[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

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.

Making something more restrictive requires more lead time, though. So, while the next president could certainly tighten things back up, timelines for implementation have to essentially be reset.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Making something more restrictive requires more lead time, though. So, while the next president could certainly tighten things back up, timelines for implementation have to essentially be reset.

Absolutely! This is way the automakers in particular are saying “Please give us one set of standards and effin’ stick to it please”.

Engineering to different sets of standards takes much longer than it takes to change the standards, even as the effective timing of the standards is pushed out. What that does is it forces the OEMs and their suppliers to invest in products and processes to meet the standards, then potentially sit on the capacity for a year or three longer as the can gets kicked down the road.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

3-4 years would actually be lowballing it. It is never gonna happen.
[LIST=1][*]Tooling no longer exists[*]Manufacturing location (Flint V6 plant) no longer exist

Ok but they still have the blueprints right? Does GM h just incinerate EVERYTHING when they end production of something?

We don’t need “new” or “modern” technology in engines. 70 mph is the same today in a brand new Celestiq EV at is was in a ‘65 Fleetwood with a 429 and a 4 bbl. We just need simple, cheap, low tech motors that are super reliable but cheap and easy to fix when they break.

There’s no reason the average new car price today be $42,000.

Technology is forest for those who want it or can afford it.

But GM should be producing a full size SUV with a V6 or V8 gasoline engine for less than $40,000 FULLY LOADED.

Hell it wasn’t that long ago you could buy a brand new Tahoe for $35k…… now they’re f’n $65-80k!!!!!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Ok but they still have the blueprints right? Does GM h just incinerate EVERYTHING when they end production of something?

We don’t need “new” or “modern” technology in engines. 70 mph is the same today in a brand new Celestiq EV at is was in a ‘65 Fleetwood with a 429 and a 4 bbl. We just need simple, cheap, low tech motors that are super reliable but cheap and easy to fix when they break.

There’s no reason the average new car price today be $42,000.

Technology is forest for those who want it or can afford it.

But GM should be producing a full size SUV with a V6 or V8 gasoline engine for less than $40,000 FULLY LOADED.

Hell it wasn’t that long ago you could buy a brand new Tahoe for $35k…… now they’re f’n $65-80k!!!!!

Trust me when I say that “still have the blueprints” is the easy part. I could send you a really nice recipe (blueprint) for Beef Wellington. I would not expect for you to be able to make one for me next month.

And not to make you feel any worse about it, but the average price of a new vehicle on dealer lots today is not $42,000. That would be a bargain. It’s $49,512. Ridiculous.

[Junction65]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Ok but they still have the blueprints right? Does GM h just incinerate EVERYTHING when they end production of something?

We don’t need “new” or “modern” technology in engines. 70 mph is the same today in a brand new Celestiq EV at is was in a ‘65 Fleetwood with a 429 and a 4 bbl. We just need simple, cheap, low tech motors that are super reliable but cheap and easy to fix when they break.

There’s no reason the average new car price today be $42,000.

Technology is forest for those who want it or can afford it.

But GM should be producing a full size SUV with a V6 or V8 gasoline engine for less than $40,000 FULLY LOADED.

Hell it wasn’t that long ago you could buy a brand new Tahoe for $35k…… now they’re f’n $65-80k!!!!!

"Technology is forest"

[FarmerFran]

They now have 2024+ Mustang tuning, i suspect sales will increase.

As for another Camaro, if, if they do I bet they wait and see how the Mustang and Charger sales shake out

[genxer]

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?

If they wanted to they could. They're going to build a new gen of pushrod 8's, and a successor V6 is just a cylinder set strategy from that side of things. You might stepping on the toes of someone whose job was to kill GM's value engines. Ecoboost has to be hurting the Mustang.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Yeah, I thought about that, it'll worsen the already borderline acceptable weight ratio (56:44), unless you stow the batteries as close to the rear end as possible.

All this adds extra weight of course, which we also hate, but this "semi-AWD" setup would be able to put down more power, so there's that.

I wish none of this was necessary, but with a front engine RWD setup, you simply can't stretch things any further. Tire technology hasn't kept up with today's crazy powertrain numbers, so you need 4 driven surfaces, 2 isn't enough, because there is no weight in the rear, and you need insane initial grip for a good launch with proper weight transfer, a chicken and egg problem.

That's probably one of the reasons the Corvette had its engine moved behind the driver, the C7 ZR1 was the absolute end of the road for them (and it only had 750 hp, which is nothing these days, even my "little street fun" Camaro has that much).

I'd think high power awd with a front engine would better 'hide' weight with a sedan. Camaro should be purist rwd.

