[GroundhogSS]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

Maybe it stands for
"goodbye Mary".

Best one yet!!!

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

Maybe it stands for
"goodbye Mary".

Goodbye Mary, goodbye Jane
Will we ever meet again
Feel no sorrow, feel no shame
Come tomorrow, feel no pain

- Supertramp

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Puddin

I'm glad y'all beat the Steelers but I don't think y'all are going to make it past the Chiefs. I think Buffalo or Kansas City are going to represent the AFC.

We're playing with house money now. KC's the team to beat for sure but now anything is possible. We went into Pittspuke without our head coach, lead assistant coach, and a key veteran offensive lineman - the guy at left tackle was literally just flown into Pittsburgh the night of the game from the practice squad list.

They should have blown us out 40-0, and I was pretty much expecting that.

We get all our guys back next week.

Who the hell is Patrick Mahomes?

[Puddin]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

We're playing with house money now. KC's the team to beat for sure but now anything is possible. We went into Pittspuke without our head coach, lead assistant coach, and a key veteran offensive lineman - the guy at left tackle was literally just flown into Pittsburgh the night of the game from the practice squad list.

They should have blown us out 40-0, and I was pretty much expecting that.

We get all our guys back next week.

Who the hell is Patrick Mahomes?

Oh he's just some guy that won the super bowl last year so no big deal. Honestly as long as Brady doesn't make it to the super bowl I don't care who wins seeing as my team didn't even make it to the play offs.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Puddin

I'm glad y'all beat the Steelers but I don't think y'all are going to make it past the Chiefs. I think Buffalo or Kansas City are going to represent the AFC.

Speaking of the Chiefs, their logo hasn't changed since 1972! It still looks good!

[Puddin]

Originally Posted by Hops

Speaking of the Chiefs, their logo hasn't changed since 1972! It still looks good!

Yep and it fits perfectly for their team. I think if GM would have done the new emblem in a way similar to the c8 emblem it wouldn't look too bad. Make it modern and have sharp edges and have it pop out at you. They can even keep the color just don't make it look so soft and bleh.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

And there are rules you gotta follow on the forum.

https://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239

(Camaro6 is under Camaro5 as far as I can tell)



We have definitely strayed from the automotive-related regulations discussions by now.

Trust me, I have been on a forum that allowed political talks for a short while. We all learned how bad of a mistake it is pretty quickly and reverted back to the no-politics rule.

Plenty of other forums that allow you to discuss politics as you please.

You can't have a "...preparation for the electric age" in a thread without politics. It's clearly a political agenda. Bread and circuses only doesn't work.
A couple fellas leaning on the b.s. mainstream narrative only served as bait towards bickering.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by genxer

You can't have a "...preparation for the electric age" in a thread without politics. It's clearly a political agenda. Bread and circuses only doesn't work.
A couple fellas leaning on the b.s. mainstream narrative only served as bait towards bickering.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of energy politics involved, but we are very, very close to an EV simply being the better mousetrap.

If you don't need the emotional or physical connection to your car, an EV at parity with an ICE (GM says Ultium gives them that) you'll just have a better transportation device for most people buying cars and SUVs. Clearly the move to SUVs indicates a high lack of interest in the things important on an enthusiast website like Camaro5/6.

And maybe it's the engineer in me, but I don't see having technical discussions about EVs having to be political. They certainly can be but it's not a requirement.

[cellsafemode]

GM making bad business decisions is certainly not new. They had a bunch of poorly performing brands they had to kill off at the turn of the century.

They've failed to be a leader in innovation and instead have focused on catering to the past with trucks and trucks and vans that have trucky frontends they call suvs - which is fine...still plenty of money in doing that still.

Even within that arena though and ignoring pollution controls they aren't in control of. GM is not doing us customers any favors. They're making things that traditionally we could modify into things we can't. Encrypted components or components that dont follow any kind of industry form factor or components that are tied into multiple systems so that one can't be dealt with without dealing with all of them (and you can't deal with all of them). Everything from the sound system to the drive train are undergoing changes in the ICE market that are openly anti-consumer.

This idea of loyalty to cars as they are pretends that we have the freedom with the cars we have like gear heads had with cars built in the 90's and earlier. We dont and it wont get better. And it's not going to be any better with electric.

at what point in the loss of control over your car do you stop caring about anything but the superficial crap ? Pretty sure this is already happening for most new new car buyers.

GM should certainly rebrand to something that appeals to all of those car buyers who have made that adjustment in priority. It's only going to grow. While those of us who care about the technical stuff continue to shrink to a minority that's irrelevant.

one bonus about being in a minority that's irrelevant is that our hobby will begin to be overlooked again rather than be checked and tested for - just gotta hang in there until that happens
edit: though we'll be modding electric motors and power controllers ... which is loads (get it) better than wrenching ICE drivetrains for anyone who doesn't have an entire body shop of tools already.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I don't disagree that there are a lot of energy politics involved, but we are very, very close to an EV simply being the better mousetrap.

If you don't need the emotional or physical connection to your car, an EV at parity with an ICE (GM says Ultium gives them that) you'll just have a better transportation device for most people buying cars and SUVs. Clearly the move to SUVs indicates a high lack of interest in the things important on an enthusiast website like Camaro5/6.

And maybe it's the engineer in me, but I don't see have technical discussions about EV having to be political. They certainly can be but it's not a requirement.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't have EVs. You know me I'm just as big of an ICE guy there is on this forum and I'm fine with EVs. They have their place and their people.

Just do NOT force them on us. THAT'S where the politics fall in to the conversation, very heavily, inescapable.

The market must be the dictator. When you start imposing the will of some of the people on everyone, well, bad things happen. You can throw your engineering background out the window. It's simply a bad idea.

