[ItsChristianInHD]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I may sound like a heretic, but I see nothing wrong with two nice and small electric motors on the front wheels just to help launch the car and accelerate at wide open throttle in 1st and 2nd, which is impossible on a RWD platform given current horsepower levels that the public desires (800-1000 hp).

If the powertrain fusion software is half decent, it will automatically adapt to any ICE power mods, too.

Correct me if Im wrong but isn't there such thing as a EDiff/Hybrid diff? That could be a way to make the car hybrid with the next generation V8.

Although, costs. You can't make the Camaro too expensive because you're better off buying a C8/C9.

My ideas for a next lineup would be Turbo, 6th gen V8 on alpha 2 or VSSR reuse parts and platform for costs. Fix the practicality issues with 6. Then, BEV or PHEV sedan (CT inspired) for the bean counters. Not a SUV.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by RIPws6

There’s alot of Mach E’s sitting on lots right now and they have a recall problem.
They are horrible at maintaining value. The 3 year old Mach E depreciation rate is 46%!
No thanks. I’d stay away from that biz model.

You already have that biz model. Most vehicles have a poor 3-year depreciation rate.

From Kelley Blue Book…

3 year depreciation rate for a 2020 (1st year) Mustang Mach E:
A 2020 Ford Mustang Mach-E is estimated to have a 3-year depreciation of around 50%. This means that, after three years, the car's resale value is approximately half of its original price. Several sources indicate the resale value after 3 years could be around $18,987.

3 year depreciation rate for a 2019 Camaro SS (your car):
A 2019 Chevrolet Camaro SS has depreciated by roughly 44% over the last 3 years, with an average loss of value of $10,613, according to Kelley Blue Book. Its current resale value is around $13,365 and trade-in value is $11,999. This means the car has lost a significant portion of its initial value in a relatively short time.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I may sound like a heretic, but I see nothing wrong with two nice and small electric motors on the front wheels just to help launch the car and accelerate at wide open throttle in 1st and 2nd, which is impossible on a RWD platform given current horsepower levels that the public desires (800-1000 hp).

If the powertrain fusion software is half decent, it will automatically adapt to any ICE power mods, too.

This is the Corvette ERay formula.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Bad Anvil Garage

Reuss has to have seen the endless ridicule the EV Challenger has been getting. No way they do an electric Camaro. Maybe hybrid, but then it'll be too expensive for a new generation and maybe lose the enthusiasts with a design that goes away from the true Camaro look and feel. I just don't see it happening. Nobody wants cars any more. Unless the damned crossover SUV craze dies off, there will be no new Camaro worth it's salt.

TBH - Most of the problems with the Daytona Charger EV are problems of execution, not concept. GM has already demonstrated with Blazer EV SS and Cadillac Lyriq V-Series and the soon-to-be launched Cadillac Optiq V-Series that they know how to execute performance in an EV setup.

Charger Daytona EV and Jeep Wagoneer S EV also both demonstrate that Stellantis set their pricing targets BEFORE Tesla started slashing their prices in $5,000 chunks and GM also reduced their prices as volume increased. So launch editions of both vehicles were in the $80k range. Roughly $20k above the Tesla Model 3 Performance (Charger Daytona) and $12k more than a top trim (except V-Series) Cadillac Lyriq. They are scrambling now to re-rack their pricing. The Wagoneer S is actually a really solid vehicle. But not at $12k more than a Lyriq by any stretch of the imagination. I would not be surprised to see a Chevrolet performance sedan series, named Camaro or otherwise, that features a plug-in hybrid or REEV and a full BEV. Part of what has killed sedans and coupes is CAFE regulation by vehicle footprint. That is all but a non-issue with EV sedans. Model 3 including Model 3 Performance have no trouble selling.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Given the track record GM has with their software development, half decent is a pie-in-the-sky dream that will never materialize.

Originally Posted by ember1205

But the comment was about -GM's- software that they would need to develop.

Both Equinox EV and most notably Blazer EV launched with significant software problems. The Blazer launch even had to be stopped and re-started while GM fixed the software. The overwhelming opinion of automotive journalists and GM EV customers (of which I am one) is that GM has done a stellar job of fixing those things. The performance of the 17.1” infotainment screen is constantly reviewed as top notch. That has been my experience with it in my car.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by N Camarolina

Is the population at large demanding 1000HP? I don't think so. This is the same population that currently enjoys SUVs and cross-overs so much that it's cannibalized the sedan and sports car market.

Is the "sporty" car enthusiast subgroup demanding 1000HP? I doubt it. This group is likely pretty happy with a FWD high powered 4 banger, maybe with a turbo.

