Thoughts on GM's "indefinite hold" on high-po

[oestek]

You'd think that by GM announcing the cancellation of their high-performance division (or putting it on indefinite hold) would be a negative PR move. I would rather have heard some line like "We are focusing the directive of our high-performance team on higher performance fuel economy targets" rather than them announcing that there are no more plans for high-po versions of upcoming cars. That's depressing. They apparently are not going to cancel the Camaro SS or current hi-po cars, but you think they could have spun that to be a little more... "hopeful" sounding. I feel like I've been grounded and my toys taken away.

http://www.v8tvshow.com/forum/index.php/topic,5195.0/prev_next,next.html#new

[wmhjr]

Though it doesn't make me happy, I'm guessing that it's mainly a PR move for them. Most of the American public doesn't look at performance through the same lens - at least as evidenced by the recent elections. There is far more hype about efficiency and economics. The HiPo market really isn't a profitable market - it's a leader to drive increased exposure and brand recognition.

[Damn True]

Oh great. We can all drive 103hp jelly beans designed with input from the pantheon of brilliance that is the US Congress.

Freaking stupid.

File for bankruptcy for gods sake, get the UAW monkey off your back and the idiots in Washington out of your business.

[oestek]

I know the public doesn't get it and it's not profitable, but you'd think they could "sell" the hi-po as new engineering technology and thus better economy... you know, like BMW does.

[David Sloan]

Oh great. We can all drive 103hp jelly beans designed with input from the pantheon of brilliance that is the US Congress.

Freaking stupid.

File for bankruptcy for gods sake, get the UAW monkey off your back and the idiots in Washington out of your business.


You sound just like me!! That's what i was thinking to!

[wmhjr]

Well, the difference is that BMW is pretty profitable, and isn't asking for federal money. So no tree hugging socialist taxpayers bashing them for producing gas guzzling performance cars when they should be building styrofoam wind powered cars.

As opposed to Detroit, BMW has a history of generating profits. Even in this climate, they only recently downgraded their forecasted 2009 financials. They reduced it to 4% of sales. Compare that to Detroit, which calculates LOSSES as a percent of sales.

[69LT1Nova]

BMW = image.

People with money care about image.

Detroit has a major image problem. Sad. Hopefully GM can get the Volt into production to help out with that image problem. Might be a case of too little, too late.

Somewhere the image of having a performance vehicle went to the wayside for the general public, and it is much more "cool" to have a "green" car. I personally don't get it. I want my car to make a ton of noise and haul ass when I mash down the gas pedal!!

[JEFFTATE]

Tell me about it !
I been bummed all week about GM's situation.
( I work at a GM Dealer )

It seems like the Titanic is sinking slowly and there's nothing we can do.

I do have hope , however , that GM will stay afloat.
There's just too many greedy executives that have a lot to lose.
They aren't gonna' lose their investment.
It's self perservation to keep the company going , even at a reduced level.
( Until the company truly becomes competitive again )

[MuscleRodz]

Its a politcal move and a bunch of crap. You know the guys buying the hi-po cars are the same guys buying their kid haulers. Sounds like suicide to me.

[andrewb70]

Oh great. We can all drive 103hp jelly beans designed with input from the pantheon of brilliance that is the US Congress.

Freaking stupid.

File for bankruptcy for gods sake, get the UAW monkey off your back and the idiots in Washington out of your business.

Amen Brother!

Andrew

[wmhjr]

BMW = image.

People with money care about image.

Detroit has a major image problem. Sad. Hopefully GM can get the Volt into production to help out with that image problem. Might be a case of too little, too late.


Hate to break it to you, but BMW is FAR more than "image". I've had a few. We've got a raceway near here - Beaver Run. My M3 and my M-Roadster used to absolutely torture the best that GM had to offer - stock. I've had 3 BMWs in the last 15 yrs. In total I've put close to 200k miles on them between the 3. In that 200k miles, the only repair other than tires, brake pads and oil was a single wire that had some insulation that rubbed of where it went from the inside of the car into the trunk on a '99 M-Roadster. I bought the cars used, and when I sold them I got most of my money back. They handled like race cars and ran like them too.

The total repairs in more than 350k miles and 6 vehicles combined for the BMWs and MBs I've owned was the above chafed wire, and a set of fuel sensors in a '00 CLK320 (that I also bought used). That's not image.

[CanAmNova]

Is there going to be an E85 burning engine for the Camaro? No? Wouldn't it be a smart move to start "greening" up the image of the performance car? Think of the positive press GM would get if their flagship performance cars the Corvette and the Camaro could also run on an alternative fuel like E85. They could really push this feature in their advertising and marketing to gain an advantage over their foreign competitors. They should also be heavily lobbying Congress to mandate that there are more E85 and CNG filling stations available. That would help to eliminate the "chicken or the egg" problem with getting alternative fuel vehicles out there. GM has already invested a lot of time and money in developing E85 and CNG compatible engines--why aren't they pushing to have them used? The great thing for us hobbyists is that this is a "have your cake and eat it too" situation because if they eventually start making vehicles that are made to run exclusively on these fuels there may even be a performance boost over using gasoline!

[Shiro666]

Obviously it is an image issue.

GM is now making class leading fuel efficient vehicles. The cobalt, malibu, cts and new camaro are all excelent quality, efficient and affordible products.

The image is that GM has only produced obsolete, gass guzzling vehicles and that steriotype is just not true anymore.

