Devastating news for GM. Camaro survives, barely

[TonyL]

http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/12810/lutz-on-zeta-future-camaro-safe-but-impala-work-stalls.html

Future rear drive impala on hold as are all other rear drive "Zeta" cars except the Camaro and G8. But the future is not so bright for either anymore. Could this mean the begining of the end for second muscle car era?

[Steve1968LS2]

Thank the tree huggers, if we don't stop "global warming" the earth will burst into flames withing 5 years.

[BADVELLE]

Thank the tree huggers, if we don't stop "global warming" the earth will burst into flames withing 5 years.

We are having "global freezing" weather in Missouri and throughout the Midwest, so much for the greenhouse gases warming the earth!! It is 20 degrees below normal for this time of year!

Long live ZETA!!!!!!

[Bandit]

I'm sure glad the Camaro made it...but I hope this doesn't mean no SS, Z28 or ZL1 package...
Dang hippie tree-huggers...

[TonyL]

I hope this doesn't mean no SS, Z28 or ZL1 package...

Exactly what I'm worried about. I doubt it though. I'm sure what will happen is some kind of "hot rod" tax will happen that will allow these cars to get built. But the average cars, the in-between cars are gonna get screwed in the tailpipe.

[Goatman]

How about thanking piss poor design and sales. How about thanking the boys across the seas for designing such a well engineered and liked product that the domestics haven't been able to catch up since the late 70's when their attitude was "screw everybody"....


Who's got the squares going for when GM's headquarters gets moved to Tokyo?

[dropit69]

ok they want an icrease in fuel milage ..so whats that do for all them big ol suv and trucks that get 10 mpg...damn tree huggers..

[6'9"Witha69]

Make 'em all flex fuel and keep the RWD going.

Damn hippies!!

[Mr.VENGEANCE]

ahhahahah

[andrewb70]

“If the government wants a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy for each size class, I can’t get Zeta 30 percent more efficient,” Lutz said. “It would be like going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. We don’t know how to do it.”

No wonder GM is in trouble. The CEO can't do simple math. :hand:

Andrew

[parsonsj]

Call me crazy, but it seems Lutz is trying to shift blame to anybody other than GM's executive management.

jp

[trapin]

How about thanking piss poor design and sales. How about thanking the boys across the seas for designing such a well engineered and liked product that the domestics haven't been able to catch up since the late 70's when their attitude was "screw everybody"....


Who's got the squares going for when GM's headquarters gets moved to Tokyo?
What does that article have to do with GM's performance in the Auto industry?? We are reacting to what the GOVERNMENT IS DOING....THAT IS ALL. This is out of our control and people wanna stick their foot up our ass for it. Unbelievable....we just can't win with some people. Hey listen...when you run squares for when the media and government decide to stop helping the Japanese piss all over us...let me know. I'd like to get in on that one. Tell ya what...we'll have the drawing at my house. Pizza and Beer is on me.:bsjerk:

Amazing. We make a decision that is in the best interest of our company's stability and we get slugged in the face for it.

[TonyL]

No wonder GM is in trouble. The CEO can't do simple math.

It's actually 26 mpg right? I suck at math too.

[Damn True]

Diesels dammit, diesels!

[andrewb70]

It's actually 26 mpg right? I suck at math too.

Yes...LOL...that would be a 30% increase over 20 mpg.

Andrew

[TonyL]

GM builds "crossover truck"
the media:
"Ugly."
"curious looking"
"a face only its mother could love"
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Honda copies the same truck;
the media
"Great, what an innovation"
"Truck of the Year!"
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

It's shameful how the auto media tows the line that anything American is sub par, and anything Japan makes is better.

[andrewb70]

Diesels dammit, diesels!

This may sound silly, but why aren't there more diesel cars in America? I bet a 4L diesel in an SUV the size of a Trailblazer would get 25-30MPG and be able to tow 8000-9000 pounds. Perfect for car hauling.

Andrew

[EFI69Cam]

Diesels dammit, diesels!


I agree. Not only are Diesels more effecient, but bio fuel is easier to make for CI engines.

[justanova]

GM builds "crossover truck"
the media:
"Ugly."
"curious looking"
"a face only its mother could love"
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Honda copies the same truck;
the media
"Great, what an innovation"
"Truck of the Year!"
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

It's shameful how the auto media tows the line that anything American is sub par, and anything Japan makes is better.


funny, thats what i thought when i first saw that honda, wow! what a nice copy of an avalanche:wedgie:

[justanova]

This may sound silly, but why aren't there more diesel cars in America? I bet a 4L diesel in an SUV the size of a Trailblazer would get 25-30MPG and be able to tow 8000-9000 pounds. Perfect for car hauling.