My suspicion is that this is the result of the EPA and not "direct" preference by consumers. What I mean by that is their unrealistic expectations for tailpipe emissions reductions in -CARS- (coupes and sedans) resulted in underperforming, anemic vehicles like the FWD, low-HP car you're alluding to. The rest are not happy with that kind of performance and shifted over to crossovers, SUV's, and actual trucks because they are all classified by the EPA as -TRUCKS- and don't have the same requirements around tailpipe emissions.

The result of the EPA fining manufacturers that couldn't adhere to the extremely strict standards while still building a car people would buy resulted in manufacturers shifting their efforts over to the other vehicle types since people were happy to buy them as long as they had some performance aspect to them that was being lost in coupes and sedans.

The EPA tried to over-regulate tailpipe emissions numbers, manufacturers were no longer able to build cars people would buy, they shifted to building more "trucks" (which people WOULD buy), and the reduction in emissions was essentially lost. The law of unintended consequences on display...

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Both Equinox EV and most notably Blazer EV launched with significant software problems. The Blazer launch even had to be stopped and re-started while GM fixed the software. The overwhelming opinion of automotive journalists and GM EV customers (of which I am one) is that GM has done a stellar job of fixing those things. The performance of the 17.1” infotainment screen is constantly reviewed as top notch. That has been my experience with it in my car.

And yet, GM can't figure out how to eliminate the raspy crackling noise in my bluetooth audio from phone calls (which they introduced with an update), can't figure out how to stop my wipers from turning on randomly when I use my turn signal, and a host of other problems that have persisted in the currrent models for excessive lengths of time. The very fact that every EV launch was massively plagued with issues reinforces my point, and I would actually be curious to see genuine evidence that GM fixed these problems (which they wouldn't have had to fix these abominations if they actually developed and QA'ed their software correctly in the first place).

I would rather GM produce a vehicle with software that generally works and make minor tweaks to correct for edge cases that may not have been easy to pass through QA as opposed to being sold a turd and then waiting for GM to send the polishing crew to my house to make it shiny (but still a turd).

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by ember1205

... GM can't figure out how to eliminate the raspy crackling noise in my bluetooth audio from phone calls (which they introduced with an update), can't figure out how to stop my wipers from turning on randomly when I use my turn signal,

Your issue might not be software related.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/20...17766-9999.pdf

Read the red text, bottom paragraph, and then check your grounds (i.e. G106).

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

Your issue might not be software related.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/20...17766-9999.pdf

Read the red text, bottom paragraph, and then check your grounds (i.e. G106).

Appreciate the link, but my issue A) is not in my Camaro and B) was not present until a recent software update was applied. This issue has been well-discussed in the Silverado and Sierra forums as being caused by the update with no fix.

[olrocker]

Now that CAFE is basically toast (part of the BBB is no auto manufacturer who failed to meet CAFE standards for the last 3 years is required to pay any federal fines, and fines are essentially eliminated completely moving forward) building a simple V6 or V8 like the 3800 or LS1 350 with reduced complexity, fewer emission controls, and hence cheaper to engineer and produce should be a future focus for GM.

We no longer need sensors and computer controlled air and fuel metering at every step in the internal combustion process. In fact, Ohio is working on eliminating e-check and emission inspections for tag renewals all together. Which means, as my uncle did with my Dad’s ‘74 Nova 350 when he bought it, we can go back to removing our catalytic converters with zero state or federal issues.

My point is, we should be going back to small blocks that are easy and cheap for GM to design, engineer, build, hence cheap for customers to buy.

A fully loaded Camaro SS with a 400 hp V8 for $35,000 should not be out of reach for GM to produce, now that the BBB is law.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Now that CAFE is basically toast (part of the BBB is no auto manufacturer who failed to meet CAFE standards for the last 3 years is required to pay any federal fines, and fines are essentially eliminated completely moving forward) building a simple V6 or V8 like the 3800 or LS1 350 with reduced complexity, fewer emission controls, and hence cheaper to engineer and produce should be a future focus for GM.

We no longer need sensors and computer controlled air and fuel metering at every step in the internal combustion process. In fact, Ohio is working on eliminating e-check and emission inspections for tag renewals all together. Which means, as my uncle did with my Dad’s ‘74 Nova 350 when he bought it, we can go back to removing our catalytic converters with zero state or federal issues.

My point is, we should be going back to small blocks that are easy and cheap for GM to design, engineer, build, hence cheap for customers to buy.

A fully loaded Camaro SS with a 400 hp V8 for $35,000 should not be out of reach for GM to produce, now that the BBB is law.

The problem with that line of thinking is that just as quickly as Trump change the rules in this administration, the next president can change them back. There are midterms coming in a year and a half that, if history tracks, could flip the House, or the Senate or both. It would take GM at least 3 or 4 years to “revive” a 3800 type engine. A bit less to increase production of an existing product like HFV6. But then you have to engineer it into a vehicle and go through validation. You are easily into 2028/29 before anything hits the streets.

