Mustangs................

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by meanmike

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Z was never the badass that the SS are/were. So unless GM changes how it's done thing's in the past, this will be no different.

It's quite clear from what we've heard that the Z28 will be the GT500's competition.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

It's quite clear from what we've heard that the Z28 will be the GT500's competition.

We have'nt really heard much at all.

[Rockmont]

Originally Posted by meanmike

We have'nt really heard much at all.

Well, now you have.

[Rockmont]

Originally Posted by meanmike

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Z was never the badass that the SS are/were. So unless GM changes how it's done thing's in the past, this will be no different.

Ah, but the V6's now are what the V8 were then, so what is your point?

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by Rockmont

Ah, but the V6's now are what the V8 were then, so what is your point?

Yes and the V8's now are also better. I already made my point, but I will do it again. It goes SS, Z28, and then LT or whatever. So now you want to tell me that all of the sudden it goes Z28, SS, and then LT? It has never been that way before, so why would now be any different? I know this is a new GM, but some thing's IMO will never change.

It's just a matter of time until GM returns the Z to it's rightful place

Too make my point a little more clear, if GM make's the Z, I dont think it will be a HP monster like the Shelby is. The SS has alway's been the big Dawg. So that righful place your refering to belong's to the SS.

[Rockmont]

Well, time makes a liar out of everyone, and I have heard it different, and that is all I can say for now.

[a_Username]

Like I've said in other threads Mike...

The Z/28 was only limited to it's small motor due to racing restrictions in the Trans Am series and insurance. With these restrictions no longer in play, except the insurance of course, then I believe GM will make the Z/28 compete with the GT500 in all aspects. Their next car needs to compete with the GT500 no matter what, and if tradition no matter the circumstances need to be honored, then the next trim of the Camaro should be a ZL1 or a different RPO Code altogether.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by Rockmont

Well, time makes a liar out of everyone, and I have heard it different, and that is all I can say for now.

Well if you honestly know something the rest of us dont, I'm sure you dont have any obligation to keep it that way. So spit it out already.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Like I've said in other threads Mike...

The Z/28 was only limited to it's small motor due to racing restrictions in the Trans Am series and insurance. With these restrictions no longer in play, except the insurance of course, then I believe GM will make the Z/28 compete with the GT500 in all aspects. Their next car needs to compete with the GT500 no matter what, and if tradition no matter the circumstances need to be honored, then the next trim of the Camaro should be a ZL1 or a different RPO Code altogether.

So then bring the Z28 in to take the place of the current SS and then bump SS up too the GT500's level.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by meanmike

So then bring the Z28 in to take the place of the current SS and then bump SS up too the GT500's level.

Then the extra costs to do that, plus the pissed off people who already bought an SS makes this an all around bad idea.

[meanmike]

I'm not sure where you get the extra cost's from? As far as pissing people off, I think some will be mad because they made a Z better than the SS, and other's will just be mad because they dont have the better performer. Oh, and some will just be mad because they can be.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by meanmike

We have'nt really heard much at all.

We've heard some pretty reliable rumours about the Z28. As far as we know it will be competing with the GT500, seeing as it is apparently using the CTS-V setup.

[ironpeddler]

the all aluminum block won't be that much of an u/g. I mean when a car weighs just shy of 4k lbs. most people aren't going to feel a -90 lb. difference off the front end. Still that would put the GT500 w/aluminum block lighter or darn near lighter than the SS which doesn't bode well for the Z28.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by ironpeddler

the all aluminum block won't be that much of an u/g. I mean when a car weighs just shy of 4k lbs. most people aren't going to feel a -90 lb. difference off the front end. Still that would put the GT500 w/aluminum block lighter or darn near lighter than the SS which doesn't bode well for the Z28.

I need you to know that you're a Z28. You are.

[GTAHVIT]

I am continuously amazed at how every Mustang Vs Camaro thread turns into a SS/Z28 vs GT500 debate.

unreal...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by meanmike

I'm not sure where you get the extra cost's from? As far as pissing people off, I think some will be mad because they made a Z better than the SS, and other's will just be mad because they dont have the better performer. Oh, and some will just be mad because they can be.

The extra money to send to make a totally new car (Z/28) to be an underperformer to the SS? Plus the extra money to put into their programs to make the SS faster, plus new advertising, etc.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

I am continuously amazed at how every Mustang Vs Camaro thread turns into a SS/Z28 vs GT500 debate.

unreal...

Well I think it's because everyone knows the Current GT vs the Current SS = SS win. So... the only thing they got left is a GT500. If the Z/28 takes the crown from the GT500, then they'll probably comprare the Z/28 to a SuperSnake then lol. JK MUSTANG PEOPLE JK.

