Gm Releases Production Camaro Pic
5/11/07, 12:14 PM
#41
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
. The Camaro will have Pony car looks but thats only to enhance the nostalgic factor for the baby boomer generation (who now retiring have money to spend), but will no longer be a sports car for the working man at least not the same working man they appealed to when they came out.
5/11/07, 11:49 PM
#42
Legacy TMS Member
If I had to guess, Id say 20-21k for the base V6, 30 to 35k for the base V8 and maybe 38-45k for the top dog. Although I should be schooled shortly on the brand X board I frequent as I've indicated there that I've heard the F5 will be decidely upscale compared to the Mustang (but not really a top dawg offering like the Challenger).
5/12/07, 12:22 AM
#43
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had to guess, Id say 20-21k for the base V6, 30 to 35k for the base V8 and maybe 38-45k for the top dog. Although I should be schooled shortly on the brand X board I frequent as I've indicated there that I've heard the F5 will be decidely upscale compared to the Mustang (but not really a top dawg offering like the Challenger).
5/12/07, 05:51 AM
#44
I lust for a M24
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Football HOF, Canton OH
Posts: 7,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
My only thought on that is, if GM invests the money into the body, sheetmetal, etc for a V8 - they'd be a lot better off if it was also used for a more affordable v6
5/14/07, 10:18 PM
#47
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not gonna throw any estimates for a V6 until I see real proof that there will be a V6. Seriously, we've heard of no V6 prototypes/mules, seen no teasers of V6 concepts, and generally heard no commentary on a V6 model at all. So far it's just a bunch of people hoping that there will be one.
5/18/07, 06:45 PM
#50
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be 2 V6's 260 and 300 hp if I remember correctly and according to lutz in the press and settlemeyer in forums and in person it will be priced with the mustang on every level. Right now they have a Camaro focus group with several people on several different forums taking requests and insight from us. I like that. Scott Settlemeyer himself asking what we'd like to see and what "special editions" we'd like to see and what we actually want from the 5thgen. You can pretty much bet LS3 in the Camaro now that it is out. LS2 is at the end of it's production run at the end of this year and will be phased out by GM in favor of a more powerful more emissions friendly LS3. Settlemeyer assured us it will be lighter than the current mustang and challenger will be priced comparibly.
5/23/07, 10:06 PM
#51
Legacy TMS Member
If the F5 is dimensionally bigger and if it utilizes conventional steel, it will require addtional bracing to combat decreased rigidity (another reason the S-197 is heaver, it is both wider and has a longer wheelbase, ergo using conventional steel required additional metal to maintain rigidity) and there is the matter of the M6 trans with its addtional cog and the IRS, both of which are heavier than the Mustangs current M5/SRA set-up.
If the F5 is making substantial use of the so-called "super-steels" then that would begin to increase costs over a conventional steel car, or are they embracing increased use of metals like aluminum and magnesium, or alloys there of (again more expensive) as well as adopting composite construction like aluminum/steel rotors along with aluminum up-rights with steel spindles, etc?
That also brings up the matter of insurance? A sub 3500 lbs car with 435 hp + will be a 12 second car for sure.
I guess we will see, if GM can manage a sub 30k F5 that weighs less than the current Mustang and touts well over 400hp, Bravo to GM.
5/23/07, 10:30 PM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No clue. We were led to believe that at the time (months ago) they were looking at a realistic weight of around 38-3900. We gasped. Then he said not to worry its on a major weight loss program. but hasn't really given much more up lately. The wheelbase is longer than before however overhangs are much shorter and the overall length is shorter than a 4th gen.
5/24/07, 05:28 PM
#54
No clue. We were led to believe that at the time (months ago) they were looking at a realistic weight of around 38-3900. We gasped. Then he said not to worry its on a major weight loss program. but hasn't really given much more up lately. The wheelbase is longer than before however overhangs are much shorter and the overall length is shorter than a 4th gen.
How long ago these proposals were made or what might have come of them I cannot say. But I can tell you that news of them came from people with history in the Australian auto industry who do have some access to inside info so there is some validity here whatever the reality may be now.
To be honest I'm not surprised. GM was arguably not being upfront about the issues when they were acting as though the Camaro would be a 'slam dunk' in terms of pricing. The platform they chose for the car meant that getting the price right would require a lot of effort, and we're seeing that now.
5/25/07, 02:07 AM
#56
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If GM does put a live axle in the Camaro's rear, will they also use Ford's excuse to justify that decision? Think GM's trying to be a little too much of a copycat - again.
