dictated, with the federal government knowingly stipulating requirements that are impossible to meet using internal combustion.

I mean, one could draw up similar maximum charging time legislation that would outlaw electric vehicles if that's what they wanted to achieve. Start from 20 hours to 100%, then progressively ramp it down to 10 milliseconds in the end, "job" "done". Or maximum battery weight, which also has a lot to do with environmental damage. I'm sure anyone could come up with many more of these "ideas".

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Pickup sales are, for example, tightly tied to housing starts which are basically the canary in the coal mine of US economic forecasting.

https://www.census.gov/construction/...ewresconst.pdf

[JoeTX]

sell the car and let someone else enjoy it since you aren't liking the looks.
When i drive my car i get a lot of looks and thumbs up and not many people drive Camaros so it's unique in its on way, i don't understand what people complain about the visibility issues when i have no issues at all.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Any wonder why CUVs are blowing up while sedans (and coupes) are dying off?

It seems like a lot of people genuinely prefer the CUV form factor over a sedan due to the higher seating position, and perceived utility value of more ground clearance, interior space, and often AWD/4WD. A lot of the same reasons tons of people have full size pickups as their only vehicle.

It's certainly true that small cars are less profitable and it's difficult if not impossible to compete with Japanese imports on price due to the differing financial burdens of Japanese vs US auto mfg'ers, but I'm not sure the gov't regs are/were required to push people into larger and more profitable vehicles.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by JoeTX

sell the car and let someone else enjoy it since you aren't liking the looks.
When i drive my car i get a lot of looks and thumbs up and not many people drive Camaros so it's unique in its on way, i don't understand what people complain about the visibility issues when i have no issues at all.

Not sure if it’s this forum or another car forum where the general consensus is “if you don’t look back at your car every time you park it, you bought the wrong car”. Seems to apply here.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not sure if it’s this forum or another car forum where the general consensus is “if you don’t look back at your car every time you park it, you bought the wrong car”. Seems to apply here.

Still applies to me, all these years later.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

It seems like a lot of people genuinely prefer the CUV form factor over a sedan due to the higher seating position, and perceived utility value of more ground clearance, interior space, and often AWD/4WD. A lot of the same reasons tons of people have full size pickups as their only vehicle.

It's certainly true that small cars are less profitable and it's difficult if not impossible to compete with Japanese imports on price due to the differing financial burdens of Japanese vs US auto mfg'ers, but I'm not sure the gov't regs are/were required to push people into larger and more profitable vehicles.

All of those things are factors pointing to why customers want and buy CUVs. The fuel economy target angle explains why the automakers are taking a more is better approach and displacing sedans in their showrooms with more and more nameplates of CUV.

Look at Buick for example. Not a single car in the showroom anymore. Just CUVs. Why couldn’t they have three CUVs and a sedan? Because four CUVs is better for CAFE. Fast forward a few years…you know what is on the horizon for Buick? A sedan EV. Because in EV world, footprint doesn’t impact FE targets. Even Chevrolet is down to one coupe, one sedan, and six CUVs. Didn’t include Corvette in this count because it’s its own thing. But, like Buick, there are additional sedans planned in the Chevrolet EV portfolio.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

All of those things are factors pointing to why customers want and buy CUVs. The fuel economy target angle explains why the automakers are taking a more is better approach and displacing sedans in their showrooms with more and more nameplates of CUV.

Look at Buick for example. Not a single car in the showroom anymore. Just CUVs. Why couldn’t they have three CUVs and a sedan? Because four CUVs is better for CAFE. Fast forward a few years…you know what is on the horizon for Buick? A sedan EV. Because in EV world, footprint doesn’t impact FE targets. Even Chevrolet is down to one coupe, one sedan, and six CUVs. Didn’t include Corvette in this count because it’s its own thing. But, like Buick, there are additional sedans planned in the Chevrolet EV portfolio.

True, but isn't that from sedans just not selling anymore? Ford also killed all its cars but Mustang and they claim its a result of poor sales numbers.

For Camaro, I hope once Corvette becomes it's own brand they will have room for a less expensive front engine, rear drive car similar to the Camaro once Camaro gets converted to EV, but it seems unlikely... OTOH, they do still have the Caddies in production, so a parts-bin ICE-powered Corvette GT car seems like a possibility.

On EV sedans, I have to think that's for a couple reasons... competing with Tesla Model S and Model 3, as well as maximizing range. IMO Lucid made a mistake and their first vehicle should have been a CUV, SUV or truck. Rivian's market entrance seems to be going far better than Lucid and I think that's because people just want trucks and SUVs.