[GTAHVIT]

Mike I don't believe for one second that you haven't seen the MULTITUDE of Z28 speculation threads... But, you are right, there is nothing official yet...


So in light of that and of how this thread is WAY off topic,

closed.

[camaro_24]

Saw your Camaro on another forum

Originally Posted by rrobello

Yo check it out, Hard Core Muscle now builds cuztom cars!

We debuted our HotWheels builds at SEMA 09, you may have seen the giant crowds gathered around our 2010 Camaro.....pointing and laughing.

No the hoods not open, that shit just dont fit! SEE!

Worried about symmetry? We gotz you covered....check out the trunk yo!

Shit we gots gaps everywhere!

No ur eyes rnt out of focuz that shiznit is crookd holmes!

If u think our fit is bad azz then ull luv our finish! Just look at thoze buff marks, runz and chips in da paint, scraches, hellz wes even leave the rubbin' compound 4 ya, NO EXTRA CHARGE!

We even lose sum of ur parts and forget to put them on

man shavd door handlz r all the rage yo!

We dont just infect Chebies yo, we gotz our starts wit da stangz.....say what?

But dis one is ours, so we tooks our time wit it, but 4 our customers we put a rush on so u have ur ride bak ASAP like da Camaro above so u can have all dat customz wit little down time!!! Hey we know ur paying good monies so we take good care of u yo.

Da paint lasts a looooooooooooong time!!

Special thankz 2 all our sponsor 4 makin dis happen!

[d69chris]

Wow, what a chop shop.

I feel sorry for the people that provided the cars...........

Sure hope they make it all right or somebody spanks them in court!

I guess they must have got it started or towed it home

[KrisHorton]

Oh man, that's brutal. I figured the cars were dollar cars or else provided by a sponsoring company (Hot Wheels or the like) but never that they were actual customer cars.

The first mistake was trusting HCM. I have heard nothing but bad things about the shop, the owner(s) and the club that he heads up, Stangpede. I don't speak from any personal experience with them, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I have seen the work they do in person and it's pretty terrible. Last year they took one of their Chameleon cars to SEMA that had fisheyes, chips, and cracks in the paint, and a burnt up side skirt from sagging side exhaust.

I didn't venture all the way out to the Silver Lot to see the HCM Camaro in person this year, but when I initially saw those pictures of it on another board it really bummed me out. What a tragedy. Parts missing, parts fitting terribly, and just a general lack of quality.

Shevyman, I'm really sorry about how your car turned out. There's still hope for it, so after you sue Ernie, PM me and I might be able to help put you in touch with a shop that can fix all of his mistakes and help it be the car that it should have been.

[Xodus]

Hey everyone, I'm from that other forum, take a read through the thread, here. It's the same one where those pics came from. It's a fun read! Btw, there's a lot more than this, this is just a preview!

Link to that thread


Some notable contributions of that thread:

Originally Posted by rrobello

whats fucking ironic is he got the deal with HotWheels by undercutting my friends bid (guess you get what you paid for) and so my friend built another Camaro and won best GM hahahaha.

Originally Posted by EvilC

Ernie's wife ( assuming "PERFECT PINK" is her handle over at Stangpede ), just posted a pic of my daughter on a profile over at their site.

Then, some moron claiming to be from "ITT Tech" tried to run an employment verification on me here at work. Number was masked on the phone but since I run the voice gateways I pulled the logs.

Following this, a woman called our front desk and asked for me, claiming to be "my wife". I have that recording plus a recording of the voicemail autoattendant at HCM. Same.

All this because their cars look like fucking shit and I said so. That's legal. Deal with it.

Ernie and Lizeth and any other gangbangers: I am not amused. Consider that you have already committed misdemeanors. I suggest you pickup your phone at your shop that you are not answering despite me calling back 4 times already. Grow the fuck up. Come clean, right now, on this board or I will be filing a report with the Sheriff, tonight, with quite a bit of evidence.

Originally Posted by EvilC

Still no answer....

I don't think they are used to people coming right back at them when they use their juvenile thug tactics.

They asked our accounting person my salary and home address. Now it's dead silence that the table is turned back on them.

Ernie, are you planning on coming to my home? Be a man. Post up.

