View Poll Results: All things being equal, which would you buy in 2011
4,000 lbs Camaro
108
65.45%
3,500 lbs Mustang
23
13.94%
I'd buy something else.
34
20.61%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll
Here's a weight poll for you guys.
04-04-2008 | 09:50 PM
#271
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 195
From: chesapeake, va
It will be hard for me to meet my performance goals and stay within my budget if the 5th gen weighs more than 3750 lbs.
Sure, it's a little more to type, but it's much more clear about your wishes and a lot less negative toward the car. Camaro needs as much positive support as it can get, and to be negative about it because you're worried you might not be able to run 10's with just a cam is exactly the sort of ridiculousness we can do without.
Side note: have you ever actually been on a date and had a girl tell you how far she was going to let you go in advance?
Sure, it's a little more to type, but it's much more clear about your wishes and a lot less negative toward the car. Camaro needs as much positive support as it can get, and to be negative about it because you're worried you might not be able to run 10's with just a cam is exactly the sort of ridiculousness we can do without.
Side note: have you ever actually been on a date and had a girl tell you how far she was going to let you go in advance?
I can understand that, and agree about the negative publicity. I am constantly defending the car on the local racing board I`m on. Its mostly stangs and fbodies w/ a few other cars mixed in. I`ve heard everything from it looks like an SUV height wise to the headlights are ugly, I point out its lower than a stang and those aren`t the production headlights.ect..lol...Ect..
As far as the date thing its been a while , married for 10 years, but there was one girl, I think her name was Amber who told me she didn`t kiss on the first date...However, she wasn`t telling the truth..
04-05-2008 | 05:03 PM
#273
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
Well, the C6.R small block drops right into the solstice....so you could do that.
It also royally ****s the weight distribution of the vehicle, so you lose some of the nice tossability that is inherent in the chassis.....
I'd rather save the ~120 or so pounds and have a solstice coupe with the upcoming 300hp turbo-4. Easy to add 50 horse to a turbo engine...and it weighs 3000 pounds *evil smile*
It also royally ****s the weight distribution of the vehicle, so you lose some of the nice tossability that is inherent in the chassis.....
I'd rather save the ~120 or so pounds and have a solstice coupe with the upcoming 300hp turbo-4. Easy to add 50 horse to a turbo engine...and it weighs 3000 pounds *evil smile*
Last edited by boxerperson; 04-05-2008 at 05:11 PM.
04-05-2008 | 05:09 PM
#274
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
"Dealbreaker" is a strong word. It doesn't leave room for any interpretation. For instance, if I were to say that smoking cigarettes is a dealbreaker for me on the dating scene, it's logical for you to assume that even a girl who smokes just one cigarette, once in a while, would be unacceptable to me. You'd be right. If that weren't the case, I shouldn't have used the word "dealbreaker."
I was fairly sure GMRULZ didn't mean "dealbreaker," and the problem I have is that he didn't say what he really meant.
How do I know? Because he has now explained what he meant:
Which goes directly against his previous statement that 3750+ is a dealbreaker for him. It's not. It's the point at which he'll concerned that Camaro might not be able to meet his performance goals. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
On a side note, I also think it's a touch silly to base a $30,000 new-car-buying decision on whether you can run 10.8 with just a cam. If you want a drag car, a brand new vehicle with IRS is probably not your best choice. That said, it's not my money. At least he knows what he wants and is up-front about it.
I was fairly sure GMRULZ didn't mean "dealbreaker," and the problem I have is that he didn't say what he really meant.
How do I know? Because he has now explained what he meant:
Which goes directly against his previous statement that 3750+ is a dealbreaker for him. It's not. It's the point at which he'll concerned that Camaro might not be able to meet his performance goals. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
On a side note, I also think it's a touch silly to base a $30,000 new-car-buying decision on whether you can run 10.8 with just a cam. If you want a drag car, a brand new vehicle with IRS is probably not your best choice. That said, it's not my money. At least he knows what he wants and is up-front about it.
04-05-2008 | 05:50 PM
#275
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
I think people should say what they mean.
Also, see my previous comments (post #269, about halfway through) regarding negativity.
For the record: Reading comprehension > boxerperson.
Last edited by JakeRobb; 04-05-2008 at 05:57 PM.
04-05-2008 | 10:50 PM
#276
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
I will say...it's nice to have a debate like this without it going completely to hell. Some places you can't even argue about ANYTHING without somebody jumping down your throat.
04-06-2008 | 11:46 AM
#277
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
I said your reading comprehension is bad because you asked a question that I had already clearly answered, not because you didn't know what GMRULZ was trying to say.
04-06-2008 | 07:39 PM
#278
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
I never denied knowing what he meant. If I thought he actually meant "dealbreaker," I wouldn't have had anything to say. My whole problem is that I knew he didn't mean what he said.
I said your reading comprehension is bad because you asked a question that I had already clearly answered, not because you didn't know what GMRULZ was trying to say.
I love to argue. Why would I wreck it?
I said your reading comprehension is bad because you asked a question that I had already clearly answered, not because you didn't know what GMRULZ was trying to say.
I love to argue. Why would I wreck it?
As somebody who says they have some kind of issue with people saying exactly, with absolutely no ambiguity allowed, what they mean, you could at least drop the act and just come out and say that it hurts your feelings to have anybody say something possibly negative about your wikkle camaro. Why else would you push an argument which you knew from the beginning to be based on nothing? You should be more specific in the future
04-06-2008 | 08:21 PM
#279
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 208
From: Phoenix AZ
Having a GM engineer confirm that the camaro will weigh less that 4000 lbs is good enough for me. He also said it will weigh more than a '69. So there is your upper and lower limit.
