Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
HeadlightArmor
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2013, 08:47 PM   #276
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '13 Audi S4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Well then it's even dumber to ignore the biggest economy on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
That's because your method is all wrong.



You're not comparing apples to apples. You need to either use the 1967 cost of the lowest trim 1967 Camaro, or use the current cost of a 2013 2SS which is approximately where the SS396 fell in the 1967 Camaro lineup. As it is, you're comparing an upper trim 1967 model to a base level trim 2013 model.

So what you have proven is that if you spent the same amount of money, inflation adjusted, on a Camaro in 1967 you would have gotten an upper trim level Camaro, while in today's world you would only get a base level trim Camaro.

Once you make a true apples to apples comparison you will see that car prices have risen faster than inflation between 1967 and now.

And it's because of Gov't interference.
Are you considering that the "governement interference" is only a portion of that adjusted cost increase? Much of it is technology improvements that arguably we would want and pay for that weren't available then.

Also consider that many of these safety technologies would be customer driven. I'll give you the example of door beams. Developed for side impact, they were designed to "meet the specific govenment standard". The beams themselves weren't mandated. Long story short the Japanese OEMs were puttng these door beams on cars here in the U.S. and NOT in Japan. It wasn't mandated. The Japanese complained about why the U.S. go safer cars and the rest is history.

With the price of oil, I would argue this would take care of itself over time. But the government feels it's involvement will improve the situation.

So I'm not trying to disagree, but many of the advancements that have driven car prices up are technology based.

Brakes are better, tires are better, seats are better (with mandated head restraints ) structure is better, ride is better, car is quieter. On and on.

Now if you wan't to compare the flipside of the anti vibration car CD player I bought many many years ago that played the CD through a cassette player for $400 in "back in the day" dollars and can now be bought for under $20, well that's another story.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 08:49 PM   #277
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,754
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larz29 View Post
Why would anyone want a 4 cyl camaro?? Sounds a bit lame.
I know the conversation has drifted a little, but in my opinion...most who'd be into a Turbo 4 Camaro (I doubt you'll see anything less than that in a car called "Camaro") would be those looking for a "sporty" coupe with looks, a low price, and everyday practicality (fuel economy, maintenance, etc) that most of us here normally sacrifice when we opt for the V8s.

Not lame...just different strokes for different folks. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as they're driving a Camaro.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 09:43 PM   #278
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
I could never understand why some people have such a RTC factor in their life. Change is a good thing and should be embraced. Without change, life becomes very stagnate.
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!

We have to get you on CNN ASAP!!!!

Finally someone has the solution for climate change:

"Change is a good thing and should be embraced."

As part of embracing it, the EPA is hereby dissolved, and CAFE eliminated. There will be no size, weight, or horsepower limit on cars from this day forward!

"EMBRACE THE CHANGE!" "CHANGE IS GOOD!"

YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHOOOOOOOO OOOO!!!
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 09:50 PM   #279
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '13 Audi S4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,802
Ok so the 82 Camaro had a 350 cu in V8 that made 150 hp and if you upped the anty you get get the 165 hp Cross Fire injected fire breathing beast. All government sponsored circa early 1970's emissions requlations (not fuel economy).

So the new 2.5 L I4 makes 200 hp and the 2.0L Turbo makes 270. Don't get hung up on what the Camaro is based on what it was. History says the 2.5L would smoke the 82 V8.

And we've already referenced the awesome Iron Duke earlier in this thread. Yikes!!!!

Just sayin'
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 09:59 PM   #280
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
Nobody is suggesting that the Camaro become either of those things (hint: virtually all of those "alternatives" are 4-door sedans with styling that ranges between bland and downright odd).
I think it would be much more productive to get the makers of those cars to offer a coupe version than it would be to change the camaro into a 2 door copy of them.

Quote:
But why anybody who overwhelmingly prefers a V8 version should care how the entry point is configured just isn't making much sense here, as they'd all be somebody else's cars regardless.
You are misreading me. I don't really care what they offer in terms of a base model, but I see here a lot of people who seem to be saying that a tiny camaro with a tiny engine with the boost cranked up is what they want the car to be. I think you would find these same people in a Harley Davidson forum complaining because they don't make crotchrockets.

But that's only a small part of my disagreement. The biggest part of it is that there are people on here who knowingly put aside their own common sense to take the side that CAFE standards are a good thing and that it won't hurt the Camaro to have them. The 4 cylinder camaro can be attributed to the CAFE standards and I believe that to meet those goals that the I4 will be nowehere near the performer people dream of. It wouldn't surprise me if they put something like CAGS or AFM on the I-4 (or worse), because they "have" to. Meanwhile the V8 will be reduced to a limited production car that only Jay Leno and Rick Hendrick will be able to afford.

Quote:
The pickup suggestion is just a distraction into silliness.
The it is the perfect analogy for how many people feel about what people are suggesting for the Camaro.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:06 PM   #281
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_ View Post
Wasn't this you?

"A lightly boosted V6 will run circles around a lightly boosted I-4, so the I-4 will need more radical components to handle higher boost just to keep up with the V6. That means for the same level of performance you will shell out more money for the I-4, and have less headroom to tune it because it will already be pushed closer to the limit just to feel like a mildly boosted V6."

Sounds like you were speaking in general. You didn't state anything regarding make/model/type. I speak from what I know- turbocharged I-4s beating the crap out of V-6 and V-8s with FI. Look for the FACTS all around you.
Where exactly did I say anything that even suggests they are being compared in different cars?

If you think that I meant different cars then I can take your approach and say I meant the V6 was in a mini cooper and the I-4 I was thinking of was in an International School Bus.

I can play your silly semantics game too! Wheeee! It's fun to intentionally misinterpret people to make it look like I won an argument!! I never tried this before, and it's additcive! Give me some more posts to dismantle! This is fun!
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:11 PM   #282
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
You mean to tell us you never make changes in your daily life ? You never watch new TV shows, try new restaurants, wear a new style of clothes ? Nobody is forcing you to do anything, just because you don't care for something that is being offered, shouldn't mean it shouldn't be offered at all to others. Whether you like it or not, change is inevitble , and without change there is no future.

As a side note, it you don't switch it up with your wife, someone else will ...
Change rules!

Ever heard of "New Coke", "Windows Vista", "Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, 3" and the list goes on!
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:26 PM   #283
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
You guys crack me up ... If a car is out of your reach, who's fault is that ? I'm not rich by any means, but I stopped all my bad habits to pay for the toys I have. The only one keeping you from the things you want is YOU.
I don't have any of the habits you consider "bad", and I make a good living.

I happen to live in one of the highest taxed states in the union, so I get a ding there, and I can't reloacate at the moment because of family details. Where I live and work I need a 4WD truck/suv with offroad type capabilities, so I have to budget for 2 personal vehicles. I could easily buy all the cars you have if I wanted to, but my needs are different than yours.

I happen to also contribute heavily to my own personal retirement account, because Medicare and Social Security are GOING BANKRUPT.

What I completely reject is the same idiots who have destroyed the economy, and devalued my savings, and are bankrupting my govt. run retirement "insurance" are now putting a gun to the head of companies who makes things that I wish to buy and FORCING them to make them MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.

To make matters WORSE, they go around pretending that their actions are noble and beneficial, and 51% of the people fall for it.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:30 PM   #284
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Thank you for making my point ... Your right, I don't care if you limit yourself and can't afford the things you want in life. You sound like one of those hippies that wants everything given to them. Not all performance cars are taxed, only those that don't meet standards. Buy yourself a new GT500, no extra tax on that.
Many people can afford things but choose not to because they don't like the direction things are going. Why buy a $60K car when someone might decide that you don't "need" it and take it away.

Last edited by Captain Awesome; 02-15-2013 at 10:47 PM.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:33 PM   #285
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Your opportunities in life are the same as mine and everyone elses. I don't recall anyone guaranteeing the top of the line of any one product.
Were you originally from Florida, or did you move there to get away from State income tax?
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:45 PM   #286
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Ok so the 82 Camaro had a 350 cu in V8 that made 150 hp and if you upped the anty you get get the 165 hp Cross Fire injected fire breathing beast. All government sponsored circa early 1970's emissions requlations (not fuel economy).

So the new 2.5 L I4 makes 200 hp and the 2.0L Turbo makes 270. Don't get hung up on what the Camaro is based on what it was. History says the 2.5L would smoke the 82 V8.

And we've already referenced the awesome Iron Duke earlier in this thread. Yikes!!!!

Just sayin'
That's a really bogus comparison. The 82 V8 was a complete POS because the EPA and NHTSA came along with all their CAFE and "smog" standards 10 years earlier, and it took the car companies another 10 years to get back to where they were when it all started.

If you think we shoud all go back to driving cars for the with power like that of cars 20 years ago (taking 20 years to get back to current power), then CAFE is your ticket.

I think many of the people here must have been born in the mid-late 80's and came of driving age in the late 90's or early 2000's, and completly missed the dreck we had in the mid 70's and 80's. They have NO CLUE how bad CAFE was for performance, so they don't know enough to oppose it.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 11:24 PM   #287
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 6,877
Performance started taking a hit around 1971, when emission standards was increased and low lead fuel was introduced. After that is when they started to make standards for MPG. The problem we had was the lack of technology to keep up. We have come a long way since then, and far surpassed the performance levels prior to the new standards due mainly through new technology.


Also my moving to Florida had nothing to do with lack of state taxes, at the time I didn't even know about the tax thing here.
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:39 AM   #288
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Performance started taking a hit around 1971, when emission standards was increased and low lead fuel was introduced. After that is when they started to make standards for MPG. The problem we had was the lack of technology to keep up. We have come a long way since then, and far surpassed the performance levels prior to the new standards due mainly through new technology.


Also my moving to Florida had nothing to do with lack of state taxes, at the time I didn't even know about the tax thing here.
You mean the emission standard change didn't help performance? Gee Wally, I thought you said ALL change was for the better? You are argumentative for its own sake, you own a bunch of muscle cars and brag about your means to own them but argue for the Camaro to be changed into a 4 cylinder econobox because all change is good.

Your statements are not to be believed, if they were--my father in law dying of cancer and my mother dying of a heart attack in the same year must have been a fantastic change. I'm sure all the people who lost money when Lehman crashed or my fellow soldiers who were maimed last year from rocket attacks and IEDs are thinking how awesome it is that their having legs thing changed.

I DO remember the '70s. I am NOT a hippie nor do I expect things for free. The discussion was about 4 cylinder Camaros. This is a Camaro forum, I would have never thought you'd find so many Camaro fans who attack those who like V8 engines, and advocate for govt. regulation to turn muscle cars into econo green low displacement hamster engined smart cars. But I guess thats a change too.

If we embrace and accept every change for the worse, nothing will ever improve and we will doom ourselves to a permanent downward spiral.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:55 AM   #289
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Worse for you maybe yes, but not necessarily for others. That's where survival kicks in and just learn to accept and go with the flow. In other words in life you change the things you can and embrace the things you can't.
I'm not even sure what you are advocating here? If things are worse for you should you change things, or embrace the suck, or accept crap? Worse for you, yes but not for others. Is this an elitist version of "sucks to be you?" Yeah I got mine (I'm Rick James B**ch) now were gonna make Camaros synonymous with Honda Accords.

If people of my complexion would have embraced things they couldn't change, I'd probably be picking cotton somewhere.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 05:15 AM   #290
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '13 Audi S4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
That's a really bogus comparison. The 82 V8 was a complete POS because the EPA and NHTSA came along with all their CAFE and "smog" standards 10 years earlier, and it took the car companies another 10 years to get back to where they were when it all started.

If you think we shoud all go back to driving cars for the with power like that of cars 20 years ago (taking 20 years to get back to current power), then CAFE is your ticket.

I think many of the people here must have been born in the mid-late 80's and came of driving age in the late 90's or early 2000's, and completly missed the dreck we had in the mid 70's and 80's. They have NO CLUE how bad CAFE was for performance, so they don't know enough to oppose it.
Was only pointing out to those that are implying the Camaro is and has been so awesome that you couldn't have a 4 cylinder engine in it. It has had a 4 cylinder and it has been a crappy performing car.

Allllllll I was saying is that if you put the 2.5L in the car it would likely perform better than the 82 POS powered Camaro.

Anything else you are pulling from my post is you jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

But lets just ask, since you seam to want this to be about government intervention in our lives and not just "why would anyone want a 4 cylinder in a Camaro".

At what point should the government not regulate our transportation? Should you be required to have lights to drive more safely and so others can see you? (FMVSS regulation) Should you have mirrors in order to safely opperate your vehicle and not damage others? (FMVSS regulation) Should you have brakes to safely stop and an acclerator that doesn't stick? (FMVSS regulations). Should you have the confidence that the Chinese should be able come here and sell whatever hooptie mobile they want with disregard to basic automotive safety? Or should it just be a blanking free for all and you can drive whatever the hell you want because it's a free market? How about loads on big trucks? Should they be required to meet certain safety regulations so you can be safe? (Gov. Regs). Should there be a speed limit?

Where is that line?

And don't jump to conclusions on my post, just comment on if truly believe it should be a wild west free for all on the roads.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 06:05 AM   #291
martingary1803
 
Drives: indica 2008
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: India
Posts: 1
hello ,
welcome to you on this forum site.
I have transport business having four toyota which are six yr old, now i want to change them. for this I am taking reference from some websites. please suggest me for good options.
----------------------------------
2013 MERCEDES BENZ SL-CLASS
martingary1803 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:29 AM   #292
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by martingary1803 View Post
hello ,
welcome to you on this forum site.
I have transport business having four toyota which are six yr old, now i want to change them. for this I am taking reference from some websites. please suggest me for good options.
----------------------------------
2013 MERCEDES BENZ SL-CLASS
You should probably be on a truck site. This is Camaro 5.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:37 AM   #293
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
You mean the emission standard change didn't help performance? Gee Wally, I thought you said ALL change was for the better? You are argumentative for its own sake, you own a bunch of muscle cars and brag about your means to own them but argue for the Camaro to be changed into a 4 cylinder econobox because all change is good.

Your statements are not to be believed, if they were--my father in law dying of cancer and my mother dying of a heart attack in the same year must have been a fantastic change. I'm sure all the people who lost money when Lehman crashed or my fellow soldiers who were maimed last year from rocket attacks and IEDs are thinking how awesome it is that their having legs thing changed.

I DO remember the '70s. I am NOT a hippie nor do I expect things for free. The discussion was about 4 cylinder Camaros. This is a Camaro forum, I would have never thought you'd find so many Camaro fans who attack those who like V8 engines, and advocate for govt. regulation to turn muscle cars into econo green low displacement hamster engined smart cars. But I guess thats a change too.

If we embrace and accept every change for the worse, nothing will ever improve and we will doom ourselves to a permanent downward spiral.

Gee Beav ... Nothing like reading between the lines and taking things out of context ... Never once did I say ALL change is good. Never once did I say a change today would make a difference better or worse tomorrow. Some changes take a longer period of time to correct.

I will however state, never once did I say V8's sucked and I didn't like them. I was born and raised in Detroit, and my life revolved around the auto industry. I also was a strong advocate for the street scenes on Woodward Ave. and Gratiot ... My whole point in this entire thread is it's not your place or mine to say someone can't or shouldn't want a 2.0T in a Camaro. Who cares if the ZL1 cost extra taxes, most that can afford one this is a non issue.

I stand behind my statement that you change the things you can, and embrace the things you can't.

I lost a lot of friends in the late 60's and early 70's that were drafted into a war we didn't belong in. But from all of that there were lessons learned, that are applied today.

You know nothing about me, I was a very big into anti government. I was at every protest and sit in I could get to. If you want to call me an elitist because I'm able to make it in life, and am responsible for my own destiny or demise so be it.
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:06 AM   #294
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Was only pointing out to those that are implying the Camaro is and has been so awesome that you couldn't have a 4 cylinder engine in it. It has had a 4 cylinder and it has been a crappy performing car.

Allllllll I was saying is that if you put the 2.5L in the car it would likely perform better than the 82 POS powered Camaro.

Anything else you are pulling from my post is you jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

But lets just ask, since you seam to want this to be about government intervention in our lives and not just "why would anyone want a 4 cylinder in a Camaro".

At what point should the government not regulate our transportation? Should you be required to have lights to drive more safely and so others can see you? (FMVSS regulation) Should you have mirrors in order to safely opperate your vehicle and not damage others? (FMVSS regulation) Should you have brakes to safely stop and an acclerator that doesn't stick? (FMVSS regulations). Should you have the confidence that the Chinese should be able come here and sell whatever hooptie mobile they want with disregard to basic automotive safety? Or should it just be a blanking free for all and you can drive whatever the hell you want because it's a free market? How about loads on big trucks? Should they be required to meet certain safety regulations so you can be safe? (Gov. Regs). Should there be a speed limit?

Where is that line?

And don't jump to conclusions on my post, just comment on if truly believe it should be a wild west free for all on the roads.
Ok I'll give it a shot. We need Govt. regulation for safety and basic road laws. You are correct and I will concede this. But Govt works for us, they shouldn't work for themselves or for special interests. There shouldn't be regulations designed to force my behavior to support their monetary gain. For instance, a certain Missouri Politician shouldn't push to give stimulus money to windmill companies when his son owns one. Al (Jazeera) Gore shouldn't be able to force cap and trade legislation when he owns a company that stands to make quite a fortune from it. Legislation shouldn't force all cars to be the same, or most people to have to drive "Le Govt. econo car"

this thread started about 4 cylinder Camaros, and we all have opinions on it. Yours are valid but so are mine. You prefer a small energy efficient Kia type entry level Camaro, some on here prefer a Honda accord or nissan Altima style SS. I prefer the reason I bought this car in the first place.

GM and the Govt. will do what they do. You are correct-- they had a 4 cylinder Camaro and they had underperforming weak sister V8s. They also discontinued the Camaro, and they went bankrupt. When they advertised the iron duke, they (like now ). Praised the 4cylinder engine. They didn't say " this will be a piece of crap for entry level sales purposes." If they choose to do what many here seem to advocate; making the entry level car an econo box and the SS a Honda accord I will not buy GM, much less Chevy. (And I love Chevy's)

So to conclude, the Govt. can make and should make regulations, but not onerous ones or self serving ones or unnecessary ones.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:14 AM   #295
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
I'm very aware . . .
There actually have been times where I wondered how things would have turned out had I become a machinist instead. Might have been a bit more portable. Whether I'd have ended up any better off we'll never know.
Quote:
Guess we will all just have to agree to disagree, because this thing sure hung a left a long time a go.
Fair enough, at least on that point.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
I think it would be much more productive to get the makers of those cars to offer a coupe version than it would be to change the camaro into a 2 door copy of them.
Somehow, I can't see tougher competition at the Camaro's entry point being a good thing for the Camaro.


Quote:
You are misreading me. I don't really care what they offer in terms of a base model, but I see here a lot of people who seem to be saying that a tiny camaro with a tiny engine with the boost cranked up is what they want the car to be.
Then you are guilty of a little misreading as well. People aren't clamoring for a hand-grenade T4, or necessarily even a T4 making STi/Evo numbers. Opposition to T4's based on imagined states of tune higher than necessary is being used as an argument against ALL T4's There's probably a fancy name for this kind of logical fallacy, but I'm too lazy to go chase it down..

Think in terms of 2.5L or a bit more, with more moderate boost levels that would come in quicker or at lower revs. Balance-shafted if/as necessary.


Quote:
I think you would find these same people in a Harley Davidson forum complaining because they don't make crotchrockets.
Rehash of the Camaro pickup argument?



Quote:
But that's only a small part of my disagreement. The biggest part of it is that there are people on here who knowingly put aside their own common sense to take the side that CAFE standards are a good thing and that it won't hurt the Camaro to have them. The 4 cylinder camaro can be attributed to the CAFE standards and I believe that to meet those goals that the I4 will be nowehere near the performer people dream of. It wouldn't surprise me if they put something like CAGS or AFM on the I-4 (or worse), because they "have" to. Meanwhile the V8 will be reduced to a limited production car that only Jay Leno and Rick Hendrick will be able to afford.
This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Even you'll have to admit that forcing the technology has (at the very least as a side effect if not by outright intent) produced more powerful engines. Hell, with only a little 281, my '08 Mustang is both quicker and traps higher than what the SS396 Chevelles could do. Think about that, from a hundred fifteen fewer cubic inches.