Originally Posted by EvilC

BTW don't bother trying to "mask your number" when calling the Company of someone who works as a sr. network analyst and logs EVERYTHING:

B2876DD0CCC411DEAD0300169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 16:11:09 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005292: 1049135: .Nov 10 00:13:47.529: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:13:24.869,cgn:,cdn:6001,frs:0,fid:603880,fcid:B2876DD0CCC411DEAD0 300169DE4B0AE,legID:7DD0A,bguid:B2876DD0CCC411DEAD 0300169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 16:11:37 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005293: 1049137: .Nov 10 00:14:16.829: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId D17CE8F7CCC411DE97EEFA7916A02C3A, SetupTime .16:14:16.799 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 5555, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 1C , DisconnectText invalid number (28), ConnectTime .16:14:16.829 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:14:16.829 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 2, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 0, TransmitBytes 0, ReceivePackets 0, ReceiveBytes 0

The cgn I bolded is "Calling Number", it's blank because the dumbass who made the call thinks you can completely block your origin. The other info above are connection ID's that I can match up with the origin number since I work in the fucking industry. Evidence.

Originally Posted by EvilC

2009-11-09 15:58:48 Local7.Info 10.0.1.100 1005104: 1048947: .Nov 10 00:01:26.755: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial0/3/0:0 is now connected to 6195961202 N/A
2009-11-09 15:58:48 Local7.Info 10.0.1.100 1005105: 1048948: .Nov 10 00:01:26.755: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial0/3/0:0 is now connected to 6195961202 N/A2009-11-09 15:59:07 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005106: 1048949: .Nov 10 00:01:46.819: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId 12730C95CCC311DE96FBFA7916A02C3A, SetupTime .16:01:46.789 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 5555, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 1C , DisconnectText invalid number (28), ConnectTime .16:01:46.819 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:01:46.819 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 2, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 0, TransmitBytes 0, ReceivePackets 0, ReceiveBytes 0
2009-11-09 15:59:08 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005107: 1048950: .Nov 10 00:01:46.819: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:01:46.795,cgn:5555,cdn:,frs:0,fid:603766,fcid:1 2730C95CCC311DE96FBFA7916A02C3A,legID:7DCC2,bguid: 12730C95CCC311DE96FBFA7916A02C3A
2009-11-09 15:59:14 Local7.Info 10.0.1.100 1005108: 1048951: .Nov 10 00:01:53.855: %ISDN-6-DISCONNECT: Interface Serial0/3/0:0 disconnected from 6195961202 , call lasted 27 seconds2009-11-09 15:59:14 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005109: 1048952: .Nov 10 00:01:53.875: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 2, ConnectionId 66B3145CCC311DEACFE00169DE4B0AE, SetupTime .16:01:26.645 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 6001, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 10 , DisconnectText normal call clearing (16), ConnectTime .16:01:26.705 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:01:53.875 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 1, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 1356, TransmitBytes 216960, ReceivePackets 1355, ReceiveBytes 216641
2009-11-09 15:59:14 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005110: 1048953: .Nov 10 00:01:53.875: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:01:26.631,cgn:816195961202,cdn:6001,frs:0,fid:6 03765,fcid:66B3145CCC311DEACFE00169DE4B0AE,legID:7 DCC1,bguid:066B3145CCC311DEACFE00169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 15:59:14 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005111: 1048954: .Nov 10 00:01:53.907: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId 66B3145CCC311DEACFE00169DE4B0AE, SetupTime .16:01:26.607 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 816195961202, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 10 , DisconnectText normal call clearing (16), ConnectTime .16:01:26.707 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:01:53.847 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 2, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 1355, TransmitBytes 227481, ReceivePackets 1356, ReceiveBytes 216960
2009-11-09 15:59:15 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005112: 1048955: .Nov 10 00:01:53.907: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:01:26.615,cgn:816195961202,cdn:3100,frs:0,fid:603764,fcid:66B3145CCC311DEACF E00169DE4B0AE,legID:7DCC0,bguid:066B3145CCC311DEAC FE00169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 15:59:35 Local7.Info 10.0.1.100 1005113: 1048956: .Nov 10 00:02:13.707: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial0/3/0:0 is now connected to N/A N/A2009-11-09 15:59:35 Local7.Info 10.0.1.100 1005114: 1048957: .Nov 10 00:02:13.707: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial0/3/0:0 is now connected to N/A N/A