Andrew

thats a great question, but i'll bet it has something to do with the early 80's diesel cars/trucks that left the american public a little dissatisfied. but with todays diesel technology and how badass they are, there should definately be more diesels.

[Damn True]

This may sound silly, but why aren't there more diesel cars in America? I bet a 4L diesel in an SUV the size of a Trailblazer would get 25-30MPG and be able to tow 8000-9000 pounds. Perfect for car hauling.

Andrew

a) High sulfer content fuel. The stuff is kinda nasty emmisions-wise. Bush signed a law last year allowing the low sulfur stuff like they have in Europe. Should solve a lot of problems. Lower than gas emmisions of CO, CO2 and HCs. Yes there is particulate emmisions, but those are inert compounds.

b) Preception. We all remember being behind one of those Mercedes diesels in the '70s. They are nothing like that any more.

c) Availability of fuel. In certain parts of the country diesel is more expensive than gas. That's a bit of a turnoff to some people regardless of the fact that they will be using less of it.

d) Refinerys. Right now they are configured to make mostly gas which requires "light-sweet" crude for best yield. The cool thing about diesel is that they yeild per barrel is much higher (I think something like 20%) per barrel than gas. In addition you can make diesel in high yields out of just about any cheap-a$$ crude oil. We wouldn't have to buy nearly as much of the expensive "light-sweet" from the middle east. We could use any old crap out of the ground in PA, TX, CA, CO or Canada. Add bio-fuels made from soy into the pot and we are looking at a huge shot in the arm toward energy independance.


The diesels that roam the roads in Europe are freakin brilliant. I drove a Renault Megane (about the size of a Subaru Outback) in Italy last year for almost a month. It had a 1.8 liter tdi in it. The car would easilly hum along the autostrada at 175kph while getting over 30mpg. It was comfortable, quiet, didn't stink and accelerated very nicely.

[CraigMBA]

What Lutz ment was -

"I don't have anyone left on the engeneering staff since I fired half of them and slashed thier budgets who can walk on water anymore."]

This is business speak at its finest.

They can so make that milage mark. They may have years ago, if they had spend $1500-4000 a car on R&D instead of spreading "REBATE" across the hoods to move cars.

Sad really.

[shmoov69]

Just pick up the phone and call 1-800-GM-TRUCK
Seriously! That will tell you everything you want to know!

[bigvegan]

Too bad GM's so hung up on SUVs, and can't build a decent small car to save its soul. CAFE stand for corporate AVERAGE fuel economy, so if GM built small cars that people actually wanted to drive, and cut back on making giant SUVs for commuters, there would be plenty of room left in that AVERAGE for musclecars.

And diesel's not the answer. Just read an article or two on the effects of diesel particulate on children's lung development, and it doesn't look so pretty all of a sudden.

Maybe the Chevy Volt will help things out.

Or maybe GM's just looking for an excuse to screw the fanbase yet again.

What are the cars GM fans get most excited about? Full-size V8 powered RWD cars with a stick shift option. With the exception of the Camaro and the Vette, what has been missing from the GM lineup for an entire generation (30+yrs)? Oh yeah, full-size V8 powered RWD cars with a stick shift.

It's not the government's fault. Japan can build plenty of sweet, fast, rwd/awd, stick-shifted, cars that still get decent mileage. GM could also, but it would rather make the same overweight FWD garbage that's lost it market share for decades, and then blame the government.

Japanese manufacturers didn't take over because of the automotive press, they took over because they flat out built objectively better cars. I'd love to buy a new American car I could get excited about, but GM has to build one first.

Of course, then there's the question as to which is more American, a GM car imported from Australia, or a Toyota built in the lower 48?

Of course, I suppose the answer here is C. None of the Above, buy an old American car made in Detroit and fix her up in your garage.

It could always be worse, they could pass a law stating all cars more than 20 years old worth more than $15,000 must be retrofitted with the latest emissions equipment.

