Seems to be 'on hold' for models other than G8 & Camaro as of 4-10-07.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/shock-ge...n-on-hold.html

 

What a stupid remark.

And just out of curiosity, how are all the other world's manufacturers going to deal with the issue of the new government regulations? I don't hear BMW whining.

 

Off topic, but has anybody read the enviro article on the CD website. Only a 3 page read, but sheds some light on a few things, like if the US were to increase fuel economy by 50%, it would lead to a net reduction of only 3% in green house gases (IIRC) and that power plants alone are 40% of the domestic CO2 production.

 

yeah, we need more nuclear power, but the environmental wacko's won't allow that either.

 

****, that car looks brutal!! Look at those tires! I have admit, I like it...

The comment about the 3 douchebags in front was hilarious...

 

Just in case nobody got my joke - the car is ready for production because it's stranded along side of the road, leaking coolant and steaming...

Guess I was the only one who thought that was funny.

 

That's exactly what I thought, production ready and waiting for a tow.

 

Yeah, that's the concept anyway.

 

Yep. You can tell from the concept 22" tires, and those tiny side mirrors, which we all know wouldn't pass federal laws.

 

I'm gonna be laughing in the meeting I have to go to... and it will have nothing to do with what is said...hahahah...
**** that's funny.

Regardless if they are douchy or not... that's gold.

 

Agreed. The latest generation of 'micro' nuclear power facilties are far smaller, cleaner, safer, and amazingly more powerful than the old ones we are all accustomed to. Unfortunately they've yet to build the first one and nobody cares. The truly ironic part of this? Replacing the entire power grid with these things would do more to clean up the environment than Gore has ever proposed and would serve to help the economy in the process. But we have to kill those IC engines, they are the real enemy.

Things like this make it clear that the powerful greenies may indeed have a universal agenda, but simply 'saving the planet' doesn't cover it or ridiculous scenarios like the above would never occur..

 

I think the problems are deeper than any of us realize, and I'm sure they're as much political as economic. Other countries are nearly completely off the oil 'tap', yet we make no effort in our Country to do so... oh yeah, CAFE standards, etc.. give me a break.
Instead, we continue to be dependent on oil, put money into terrorist supporting nations, and depleat the Earth of resources. Why? I'm sure it's a hefty combination of money and politics. You'd think that the Reps and Dems could get together on this issue - Rep's get to fight the War on Terror by cutting off funding to the terrorists and Dem's get to help save the environment.
My bad... why would they do anything good when they're perfectly content with arguing w/ each other like a bunch of schoolgirls. ?

The Republocrats are the true 'douchebags'.

 

Well, taken collectively, world-wide, motor vehicles are a part of the problem, to be sure, but I agree on the nuclear issue - it could certainly solve the commerical energy conundrum. The problem with nuclear power comes in disposing of the radioactive waste.

Also, roof-mounted solar panels have proven to be a way for homes to generate their own electricity and be self-sustaining. Initial cost outlay is the big problem here.

I dunno. Some have an agenda, for sure. I certainly think Toyota is pushing its Hybrid technology so it can sell cars to global warming-panicked motorists, but at the same time, that doesn't discount global warming.

But there are plenty of other green people out there who are generally concerned.

Frankly, we should all be concerned.

 

I don't disagree fundamentally. But there are many viable and arguably economically beneficial solutions to several of our energy production/pollution problems which go virtually without mention by many of those who claim to be the most concerned about those very issues. In fact, it often seems that the most viable solutions are also the ones most likely to fade into obscurity without any real recognition. To go even further many good solutions have been maligned through various strategies, again by those who claim to be so concerned.

Frankly, we have to either assume that those who claim to be concerned with these matters but who blatantly ignore so many great alternatives to the status quo are either suprisingly uninformed, remarkably stupid, or have an alternative agenda and are simply using these issues to further their own cause. Considering the amazing lack of interest in promising alternatives among high profile greenies, and their not uncommon fixation on higher profile alternatives which are often doomed to failure but which are advantageous politically, my vote is for the latter.

I think a great many well-meaning people who firmly believe that these problems constitute a crisis have allowed themselves to be misled by people and groups who simply want what political gain their support for these issues, however disingenuous, can lend them.

Everybody has to form their own opinion on this subject. I have been fortunate enough to know a few reputable scientists who have varying opinions on the issue, and having taken their thoughts on the situation into consideration and adding them to my own, my belief is that we are enountering a warming cycle which was likely inevitable despite our past actions. My feelings on the warming trend aside I fully support the notion of minimizing pollution in general as much as plausible as only good can come of it. I would also love to see our reliance on foreign oil seriously diminished or done away with.

But this situation has become so incredibly political, and so filled with disinformation and outright fear mongoring, that any reasonable near future approach seems unlikely at this juncture without the serious intervention of at least a few, well meaning businessmen who have the massive amounts of capital necessary to implement such a change unilaterally. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Well, the science to support that humans are significantly exacerbating the problem - regardless of whether or not they are the whole problem - simply isn't in dispute anymore. Continuing to debate the issue is a dangerous distraction from finding solutions.

Moreover, on top of that >>

- There is the pollution issue you mentioned;
- There are the national security ramifications of being dependent on unstable, contrarian regimes for oil;
- Oil will probably be so depleted as a resource in about 60 years, that we will be forced to find alternative forms of energy before then anyway.

Yep, government and corporations working together to solve these issues are what it's gonna take. And not just here, but worldwide.

China is dependent on coal for much of its energy. They show no signs of moving away from it, and when pressed, demonstrate a childish attitude, often playing the "well you guys used it, why shouldn't we?" card.

The Amazon rainforest accounts for 20% of all the oxygen production on Earth, and we are clear-cutting it at a rate of one and one-half acres per second! The rainforest quite literally scrubs the air, too, so factor that in with carbon emissions and what do you get? A catastrophic future scenario.

 

Oh, haha... I didn't even notice until you pointed it out.

 

there is still no pricing on these. Though I will bet it will be up there. After all GM sees the Camaro as a poor mans Corvette so I am really sensing the 38K+ Starting Sticker.

 

If GM really gets its act together with this one, it could steal sales from future Nissan 350Z/ Infiniti G35 owners in regards to raw performance numbers and looks for similar pricing. Out here, they've become an all-too-common sight and driven by guys in the mid-20's ~ 30's range, the perfect demographic buying target.

 

If they start aat $38K (which I agree they'll be near), I'd have to expect the 'Vette to move up. There's no way they could justify the 'Vette and Camaro being within $5-7 K of each other.

 

Seems to me that Lutz indicated that the Camaro would come in a few hundered more that the the mustang at each level, but that was a year or more ago methinks. If the F5 comes in at nearly 40k for the base V8 car, they can have it (well I really didn't plan on buying a camaro anyway), and its also gonna disapoint alot of Camaro fans who are looking to trade in thier 4th gen cars and get the 5th gen for about the same price as a mustang. Price a F5 within a coupla (1-2k) thousand of the Mustang and it will do good, otherwise I dont see the F5 being more than a bowtie branded GTO