2009-11-09 15:59:37 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005115: 1048958: .Nov 10 00:02:16.823: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId 2454B91ECCC311DE970BFA7916A02C3A, SetupTime .16:02:16.793 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 5555, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 1C , DisconnectText invalid number (28), ConnectTime .16:02:16.823 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:02:16.823 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 2, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 0, TransmitBytes 0, ReceivePackets 0, ReceiveBytes 0
2009-11-09 15:59:38 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005116: 1048959: .Nov 10 00:02:16.823: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:02:16.795,cgn:5555,cdn:,frs:0,fid:603771,fcid:2 454B91ECCC311DE970BFA7916A02C3A,legID:7DCC7,bguid: 2454B91ECCC311DE970BFA7916A02C3A
2009-11-09 15:59:45 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005117: 1048960: .Nov 10 00:02:24.739: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 2, ConnectionId 22486E78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE, SetupTime .16:02:13.369 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 6001, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 10 , DisconnectText normal call clearing (16), ConnectTime .16:02:13.609 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:02:24.739 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 1, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 420, TransmitBytes 67200, ReceivePackets 424, ReceiveBytes 67522
2009-11-09 15:59:46 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005118: 1048961: .Nov 10 00:02:24.739: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:BXFER,ft:11/09/2009 16:02:22.243,frs:0,fid:603772,xconsID:,fcid:22486E 78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE,legID:7DCC6,xrsn:0,xsts :5,Xor:6001,Xee:,Xto:1000,bguid:22486E78CCC311DEAC FF00169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 15:59:46 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005119: 1048962: .Nov 10 00:02:24.739: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:02:13.367,cgn:,cdn:6001,frs:0,fid:603770,fcid:2 2486E78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE,legID:7DCC6,bguid: 22486E78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 16:00:07 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005120: 1048963: .Nov 10 00:02:46.823: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId 36370268CCC311DE9710FA7916A02C3A, SetupTime .16:02:46.793 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 5555, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 1C , DisconnectText invalid number (28), ConnectTime .16:02:46.823 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:02:46.823 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 2, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 0, TransmitBytes 0, ReceivePackets 0, ReceiveBytes 0
2009-11-09 16:00:08 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005121: 1048964: .Nov 10 00:02:46.823: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:TWC,ft:11/09/2009 16:02:46.795,cgn:5555,cdn:,frs:0,fid:603779,fcid:3 6370268CCC311DE9710FA7916A02C3A,legID:7DCCA,bguid: 36370268CCC311DE9710FA7916A02C3A
2009-11-09 16:00:28 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005122: 1048965: .Nov 10 00:03:07.423: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_CALL_HISTORY: CallLegType 1, ConnectionId 22486E78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE, SetupTime .16:02:22.263 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, PeerAddress 1000, PeerSubAddress , DisconnectCause 10 , DisconnectText normal call clearing (16), ConnectTime .16:02:24.663 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, DisconnectTime .16:03:07.423 PST Mon Nov 9 2009, CallOrigin 1, ChargedUnits 0, InfoType 2, TransmitPackets 0, TransmitBytes 0, ReceivePackets 2126, ReceiveBytes 340160
2009-11-09 16:00:28 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005123: 1048966: .Nov 10 00:03:07.423: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:CXFER,ft:11/09/2009 16:03:07.403,frs:0,fid:603785,xconsID:1574,fcid:22 486E78CCC311DEACFF00169DE4B0AE,legID:7DCC9,xrsn:0, xsts:5,Xor:1000,Xee:,Xto:1700,bguid:22486E78CCC311 DEACFF00169DE4B0AE
2009-11-09 16:00:28 Local7.Notice 10.0.1.100 1005124: 1048967: .Nov 10 00:03:07.423: %VOIPAAA-5-VOIP_FEAT_HISTORY: FEAT_VSA=fn:HOLD,ft:11/09/2009 16:02:50.371,frs:0,fid:603780,fcid:3858AB84CCC311D E9716FA7916A02C3A,legID:7DCC9,hrson:2,holding:1000 ,held:,sl:1,usr:retail3,tag:4,bguid:22486E78CCC311 DEACFF00169DE4B0AE


LOL, I went back a bit further. You can see where the dumbass called first with no L33t *SIxtY NinE, then said "uh oh I had better hide!".

Now the question is, do I be a dick and press charges as they did violate several laws including one subset of, believe it or not, federal wiretapping laws ( there is a TON of shit in these not related to actual wiretapping ).

Or, do I just laugh at them and save my time for more useful things, like BSO.

What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by EvilC

Statement from accounting lady:

Filing report.

[d69chris]

By ALL means, please press charges.

Evil grows where good people do nothing!

[Xodus]

Originally Posted by d69chris

By ALL means, please press charges.

Evil grows where good people do nothing!

Just an FYI, I'm not the guy that this happened to over there! I'm just a member!

[d69chris]

Tell a Friend!

Push them to do something, you don't know who you might save from this same fate!

These people will continue to do substandard work!