The percentage of "high performance" GM products sold is so small compared to the number of average joe's and jill's that are buying base models that the carbon footprint and gas savings are negligible.

Hopefully this thing will blow over soon enough.

[CanAmNova]

Hate to break it to you, but BMW is FAR more than "image". I've had a few. We've got a raceway near here - Beaver Run. My M3 and my M-Roadster used to absolutely torture the best that GM had to offer - stock. I've had 3 BMWs in the last 15 yrs. In total I've put close to 200k miles on them between the 3. In that 200k miles, the only repair other than tires, brake pads and oil was a single wire that had some insulation that rubbed of where it went from the inside of the car into the trunk on a '99 M-Roadster. I bought the cars used, and when I sold them I got most of my money back. They handled like race cars and ran like them too.

The total repairs in more than 350k miles and 6 vehicles combined for the BMWs and MBs I've owned was the above chafed wire, and a set of fuel sensors in a '00 CLK320 (that I also bought used). That's not image.

Isn't it true that BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes have a higher percentage of cars that have to pay the "gas guzzler" tax than ANY American car company? Also, of course, BMW cars are going to be of a higher quality than most American cars--they are a luxury brand and cost 3x as much as most American cars. How many sub $30,000 cars does BMW build? sub $25,000? sub $20,000?

My point is not to bash BMW, I think they're really nice cars. However, it is a little disingenuous to suggest that they are "green" or more efficient than American cars.

[Damn True]

Is there going to be an E85 burning engine for the Camaro? No? Wouldn't it be a smart move to start "greening" up the image of the performance car? Think of the positive press GM would get if their flagship performance cars the Corvette and the Camaro could also run on an alternative fuel like E85. They could really push this feature in their advertising and marketing to gain an advantage over their foreign competitors. They should also be heavily lobbying Congress to mandate that there are more E85 and CNG filling stations available. That would help to eliminate the "chicken or the egg" problem with getting alternative fuel vehicles out there. GM has already invested a lot of time and money in developing E85 and CNG compatible engines--why aren't they pushing to have them used? The great thing for us hobbyists is that this is a "have your cake and eat it too" situation because if they eventually start making vehicles that are made to run exclusively on these fuels there may even be a performance boost over using gasoline!

Well.....that and perhaps because E-85 is a complete sham and probably the worst idea that the DOE DOA have foisted on us in a long long time.

[CanAmNova]

Well.....that and perhaps because E-85 is a complete sham and probably the worst idea that the DOE DOA have foisted on us in a long long time.

I know this is getting off track from the original post but I think you should do some more research. There are some new technologies emerging that will make the production of E85 less dependent on corn. Cellulosic ethanol production is in its infancy and it would be a shame if it got derailed due to rumors and lack of public knowledge.

Here's something from GM themselves:

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/press_kits/07_e85_FallTour/CellulosticFactSheet.htm

There is also an even newer technology where they make ethanol from using algae. GM has gone into partnership with a company involved in this:

http://gas2.org/2008/01/13/gm-announces-biofuel-partnership-cheap-green-ethanol/

It's exciting stuff if you take the time to read it...

[wmhjr]

Obviously it is an image issue.

GM is now making class leading fuel efficient vehicles. The cobalt, malibu, cts and new camaro are all excelent quality, efficient and affordible products.

The image is that GM has only produced obsolete, gass guzzling vehicles and that steriotype is just not true anymore.

The percentage of "high performance" GM products sold is so small compared to the number of average joe's and jill's that are buying base models that the carbon footprint and gas savings are negligible.

Hopefully this thing will blow over soon enough.

And how exactly do you believe it is an image issue? Who is saying that GM is only producing gas guzzlers, for example? What are you talking about?

If you want first hand comparisons, no problem. But to simply off-handedly say it's "obviously" an image issue in comparing them is nonsense.

GMs issues right now are NOT how many cars they sell. The issues are how much they MAKE when they sell cars. Unfortunately, they are losing money and not making it. Please do a little research and you'll see this for yourself.

[wmhjr]

Isn't it true that BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes have a higher percentage of cars that have to pay the "gas guzzler" tax than ANY American car company? Also, of course, BMW cars are going to be of a higher quality than most American cars--they are a luxury brand and cost 3x as much as most American cars. How many sub $30,000 cars does BMW build? sub $25,000? sub $20,000?

My point is not to bash BMW, I think they're really nice cars. However, it is a little disingenuous to suggest that they are "green" or more efficient than American cars.

And who exactly said they were "green" or "more efficient"? Not I for sure.

3X the costs? Absolutely not. Not if you are comparing equal models. They do not compete in the bargain basement product line. When compared directly to their domestic similar model (such as Caddy for example) they are often right at about the same price. Sometimes a bit more. For example, I looked at the CTS in '08 as well as the MB "new C", the Audi, BMW 3 and 5, Lexus and Infinity. The new MB C was less expensive. The E was a little more.

[69LT1Nova]

Obviously it is an image issue.

GM is now making class leading fuel efficient vehicles. The cobalt, malibu, cts and new camaro are all excelent quality, efficient and affordible products.

You speak the truth brotha! :cheers:

It is all about image. Mr "BMW can do no wrong" will tell you all about it. :bsjerk:

[wmhjr]

I know this is getting off track from the original post but I think you should do some more research. There are some new technologies emerging that will make the production of E85 less (or completely) dependent on corn. Cellulosic ethanol production is in its infancy and it would be a shame if it got derailed due to rumors and lack of public knowledge.