[Clsccmro]

Guys, I'm sorry here, but everyone of you is looking at the wrong issue when it comes to any kind of environmental problems. How come no one EVER brings up the fact that the facilities these cars are made in are 8 billion times worse for the environment than any 8 billion (just a random #) cars in the world could ever be? Or the fact that no matter how "good" a car claims to be for the environment, no one ever bothers to mention that the manufacturing process it took to produce the vehicle is so terrible for the environment that it outweighs the "good" impacts on the environment 10 to 1? The media has brainwashed so many people into believing that if enough people purchase a 30mpg + vehicle, the world might just be saved from all it's environmental problems. Consumers, in reality, have almost no control whatsoever over our environment. Manufacturing plants, especially vehicle manufacturers, are where we should be looking for any environmental probelms, if we can actually prove beyond a doubt that we ACTUALLY have any. On a quick side note, no one has actually been able to prove beyond a doubt that humans have caused any negative effects to earth's environment. Since the big three car manufacturers have remained fortune 500 companies throughout their existence, the US government relies on these companies to keep our stock market from bottoming out. You can imagine what would happen to our stock market if GM were to claim bankruptcy tomorrow and the government decided not to bail them out (which they would never do). Our own government would rather see consumers, the general public, purchase vehicles which were seemingly better for the environment than to force the big three to have their facilities meet strict environmental guidelines. Manufacturing plants across the US already meet strict environmental codes, however they are nowhere near what they need to be considering the vehicles they try to get us to purchase. It is not our duty as consumers to make sure the products we purchase were produced in environmentally friendly facilities. It is the duty of the corporation to provide the best vehicle possible without causing irreversible environmental impacts.

Just my 2 cents

[Damn True]

And diesel's not the answer. Just read an article or two on the effects of diesel particulate on children's lung development, and it doesn't look so pretty all of a sudden.

.

Pretty bold claim. Care to provide some tech to back that up? A link to said article?

[TonyL]

http://www.californialung.org/spotlight/cleanair03_research.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551569
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/view.cfm?item=diesel_health
http://www.earthshare.org/RadioPSA05/EESI_ChildrensHealthFacts.pdf
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0509022.htm


Just a few of the hundreds of thousands of hits I got.

[CraigMBA]

When I was in college, the guy across the hall was one of those stereotypical engeneering majors (total introvert, no personality skills, super quiet) except he had a couple of things going for him. First, the guy was super - SUPER brilliant (my buddy who was regarded as the brightest guy in the ME department told me I was wrong, this guy was). Second, he had a personality disorder. Third, his dad was a lead engeneer in the suspension department at GM. He had reputedly won several GM awards for innovative design, Plus, he had a hell of a lot of personality. I got lucky and met him one day while he was waiting for his kid to come back from the solid materials lab.

While making small talk I mentioned how neat it must be to build new suspensions and make cars better drive for end customers. He quickly corrected me and explained that esentially his job was to reduce costs 1% every year in every assembley he had any responsiblity to.

This was 1990.

Consider this next time you see the domestic builders giving rebates or subsidised financing and notice the imports selling at full list.

[CraigMBA]

Tony:

Direct injection is supposed to fix most of the problems with the particulate matter.

I don't disagree with those surveys, but I suspect that there is more to the outcome than they mention. In my opinion, the problem is economics. People who live near the freeway and happen to be exposed diesel exhaust tend to be poorer and have worse health care and live in apartments, all of which IMO effect that survey.

I'm not saying that the data isn't correct. I'm saying that it is difficult to normalize out the other factors.

[Goatman]

thats a great question, but i'll bet it has something to do with the early 80's diesel cars/trucks that left the american public a little dissatisfied. but with todays diesel technology and how badass they are, there should definately be more diesels.


Like I said piss poor planning, and I forgot, of course, execution by the bloated workers unions who put them together...

[Jim Nilsen]

Several good points here that need to take presedence in making laws to stop pollution are the amount of energy it takes to make a new car. Driving on older car and maintaining it properly just isn't in the style others want you to have. People need jobs and new cars produce those jobs and give us a new style and a new look and a warm fuzzy feeling that we are doing something for our environment which while we are probably going to use it up before we can destroy it. Resources like metals and plastics require alot of energy to make and I believe it has been proven that it takes more energy and creates more pollution to make a car than what it will ever make in its average or long lifetime. But it gives people jobs and that is what puts the food on the table and the entertainment in your living room.

The next point made that really is important is that it is laws that are defining these decisions and laws can be repealed or ratified to adapt to failure which it is certain to happen.Unfortunately the bar has to always be set next to impossible to get companies motivated to do better than might be possible for the average politition to see progress in a world where big changes are hard to come by but style is still important since they will be seen in one. Cost is ever so important yet they continue to run the cost up to make it politically correct. Who can win in an environment like that? Who is getting the biggest share of the extra cost?


