[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by CamaroSSStlfan

The modern GTO is a classic example though. The 5th and 6th gen Camaros at least resemble a Camaro and Muscle car. Despite GM not producing a ton of them, marketing it properly, providing good rebates, etc it's still around.

If the Camaro was totally off like they did with the GTO then it wouldn't have been around this like.

It's clear GM is becoming more bland. I seriously have to wonder what the Corvette will eventually be like. Hopefully that eventually doesn't get basterized as well.

Lambo and Porsche would be able to survive. They just wouldn't be as big but they're still known for sports cars and sell many of them.

I still say with the Camaro the blind spot is an issue with sales. However the incentives along with lack of selection at dealers is an issue too due to price.

Look at Ford. They sell a lot of the base model Mustang GTs and the big Ford dealer 30 miles from me carries a selection of it. The Chevy equiv is the LT1 Camaro. Dealers hardly ever carry the LT1 and when they do carry an LT1 around here they're loaded up and cost as much as a 1ss and they sit there.

Why buy a loaded up Lt1 for 42 grand when a base model Mustang GT with similar performance numbers and better visibility is thousands cheaper and easier to find?

Most of the dealers down here carry loaded up 2SS which cost way more than the base Model Mustang GT and still costs more than the Premium Mustang as well

Yeah, I agree that bastardizing the names doesn't usually end too well. Remember the Challengers from the 80s that's basically a rebadged Mitsubishi? LOL

And yeah, usually there are just more choices of Mustangs on the dealer lots, at least over here. When I was in Alberta, though, the choice of Camaro wasn't bad, either.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Really good analysis. I have to agree that GM is taking a risk putting all their eggs in one basket, but I understand why they are doing it. I’m just certain that it’s not the way I would approach it. During the transition years there will be a significant number of customers for whom HEV makes more sense than BEV.

I know it wasn’t you, but earlier in the thread someone discounted Mary Barra as “a bean counter”. I’m sure she would like it if her competition was equally dismissive of who and what she is. What she really is is a strategist with a broad knowledge base built from all the places she’s been in the company. That includes HR, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and most importantly, Product Development. Product Development is pretty much what Mark Reuss controls now and what Bob Lutz controlled in his last stint with GM. In the time period between Lutz and Reuss, Mary held the job. Not exactly a bean counting job. Not by a long shot. Ironically, Finance (land of beans and those who count them) is one area where Mary has spent little, if any, time.

You mention that Toyota has their doubts. Here’s just a couple reasons why they have doubts. For many years, the Toyota strategy centered on HEV, with Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV) being the “ultimate hybrid”. Thing is, FCEV tech is at least a couple technology development generations behind BEV. Toyota is not yet ready to abandon FCEV for BEV, so they are by their own choice behind on BEV. The BEV products they are coming to market with next year are because they have to, not because they want to. Their strategy actually makes a lot of sense. Look at their home market, Japan. It’s a nation of islands where the greatest masses of people live in compressed urban high-rise accommodations. Little if any access to plugs, so BEVs don’t make a lot of sense. And since each island has a finite amount of land mass, they can provide fueling coverage for an entire island with a minimum number of refueling stations. Thing is, that play doesn’t work for China, Europe, or North America. They all have sprawling land masses where it is super costly and not very efficient to deploy hydrogen refueling. So Toyota is maintaining a strategy of mainly hybrids in those areas, but now those areas are mandating BEVs, so hybrids aren’t good enough and Toyota is behind on BEV.

Yeah, I think something like a modular PHEV/BEV design would be good. It's sort of like what Mazda is doing with the MX-30 - they have a BEV version and then a PHEV version with a rotary range extender. I am not sure how well it will translate with a piston engine(which is larger and less power-dense), but I feel like it could work if executed well. Either stuff the car with more batteries for BEV or take away some space and make a PHEV with a range extender for those who are concerned with range.