Here's something from GM themselves:

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/press_kits/07_e85_FallTour/CellulosticFactSheet.htm

There is also an even newer technology where they make ethanol from using algae. GM has gone into partnership with a company involved in this:

http://gas2.org/2008/01/13/gm-announces-biofuel-partnership-cheap-green-ethanol/

It's exciting stuff if you take the time to read it...

It is still poor science and of little benefit. If it uses any foodtstuff capable production resources (such as land that could be used for any other crop) then it sacrifices other valuable production capability. Even beyond that, it is a relatively inefficient fuel source requiring too much energy input during the production cycle. Maybe sometime in the future something will change, but nothing here makes me too excited about having E85 today. At this point it should not exist as a fuel source. It is bad for our economy.

[wmhjr]

You speak the truth brotha! :cheers:

It is all about image. Mr "BMW can do no wrong" will tell you all about it. :bsjerk:

Umm, I hope you're not talking about me brotha. BMW isn't perfect, but they don't compete against the Malibu and don't want to. I was apparently mistaken that this thread was about GM stopping investment into their high performance group. And my comments were about the post that mentioned how BMW does it and why it doesn't apply here (simply that BMW doesn't need a bailout to pay their bills).

It's ridiculous to say that BMWs are "just about image". That's a nonsense, ridiculous and uneducated statement. Sorry, but true. They've got WAY too many high performance cars to prove you wrong.

[CanAmNova]

And who exactly said they were "green" or "more efficient"? Not I for sure.

3X the costs? Absolutely not. Not if you are comparing equal models. They do not compete in the bargain basement product line. When compared directly to their domestic similar model (such as Caddy for example) they are often right at about the same price. Sometimes a bit more. For example, I looked at the CTS in '08 as well as the MB "new C", the Audi, BMW 3 and 5, Lexus and Infinity. The new MB C was less expensive. The E was a little more.

OK, I can see your point about comparing similar models. However, when the average person thinks of GM do they think of a modern Cadillac? Therein lies the image problem in that most non-car people still think of domestic cars as the fwd badge engineered crap that they were sold for most of the last thirty years (excluding a few models of course). People got burned too many times and they had enough of it and tried something foreign built for their next car. Now GM, Ford, and Chrysler have to win those people back by repairing their tarnished image and proving that they can produce quality, exciting, and efficient cars.

[Damn True]

Now GM, Ford, and Chrysler have to win those people back by repairing their tarnished image and proving that they can produce quality, exciting, and efficient cars.


....and involving Congress toward that end is going to doom them to failure.

[EFI69Cam]

Well, the difference is that BMW is pretty profitable, and isn't asking for federal money. So no tree hugging socialist taxpayers bashing them for producing gas guzzling performance cars when they should be building styrofoam wind powered cars.

As opposed to Detroit, BMW has a history of generating profits. Even in this climate, they only recently downgraded their forecasted 2009 financials. They reduced it to 4% of sales. Compare that to Detroit, which calculates LOSSES as a percent of sales.

BMW is owned by tree hugging socialists.

[CanAmNova]

....and involving Congress toward that end is going to doom them to failure.

Perhaps you are right. Once you get the "do gooders" involved with telling the public what they should buy instead of letting them decide what they want to buy, then I think that GM has more than just unions to worry about.

[CanAmNova]

BMW is owned by tree hugging socialists.

Yah, but you gotta give it to 'em though. How many front wheel drive crapmobiles does BMW sell?

[Damn True]

Yah, but you gotta give it to 'em though. How many front wheel drive crapmobiles does BMW sell?

I know the answer to this one.

[ITLBTU]

Hate to break it to you, but BMW is FAR more than "image". I've had a few. We've got a raceway near here - Beaver Run. My M3 and my M-Roadster used to absolutely torture the best that GM had to offer - stock. I've had 3 BMWs in the last 15 yrs. In total I've put close to 200k miles on them between the 3. In that 200k miles, the only repair other than tires, brake pads and oil was a single wire that had some insulation that rubbed of where it went from the inside of the car into the trunk on a '99 M-Roadster. I bought the cars used, and when I sold them I got most of my money back. They handled like race cars and ran like them too.

The total repairs in more than 350k miles and 6 vehicles combined for the BMWs and MBs I've owned was the above chafed wire, and a set of fuel sensors in a '00 CLK320 (that I also bought used). That's not image.


Well, I had my stock 2000 SS Camaro at a track day at Thunder Hill in N. Ca. and I was in a class that was full of imported higher end cars, Audi TT, BMW's, Porche Boxters, along with some Vettes and others... The Vette was faster, and so was the M3, barely.. I let him pass me on one of the long stretches because he did not have the hp to pass me otherwise. I think it was a 2002 M3. It did handle a little better than the Camaro, but it cost 2-3 times as much too. I'm pretty sure the 27mpg of my SS was better than the M3 also.

[69LT1Nova]

Yah, but you gotta give it to 'em though. How many front wheel drive crapmobiles does BMW sell?

Hahahahaaa!! :rotfl:That's awesome... poor GM and their misguided ways. It's funny 'cause it's true.

[Damn True]

Well, I had my stock 2000 SS Camaro at a track day at Thunder Hill in N. Ca. and I was in a class that was full of imported higher end cars, Audi TT, BMW's, Porche Boxters, along with some Vettes and others... The Vette was faster, and so was the M3, barely.. I let him pass me on one of the long stretches because he did not have the hp to pass me otherwise. I think it was a 2002 M3. It did handle a little better than the Camaro, but it cost 2-3 times as much too. I'm pretty sure the 27mpg of my SS was better than the M3 also.