I have to laugh about the math part. I remember when they had to raise the fleet mileage up 10% and then everyone bought trucks and suv's getting 10 MPG because cars got smaller to be able to meet the levels. Ooops ,the lawmakers didn't see that one coming or going as it looks right now. 30% just has to mean 30 MPG don't ya think:lmao: Simple math by comparative thinking people:confused:

And one last thing. I remember some real cool hippies that had some of the baddest musclecars of our time. They wrecked them of coarse but I think they would be on our side at this point in time. I like the person that said
" just because I don't believe in global warming doesn't mean I am not environmentally conscious"
That's why rebuilding an old car is a better deal if you like the STYLE !

[Damn True]

http://www.californialung.org/spotlight/cleanair03_research.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551569
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/view.cfm?item=diesel_health
http://www.earthshare.org/RadioPSA05/EESI_ChildrensHealthFacts.pdf
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0509022.htm


Just a few of the hundreds of thousands of hits I got.

Well I am of course no doctor and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn express either. But what I take from a brief skim of those articles is that pulmonary ingestion of particulates is bad for you. That is not news. People that live in very dusty environments, people who work in mills etc. have higher incidence of respritory illness.

Modern diesels, in addition to having vastly lower emmision of particulates by virtue of more advanced fuel formulation also often employ exhaust particulate filters which drop the emmision exponentially.

The CA lung assoc study was published in 2002. Which is before the advent of the current crop of modern diesel fuels in the US. The Environemental defense article is based on a study completed in 1999. Same story.
The UNSCI article sites a 2002 study that started in 1988. Again advancements have been made.

There is no panacea. Even if we are able to build a car that runs on water there will be some form of pollution created by the manufacturing or disposal process of the vehicle. The best we can do, is the best we can do. Right now IMO diesels meet that criteria.

[shmoov69]

The media has brainwashed so many people into believing that if ....
What??!?!? The media biased??!?!:hmm: I had no idea, they never told me! LOL!
Lets see here, problems causing this whole thing, over time that is.....In no certian order.... media, fat labor unions, government trade issues and tax issues, Jap's being better business people and having a goal to take over while the US business are fat and happy with thier heads in the sand, poor quality for a period of time, not giving the masses what they want, did I mention the media hating the US?
IMO!!
No takers on 1-800-GM-TRUCK??:angel:

[lowboy]

The articles TonyL linked up kind of make me laugh. Has it ever occured to you (TonyL) that maybe, just maybe, the people conducting the study had an agenda? Kind of like all the global warming "scientists" sponsored by the united nations preaching to us about the dangers of it and that America is the main cause. Why didn't you just link up articles from the no growth institute or the Sierra Club. I'm sure you could find similiar crap on there website. Todays diesels are much cleaner and more efficient than ever. I hate to admit it but the eurotrash figured this out along time ago. They also figured out that nuclear power is a fantastic alternative. I must confess though, I am a little biased, I have an 04 Dodge Cummins lifted 4x4 putting out about 500 horsepower, 900lbft that will spin donuts all day long and get 20mpg doing it! Oh, and did I mention that it weighs about 8200lbs.

[TonyL]

hey there. whoa. I never said I *agreed* with the studies. I just linked to them because a question was asked.
Care to provide some tech to back that up? A link to said article? The man said he wanted to see studies, so I looked. Turns out some have been done. By a few universities. Do they have an agenda? Sure some do. But not all of them. Is smoke (particulates) bad for you? Of course it is. It's really that simple.

Steps have been made to reduce those particulates and the sulfur content in diesel.

As a matter of fact I'm a huge proponent of diesel cars. I cannot believe we don't allow them here in California. It's a shame that Europe once again gets all the good cars.

Especially since the Jetta TDI BEAT the prius in milage. and consider the huge price difference. The jetta is thousands less. and the lupo gets 75 MPG.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718900859924733158&q=prius+top+gear&hl=en

This is a Lupo. Yes please.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[Damn True]

hey there. whoa. I never said I *agreed* with the studies. I just linked to them because a question was asked. The man said he wanted to see studies, so I looked. Turns out some have been done. By a few universities. Do they have an agenda? Sure some do. But not all of them. Is smoke (particulates) bad for you? Of course it is. It's really that simple.



Not jumping in your grille Tony. Just pointing out that the data didn't apply to the topic since the studies were largely done prior to the advent of current diesel fuel/engine advancement. My comment was actually directed at the dude who simply dismissed diesel based on a vauge referance to "a couple of articles" that were not cited.

[TonyL]

No sweat True. I was responding to *this*....

The articles TonyL linked up kind of make me laugh. Has it ever occured to you (TonyL) that maybe, just maybe, the people conducting the study had an agenda? .

I knew you'd read those and come to that assesment. So did I, but you asked for the studies and I was curious too, so I thought I'd go ahead and post them.

[Damn True]

Ah, gotcha.

