2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}

EDMUNDS- Mustang V6 vs Camaro V6

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 04:45 PM
  #21  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 1trickpony
I thought I'd point out Chevy could underrate the engine. ECI and some other folks said you cannot do that with the standards.
You can't if SAE certified. The 2010 Camaro V6 wasn't SAE certified. Chevy could of said it had 200HP.

If you publish SAE certified #s, those are the numbers. If SAE certifies it, and you decide to say it has 20HP less than the SAE rating, you can no longer publish the # as "SAE Certified".
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 04:52 PM
  #22  
1trickpony's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by eci
You can't if SAE certified. The 2010 Camaro V6 wasn't SAE certified. Chevy could of said it had 200HP.

If you publish SAE certified #s, those are the numbers. If SAE certifies it, and you decide to say it has 20HP less than the SAE rating, you can no longer publish the # as "SAE Certified".
I see so the 304 HP for the Camaro was GM's estimate and the new 312 HP is SAE. So the new 5.0 and 3.7 HP numbers not SAE certified numbers and could be low or high until certified?
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 04:55 PM
  #23  
John H's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: March 6, 2004
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 3
From: Monroe, NC
Originally Posted by bpmurr
I'm sure there is a logical reason to the wait.
This may be a really dumb thought/opinion, but could there be a strategic reason Ford would announce, yet delay, the release of certain options or colors? Would there be a purpose to keep people purchasing vehicles through out the model year, as opposed to a spike during a portion of the year? Just a thought. I don't know if it would really matter when the vehicles were sold, but other than supplier issues or anticipating something coming from the competition that they'd want to stay ahead of, it's the only reason I can think of.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 04:55 PM
  #24  
stangfoeva's Avatar
MOTM Committee Member
 
Joined: April 17, 2006
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 2
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by 1trickpony
I see so the 304 HP for the Camaro was GM's estimate and the new 312 HP is SAE. So the new 5.0 and 3.7 HP numbers not SAE certified numbers and could be low or high until certified?
yes true
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 08:24 PM
  #25  
cinque35's Avatar
Cobra R Member
 
Joined: February 9, 2006
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 1
From: NY
Originally Posted by John H
This may be a really dumb thought/opinion, but could there be a strategic reason Ford would announce, yet delay, the release of certain options or colors? Would there be a purpose to keep people purchasing vehicles through out the model year, as opposed to a spike during a portion of the year?
^ not dumb at all.. that's exactly what they're doing
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 08:44 PM
  #26  
shooterm1's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: July 18, 2008
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: the 118 FWY
Originally Posted by PaulVincent
Typical GM; change the hp rating without increasing the hp, plus add an ugly optional color for extra cash.
GM = corporate failure

and friends don't let friends drive GM
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 08:45 PM
  #27  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Thank goodness for Mulally or Ford would have been a goner too. They were a good ol' boys club.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 08:50 PM
  #28  
shooterm1's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: July 18, 2008
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: the 118 FWY
Ford had a few things going for it that GM didn't - namely a lot of cash on hand at the right time and a slightly better union contract.

plus they were ahead of the competition is releasing brand new models

and of course the S197 Mustangs didn't hurt either!
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 08:51 PM
  #29  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by shooterm1
Ford had a few things going for it that GM didn't - namely a lot of cash on hand at the right time and a slightly better union contract.

plus they were ahead of the competition is releasing brand new models

and of course the S197 Mustangs didn't hurt either!
Ford had cash because they mortgaged nearly 100% of their assets!!!
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 09:23 PM
  #30  
shooterm1's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: July 18, 2008
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: the 118 FWY
regardless of why or where, it worked out (thank god).

I just wish that Obama had let GM go under.

and friends don't let friends drive GM
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 09:55 PM
  #31  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
It worked in the short term. These loans are coming due, aka chickens coming home to roost. We'll see what happens.