Cute story. Means nothing.

The salient point is the skill of the nut behind the wheel and how many 10'ths were left on the table. Neither of which can be established.

[BonzoHansen]

I'm thinking this is political. But hey, maybe this is like when the 'got out of racing' in the sixties.

[MWCC]

For me it's about excitement or lack there of. When I was a kid I couldn't wait to ride my bicycle down to the local Chevy dealer and see the new models. Many years ago new models were a big deal and a lot of hoopla surrounded their unveiling. The new Camaro is long overdue, but GM isn't pushing it like they should. Sure you see it in articles and recently at the Daytona 500, but where's the excitement? We're all tired of the cookie cutter designs that all 3 domestics have been cranking out for 30 years and I think they just gave up on major design changes or building excitement back into their models. Sure the Big 3 (not so big anymore) are more the working mans car, but they had to be or they would never sell anything. They all just got too big and paid their workers way too much. That is what is killing their bottom line. They oversaturated the market with differnet brands selling the same models under different names. GM killed the original design for the Firebird. It was supposed to be a 2 seater high performance model but GM didn't want competition for the Corvette so Pontiac had to make due with modifying a Camaro. Funny how they didn't want internal competition for the Vette but yet they had no problem with the rest of their models. Ford and Chrysler are no different. They need to totally revamp everything they build from the ground-up and in my eyes, bankruptcy is the only answer. Otherwise every few months they'll be back in Washington with their hands out looking for more loans to pay-off loans. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

[CanAmNova]

I'm thinking this is political. But hey, maybe this is like when the 'got out of racing' in the sixties.

I thought the same thing when I read the announcement. It seems that history may be repeating itself. When GM pulled out of racing wasn't it because a GM big shot was testifying before congress and a senator put him on the spot and asked why GM was spending money on sponsoring racing instead of spending it on developing fuel efficient cars?

[moreHP]

As far as the original topic goes....it bums me out to see the performance side of things stopped. An awful lot of the stuff they develop has a trickle down effect on the other cars.

It gives the impression that they are just interested in cookie cutter "get you by" type cars. Or what I call "rental cars" if you will.

[Damn True]

As far as the original topic goes....it bums me out to see the performance side of things stopped. An awful lot of the stuff they develop has a trickle down effect on the other cars.

It gives the impression that they are just interested in cookie cutter "get you by" type cars. Or what I call "rental cars" if you will.

I don't think that's the case. I think GM would love nothing more than to build great, compelling exciting cars that we all would love to have.....including some models that get great mileage.

That's what they'd LIKE to do.

What they've had to do is build cars with the aim of mitigating a loss.

Now what they have to do is placate some douchebag in Washington so that they can get help from the Govt.

What they ought to do is give the finger to Washington and the Union and re-org that joint through BK.

[ITLBTU]

Cute story. Means nothing.

The salient point is the skill of the nut behind the wheel and how many 10'ths were left on the table. Neither of which can be established.

My point was that GM puts out quality stuff. GM's problem is that it cost too much to produce it. They need to file for bankruptcy, re-organize and boot the union as far away as they can.

[Damn True]

My bad. I misunderstood the intent of your post.

[John McIntire]

I'm dissappointed to see the performance division dis-banded. I would like to see them continue to design and develop hi-po models.
I started that thread about the 2010 Z/28 with that link from Motor Trend. What I gathered from that article is that the Z was already designed and developed and all they had to do was just build it. I feel if they already went through all that work, why wouldn't they just send it down the assembly line? I know it might not sell as much as the SS or V6 model, but at least it would be available for those who wanted it.
I know alot of you just say to get the SS and mod it with a Whipple or Magnacharger and you'll make more power for cheaper, but some people want that much power right from the get go, from the factory with a warranty.
I hope that they revive the division soon what else do us gear heads have to look forward to? Another 13 years of the same Vette with subtle mods here and there?

[Charley Lillard]

The Z28 is not ready.....

[wmhjr]

Well, I had my stock 2000 SS Camaro at a track day at Thunder Hill in N. Ca. and I was in a class that was full of imported higher end cars, Audi TT, BMW's, Porche Boxters, along with some Vettes and others... The Vette was faster, and so was the M3, barely.. I let him pass me on one of the long stretches because he did not have the hp to pass me otherwise. I think it was a 2002 M3. It did handle a little better than the Camaro, but it cost 2-3 times as much too. I'm pretty sure the 27mpg of my SS was better than the M3 also.

And? Let me be clear. The '02 M3 will handle circles around your '00 Camaro. It will utterly destroy it on a track with a competent driver. It's all about the driver behind the wheel. And have you seen a new M3? That my friend is a monster. 420hp - and for those of you who are not familiar with them, the germans are real conservative about hp ratings. If they say 420, you can bet your bippy that it'll be higher than that in reality.

But that's not the point. The point is that somebody here made an incorrect statement that bmw's are all just image. Anyone who makes that mistake does so at their own risk. They are certainly targetted toward a different market than Chevy targets with the Camaro and the Malibu. Doesn't make them better or worse - just different.

The "better or worse" argument is different and needs to be answered on the merits of each product. My experience with GM over the last 15 years has been very poor, and as a result I won't give them another dime. That's just me. I simply didn't want people who don't know better to perpetuate the idea that BMWs or MBs for example aren't performance cars. If you want a REAL destroyer, try out a MB AMG. I can't afford one unfortunately, but those are friggin weapons on wheels.

Now, on the other hand lest you think I don't like pure muscle, here's a quick shot of the current state of my Poncho build. I think we'd all like GM to be building stuff like this in a High Performance division, right? (see how I got back on topic? :) )

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/02/100_4078-1.jpg

[PonchoJohn]

manly!!!

[surlyjoe]

An 02 M3 will not utterly destroy an 00 camaro on a track. Will not. Might be faster, depending on the track. But irc camaros in the same class as m3's at the track had to run a restrictor because they made too much power. And as far as derating horsepower ever seen a stock dyno for an 00 camaro? Almost advertised power at the wheels. Not that there is anything wrong with bimmers. I know guys who own both. They are just very different vehicles. When it comes to track times they are pretty similar if you do some research.

As far as gm quiting the power race I think it is a bad idea.

[martZ]

This is what happens when you accept bail-out money from the government. Now they have ownership in GM. New boss in town, get rid of anything that's not PC.

[wmhjr]

An 02 M3 will not utterly destroy an 00 camaro on a track. Will not. Might be faster, depending on the track. But irc camaros in the same class as m3's at the track had to run a restrictor because they made too much power. And as far as derating horsepower ever seen a stock dyno for an 00 camaro? Almost advertised power at the wheels. Not that there is anything wrong with bimmers. I know guys who own both. They are just very different vehicles. When it comes to track times they are pretty similar if you do some research.

As far as gm quiting the power race I think it is a bad idea.

Sorry, but I disagree. You are comparing "modified" vehicles - not stock. I will stand by my statement, and frankly track times of stock vehicles support it. And even you admit that the stock dyno is "almost" rated power on the Camaro. It is "over" rated power on the M3.

With the same driver, the M3 (in particular the S54 and S56 variants stock) is a VERY mean machine on the track, and a stock '00 Camaro hasn't a chance - with the same driver. This isn't about just "engine power". My point about being conservative was toward the S56 "new" M3 that is well over 420hp in reality.

My M3 was unfortunately not an SMG equipped model, though I've driven those. With the SMG it's even more uneven.

Thiis is not to say the Camaro isn't a decent vehicle. Matter of fact, if I wanted to build a fun track car I just might use a Camaro because they're cheap to start with, relatively inexpensive to build and easier to find custom parts for. But let's be fair, OK? If you want to modify the heck out of each one then it might be a different story. But if you drive a '00 Camaro off the dealer lot, and then drive an '02 M3 off the dealer lot, and race them head to head anywhere other than a straight line, there is no discussion, no competition, and no question. Let's talk Nurburgring. The fastest reported lap time on it from a "stock" Camaro is a factory prepped 2009/2010 SS that Gm took there. 8:20. No stock Camaro has been reported in less than 8:30 before. Now consider the M3. That track has some REAL twisties, but also has some REAL high speed mind bending stretches. The new Corvette ZR-1 set a 7:26. You've got a number of M3's in there between 7:50 and 8:22

[surlyjoe]

I can understand that your a gm hater with your recent experience but when I said that the 00 camaro has almost advertised power to the wheels I mean the wheels not crank. Do you honestly think the m3 is putting more than advertised power to the ground? Not a chance. Those camaros generally dyno around 300hp to the wheels so if you factor in losses the motor is around 350hp, part of the reason the ls1 is so popular.

As far as the track goes you said utterly destroy which is just not correct. When they were new they were in the same class at some events. The new m3 is a whole new level for sure but the old straight 6 ones are in the same league as the camaro. I couldn't find any data on older camaro's at nurburgring so I'll take your word for it because it backs up my claim that the m3 will not destroy it. Faster yes destroy no.

[Twentyover]

Nothing said here means anything unless source information is provided

[andrewb70]

My thought is that I may become a Ford man because thus far they have not come to the government asking for handouts.

Andrew

[Mr.VENGEANCE]

we ALL become ford guys if GM and chrysler die off..

[andrewb70]

we ALL become ford guys if GM and chrysler die off..

Fine by me. If a company does business in such a way that it cannot sustain profitability, then it should evolve, or sees to exist. The government has no constitutional obligation, or even the right, to step in and "bailout" any business. Period, end of story.

Andrew

[wmhjr]

I can understand that your a gm hater with your recent experience but when I said that the 00 camaro has almost advertised power to the wheels I mean the wheels not crank. Do you honestly think the m3 is putting more than advertised power to the ground? Not a chance. Those camaros generally dyno around 300hp to the wheels so if you factor in losses the motor is around 350hp, part of the reason the ls1 is so popular.

As far as the track goes you said utterly destroy which is just not correct. When they were new they were in the same class at some events. The new m3 is a whole new level for sure but the old straight 6 ones are in the same league as the camaro. I couldn't find any data on older camaro's at nurburgring so I'll take your word for it because it backs up my claim that the m3 will not destroy it. Faster yes destroy no.

Sorry, still don't agree. BMW power is rated VERY conservatively. Sorry you don't agree. Doesn't change that it's true. BMW AND MB have a history of understating rated power. In some cases, GM, Ford and Mopar were the same. But not now. They under-rated power ratings in some vehicles back in the 60s and 70s to try and qualify in specific racing categories and to get a break on insurance. Those days are over.

I'm not a "GM hater" for all GM products. I love the new Vette. I'm working on a '66 A-body. I just don't make excuses for stuff.

[wmhjr]

Nothing said here means anything unless source information is provided

Search is your friend. Honestly I don't need to prove it. A simple search on "Nurburgring" and "record" or "lap times" on Google will give you the exact same results. Then do one on Nurburgring and Camaro. The entire argument seems to be focused on how much HP the vehicle has, when in truth that's only part of the equation. Not to mention that the "inline 6" that the other person in this discussion seems to not think much of produces MORE than 300hp . With a huge and flat torque band. That of course is the S54 motor and not the S52. The S56? No competition.

It is really unnecessary to show "proof" that a race bred M3 in stock form will outrun a stock '00 Camaro on a race course. Frankly, it's distracting from the real point of this thread. That is, that GM does not make money on their High-Performance group. It's mainly a marketing arm of GM that helps to build brand image. Certainly we all love it, but in the present situation the entire country with their inability to understand the issue seems to believe that by changing nothing else other than building electric cars and hybrids, GM will miraculously become profitable, the world will be saved, and mankind will be blessed with peace. So it's politically expedient and financially responsible given that condition and the fact that they're asking for another huge handout that they minimize expenses in an area which "appears" to be in conflict with where everyone (including our esteemed socialist Czar) think we should go.

[Twentyover]

I don't need to search because I'm not making any claims. As far as I'm concerned, anyone making a claim here is full of s**t unless THEY provide supporting documentation. It's not my job to see if you're correct or talking out your butt. It devolves into the he said-she said BS that you seem to revel in. Includes, you, surlyjoe, ever Callahan

If you make a claim, then yes you do need to support it. In God I trust, all others bring data.

And apparently you didn't find the pissing contest w/surley enough of a distraction to keep for posting half a dozen times off topic

[surlyjoe]

Good point twenteyover. I'm done in this thread.

[CanAmNova]

[quote=wmhjr;495672]Search is your friend. Honestly I don't need to prove it. A simple search on "Nurburgring" and "record" or "lap times" on Google will give you the exact same results. Then do one on Nurburgring and Camaro. The entire argument seems to be focused on how much HP the vehicle has, when in truth that's only part of the equation. Not to mention that the "inline 6" that the other person in this discussion seems to not think much of produces MORE than 300hp . With a huge and flat torque band. That of course is the S54 motor and not the S52. The S56? No competition.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[wmhjr]

I don't need to search because I'm not making any claims. As far as I'm concerned, anyone making a claim here is full of s**t unless THEY provide supporting documentation. It's not my job to see if you're correct or talking out your butt. It devolves into the he said-she said BS that you seem to revel in. Includes, you, surlyjoe, ever Callahan

If you make a claim, then yes you do need to support it. In God I trust, all others bring data.

And apparently you didn't find the pissing contest w/surley enough of a distraction to keep for posting half a dozen times off topic

I'll remember this - and will expect in the future that every single thing you say will be backed up by volumes of proof. If people are too lazy then they deserve what they get. And if it's not your job, why are you sticking your nose in here?

[Twentyover]

This pissing contest is getting no one anywhere.

What evidence do you want me to provide to support this claim, Compadre? When I make a CLAIM, I support it.

Bit touchy, eh? All I asked for was supporting evidence. Absent supporting evidence, anything you say is you against whatever anyone else says.

And onceagain we drift off topic.......

[andrewb70]

Enough people. Stay on topic.

Andrew

[JEFFTATE]

Fine by me. If a company does business in such a way that it cannot sustain profitability, then it should evolve, or sees to exist. The government has no constitutional obligation, or even the right, to step in and "bailout" any business. Period, end of story.

Andrew


AMEN Brother !

[Tony_SS]

^ Amen x100.

[ITLBTU]

Well, maybe I'm a bit late for some HP proof... My bone stock 2000 SS Camaro put 309 HP to the wheels. No tuning, or chip or anything to get those numbers. As far as the handling goes, I never disputed that the M3 was a better handling car. I just made the point that for the money it wasn't much better. My 2000 SS was 28K out the door brand new... What is that precious M3 out the door?

I did do a search as well. Apparently a 2007 Chevy SS Cobalt has the same time on a wet track as the 2000M3 on a dry track. I saw a lot of Chevy Vettes ahead of any BMWs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times#Production_vehicles

[wmhjr]

Well, maybe I'm a bit late for some HP proof... My bone stock 2000 SS Camaro put 309 HP to the wheels. No tuning, or chip or anything to get those numbers. As far as the handling goes, I never disputed that the M3 was a better handling car. I just made the point that for the money it wasn't much better. My 2000 SS was 28K out the door brand new... What is that precious M3 out the door?

I did do a search as well. Apparently a 2007 Chevy SS Cobalt has the same time on a wet track as the 2000M3 on a dry track. I saw a lot of Chevy Vettes ahead of any BMWs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times#Production_vehicles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times

Looking for that Camaro. I could care less what you or anyone else believe is "worth" the extra performance.

The point - to get back to it - was about why BMW and others seem to be successful at marketing high performance vehicles yet GM is disbanding their efforts. Andy why the public at large might be OK with BMW continuing with that, but not with GM spending money on something that they apparently don't value. It was about whether companies like BMW were "just image" as others noted.

We all know that in racing, the faster you get the more expensive "improving" that performance gets. In drag racing, it's easy to take a stock car from a 15 second 1/4 mile to a 14 second. But, to take a car from 9 seconds to 8 seconds costs WAY more money. Is it "worth it"? Somebody thinks so.

BTW, you might want to take a look a bit above the cobalt to the 8:05 times...... Might be something surprising there. Like an M3.

[maldo]

rrrr this is getting on my nerves... Bottom line this crises has put the death nail into GM no matter which way you look at it they just don't build cars that people want .... and i just don't understand it because they can put the finger on what people want in the truck industry and they have done great work with the vette ..... so why cant they apply this to their car line....


Someone stated that BMW is all about image well any product on the earth is about image and getting someone to buy it! if Hyundai can come in with entry level cars and are know selling top of the line sports sedans (example genesis) that are going face to face with some of the best sedans in the world…. So you tell me why cant BOB LUTZ can’t build or market cars (I think it’s the marketing area that’s getting it all wrong …… because GM’s build quality has come a long way but they still can’t convince their own people (us) to buy American again… (Something is wrong with that picture and GM should be able to read that loud and clear)

The example of this company and their union wars and BS politics etc have showed me that they are representation of corp greed and non willing to change …. Which will be our down fall of why other countries will surpass us in everyway….

MY question is GM are you listening to us !!!!!! or all you care about it numbers and coming to congress in your $1,000 dollar suits and corp jets begging for money …. I don’t see them making statement that they will not take a dime (in bonuses) from the company until is back on its feet) Just think about how many people they can keep with out laying off if BOB LUTZ or any of his top brass took a pay cut …….. to me that would show some ballzzzz about how committed they are to the Company until then I give them the Middle finger and they should not get a dime of the tax payers money for any loans ….. period!!!!! v

[wmhjr]

But that's just it.

OK, so if we put aside that some of us (myself certainly included) have an issue with the "quality" and "service" GM has provided over the past 10 years, I'm not sure that this is because they can't build something people want.

I think it's more that they can't build something people want AND make money on it. Remember, it was only a couple short years ago that the major profits GM was getting came from 2 places. GMAC, and trucks/SUVs. People may have bought other products, but the margins weren't there and truck/SUV sales were carrying the corporation. So then 2 things happen. The imports eat even more into truck and suv sales, and gas prices, energy concerns and "carbon credit" mentalities demolish that market. All of the sudden, the profit area is gone.

While the other parts of GM were making money, the High Performance group was a great marketing tool, helping build brand value and image. But it never did and was never intended to make money.

Now they're on deaths doorstep and asking for yet more bailout money. I'm guessing that politically and in the public eye, they can't defend continuing to invest in a non-environmentally safe and unprofitable business unit. Just my guess. And to top it off, even if they build the most fuel efficient car that ever crawled along our highways, if they can't do something about their operating costs (meaning legacy labor costs) it doesn't make a darned bit of difference for their survival.

BTW, if you took every executive in GM and gave them zero pay, and zero bonuses, it makes zero difference in their bottom line. It's kind of fun to beat on them about it, but it is a senseless discussion in terms of survival of the Big 3. Executive comp is nothing but a red herring that the liberals and unions like to throw out there because it gets people emotional. The truth is that it has absolutely no effect. As for their jet, frankly I'd want my most senior people actually working and doing as much as they can rather than sitting in a car driving across country or waiting in an airport. That's just me. And some of those execs HAVE taken pay cuts. Including working for no comp whatsoever. What senior UAW leader has done that?

[maldo]

But that's just it.

OK, so if we put aside that some of us (myself certainly included) have an issue with the "quality" and "service" GM has provided over the past 10 years, I'm not sure that this is because they can't build something people want.

I think it's more that they can't build something people want AND make money on it. Remember, it was only a couple short years ago that the major profits GM was getting came from 2 places. GMAC, and trucks/SUVs. People may have bought other products, but the margins weren't there and truck/SUV sales were carrying the corporation. So then 2 things happen. The imports eat even more into truck and suv sales, and gas prices, energy concerns and "carbon credit" mentalities demolish that market. All of the sudden, the profit area is gone.

While the other parts of GM were making money, the High Performance group was a great marketing tool, helping build brand value and image. But it never did and was never intended to make money.

Now they're on deaths doorstep and asking for yet more bailout money. I'm guessing that politically and in the public eye, they can't defend continuing to invest in a non-environmentally safe and unprofitable business unit. Just my guess. And to top it off, even if they build the most fuel efficient car that ever crawled along our highways, if they can't do something about their operating costs (meaning legacy labor costs) it doesn't make a darned bit of difference for their survival.

BTW, if you took every executive in GM and gave them zero pay, and zero bonuses, it makes zero difference in their bottom line. It's kind of fun to beat on them about it, but it is a senseless discussion in terms of survival of the Big 3. Executive comp is nothing but a red herring that the liberals and unions like to throw out there because it gets people emotional. The truth is that it has absolutely no effect. As for their jet, frankly I'd want my most senior people actually working and doing as much as they can rather than sitting in a car driving across country or waiting in an airport. That's just me. And some of those execs HAVE taken pay cuts. Including working for no comp whatsoever. What senior UAW leader has done that?



good points question to anyone how come the truck division was so profitable? and why cant they apply that to the car section?

why cant they work out a deal with the UAW leaders (i mean we are talking about a death of a company and thousands of jobs etc) ...

yes I hear you about the corp jets but the way they showed up in Washington... was like a a guy showing up to the welfare office with a Rolex watch asking for food stamps
("They sated they flew in on a corp jet was for security purposes which is BS").

