Camaro cancelled?
12-29-2008 | 08:53 PM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 259
From: Macomb, MI
So tell everyone you know to buy a Camaro now because it will be a better investment than the stock market .
On the other hand....buying a new Mustang GT500 at $20,000 over MSRP did'nt work out too well for the buyers two years ago did it?
On the other hand....buying a new Mustang GT500 at $20,000 over MSRP did'nt work out too well for the buyers two years ago did it?
12-29-2008 | 09:09 PM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 204
From: Filthydelphia, PA
Please don't give in to those mindless idiots who see a conspiracy against the auto industry around every bend and those who have a psychological paranoia against anything that has the word "government" in the sentence.
A "Car Czar" purpose is to bring the autoi industry back to health. That means profits. As far as restrictions, anything that cost over $100,000,000 would be up for review by the "Czar" to ensure profitability or that it would be in the best intrest of the company.
As is common with most car related sites, there are going to be a small contengent of people whose hysteria will always make it easier for them to believe rumor that fits into a preconcieved view that everything is an assult instead of actually reading up on things.
Then there's the internet's ability to take a opinion and within hours it spreads throughout hyperspace and evolves into a "fact". Like a bunch of gossiping housewives with nothing else going on in their lives, things take on a life of their own.
A "Car Czar" purpose is to bring the autoi industry back to health. That means profits. As far as restrictions, anything that cost over $100,000,000 would be up for review by the "Czar" to ensure profitability or that it would be in the best intrest of the company.
As is common with most car related sites, there are going to be a small contengent of people whose hysteria will always make it easier for them to believe rumor that fits into a preconcieved view that everything is an assult instead of actually reading up on things.
Then there's the internet's ability to take a opinion and within hours it spreads throughout hyperspace and evolves into a "fact". Like a bunch of gossiping housewives with nothing else going on in their lives, things take on a life of their own.
12-29-2008 | 10:30 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 388
And yeah, a car czar would *ideally* bring profit first and green second, but are there any guarantees? There are already politicians lining up saying that the big 3 deserve to die, does anyone really think that the president and his car czar won't agree if their green agenda can't be met? That would only become a rallying cry against the big 3 - "Look, they're SO far behind the times, they can't make responsible cars that we just KNOW people want to buy."
12-29-2008 | 10:53 PM
#19
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 609
From: Winchester, VA
Let me strap on the flame suit here for a minute.
I don't think the issue SHOULD be with CAFE but rather **** poor buisness. When you go to congress as a company and beg for money to save the company, brand new cars don't make much sense. They already stated that GM produced 60 models and turned a profit on only 30. So GM revives a car that died due to poor sales and innability to meet new standards and whiile they were at it wanted to see what kind of corvette they could build for 100K. I'm not a CEO or genius by any means but that makes no sense. From that standpoint more cars should get axed and less brand new ones being built.
Everyone else can worry about the government and CAFE. I'm more worried about the snake oil salesmen behind the desk.
PS- If you buy a new GM car or not in the coming years you'll still be paying for them. Where do you think uncle sam is going to get the coin to payback his loans?
I don't think the issue SHOULD be with CAFE but rather **** poor buisness. When you go to congress as a company and beg for money to save the company, brand new cars don't make much sense. They already stated that GM produced 60 models and turned a profit on only 30. So GM revives a car that died due to poor sales and innability to meet new standards and whiile they were at it wanted to see what kind of corvette they could build for 100K. I'm not a CEO or genius by any means but that makes no sense. From that standpoint more cars should get axed and less brand new ones being built.
Everyone else can worry about the government and CAFE. I'm more worried about the snake oil salesmen behind the desk.
PS- If you buy a new GM car or not in the coming years you'll still be paying for them. Where do you think uncle sam is going to get the coin to payback his loans?
12-29-2008 | 11:04 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 940
From: Southern Indiana
12-30-2008 | 09:55 AM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 547
BS,
ok, the government hands over 700 bilion to the banks with nearly no stipulations, not even on CEO pay. Then they hand over 17-25 Billion to three of the largest companies in the US and they are telling them how to run their companies? No.
They have asked for plans on how they will become self sustaining, so they will not require regular bail outs.
ok, the government hands over 700 bilion to the banks with nearly no stipulations, not even on CEO pay. Then they hand over 17-25 Billion to three of the largest companies in the US and they are telling them how to run their companies? No.
They have asked for plans on how they will become self sustaining, so they will not require regular bail outs.
12-30-2008 | 09:58 AM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 547
BTW, if this was true, GM could drop in a 4 cylinder and make it get better mileage. I'm sure they could also drop an additional 300 lbs in addition to the 150 saved by cutting 2 cylinders. This would be much better and easier to swallow than throwing out the billions they've already spent developing the Camaro.
12-30-2008 | 04:10 PM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 204
From: Filthydelphia, PA
BS,
ok, the government hands over 700 bilion to the banks with nearly no stipulations, not even on CEO pay. Then they hand over 17-25 Billion to three of the largest companies in the US and they are telling them how to run their companies? No.
They have asked for plans on how they will become self sustaining, so they will not require regular bail outs.
ok, the government hands over 700 bilion to the banks with nearly no stipulations, not even on CEO pay. Then they hand over 17-25 Billion to three of the largest companies in the US and they are telling them how to run their companies? No.
They have asked for plans on how they will become self sustaining, so they will not require regular bail outs.
How can anybody, for a second, buy that the car czar will not put pressure on the car companies in a manner that will affect what types of cars they build? If this guy's job is to "ensure profitability", and the government has completely bought into the misconception that American cars are all inefficient and that the US wants/needs nothing but green cars, what do you think is going to happen?
Also, if you truly believe that GM will not be in Washington asking for several tens of billions more by Q2 2009, you should probably pull your head out of your *** and look at their balance sheet.
Bob Lutz himself said it himself.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/09/gm....ref=newssearch
12-30-2008 | 04:57 PM
#25
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 11,157
From: Nashville, TN area
With 10,000 cars ordered, cancellation would be absurd.
01-04-2009 | 04:14 PM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 609
From: Winchester, VA
The sad thing is all the issues I've run into with mine are really small and easily fixed for good if given a little thought.
Last edited by fasteddie94; 01-04-2009 at 04:20 PM.
01-04-2009 | 04:58 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 68
From: Virginia
What's your solution for piston slap in an LS1 that burns no oil, turns in very good fuel mileage and run nice and quite once it's fully warmed up?
There is no quick and easy fix for that once the engine is in the car. GM should have taken steps to fix the manufacturing issues, but for some reason chose to **** off any unlucky buyer who ended up with one of these cars instead.
01-04-2009 | 08:43 PM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 357
From: San Diego, CA
People aren't buying the same old **** because of the same old problems. Quality control would be a big step in the right direction. GM has created a stigma around their vehicles through very common and according to dealerships and Techs unfixable problems. I have hear the phrase "It's a gm trait, you'll have to live with it" more than any consumer ever should. Instead of improving their product or cracking down on ****ty service they seem content to crank out new vehicles that everyone knows in the back of their mind will have those same old problems.
The sad thing is all the issues I've run into with mine are really small and easily fixed for good if given a little thought.
The sad thing is all the issues I've run into with mine are really small and easily fixed for good if given a little thought.
It's kinda like owning a Ducati.
It's a labor of love. They're real quirky, and hard to get running correctly, but once they do, they purr like a kitten.