I don't really know Mary Barra so I won't judge her. Back when Mark Reuss crashed the C7 ZR1 pace car, I was also among the people that said "paper pushers shouldn't be driving such a powerful car."... Except Mark actually has a ton of performance driving experience under his belt and that crash was more of a fluke. He actively participates in some prototype driving like the CT5-V Blackwing. It's hilarious that he probably has way more performance driving experience than 99.9% of the people who trashed him.

As for Toyota, don't they have some stake in developing solid-state batteries? They are a pipe dream now, but I also feel like if they are capable of developing FCEV, then BEV shouldn't be too much extra effort. Also, the Japanese domestic market has always been weird enough to create some headaches for Japanese manufacturers. I have read before that Japanese manufacturers actually don't like the fact that their Kei cars sell well because those things only really work in Japan, so it limits their resources on what they can manufacture for something that can be used globally.

[Fak_Ork]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

If you read the article, this is pretty weak, scientifically speaking. There's always one or a couple dissenters way out in left field. This article seems to be exactly that. Shirley this is not your "proof" that "all the scientists" back in the 70s were predicting an ice age?

Oh, it's his 'proof' all right sourced from a Libertarian think tank devoted to climate change denial and it's a hodgepodge of snippets, many not from scientists, that prove- nothing.

The planet is warming. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995- 7 of the 10 warmest just since 2014.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...F%20%2B0.32%20

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

Oh, it's his 'proof' all right sourced from a Libertarian think tank devoted to climate change denial and it's a hodgepodge of snippets, many not from scientists, that prove- nothing.

The planet is warming. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995- 7 of the 10 warmest just since 2014.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...F%20%2B0.32%20

Nothing you’ve written has anything to do with what I’ve said or shared.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I pointed out what actually happened as someone old enough, and aware enough, to observe and remember. Evolving emotional narrative to support a goal.

I found the link below with a collection of headlines. I selected a few because I assume you won't look. Dismiss it and move on.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-...c-predictions/

I found this:

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.
Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

Oh, it's his 'proof' all right sourced from a Libertarian think tank devoted to climate change denial and it's a hodgepodge of snippets, many not from scientists, that prove- nothing.

The planet is warming. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995- 7 of the 10 warmest just since 2014.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...F%20%2B0.32%20

The earth has been around for a long time. What about all those years that nothing was being recorded? It’s a legit question. How do we know there wasn’t some warming periods back then? We don’t.

Either way, if we just get rid of people’s weekend sportscars then the temp will drop like a rock and happiness ensues. Is that the sales pitch?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The earth has been around for a long time. What about all those years that nothing was being recorded? It’s a legit question. How do we know there wasn’t some warming periods back then? We don’t.

Either way, if we just get rid of people’s weekend sportscars then the temp will drop like a rock and happiness ensues. Is that the sales pitch?

No, this whole thing never DROPS the temperature. It keeps it from going up excessively and results in an increase of only 1.5 degrees over then next 100 years.

And no, not driving your car won't have that impact. It will require significant wholesale changes to our lifestyle over the next many years to accomplish that. The discussion isn't whether the changes are the right thing to do, they are for the most part, it's the cost to implement them and the negative impact on the global economy.

And just to be clear, if you believe that driving your car around has ZERO impact on the environment you are kidding yourself. The only debate still raging is how much of an impact that has.

But I would find it hilarious if someone actually came on here and tried to convince us that 200 million cars in the US has no impact at all on the environment.

Automobiles just happen to be the "easiest" of most of the solutions, mostly because you can do it by the cars and trucks produced. The next phase would be requiring you to install energy efficient HVAC, doors and windows plus insulation in your home or business. And since the government, for some reason thinks they have to pay for or incentivize this, that's even more money. And then there's the beef production.........

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

No, this whole thing never DROPS the temperature. It keeps it from going up excessively and results in an increase of only 1.5 degrees over then next 100 years.

And no, not driving your car won't have that impact. It will require significant wholesale changes to our lifestyle over the next many years to accomplish that. The discussion isn't whether the changes are the right thing to do, they are for the most part, it's the cost to implement them and the negative impact on the global economy.