I wish Obummer would stay the hell out of private industry and read the Constitution.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 10:07 PM
  #32  
shooterm1's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: July 18, 2008
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: the 118 FWY
Originally Posted by eci
It worked in the short term. These loans are coming due, aka chickens coming home to roost. We'll see what happens...
maybe you we're paying attention, but Ford (ironically) bought back a lot of there debt Bonds for pennies on the dollar during the height of the melt down a year ago. (and used the borrowed money to do it too)

Then they sold off Jaguar, Rover and Asten Martin (and now Volvo!).
Now they're flush with cash and they're still paying a dividend too
Everything is looking up - for the moment .........
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 10:10 PM
  #33  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by shooterm1
maybe you we're paying attention, but Ford (ironically) bought back a lot of there debt Bonds for pennies on the dollar during the height of the melt down a year ago. (and used the borrowed money to do it too)

Then they sold off Jaguar, Rover and Asten Martin (and now Volvo!).
Now they're flush with cash and they're still paying a dividend too
Everything is looking up - for the moment .........
Ford currently has $132,000,000,000 in debt based on last quarterly, if you were paying attention. This number is AFTER the March 29th revolving debt payment of $3 bil.

Last edited by eci; Apr 8, 2010 at 10:12 PM.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 10:27 PM
  #34  
tbi0904's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: January 10, 2010
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: huntley, il
Originally Posted by eci
It worked in the short term. These loans are coming due, aka chickens coming home to roost. We'll see what happens.

I wish Obummer would stay the hell out of private industry and read the Constitution.
Awesome, politics in a car thread again. What the hell, I'll take a stab at it. I'm not crazy about the bailouts either but lets not portray them as something they're not, ie a sinister government takeover. GM got a couple of loans (albiet a huge amount) from the government, that's it. They (the gov) have no more say in the direction of GM than the bank that you all got your car loan from has in the say of how you maintain and care for (and mod) your car. I guess it's a choice between this: let GM go under, which means the loss of all jobs and local revenue connected to GM (factory workers, car salesmen, auto techs, supply manufacturers, truck drivers, etc). Or give GM a loan with our tax dollars and let them atempt to turn the ship around (no guarentee and isn't a free market economy). Neither choice is very good but I'd rather not see over 1 million more people lose their jobs. Sucks either way, though.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 10:28 PM
  #35  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Just loans. Nothing about disolving shareholder ownership and handing it to the UAW or anything like that.... my bad. They had no say either, like replacing CEO's, nothing like that. \

LOL. Ignorance is bliss, I wish I were dumb too =D
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 11:23 PM
  #36  
tbi0904's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: January 10, 2010
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: huntley, il
Originally Posted by eci
Just loans. Nothing about disolving shareholder ownership and handing it to the UAW or anything like that.... my bad. They had no say either, like replacing CEO's, nothing like that. \

LOL. Ignorance is bliss, I wish I were dumb too =D
You mean the CEO who failed at his job? God what a horrible thing his firing was. I wish I had your "intelligence".
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 11:24 PM
  #37  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by tbi0904
You mean the CEO who failed at his job? God what a horrible thing his firing was. I wish I had your "intelligence".
Change the subject much? Ends justifies the means, right Barrack?
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 11:35 PM
  #38  
tbi0904's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: January 10, 2010
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: huntley, il
Gee, I wish I could be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company in your world. That way, I could preside over my company nearly going belly up and needing the federal government bail me out. Oh yeah, doing that screws a lot of people (current bondholders) but the alternative would be to let my company die and screw all my employees and everyone who supports my business. Sign me up, Karl Rove.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 11:40 PM
  #39  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by tbi0904
They (the gov) have no more say in the direction of GM than the bank that you all got your car loan from has in the say of how you maintain and care for (and mod) your car.
Hi there.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2010 | 11:47 PM
  #40  
tbi0904's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: January 10, 2010
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: huntley, il
Originally Posted by eci
Hi there.
Hi Carl. How's your dad's GT500? Wax it for him today?
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:44 AM.