5/25/07, 07:36 AM
#57
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I also think Lutz is a whiner for claiming we can never have cool cars again if we are to believe the "ecomentalists", as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call us. (i'm quite pleased with that title, thank you).
First off, Lutz is claiming that RWD is the problem, we can't build RWD cars cause they can't match upcoming regulations?
Secondly, by now we've all seen some electric vehicles that can really haul *** (www.killacycle.com anyone?) so we know that even after we start making things move without gasoline, there's some serious potential to make them move fast too.
I had always thought Lutz was pretty cool, but that little remark... "we exhale CO2, so its okay for cars to spew it out too, its a natural product of combustion"... and his whining, threatening to cancel the RWD cars... I lost a lot of respect.
5/25/07, 06:15 PM
#59
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We are facing a grave crisis this century where we will begin to run out of oil (that is to say, it will cost more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil from nature). We have already hit peak oil (some say we've already surpassed it). Imagine what happens when we run out. Alternative energy? What alternative energy? Outside oil, every other source requires more energy to create than it produces. Electricity is great, but have you looked at our electric grid lately? We can barely handle the load now. How are we going to find the excess power to run millions & millions of vehicles? Solar powered homes? Sure, great idea. But solar panels are made of plastic. Guess what plastic is made out of. Wanna build more nuclear plants (or any other alternative energy system)? OK. How are you gonna build it without oil? Construction vehicles have to be powered.
We are doing NOTHING to prepare for the elimination of oil, and when it runs out, civilization will change profoundly, with only the government, military and uber rich getting access to it - the rebirth of a class society. Imagine all your expensive middle class homes out in the suburbs - the ones which can ONLY be reached by car. What happens when we can't fuel our cars anymore? Those neighborhoods turn into ghost towns overnight, and the housing market collapses with them.
Hydrogen is a wonderful idea, but from everything I've read, it will never be energy efficient - it will always take more energy to create it than it yields. So it is an unlikely fuel source for vehicles in the future.
Imagine no more air travel. It's gonna happen, because kerosene is another product of oil. When the oil runs out, jet airliners will not fly anymore. Period. They cannot run on electricity or alcohol or solar power...or fairy dust. Our global world will shrink into more localized communities. Everything I'm reading convinces me of that.
So unless scientists invent a miracle energy source, our civilization is in for massive changes this century.
And this doesn't even get into the issue of what oil has done to the environment. I'm only speaking of what will happen to civilization when it runs out ... and when nations begin battling for the last drops.
Here's a great example >> The real reason America invaded Iraq was for the oil. Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. government was able to convince the Nouri al-Maliki government to overturn law number 80, introduced in 1961 in Iraq, which nationalized the land not under the control of the multinational oil companies at the time. It also overturned the 1972 nationalization of oil law, introduced by the Baath party. So by ousting Saddam and putting a new government in place (regime change), the U.S. was on solid legal ground to petition the "friendly" new government to change law 80 so that big oil companies can now extract Iraq oil for themselves.
America understands that access to oil is vital to its survival, not only as a superpower, but even as a sovereign nation in the future; even the Pentagon has issued a dire report that lays out the global strife that will ensue when we run out of oil this century.
If all of this sounds a little too alarmist, do some research and you will discover that the above scenarios really ARE that bleak, and that our civilization is in collective denial. The REAL problem, of course, stems from overpopulation of the planet.
Sorry for the rant/hijack. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...
5/25/07, 06:49 PM
#60
The problem here is that gasoline really is a miracle product. There is no other form of energy on Earth that can do what it does.
We are facing a grave crisis this century where we will begin to run out of oil (that is to say, it will cost more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil from nature). We have already hit peak oil (some say we've already surpassed it). Imagine what happens when we run out. Alternative energy? What alternative energy? Outside oil, every other source requires more energy to create than it produces. Electricity is great, but have you looked at our electric grid lately? We can barely handle the load now. How are we going to find the excess power to run millions & millions of vehicles? Solar powered homes? Sure, great idea. But solar panels are made of plastic. Guess what plastic is made out of. Wanna build more nuclear plants (or any other alternative energy system)? OK. How are you gonna build it without oil? Construction vehicles have to be powered.