[lowboy]

It's all good TonyL. I kinda pissed in you're wheaties and I apologize.

[TonyL]

No prob lowboy, It's a discussion board after all. Debate is healthy, and thanks to all the years I've spent on this board and others, I never read tone or inflection into posts.

[Karch]

a) High sulfer content fuel. The stuff is kinda nasty emmisions-wise. Bush signed a law last year allowing the low sulfur stuff like they have in Europe. Should solve a lot of problems. Lower than gas emmisions of CO, CO2 and HCs. Yes there is particulate emmisions, but those are inert compounds.

b) Preception. We all remember being behind one of those Mercedes diesels in the '70s. They are nothing like that any more.

c) Availability of fuel. In certain parts of the country diesel is more expensive than gas. That's a bit of a turnoff to some people regardless of the fact that they will be using less of it.

d) Refinerys. Right now they are configured to make mostly gas which requires "light-sweet" crude for best yield. The cool thing about diesel is that they yeild per barrel is much higher (I think something like 20%) per barrel than gas. In addition you can make diesel in high yields out of just about any cheap-a$$ crude oil. We wouldn't have to buy nearly as much of the expensive "light-sweet" from the middle east. We could use any old crap out of the ground in PA, TX, CA, CO or Canada. Add bio-fuels made from soy into the pot and we are looking at a huge shot in the arm toward energy independance.


The diesels that roam the roads in Europe are freakin brilliant. I drove a Renault Megane (about the size of a Subaru Outback) in Italy last year for almost a month. It had a 1.8 liter tdi in it. The car would easilly hum along the autostrada at 175kph while getting over 30mpg. It was comfortable, quiet, didn't stink and accelerated very nicely.

Please excuse me if I am off or repeating something in this thread, as I have only read a glimpse, but I thought I would share a bit.

Light, sweet crude is the preferred variety, but it is in very short supply, so most refineries are getting sour (more sulfur) and heavier oils.

I have been working on a lot of projects for ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) this past 12 months, and you will be seeing a lot more coming on-line within the year.

They are pulling the sulfur out of it, and selling it off to the chemical industry. In fact, I need to look for a few articles on measuring molten sulfur for this very application, but I am just too tired to look right now.

Diesel will be coming from Alaska and Cananda (oil sands), so hopefully the price will start to come down.

Also, we are expecting a substantial increase in available refined fuel (gasoline and aviation) within 2 years here in California...it should increase our supply by about 15%, so hopefully we won't be paying so much more than most (I paid $3.519/gal today).

The refineries here really are running 24/7, and try to shut down for maintenance and improvements only every 5 years...that is a lot of continuous operation.

Lastly, they (refineries) are spending some serious capital on process improvements, but their ability to increase production is restricted.

Thanks, and I hope some of this was new to this thread and helpful.

[TonyL]

Now if we could just convince the government to allow the sale of diesel cars in california, we'd be set. (I can't BELIEVE that we can't. California is supposed to be on the cutting edge of environmentalism. No super-mileage diesels? C'mon.)

[Karch]

Tony, I expect that will change soon. With the urea injection and all, it may just work.

I haven't kept up on it, but I remember when the Prius came out, I read about how it works, and wondered why not use a diesel instead of gas?

I think Peugot (however you spell it) has one in Europe.

[TonyL]

why not use a diesel instead of gas?


Cu'z that'd have made sense.

[1FstChevy]

I'm not really going to worry about it, since the good majority of the time the Consumer gets what he wants, if we demand it strongly enough they'll build it, and besides the Camaro is all I need to blow the doors off a Mustang anyhow.... Although I do have to say I'll miss that rear wheel drive Impala but perhaps I'll import a Holden Monero!

[Aceshigh]

How about thanking the boys across the seas for designing such a well engineered and liked product that the domestics haven't been able to catch up since the late 70's when their attitude was "screw everybody"....

Technically GM got caught with it's pants down in the 70's oil crisis and that's what gave way to the Honda and Toyota mini car gas sippers which were already available and were brought here during that phase. You guys forget that Japan has narrow small roads and that's why their cars were made this way. It was just a case of being at the right place at the right time.

American car companies just weren't prepared for it , that's all. Their first small cars didn't come for awhile tho IIRC.

However I personally feel the the US has been preventing economical diesel motors from hitting the US Soil during this gas craze and that is a problem of either our government or some other entity that fears the loss of money. Europe has been using more efficient vehicles for decades now. Why can't we get these vehicles??? A Bluetech Diesel Hybrid could EASILY score a 100mpg city rating car....but yet we
still don't see it....hmmm....wonder why.....