I'm fine with GM making an electric car, truck, van, SUV, CUV for every type of family and for every budget. Let Cadillac offer super luxurious, high performance electric cars even. Bring on the new Hummer - that thing actually has some really neat technology for serious off roading.

But you better keep a big, massive high end internal combustion V8 for Cadillacs and pickup trucks too. The people who can afford Cadillacs do not give a turkey if gas is $5.00/gal and they require premium and get 14 mpg. They simply do not care, nor will they ever.

You better keep a big V8 for the Corvette. You better not turn the Camaro into an EV only car - offer it with EV, but the SS or Z28 must always be a big honkin, gas guzzlin internal combustion V8. Even if the EV version can blow it's doors off. The performance has a lot to do with it, but the sound and feel of a big lumpy, vibrating engine at idle has a lot to do with it as well. Maybe when everyone from not only the baby boomer generation but also Gen X and Y have all died, you might find a group of people who can justify a Camaro without an internal combustion V8. Until that day comes, you will not. Either keep it V8, or kill the car completely and put a different nameplate on the EV replacement.

Just don't let Mary turn the company into a disciple of a certain political force. That would be very, very bad.

Many of us think she already has.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The market must be the dictator. When you start imposing the will of some of the people on everyone, well, bad things happen. You can throw your engineering background out the window. It's simply a bad idea.

The market is at direct odds at what is good for them long term. That's the problem here. The market is more than happy to completely ignore the good of the future for the good of now. Throw in some dirty cheap now and even temporarily more expensive but clean future has absolutely no chance.

It's absolutely the governments job to counter that. It's the governments job to look out for the public's future. And unlike some things, we dont have time to make the alternative better than the current in the market. By then, it's too late.


It would be like not forcing everyone to buy insurance. Most people if left to their own devices would not buy insurance until they need it - which is too late for it to work. Ditching fossil fuel before you absolutely need to requires that extra intervention because if you wait until you absolutely need to, you have a dystopian scenario where the economy collapses while we scramble to replace things we didn't start replacing ahead of time because the market was fine using the existing crap that was cheaper until it couldn't.


edit: i mean if you agree that it's going to take something like 50 years for the population to be totally off gasoline powered vehicles. And you expect pollution levels to basically at best be level but more likely to increase.... then any plan to keep that pollution level (or try to decrease it) has to start 50 years before it's too late. If we were running out of gasoline, we'd have to start moving things away from it 50+ years before we got to the levels of gasoline reserves where the amount becomes too small to sustain the global economy. Basically, any good replacement has to start while the current solution still looks viable in order for you to mitigate collapsing your nation's (or the global) economy. The market is not going to make those kind of long term decisions on it's own. The future the market would create would be far worse than what we're dealing with now by having EV's helped the way they are and forced phasing out of ice.

[Jsreo]

Originally Posted by SS376

We'll have to strongly agree to disagree as far as "baseless and easily debunked claims", because that's just false. Many of the judges have indeed been biased liberals, and with the dem vote counters destroying evidence (gee, wonder why), they have made it impossible to move forward in the time that is available. And again, dems fought tooth and nail against voter ID laws (gee, wonder why).

Anyway, I'm done with conversation. Take care.

Are you a follower of QAnon by any chance?

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

The market is at direct odds at what is good for them long term. That's the problem here. The market is more than happy to completely ignore the good of the future for the good of now. Throw in some dirty cheap now and even temporarily more expensive but clean future has absolutely no chance.

It's absolutely the governments job to counter that. It's the governments job to look out for the public's future. And unlike some things, we dont have time to make the alternative better than the current in the market. By then, it's too late.


It would be like not forcing everyone to buy insurance. Most people if left to their own devices would not buy insurance until they need it - which is too late for it to work. Ditching fossil fuel before you absolutely need to requires that extra intervention because if you wait until you absolutely need to, you have a dystopian scenario where the economy collapses while we scramble to replace things we didn't start replacing ahead of time because the market was fine using the existing crap that was cheaper until it couldn't.


edit: i mean if you agree that it's going to take something like 50 years for the population to be totally off gasoline powered vehicles. And you expect pollution levels to basically at best be level but more likely to increase.... then any plan to keep that pollution level (or try to decrease it) has to start 50 years before it's too late. If we were running out of gasoline, we'd have to start moving things away from it 50+ years before we got to the levels of gasoline reserves where the amount becomes too small to sustain the global economy. Basically, any good replacement has to start while the current solution still looks viable in order for you to mitigate collapsing your nation's (or the global) economy. The market is not going to make those kind of long term decisions on it's own. The future the market would create would be far worse than what we're dealing with now by having EV's helped the way they are and forced phasing out of ice.

You are making a fair point. The perpetual problem, however, is what/who to replace the market with, since everything else has already been attempted over the last few thousand years. However, a counterforce definitely needs to exist, no question about that, a sheer market drive is very short term, as you argued. This is the role that faith and morality used to, or is supposed to fill.

You're saying it should be the government, trying to enforce the "common good", well, the problem is the near irresistible temptation to focus exclusively on preserving the status quo and playing the "rules for thee but not for me" card while paying lip service to "common good".

Eventually this leads to eliminating all checks and balances and trying to suppress any dissent forever, all in the name of this "common good". This is more and more within the realm of possibility as technology advances. Heck, those in power can realistically attempt to redefine truth, language, history, culture these days...

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Unfortunately CARB and the EPA have a voice. They aren't necessarily dictating the solution, but they are dictating the performance.

Tesla is only profitable from selling credits to Stellantis. They still lose money as a manufacturer. Still at a loss as to how the stock price responds to that business model.

Ignorant rich kids who buy into Musk's utopia keep buying his stock.

No one I know would buy it, and my financial adviser told me to stay awayyyyyy.