We are doing NOTHING to prepare for the elimination of oil, and when it runs out, civilization will change profoundly, with only the government, military and uber rich getting access to it - the rebirth of a class society. Imagine all your expensive middle class homes out in the suburbs - the ones which can ONLY be reached by car. What happens when we can't fuel our cars anymore? Those neighborhoods turn into ghost towns overnight, and the housing market collapses with them.
Hydrogen is a wonderful idea, but from everything I've read, it will never be energy efficient - it will always take more energy to create it than it yields. So it is an unlikely fuel source for vehicles in the future.
Imagine no more air travel. It's gonna happen, because kerosene is another product of oil. When the oil runs out, jet airliners will not fly anymore. Period. They cannot run on electricity or alcohol or solar power...or fairy dust. Our global world will shrink into more localized communities. Everything I'm reading convinces me of that.
So unless scientists invent a miracle energy source, our civilization is in for massive changes this century.
And this doesn't even get into the issue of what oil has done to the environment. I'm only speaking of what will happen to civilization when it runs out ... and when nations begin battling for the last drops.
Here's a great example >> The real reason America invaded Iraq was for the oil. Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. government was able to convince the Nouri al-Maliki government to overturn law number 80, introduced in 1961 in Iraq, which nationalized the land not under the control of the multinational oil companies at the time. It also overturned the 1972 nationalization of oil law, introduced by the Baath party. So by ousting Saddam and putting a new government in place (regime change), the U.S. was on solid legal ground to petition the "friendly" new government to change law 80 so that big oil companies can now extract Iraq oil for themselves.
America understands that access to oil is vital to its survival, not only as a superpower, but even as a sovereign nation in the future; even the Pentagon has issued a dire report that lays out the global strife that will ensue when we run out of oil this century.
If all of this sounds a little too alarmist, do some research and you will discover that the above scenarios really ARE that bleak, and that our civilization is in collective denial. The REAL problem, of course, stems from overpopulation of the planet.
Sorry for the rant/hijack. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...
We are facing a grave crisis this century where we will begin to run out of oil (that is to say, it will cost more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil from nature). We have already hit peak oil (some say we've already surpassed it). Imagine what happens when we run out. Alternative energy? What alternative energy? Outside oil, every other source requires more energy to create than it produces. Electricity is great, but have you looked at our electric grid lately? We can barely handle the load now. How are we going to find the excess power to run millions & millions of vehicles? Solar powered homes? Sure, great idea. But solar panels are made of plastic. Guess what plastic is made out of. Wanna build more nuclear plants (or any other alternative energy system)? OK. How are you gonna build it without oil? Construction vehicles have to be powered.
We are doing NOTHING to prepare for the elimination of oil, and when it runs out, civilization will change profoundly, with only the government, military and uber rich getting access to it - the rebirth of a class society. Imagine all your expensive middle class homes out in the suburbs - the ones which can ONLY be reached by car. What happens when we can't fuel our cars anymore? Those neighborhoods turn into ghost towns overnight, and the housing market collapses with them.
Hydrogen is a wonderful idea, but from everything I've read, it will never be energy efficient - it will always take more energy to create it than it yields. So it is an unlikely fuel source for vehicles in the future.
Imagine no more air travel. It's gonna happen, because kerosene is another product of oil. When the oil runs out, jet airliners will not fly anymore. Period. They cannot run on electricity or alcohol or solar power...or fairy dust. Our global world will shrink into more localized communities. Everything I'm reading convinces me of that.
So unless scientists invent a miracle energy source, our civilization is in for massive changes this century.
And this doesn't even get into the issue of what oil has done to the environment. I'm only speaking of what will happen to civilization when it runs out ... and when nations begin battling for the last drops.
Here's a great example >> The real reason America invaded Iraq was for the oil. Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. government was able to convince the Nouri al-Maliki government to overturn law number 80, introduced in 1961 in Iraq, which nationalized the land not under the control of the multinational oil companies at the time. It also overturned the 1972 nationalization of oil law, introduced by the Baath party. So by ousting Saddam and putting a new government in place (regime change), the U.S. was on solid legal ground to petition the "friendly" new government to change law 80 so that big oil companies can now extract Iraq oil for themselves.
America understands that access to oil is vital to its survival, not only as a superpower, but even as a sovereign nation in the future; even the Pentagon has issued a dire report that lays out the global strife that will ensue when we run out of oil this century.
If all of this sounds a little too alarmist, do some research and you will discover that the above scenarios really ARE that bleak, and that our civilization is in collective denial. The REAL problem, of course, stems from overpopulation of the planet.
Sorry for the rant/hijack. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming...