new camaro

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:53 pm

I received my notice from Chevy that I could place my order for the new Camaro as of the 13th this month and take delivery in March. I'm still 2 years away from placing my order. Did anyone pull the trigger yet?

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:42 am

I wouldn't wait two years if you really want one. At this point it's unlikely it will be around that long. GM has already killed the G8, the platform the Camaro is to be built on, they will not devote an assembly plant to one model. When they merge with Chrysler next month they will have the Challenger already in the lineup, there will not be any need for a competing vehicle.
It's a shame the US manufacturers didn't see the writing on the wall 4-8 years ago that the voodoo economics ptII soap bubble could not last, and better prepare for the burst.

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:17 pm

Chuck Frank wrote:

I wouldn't wait two years if you really want one. At this point it's unlikely it will be around that long. GM has already killed the G8, the platform the Camaro is to be built on, they will not devote an assembly plant to one model. When they merge with Chrysler next month they will have the Challenger already in the lineup, there will not be any need for a competing vehicle.
It's a shame the US manufacturers didn't see the writing on the wall 4-8 years ago that the voodoo economics ptII soap bubble could not last, and better prepare for the burst.

Too many bills yet to pay off, so 2 years can't change unless that rich uncle I don't know about dies. I'm hoping the new Camaro will light at least a small fire in the GM camp. I think the G8 died due to no excitement, but the Camaro should make a splash.

As for the Chrysler/GM merger, what reading I've done on that is it's not in the best interest in either company other than to survive. As for your statement of the challanger being in place, why even have the camaro? You forget about all the brand loyal folks out there. While I like the challenger, I'd rather have the camaro from a looks and independent rear suspension standpoint, so I guess that makes me one of the folks that continues to wait until I can order new camaro. Besides, both candidates can fix everything, so I’m just going to sit back and watch prosperity wash over me like a warm day at the beach. ….right….

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:31 pm

Death of Pontiac may be premature:
Statement from Pontiac:
Rumors of Our Demise...Part II
Every few months, it seems that another rumor hits the Internet that Pontiac is throwing in the towel. Given the craziness that is the automotive industry right now, we guess it's not surprising that some folks want to write us off, but that doesn't make it true.
The latest is that we're cancelling the G8. Interesting idea...just launch what most people think is one of the best cars we've ever built, bring two more models (G8 GXP and G8 ST) to the market over the next year...then cancel it.
Here's the straight scoop. The G8 is a solid part of the Pontiac portfolio...period. We've just started building the G8 GXP in Australia and the first cars should be here right around the end of the year. The G8 ST is still on target to start production about mid-summer 2009 and arrive in North America in the fall. And, even in the current state of the automotive market, the G8 sedan and G8 GT continue to perform well.
Interestingly, the Solstice was the target of the "cancellation" rumor here a couple of months ago, yet the Solstice Coupe starts production in January. Sense a pattern here?
Look, we all know that the auto industry is under a lot of pressure right now. But, we are a car company, pure and simple, so our plan is to keep building great cars, like the G8 and Solstice, today, tomorrow, and the next day.
We'll leave the predictions for the future to the folks at the Psychic Friends Network.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:19 pm

I am really trying not to say anything about GM, because it's like kicking someone when they are down.

I am an auto enthusiast and all and can appreciate these cars as stand alone entities, but all of this talk about these performance cars saving GM and/or a particular GM brand is just a bunch of Kool Aid IMHO. Some products probably have the tooling already done, or done enough to not cancel, but moving forward with some of this stuff makes absolutely no sense to me. I think what is currently killing them is that they want to change direction, but the produce cycle is just not short enough. The Titanic can only make a 180 turn so fast. The Volt is a perfect example.

GM is going to survive the mess they got themselves into, but it's not going to look much like the current company after they are finished with their wild ride.

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:44 am

Richard Casto wrote:

I am really trying not to say anything about GM, because it's like kicking someone when they are down.

I am an auto enthusiast and all and can appreciate these cars as stand alone entities, but all of this talk about these performance cars saving GM and/or a particular GM brand is just a bunch of Kool Aid IMHO. Some products probably have the tooling already done, or done enough to not cancel, but moving forward with some of this stuff makes absolutely no sense to me. I think what is currently killing them is that they want to change direction, but the produce cycle is just not short enough. The Titanic can only make a 180 turn so fast. The Volt is a perfect example.

GM is going to survive the mess they got themselves into, but it's not going to look much like the current company after they are finished with their wild ride.

I agree with you and disagree with you. GM and Ford and Chrysler all had plenty of time to change or at least modify their direction, but they chose to not compete with the world's other car manufacturers offering and milk the SUV/pickup fad (and high profits) to their death. The Volt and the other electrics/hybrids are a joke. Their long term costs are going to be worse than feeding a 10 mpg highway barge 4.00 a gal gas. Green is really the color the owners will turn when handed the bill for replacing and disposing of a set of batteries.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:07 am

Chuck Frank wrote:

I agree with you and disagree with you. GM and Ford and Chrysler all had plenty of time to change or at least modify their direction, but they chose to not compete with the world's other car manufacturers offering and milk the SUV/pickup fad (and high profits) to their death. The Volt and the other electrics/hybrids are a joke. Their long term costs are going to be worse than feeding a 10 mpg highway barge 4.00 a gal gas. Green is really the color the owners will turn when handed the bill for replacing and disposing of a set of batteries.

The battery thing is a gamble on their part. People had the same worry over Prius batteries, but Toyota finally got the price down to fairly tolerable levels before their warranty ran out and people had to start paying for them out of pocket. I'm guessing GM is banking on the same thing happening. Hopefully that does work out...we all need that type of battery to be cheaper for anything green to work out.

--Donnie

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:46 am

Chuck, you and I probably agree more on this than you think thing. I was just using the Volt as an example of the kind of car GM wishes they had started development on much earlier. I think the Volt is actually a pretty big gamble. I would like to see it succeed for multiple reasons, but I think they should have eased into Hybrids first long ago before doing something like the Volt. Time will tell if the Volt is a successful car or not. It would have been safer to bring out a Prius clone. Either way, I also agree that battery issue for these cars needs to be resolved (if it hasn't already). Get enough cars like this on the road and it's going to be profitable for someone (necessity is the mother of invention) to solve this.

George Bright · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:43 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

Chuck, you and I probably agree more on this than you think thing. I was just using the Volt as an example of the kind of car GM wishes they had started development on much earlier.

mmm

1999 EV-1 160 mile range top speed 80.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:06 pm

Chuck Frank wrote:

The Volt and the other electrics/hybrids are a joke. Their long term costs are going to be worse than feeding a 10 mpg highway barge 4.00 a gal gas. Green is really the color the owners will turn when handed the bill for replacing and disposing of a set of batteries.

The worst part is that the net efficiency of the thing is beyond poor (assuming you're using the electric grid to charge it...assume that's how it works). Here we burn fossil fuels (nat gas or coal) for the most part to generate electricity (well, to heat water and change its state to steam to turn a turbine which turns a generator) with a fairly low efficiency to begin with, send that power over lines losing much more efficiency and then plug a car into the grid to charge a battery?

Is it just me that is crazy? The net efficiency of carrying the fossil fuel on board and generating power from it is SO much greater that it makes me sick to think of people using electric grid power for these things when there are many parts of the country that are already severely stressed at times to supply power. Hence for a few nuts to drive an "electric car" we all have to pay the price in higher electric prices.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:18 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

The worst part is that the net efficiency of the thing is beyond poor (assuming you're using the electric grid to charge it...assume that's how it works). Here we burn fossil fuels (nat gas or coal) for the most part to generate electricity (well, to heat water and change its state to steam to turn a turbine which turns a generator) with a fairly low efficiency to begin with, send that power over lines losing much more efficiency and then plug a car into the grid to charge a battery?

Is it just me that is crazy? The net efficiency of carrying the fossil fuel on board and generating power from it is SO much greater that it makes me sick to think of people using electric grid power for these things when there are many parts of the country that are already severely stressed at times to supply power. Hence for a few nuts to drive an "electric car" we all have to pay the price in higher electric prices.

Uh, you need to do the research on this. If you were right then our electricity would cost us a LOT more than it does now. The simple FACT is that it is more efficient to generate AND DELIVER electricity to your house than it is for your portable machine burn it directly, even if the generation plant is using fossil fuel. But you might also remember that some 20% of the nation's power comes from nuclear, which is way more efficient (the issues of waste disposal notwithstanding).

And people should be looking toward the day when you generate at least some significant portion of your electric power either on site or close to your house.

--Donnie

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:34 pm

Donnie Barnes wrote:

Uh, you need to do the research on this. If you were right then our electricity would cost us a LOT more than it does now. The simple FACT is that it is more efficient to generate AND DELIVER electricity to your house than it is for your portable machine burn it directly, even if the generation plant is using fossil fuel. But you might also remember that some 20% of the nation's power comes from nuclear, which is way more efficient (the issues of waste disposal notwithstanding).

And people should be looking toward the day when you generate at least some significant portion of your electric power either on site or close to your house.

--Donnie

I think I am right about generating power in a car versus using a fossil fuel at a distant location to create electricity to eventually charge a battery to power said car. Take the whole path into account...fossil fuel burning at electric plant all the way to torque at the wheels from stored battery power. There is a big difference between "efficient" versus cost effective. It's definitely not cost effective at the moment to generate power locally for home consumption.

The US power system is just under 30% efficient to average end point of use (assuming line losses). Typical electric motors are ~90% efficient, so under best case conditions, the net is already under 27% (and that doesn't account for charging losses and storage losses of the battery). ICE gas engines are more efficient (>30%) and diesel engines are even higher (40+%).

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

One of the reasons why both electricity and fossil fuels are so inexpensive (relatively) is because of the extant infrastructure. One interesting proposal that I've read recently is to use a gasoline engine to produce just the electricity to recharge the battery rather than use it for direct propulsion.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:50 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

One of the reasons why both electricity and fossil fuels are so inexpensive (relatively) is because of the extant infrastructure. One interesting proposal that I've read recently is to use a gasoline engine to produce just the electricity to recharge the battery rather than use it for direct propulsion.

Actually Wes that is exactly what the Chevy Volt does. Unlike other cars like the Toyota Prius, etc. there is no direct mechanical connection between the gas engine and the wheels. The only time the gas engine is expected to turn on is if the batteries have drained below a specific threshold. Basically this is an electric car with a built in gas powered generator in case you run your battery down.

In fact, I think Chevy and the EPA are having issue with how to determine the MPG on this car. Chevy would prefer that they start with a full battery and run the EPA loop. The initial charge would be some type of KWH value which is going to be cheap (relatively). But the EPA would like to start with zero charge and use the gas engine to power it for the entire loop. Using the EPA method the car doesn't get any benefit from the "plug in" aspect which is the main selling point.

I haven't seen any mention of this, but with the gas engine not going through a transmission, I am expecting that they could (will?) heavily optimize the engine for a narrow RPM range. For example they may just run the engine at lets say 2000 RPM when charging the batteries. It would be interesting to see how much the efficiency of the engine will go up if they do that.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:21 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

I think I am right about generating power in a car versus using a fossil fuel at a distant location to create electricity to eventually charge a battery to power said car. Take the whole path into account...fossil fuel burning at electric plant all the way to torque at the wheels from stored battery power. There is a big difference between "efficient" versus cost effective. It's definitely not cost effective at the moment to generate power locally for home consumption.

The US power system is just under 30% efficient to average end point of use (assuming line losses). Typical electric motors are ~90% efficient, so under best case conditions, the net is already under 27% (and that doesn't account for charging losses and storage losses of the battery). ICE gas engines are more efficient (>30%) and diesel engines are even higher (40+%).

Then the only way electricity is still cheaper is that we burn coal to make it and we can't effectively burn coal in cars plus coal is locally obtained and thus must be much cheaper, I guess.

At any rate, you've got to admit that in absence of other alternatives, it makes more sense to be able to use the resources we have IN this country already rather than have to import gasoline, right? And when you factor in that we *could* build more nuclear plants where the fuel really is cheaper, then it makes sense (and apparently more nuclear plants are actually going to be built soon).

You just can't seriously argue against going electric in cars.

And on the "charging batteries to run electric" thing, this is what diesel locomotives have done for years. They couldn't make a transmission that could handle the loads and torque that locomotives needed, so they are all generator based with electric motors to run the wheels. And yes, an optimized engine that never needs to change RPM is a whole lot more efficient. That's why getting CVT trannies developed is a good thing for the non-electric crowd. They won't ever be truly constant speed engines, but the window can be much narrower.

And there are people starting to look heavily into the possibility of MUCH more local power generation for homes and businesses. It's yet another thing the energy folks don't want you to know...

As much better battery technology gets developed, there's going to come a time when solar and wind are going to make a lot of sense. Semiconductors that can turn fairly raw current into high-current/very-pretty AC are getting very cheap.

--Donnie

THSCC Forums

new camaro

Who is online