But I get the concept of diminishing returns, and we're off the steep part of the learning curve as it is. Seems to me a reasonable point to at least pause.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Many people can afford things but choose not to because they don't like the direction things are going. Why buy a $60K car when someone might decide that you don't "need" it and take it away.
Once you've bought it, it's yours. Hence what you're hinting at clearly runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
That's a really bogus comparison. The 82 V8 was a complete POS because the EPA and NHTSA came along with all their CAFE and "smog" standards 10 years earlier, and it took the car companies another 10 years to get back to where they were when it all started.

If you think we shoud all go back to driving cars for the with power like that of cars 20 years ago (taking 20 years to get back to current power), then CAFE is your ticket.
And to think that I thought we'd ALL managed to get past thinking thaqt all 4 cylinder engines were Iron Dukes . . .

Quote:
I think many of the people here must have been born in the mid-late 80's and came of driving age in the late 90's or early 2000's, and completly missed the dreck we had in the mid 70's and 80's. They have NO CLUE how bad CAFE was for performance, so they don't know enough to oppose it.
This is perhaps true, though it was the confluence of CAFE and early emissions control terchnology. Yes, I remember when catalytic converters were filled with pellets too. Might still have one of those things laying around somewhere.

Have to agree with SlingShot on this

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Performance started taking a hit around 1971, when emission standards was increased and low lead fuel was introduced. After that is when they started to make standards for MPG. The problem we had was the lack of technology to keep up. We have come a long way since then, and far surpassed the performance levels prior to the new standards due mainly through new technology.

Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:57 AM   #296
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,213
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
You really can't make an apples to apples comparison from 1967 to now. Even with and without the different government standards the cars are worlds apart. Like it or not, technology and safety cost more. To be honest I'm grateful for where cars are today, because back in 1967 the cars were built like crap and you didn't get the warranty's that you get today. Granted nothing is for free, and we pay for those extras but most of us don't complain if we get into a wreck or have something break.
Really? built like crap?Those cars were built with pride back then. The safety aspect wasnt there I agree because the regulations werent set up and less drivers on the road than toady. Understandable. But youre telling me plastic beats metal? Youre telling me sticker chrome is better than actual aluminum grilles and steel chrome? The engineering may have not been as it is today, but if you think for one second that those cars of the past were built like crap, youre delusional. How is a car "built like crap" so easily mistaken when you could put ANY engine into them very easily with damn near just a swap. Try putting that LS3 into V6 Camaro when its the SAME car. Something breaks on your car, are you fixing it yourself? As for the warranty? warranties are a joke. You didnt need a warranty on a car back then because anyone with half a brain could fix what was wrong with it at home.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:19 PM   #297
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Are you considering that the "governement interference" is only a portion of that adjusted cost increase? Much of it is technology improvements that arguably we would want and pay for that weren't available then.
The BellSouth/IBM Simon Personal Communicator was released in 1993. The Simon Personal Communicator was the first mobile phone to add PDA features. It was a phone, pager, calculator, address book, fax machine, and e-mail device in one package, albeit a 20-ounce package that cost $900.

Today I can buy a Galaxy SIII mobile phone with a 16GB memory, TouchWiz interface, it's S Voice feature can recognize 8 languages, it can play music, TV programs, podcasts, audiobooks, and surf the Internet. It also has a 1.9 megapixel camera that can also shoot HD video at 720p @ 230 frames/s.

Despite the added cost of technology improvements that weren't available back then the Galaxy SIII retails for $699.99.

So now we have a product that has numerous technological advancements and yet is cheaper in real dollars than it was 2 decades ago (when you factor in inflation, the price gap gets even bigger).

How did this happen? I have an idea! Maybe it was because the Gov't wasn't mandating to cell phone companies how long battery life had to be, drop test ratings, size and weight, what applications must be put on the phones, nor mandating what cameras must be on the phones, etc. When the private sector is unmolested, and when consumer demand drives the market, the advances in technology and drops in price will amaze you.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:43 PM   #298
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
Really? built like crap?Those cars were built with pride back then. The safety aspect wasnt there I agree because the regulations werent set up and less drivers on the road than toady. Understandable. But youre telling me plastic beats metal? Youre telling me sticker chrome is better than actual aluminum grilles and steel chrome? The engineering may have not been as it is today, but if you think for one second that those cars of the past were built like crap, youre delusional. How is a car "built like crap" so easily mistaken when you could put ANY engine into them very easily with damn near just a swap. Try putting that LS3 into V6 Camaro when its the SAME car. Something breaks on your car, are you fixing it yourself? As for the warranty? warranties are a joke. You didnt need a warranty on a car back then because anyone with half a brain could fix what was wrong with it at home.

I stand by my comment, I've been in every factory in Detroit from the Chrysler Jefferson plant to GMC Truck in Flint. I've seen and experienced everything first hand. You would have been very surprised, the crap that goes on in those factorys. They were cities within a city. There was more illegal activities going on than work, and the only thing that was cared about was the paycheck at the end of the week.

Just because the cars had more metal didn't make them better. Their idea of holding tolerances back then was " close enough " . I guess just because the cars were simpler and easier to work on made them better, that's ok. It's ok if rusting and turning into rattle traps within a couple years was better.

As far as the warranty thing back then, your right because I wouldn't want to stand behind the products either.
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 02:10 PM   #299
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,213
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
I stand by my comment, I've been in every factory in Detroit from the Chrysler Jefferson plant to GMC Truck in Flint. I've seen and experienced everything first hand. You would have been very surprised, the crap that goes on in those factorys. They were cities within a city. There was more illegal activities going on than work, and the only thing that was cared about was the paycheck at the end of the week.

Just because the cars had more metal didn't make them better. Their idea of holding tolerances back then was " close enough " . I guess just because the cars were simpler and easier to work on made them better, that's ok. It's ok if rusting and turning into rattle traps within a couple years was better.

As far as the warranty thing back then, your right because I wouldn't want to stand behind the products either.
Well, who cares how much illegal acvtivity was going on? Ive never seen a straightlaced corporation. Have you?

As for the paycheck thing, we can agree that hasnt changed nor will it change. I'm sure its exactly the same and those folks could give a damn about putting together a car day in and day out. Especially the way the Union has been played out.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 02:28 PM   #300
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
At what point should the government not regulate our transportation? Should you be required to have lights to drive more safely and so others can see you?
You have it ALL WRONG.

The real questions is: At what point has the government FINISHED their transporation regulations?

You would think that after 100 years of cars and car regulations, that they would have figured out what lights we need, how many MPH our bumpers must take, and what MPGs we should have, don't you?

A common misconception or intentional misrepresentation of certain politiicians is that people who argue for less regulation are "anti regulation" and those who argue for smaller government are "anti government". This is totally wrong. There are roles for regulation and government that are clearly defined. People reject the OVERREACH beyond those definitions.

The problem is that the regulators NEED to keep regulating and re-regulating, because even though the number of things that can be regulated is finite, they will be out of a job if they ever finish the task.

Therefore, we have regulations on top of regulations ammending regulations, and updating regulations. Same for laws too. There's no end. The job of the regulator is FIRST to protect their own jobs by constantly rewriting regulations.

Did you know that in the past 3 months the governernment has put our nearly 6,000 regulations?

Regulations put a drag on the economy be the sheer work needed to keep up with them and follow them. The private sector spends $500 BILLION a year just in regulation compliance. This is dragging the economy into the mud.

We regulate things and then change the regulations the next year, and people waste tremendous time becuase nothing is ever the same and so more time and money is wasted.

There's a certain finite number of regulations we need, and the rest are just regulators trying to protect their jobs, plus a certain amount of regulations being created because the party in control wants to use them as a tool to change the society. WE DO NOT NEED THIS.

Most, if not all of the regulations you cited are completely unnecessary because they would be done voluntarily by carmakes because of consumer demand or as the result of lawsuits long since decided.

Do we REALLY need backup sensors on every car? Do we REALLY need stability control on every car? Do we really need CHMSL on every car?
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.