[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I live in California.

Today’s power grid can’t handle today’s needs. California can’t meet the demands of its citizens now. It won’t be able to handle the population growth AND addition of electric cars.

Population growth? I thought everyone was leaving California.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by ZED SLED

You left off the Nova, that joint venture abomination between Toyota and Chevrolet, otherwise known as the Toy-Let

Nova existed prior to re use of the name in the Toyota JV.

[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by puppykat33

well gents its not the performance aspect most have a problem with. The ISSUE MOST people have a problem with is the gov mandating this EV crap on the premis that it is better for the environment which if you have done any real research into lithium you would know it is in fact NOT better. It takes massive amounts of energy to properly dispose of, and it and puts off toxic gases that are worse for the environment than the emission put out by car engines. The reason you don't hear about it is that no one is effectively disposing of these lithium battery's yet, they are just piling up... I think china has some 5 million tons per yer produced and just sitting around because they cant dispose of it properly. Not to mention the lithium mines are horrific.. so this is the problem, when the government say its better and low information masses of people just buy what they are selling without actually looking into it.


The problem with agendas pushed like this is the people pushing them rarely ever consider the 2nd 3rd 4th order long term consequences of them. So lets take California's no gas engines by 2025/2035 and play a game. 1st order effect= all gas engine producers/manufactures in the state will half to close or convert resulting a loss of jobs, Gas engine aftermarket parts industries again loss of jobs. 2nd = gas stations will now half to convert to charging stations/gas stations in turn the price goes up of they simply close because they cant afford to keep up again loss of jobs. 3rd=price/cost for truckers delivering goods to the state will go up due to increased fuel cost in the state so now the price of everything goes up. 4th California already has an unstable power grid which cannot keep up with current demand at times so where are they going to find all the extra power so ppl can charge their cars at night? 5th since we have established the 1000% increase in demand for power where will it come from? are they going to build a nuclear plant? Hydro? ??? All horrible for the enviroment.. ALL of which defeat the clean green power initiate which they are trying to accomplish. not to mention how toxic lithium production/disposal is
Wake up people and research for your self.

I could go into who holds controlling interest in lithium ie stock holders from mining to charging stations and i bet you will find a lot of senators with stock holdings in these markets but this sounds like conspiracy theory and i like to just stick with FACTS
FACT= EV is not better for the environment..

FACT= since most of the us power comes from fossil fuels you are actually putting off more pollution charging your car than if you had a regular engine. Dont believe me? go look it up.


Speculation=But i bet this EV push it is better for someones wallet..

I agree it is not crystal clear on the surface how electric vehicles are better for the planet and yes you have to consider the manufacturing environmenal cost. Most likely the manufacuring costs are at least similar but EVs may be slightly more harmful over all as you point out.

But consider this, electricity is delivered by wires, not fueled vehicles, and the power could come from a wind farm. All petroleum must be pumped out of the earth and transported to the automobile point of delivery. This takes big oil tankers and refineries (have you ever been inside one?) all over the planet. And with countries like Russia and sometimes us raping the earth to get the last reserves of oil out of the earth. So gas powered vehicles are rushing towards a collapse of supply while destroying our atmosphere.

Oil is a finite resource, not infinite. So by its very nature it cannot be our final answer.

I do think science can save us and put that above discourse all to rest.

We do have inklings how there may be unlimited power in the Nano world. If we can harness that power without destroying our reality we can move on from Global Warming denial and towards world peace with hopefully a planet where abject poverty can be minimized Am I dreaming?

Flame suit on!

[c4racer]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Population growth? I thought everyone was leaving California.

oh we are, trust me

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Population growth? I thought everyone was leaving California.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=OjnrgWPxhbY

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ZED SLED

You left off the Nova, that joint venture abomination between Toyota and Chevrolet, otherwise known as the Toy-Let

You mean the one that in Spanish translates to “won’t go”? I always loved that. My neighbors when I was a kid were Puerto Rican. They got a kick out of that.

[cellsafemode]

chevy has tried and now failed twice with the camaro nameplate and their vision of what a pony car should be.

I can easily see them either retiring the name altogether because it's failed to be a successful name in it's demographic and if anything has too many negative associations in the public ... or they re-use it as a CUV which has a much broader market than the 2 door 2 seater car and hope they can re-brand it.

I can wish they dont do either, but i dont see how so long as chevy is making it.

The best option really would be that chevy sells the camaro brand to a small volume car manufacturer and that person starts making reproductions of 25 year old versions of the car with modern guts just like they're planning on doing with the delorian. But that's never going to happen.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

chevy has tried and now failed twice with the camaro nameplate and their vision of what a pony car should be.