Personally after seeing the pre-prod myself I would say this thing will weigh between 3600-3700lbs. In contrast before seeing the car i thought that it would weigh between 3700 and 3800 lbs.
Personally after seeing the pre-prod myself I would say this thing will weigh between 3600-3700lbs. In contrast before seeing the car i thought that it would weigh between 3700 and 3800 lbs.
04-06-2008 | 09:22 PM
#280
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 806
From: MI
04-07-2008 | 09:52 AM
#281
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Hopefully the "bigger is always better" philosophy inside is becoming less dominant.
As you and I already believe, smaller is often better.
You see the same thing from the guy at Cadillac who said he didn't want to go smaller than a CTS. Hopefully he's been convinced otherwise.
As you and I already believe, smaller is often better.
You see the same thing from the guy at Cadillac who said he didn't want to go smaller than a CTS. Hopefully he's been convinced otherwise.
Certainly, the view that smaller cars can be more than cheap econoboxes, would now be bolstered when you consider the rising cost of gas, the consumer's interest in more fuel efficiency and of course, CAFE.
Had it been greenlighted 2.5 years ago, can you imagine what perfect timing this family of cars would have had right about now?
Anyway, as it turns out, Alpha will end up being a 'premium' smaller car- again, whatever 'premium' and 'small' mean - as Cadillac is taking the lead in it's developement. And marketing a smaller than CTS, RWD car, has been deemed critical to Cadillac's global branding.
Last edited by Z284ever; 04-07-2008 at 10:15 AM.
04-07-2008 | 10:26 AM
#282
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
Tsk Tsk. You jumped on him when you admittedly knew exactly what he was trying to convey, coming up with the 3749 vs 3750 argument when you were aware that's not what he said and ALSO not what he meant.
As somebody who says they have some kind of issue with people saying exactly, with absolutely no ambiguity allowed, what they mean, you could at least drop the act and just come out and say that it hurts your feelings to have anybody say something possibly negative about your wikkle camaro. Why else would you push an argument which you knew from the beginning to be based on nothing? You should be more specific in the future
As somebody who says they have some kind of issue with people saying exactly, with absolutely no ambiguity allowed, what they mean, you could at least drop the act and just come out and say that it hurts your feelings to have anybody say something possibly negative about your wikkle camaro. Why else would you push an argument which you knew from the beginning to be based on nothing? You should be more specific in the future
The phrasing he used ("3750+ is a dealbreaker") is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the phrasing I used (I was wordy, but it boils down to "3749 maybe, 3750 no way").
If you disagree with that, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "dealbreaker". It is a hard-and-fast, no-room-for-error sort of word.
My only argument is that he shouldn't have used that word.
04-07-2008 | 06:41 PM
#283
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
You still don't get it.
The phrasing he used ("3750+ is a dealbreaker") is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the phrasing I used (I was wordy, but it boils down to "3749 maybe, 3750 no way").
If you disagree with that, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "dealbreaker". It is a hard-and-fast, no-room-for-error sort of word.
My only argument is that he shouldn't have used that word.
The phrasing he used ("3750+ is a dealbreaker") is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the phrasing I used (I was wordy, but it boils down to "3749 maybe, 3750 no way").
If you disagree with that, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "dealbreaker". It is a hard-and-fast, no-room-for-error sort of word.
My only argument is that he shouldn't have used that word.
Perhaps we should all get PhDs in english and hire editors to look over all our posts before submitting them, so that we don't have to worry about people purposely taking what we say and looking for any possible way to twist it so that we can say their attitude is ridiculous and they're foolish because we're not willing to listen to any opinion but our own. That would be GREAT.
I'll start saving up for it now, but I guess that means I'll have to put my plans for a 5th gen on the back burner. You'll just have to buy two of them to make up for my heresy.
Last edited by boxerperson; 04-07-2008 at 07:01 PM.
04-07-2008 | 06:48 PM
#284
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Anyway, as it turns out, Alpha will end up being a 'premium' smaller car- again, whatever 'premium' and 'small' mean - as Cadillac is taking the lead in it's developement. And marketing a smaller than CTS, RWD car, has been deemed critical to Cadillac's global branding.
Are you still sure that you want a V8 on this platform? Would they design two variations, such that the I4 and V6 versions don't carry the extra weight for the V8 variant?
04-07-2008 | 09:08 PM
#285
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 808
From: manassas, VA
You still don't get it.
The phrasing he used ("3750+ is a dealbreaker") is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the phrasing I used (I was wordy, but it boils down to "3749 maybe, 3750 no way").
If you disagree with that, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "dealbreaker". It is a hard-and-fast, no-room-for-error sort of word.
My only argument is that he shouldn't have used that word.
The phrasing he used ("3750+ is a dealbreaker") is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the phrasing I used (I was wordy, but it boils down to "3749 maybe, 3750 no way").
If you disagree with that, then you don't understand the meaning of the word "dealbreaker". It is a hard-and-fast, no-room-for-error sort of word.
My only argument is that he shouldn't have used that word.
if weight < 3750; then buy; else punt
What if it's really more like:
if weight < 3500; then "
"elsif weight < 3600; then "
"elsif weight < 3700; then "
"elsif weight < 3750; then "
"else "
"Allowing for a continuum of emotion below the threshold makes a lot more sense then the simple way you interpretted his statement. And even that is too precise since it's nto like he was being overly precise in specifying hwo he wanted that 3750 to come in (i.e. fully optioned, dry or wet weight, etc, etc)
I liked the earlier question of, do you flip out on people if you ask them what time it is and they say 9:30 and it's really 9:23...
Last edited by notgetleft; 04-07-2008 at 09:16 PM.