And all that is assuming the planners, marketing teams, financial analysts and engineers are all on the same page on Day 1. Trust me, they are not. They’ll eventually get to the same page, but it usually takes a while and a lot of give and take on all sides.

Just like IRA was the law and now BBB is the law, come 2028 something completely different could be the law.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The problem with that line of thinking is that just as quickly as Trump change the rules in this administration, the next president can change them back. There are midterms coming in a year and a half that, if history tracks, could flip the House, or the Senate or both. It would take GM at least 3 or 4 years to “revive” a 3800 type engine. A bit less to increase production of an existing product like HFV6. But then you have to engineer it into a vehicle and go through validation. You are easily into 2028/29 before anything hits the streets.

And all that is assuming the planners, marketing teams, financial analysts and engineers are all on the same page on Day 1. Trust me, they are not. They’ll eventually get to the same page, but it usually takes a while and a lot of give and take on all sides.

Just like IRA was the law and now BBB is the law, come 2028 something completely different could be the law.

If it was an executive order yes, it could be overturned. But the BBB is LAW now. Which means to over turn it would require the Senate and House to agree as well as the President to sign off on it it.

So even if the Democrats take back the House and Senate these mid-terms Trump is never going to sign off. And the odds of any Democrat winning in the 2028 election right now are pretty darn slim. Outside of New York and California, they’re polling at an all-time low.

So the odds of CAFE ever returning to previous standards or getting any more stringent in the next ten years are slim to none. That is not just hyperbole, that’s based on facts as they’ve unfolded how our country’s policies are enacted.

CAFE is for all intents and purposes done.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The problem with that line of thinking is that just as quickly as Trump change the rules in this administration, the next president can change them back. There are midterms coming in a year and a half that, if history tracks, could flip the House, or the Senate or both. It would take GM at least 3 or 4 years to “revive” a 3800 type engine. A bit less to increase production of an existing product like HFV6. But then you have to engineer it into a vehicle and go through validation. You are easily into 2028/29 before anything hits the streets.

And all that is assuming the planners, marketing teams, financial analysts and engineers are all on the same page on Day 1. Trust me, they are not. They’ll eventually get to the same page, but it usually takes a while and a lot of give and take on all sides.

Just like IRA was the law and now BBB is the law, come 2028 something completely different could be the law.

And why would it take GM 3-4 years to revive the 3800??? Dud they just melt and crush all the tool and dies?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

If it was an executive order yes, it could be overturned. But the BBB is LAW now. Which means to over turn it would require the Senate and House to agree as well as the President to sign off on it it.

So even if the Democrats take back the House and Senate these mid-terms Trump is never going to sign off. And the odds of any Democrat winning in the 2028 election right now are pretty darn slim. Outside of New York and California, they’re polling at an all-time low.

So the odds of CAFE ever returning to previous standards or getting any more stringent in the next ten years are slim to none. That is not just hyperbole, that’s based on facts as they’ve unfolded how our country’s policies are enacted.

CAFE is for all intents and purposes done.

Internal Revenue Act was also law. Enacted by the Biden Administration. Many of the elements of BBB specifically remove elements of IRA. Next administration can come in with a CCC (Comprehensive Car Code?) that specifically removes elements of BBB.

Likewise, Obama Administration wrote strict EPA and NHTSA targets into law. Trump 45 loosened those targets. Biden Administration toughened those targets. Trump 47 loosened those targets. Seeing a pattern here? Next administration, whomever that may be, can just as easily tighten things up again.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

And why would it take GM 3-4 years to revive the 3800??? Dud they just melt and crush all the tool and dies?

3-4 years would actually be lowballing it. It is never gonna happen.

1. Tooling no longer exists
2. Manufacturing location (Flint V6 plant) no longer exist
3. Engineering team no longer exists.
4. Last version of the 3800 that was produced was super old in terms of included technology. Simpler to just start with a blank sheet of paper.
5. 3800 was a 90-degree V6. I don’t think anyone makes a 90-degree V6 anymore. Since most cars are FWD, a 90-degree bank angle pushes the front end out too far, especially for newer designs that look to reduce front overhang.
6. Cars as designed today would not be able to package the 3800, so you’d have to start with a clean sheet of paper vehicle. The closest GM would have to that would be the HFV6, which is already pretty old in terms of technology content or to develop inline 6 cylinder engines off of the CCS engines that they currently produce. And that is what they are already doing. The 3.0D for the Silverado 1500 / Sierra 1500 are the same basic cylinder design as the 2.0, 2.5 and 2.7L L4 engines that power most of GM’s fleet. Just two more cylinders. Same thing with Stellantis Hurricane. Modular design with multiple boosting options.