And just to be clear, if you believe that driving your car around has ZERO impact on the environment you are kidding yourself. The only debate still raging is how much of an impact that has.

But I would find it hilarious if someone actually came on here and tried to convince us that 200 million cars in the US has no impact at all on the environment.

Automobiles just happen to be the "easiest" of most of the solutions, mostly because you can do it by the cars and trucks produced. The next phase would be requiring you to install energy efficient HVAC, doors and windows plus insulation in your home or business. And since the government, for some reason thinks they have to pay for or incentivize this, that's even more money. And then there's the beef production.........

This parallels something I just posted in another thread a few minutes ago. I’ll paste part of that post below…

Our little corner of the world (high powered performance cars) is not on anybody’s radar for annihilation (well…maybe CARB). Definitely not to the point of driving a sea change in automotive technology. What if I told you that aside from pickup trucks, there are MORE BEVs sold in the US than V8 cars? That’s how small our little niche is. Nobody is making broad stroke policy decisions based on the aspect of “the do-gooders just don’t like the people who own toy cars”.

The top level issue is climate change. The globally accepted approach to climate change is to achieve carbon neutrality, meaning every country / industry / company strive to reduce (not eliminate) the amount of carbon dioxide they send into the atmosphere and/or capture enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create a neutral balance. There are many ways to go about that, but most of the really impactful ways involves transportation in general (trains, planes, and automobiles…and ships) as well as power generation. All of those areas have skin in the game and are working towards solutions now.

So, if you set aside what’s happening in all the other areas and look solely at cars, car companies are publicly committing to carbon neutrality, most by 2050. That means they are actively transitioning their product portfolios to emphasize vehicles with Zero Emissions (BEV) or near-Zero Emissions (HEV, PHEV) AND they are working on making their manufacturing processes Zero Emissions. GM has announced 4 Factory Zero operations that will each have zero-net carbon emissions from manufacturing while producing zero emissions vehicles. And they are expected to announce more over time. Ford is making similar moves to make their factories zero emissions, but haven’t given it a cutesy name like Factory Zero. Do we honestly think that companies are making fundamental changes in their manufacturing processes and product portfolios because some desk jockeys in state capitols are tired of us spoiled guys revving our engines? If so, we are grossly over-estimating our influence on the world.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

This parallels something I just posted in another thread a few minutes ago. I’ll paste part of that post below…

Our little corner of the world (high powered performance cars) is not on anybody’s radar for annihilation (well…maybe CARB). Definitely not to the point of driving a sea change in automotive technology. What if I told you that aside from pickup trucks, there are MORE BEVs sold in the US than V8 cars? That’s how small our little niche is. Nobody is making broad stroke policy decisions based on the aspect of “the do-gooders just don’t like the people who own toy cars”.

The top level issue is climate change. The globally accepted approach to climate change is to achieve carbon neutrality, meaning every country / industry / company strive to reduce (not eliminate) the amount of carbon dioxide they send into the atmosphere and/or capture enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create a neutral balance. There are many ways to go about that, but most of the really impactful ways involves transportation in general (trains, planes, and automobiles…and ships) as well as power generation. All of those areas have skin in the game and are working towards solutions now.

So, if you set aside what’s happening in all the other areas and look solely at cars, car companies are publicly committing to carbon neutrality, most by 2050. That means they are actively transitioning their product portfolios to emphasize vehicles with Zero Emissions (BEV) or near-Zero Emissions (HEV, PHEV) AND they are working on making their manufacturing processes Zero Emissions. GM has announced 4 Factory Zero operations that will each have zero-net carbon emissions from manufacturing while producing zero emissions vehicles. And they are expected to announce more over time. Ford is making similar moves to make their factories zero emissions, but haven’t given it a cutesy name like Factory Zero. Do we honestly think that companies are making fundamental changes in their manufacturing processes and product portfolios because some desk jockeys in state capitols are tired of us spoiled guys revving our engines? If so, we are grossly over-estimating our influence on the world.

This is only part?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This is only part?

I was on a roll.

[LT4Greg]

Obviously you were!