I can easily see them either retiring the name altogether because it's failed to be a successful name in it's demographic and if anything has too many negative associations in the public ... or they re-use it as a CUV which has a much broader market than the 2 door 2 seater car and hope they can re-brand it.

I can wish they dont do either, but i dont see how so long as chevy is making it.

The best option really would be that chevy sells the camaro brand to a small volume car manufacturer and that person starts making reproductions of 25 year old versions of the car with modern guts just like they're planning on doing with the delorian. But that's never going to happen.

Camaro (the product and the name) are the tip of the tail that is or is not wagging the dog. My money is on “is not”. The dog is going to go where the dog is going to go.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

chevy has tried and now failed twice with the camaro nameplate and their vision of what a pony car should be.

I can easily see them either retiring the name altogether because it's failed to be a successful name in it's demographic and if anything has too many negative associations in the public ... or they re-use it as a CUV which has a much broader market than the 2 door 2 seater car and hope they can re-brand it.

I can wish they dont do either, but i dont see how so long as chevy is making it.

The best option really would be that chevy sells the camaro brand to a small volume car manufacturer and that person starts making reproductions of 25 year old versions of the car with modern guts just like they're planning on doing with the delorian. But that's never going to happen.

The axing of the f-body was the result of a lot of factors. Some of which was slow sales but not all, so it really wasn’t a complete failure.

At the time it was being produced there were new safety regulations coming down the pike that the F-chassis could not support. Curtain airbag and rollover protection was not possible on that platform. Also, there was a lot of politics involved with the CAW St. Therese plant.

They moved 4th Gen production there in 1992 for the 1993 model year and it was a mess from the beginning.

Then you had the 1998 suppliers strike.

Life was not smooth sailing for the last years of the f-body that were not the fault of the car itself.

[Realist]

Having owned each generation Camaro except the 2nd Gen, I honestly look forward to seeing the next generation. Really interested in seeing the next Gen ZL1 and cost.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The axing of the f-body was the result of a lot of factors. Some of which was slow sales but not all, so it really wasn’t a complete failure.

At the time it was being produced there were new safety regulations coming down the pike that the F-chassis could not support. Curtain airbag and rollover protection was not possible on that platform. Also, there was a lot of politics involved with the CAW St. Therese plant.

They moved 4th Gen production there in 1992 for the 1993 model year and it was a mess from the beginning.

Then you had the 1998 suppliers strike.

Life was not smooth sailing for the last years of the f-body that were not the fault of the car itself.

politics in a manufacturing plant doesn't really dictate how people buy cars.

The 4th gen camaro fell in sales steadily from 1996 to 2002 from a high of 66k to 28k

Meanwhile mustang remained high at roughly 120k in sales the entire same period.

The public's interest in the car lost to their interest in it's competition. I'm sure we can go hunt down some lot-time numbers from the era and show that their time on lots were increasing and so dealers were purchasing less etc etc.


Dont have numbers on the charger back that far or the challenger (since it started at 2008) but the challenger numbers have gone up since release and have stabilized at about 55-60k. Mustang has bounced back and forth between 120k and 70k over the years but it looks to be avg'ing about 75-80k.
Camaro peaked at around 88k in 2011 and has been falling since year over year.


There is either a deep seated belief in the public that turns them off from the car or chevy hasn't been in touch with the market in a long time.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Been done. Didn’t end well.



https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...en-7-car-news/

Mazda also tried it with the rotary engine as a proof of concept. They made some special RX-8 that can switch between running on hydrogen and gasoline. Not much came out of it.

Realistically, there are no reasons to run an ICE on hydrogen over an FCEV.

Sent from toaster or something

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The axing of the f-body was the result of a lot of factors. Some of which was slow sales but not all, so it really wasn’t a complete failure.

At the time it was being produced there were new safety regulations coming down the pike that the F-chassis could not support. Curtain airbag and rollover protection was not possible on that platform. Also, there was a lot of politics involved with the CAW St. Therese plant.

They moved 4th Gen production there in 1992 for the 1993 model year and it was a mess from the beginning.

Then you had the 1998 suppliers strike.

Life was not smooth sailing for the last years of the f-body that were not the fault of the car itself.

The bigger issue was never the axing of the F-body platform, it was the axing of the Sigma replacement for the F-body.

GM had a plan to replace the F-body and killed it. It lived on as the first Cadillac CTS.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The bigger issue was never the axing of the F-body platform, it was the axing of the Sigma replacement for the F-body.

GM had a plan to replace the F-body and killed it. It lived on as the first Cadillac CTS.

Man I’d love to see the renderings and prints of this as a Camaro



You have access to any of the leftovers?