Why wouldn't you want shaft awd over the E-ray system? They already have IRS front diffs in vehicles with massive torque V8's. The previous Vette had the rear trans for balance, the GT-R proved the idea. And it's a non-exotic possibility, because they use longitudinal 4wd setups in vehicles priced down to $35k mid-size trucks.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

If they wanted to they could. They're going to build a new gen of pushrod 8's, and a successor V6 is just a cylinder set strategy from that side of things. You might stepping on the toes of someone whose job was to kill GM's value engines. Ecoboost has to be hurting the Mustang.

GM did (maybe still does?) produce a V6 off of the small block V8. The 4.3L V6 is basically a 5.7L minus two cylinders. It was always a truck engine and never went into a car. And because it, like the 3800, is a 90 degree V6, not a 60 degree V6, was never suitable for FWD products.

Not sure how EcoBoost is "hurting the Mustang" so maybe you can help detail how that is. Most of the Mustangs sold are EcoBoost. When they introduced the EcoBoost it immediately outsold the V6 which had been outselling the V8. The whole point of a base engine is to sell more cars and enable the company to sell the top line V8 products at a higher profit. The EcoBoost does that better than the V6 ever did.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by genxer

I'd think high power awd with a front engine would better 'hide' weight with a sedan. Camaro should be purist rwd.

Why wouldn't you want shaft awd over the E-ray system? They already have IRS front diffs in vehicles with massive torque V8's. The previous Vette had the rear trans for balance, the GT-R proved the idea. And it's a non-exotic possibility, because they use longitudinal 4wd setups in vehicles priced down to $35k mid-size trucks.

Because the way I look at this is we don't want AWD in a sports coupe like the Camaro, we are making a compromise to accommodate subpar tires that can't provide enough grip in certain scenarios.

Thus I'd want minimal intrusion into the proper RWD setup, for which tiny electric motors near the front wheels would be a solution where a traditional AWD setup with 1-2 extra diffs and shafts is undesired, mostly for the weight and packaging issues it causes.

Moving the trans to the rear GT-R style would help with weight distribution but it would still add so much extra weight... the Camaro is already heavy as is at 3800-4000 lbs, I'd think an extra 5-600 wouldn't exactly help. Tiny electric motors with a small battery pack, E-Ray style is where it's at IMO.

Also, my background is in software engineering, and having independent, electronic (well, semi-mechanical) control over each wheel is clearly superior to anything that came before, there is no contest.

The reason enthusiasts generally hate software based setups is because it's hardly ever done properly. I can't help but mourn all the unrealized opportunity with software, GM's focus being on the cheapest possible parts and software engineering at least 10 years behind the curve, centralized control and data mining to the detriment of the customer, rather than giving them ultimate control over the physics of their setup---the possibilities would be endless, yet here we are, companies screwing us over instead in multiple ways.

[nothing_but_troub1le]

I feel like most of us agree that IF the Camaro comes back it wont be what it was. It makes me wonder how many car enthusiasts would actually buy one, and if sales are down It could in turn kill the Camaro a second time, or worse be stuck with a Camaro that nobody wants. I dont believe GM wants another Corvette rival. I really think thats the bigger issue. But Im just guessing.

[ariZona28]

I can't understand why gm doesn't just take one of it's Cadillac sedans and downgrade the luxury, change some trim, call it an Impala and offer an SS package. No new engineering, assembly line etc. I'd still like to see an "affordable stripped down" version of the C8 Vette to get the price below $60K. That's the Chevrolet performance car. Again, no new engineering or assembly line needed. The Camaro should RIP. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be interested in a 7th Gen no matter how it's configured as the tech and gizmos are getting a bit excessive.

[DeuceCam]

The alpha platform and drivetrains are still in production with Caddy, no? The Corvette also has a few different newer V8 engine options. Considering this, there's options in the GM parts bin already that could form the basis of a new Camaro. They don't have to start from scratch. (C'mon GM, do something!)

That said, GM seems to love EV's, so I doubt any (potential) new Camaro will be similar to previous versions.

[Number 3]

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.

Are you referring to the Blazer EV and Chevy Colorado stop sale several years ago? Or just the dislike for eliminating Apple Car Play (which I would agree with). The latter however is not a software problem but maybe just a bad decision.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by ariZona28

I can't understand why gm doesn't just take one of it's Cadillac sedans and downgrade the luxury, change some trim, call it an Impala and offer an SS package. No new engineering, assembly line etc. I'd still like to see an "affordable stripped down" version of the C8 Vette to get the price below $60K. That's the Chevrolet performance car. Again, no new engineering or assembly line needed. The Camaro should RIP. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be interested in a 7th Gen no matter how it's configured as the tech and gizmos are getting a bit excessive.

Alpha is a very expensive platform to make a Chevy off of. Part of why the Camaro was so expensive. And you probably recall, the C8 started below $60k. But it's like 5 years later now? And as they did when I worked there, GM realized giving people a chance to pay less for something that is selling isn't a great business idea. We did get the Z06 out of that so it ended up being a good thing.