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

From a business standpoint I think Ford is probably heading in the better direction when it comes to the future. They are looking at all their customers from each generation and applying it to their products.


I read and heard last year that Ford stopped the development of the Electric Super Duty which makes sense for what those customers do with those trucks. For the other Heavy Duty trucks I think Stellantis will probably do similar to Ford and I don't know what GM is doing with their HD trucks in the future.



The F150 trucks have a lot of choice with a Hybrid TTV6 a TTV6 and they have the V8 trucks for the V8 or bust crowd (V8 is something I don't expect in the next gen though).



The Mustang is something Ford already predicted and will probably be the last in the segment to offer a V8 and I read several articles to where its life expectancy will be determined by sales of the V8 engine.


Toyota I think when they catch up in the BEV world and keeping other options available is probably in a good business standing too. Their new Tundra with the TTV6 and the TTV6 Hybrid is what I expect automakers in the 1500 truck series segment to probably end up doing with the those trucks for customers that tow and Haul which Ford has already been doing. I expect more hybrids out of Toyota before full BEVs though.


This is where I see things going the Camaro no one but GM knows what will happen but probably be the first performance vehicle from the Big three to be all electric if it does continue on.

Agreed. I think Ford at least publicly has gone the best route. Yes they probably want to be all electric like everyone else, but AFAIK they have said they will keep building ICE as long as people keep buying them. I think it was brilliant on their part to make the Lightning look essentially just like a F-150. If they do that with other vehicles in their lineup, offer and ICE and electric version that looks similar it will be a home run.

[CamaroSSStlfan]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Yeah, I agree that bastardizing the names doesn't usually end too well. Remember the Challengers from the 80s that's basically a rebadged Mitsubishi? LOL

And yeah, usually there are just more choices of Mustangs on the dealer lots, at least over here. When I was in Alberta, though, the choice of Camaro wasn't bad, either.



Yeah, I think something like a modular PHEV/BEV design would be good. It's sort of like what Mazda is doing with the MX-30 - they have a BEV version and then a PHEV version with a rotary range extender. I am not sure how well it will translate with a piston engine(which is larger and less power-dense), but I feel like it could work if executed well. Either stuff the car with more batteries for BEV or take away some space and make a PHEV with a range extender for those who are concerned with range.

I don't really know Mary Barra so I won't judge her. Back when Mark Reuss crashed the C7 ZR1 pace car, I was also among the people that said "paper pushers shouldn't be driving such a powerful car."... Except Mark actually has a ton of performance driving experience under his belt and that crash was more of a fluke. He actively participates in some prototype driving like the CT5-V Blackwing. It's hilarious that he probably has way more performance driving experience than 99.9% of the people who trashed him.

As for Toyota, don't they have some stake in developing solid-state batteries? They are a pipe dream now, but I also feel like if they are capable of developing FCEV, then BEV shouldn't be too much extra effort. Also, the Japanese domestic market has always been weird enough to create some headaches for Japanese manufacturers. I have read before that Japanese manufacturers actually don't like the fact that their Kei cars sell well because those things only really work in Japan, so it limits their resources on what they can manufacture for something that can be used globally.

I was looking on autotrader a couple months ago just for sh*ts and that big Ford dealer 30 miles away still had left over new 2020 Gts on their lots! While Camaro is impossible to find.

I think why this dealer carries so many Mustangs is because most of the Ford dealers in this region hate carrying Mustangs. They usually just have one or two on the lots if lucky. but they carry the big SUVs, vans, and trucks the old people like buying.

[cthulhucaller]

Ford drivers vow to put Fords into ditches, sidewalks, gas pumps and buildings, and they are doing well with it.

[redcoats1976]

perhaps a good starting point to reduce global warming would be to limit homeowners to one home of a certain square footage,and eliminate private yaughts and airplanes.maybe even require heads of state and other government officials to fly commercial instead of on private planes.after all,whats good for the goose is good for the gander.if we are giving up our toy cars,etc. and potentially being taxed for our carbon footprint,so should the rich and powerful.