[MonzaRacer]

It is still poor science and of little benefit. If it uses any foodtstuff capable production resources (such as land that could be used for any other crop) then it sacrifices other valuable production capability. Even beyond that, it is a relatively inefficient fuel source requiring too much energy input during the production cycle. Maybe sometime in the future something will change, but nothing here makes me too excited about having E85 today. At this point it should not exist as a fuel source. It is bad for our economy.
OK off topic BUT this is where you so wrong, One Ethanol production has been and always will be one of the most cost efficient processes developed, used to be farmers, distilled corn liquor because it was easier to transport.
Now, as for taking more energy to produce, using up "foodstuff" capable product,wrong.
AS most of the corn used is mostly used for cattle feed, now one issue with this is that most of the part of the corn used for ethanol production is simply burned by cattle as energy and such, nothing in the starch that is consumed goes to making meat on cattle.
Now that left overs from distillation process is 26% protein Distillers Dried Grains (ie pure cattle feed to make lean beef).
Now to date every properly ran still will consume approximately 26,000 to 33,000 btu to produce fuel grade ethanol which is 75000 to 77000 btu.
Now some will say that you have to count the production cost, but how about farmers not having a sale point for the grain they have so it sits, gets lp gas used to keep the moisture content average and the farmer has no money.
The land bank has since been dropped(ie the government isnt paying to idle farm land) so if farmer can sell for ethanol, so much better.
Now since the EPA has decided that the oxegenate MTBE is dangeropus and gets into ground water and harms children, they now mandate using ethanol (cheaper, renewable,makes farmers money, clean burning, etc) and when they did E85 wasnt even decided to be sold for motor fuel nationwide, it was simply and idea for smog ridden areas.
Now enter people who want to use it because of clean burning, mostly renewable, less toxic wast from production (ie if hogs can eat the left overs its pretty clean, cause thats what old time moonshiners did).
Now the fact is a properly tuned E85 small vehicle wll loose on average 16% to 24% in mileage runs about 10 to 15 cents lower if not more pergallong and the neat thing I like is its average of 105 octane rating.
So if I build a 500hp car that needs 2.50 gallon 94 octane(if available) versus 1.79 at 105 hmmm would I give up say 5mpg yet be able to run to local station with E85 or even if car had to run 110 race fuel at 5.50 to 7.50 pergallon, hmmm no brainer.
Now ethanol engine run cleaner(ie more time between oil changes), have lesswear, and if flex fuel capable could be ran with ANY fuel provided lead free.
I believe ALL vehicles should be made flex fuel capable. THe technology is there the neat thing is the fuel system would be much more substantial (ie no rusted fuel lines in older cars for one)
If you would have to buy 3.50 gallon 100 octane ethanol race fuel or 1.75 E85, hmmm no brainer again.
OH and it give farmers a living, and I know this as my family (mom and aunts/uncle/grandmother) all profit from good corn prices and since the corn used isnt people food corn,and the residuals can feed animals, E85 is useful tool, it will never fix everything but can be one part of an overall energy conservation plan. Add in other means of
saving fuel and non fuel use.
Oh and the ethanol burns so much cleaner.
I have buddy running an open source EFI with fuel sensor, making well over 650hp, car gets 28 mpg on high way with premium, and 24 with E85, has prototype add on ABS and air ride And we pulled engine apart to fix oil leak, after 63,000 miles it and 90% percent of it on e85, we measured wear and found 0.0001 wear on cylinders from time of build to then, I am sold on that part, and he loves how well it runs on E85.
The mileage loss is different for each type of vehicle, if GM put flex fuel on Aveo, 3 of my friends might buy one (they have family that are farmers), they bought other cars with it.
Oh and my 77 Monza is going to be E85 /flex fuel capable.

[Damn True]

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/02/KoolAidMan_t-1.png

[mikedc]

GM is doing what it needs to survive. And right now that is to look good to the majority of the broke American public that's pissed off at them for getting tax money.



Put yourself in the mind of a non-car-guy voter. Psychologically, a "sports car" equals a luxury in their minds. Honestly I'll bet most of them are more pissed off about their most recent GM vehicle's lack of quality at 150K than they are about its horsepower rating.

(Let's not derail & start a pissing match here, you know there's a kernel of truth in that statement. And the members of the public who haven't had a GM in decades are forming their opinions based on the popular opinion of GMs - which tells them that Detroit and GM have a quality control problem regardless of whether it's true or not. The bottom line is that GM needs to foster an image of buckling down and getting back to doing their homework on boring cars again for a while.)



Hot rodders appreciate the long-term commercial image implications of continuing to fund a performance unit, but these voters do not. They're reacting on emotion. It's not even political correctness, it's knee-jerk emotion.





Besides, guys like us are part of the problem too.

Have you built a vintage GM sports car? Great, then you didn't spend that money on a new one.

I'll agree that GM might still make at least a few small bucks on badging some 40yo fender skins or crate motors. But go ask them if they'd rather you just spent your $30-60K on a brand new car of theirs instead of fixing that 1968 (or even 2002) Camaro/Corvette.

[wmhjr]

MonazRacer, we'll have to agree to disagree. That's about the gist of it. You're ignoring some pretty big issues and making light of others. The fact is that biofuels such as E85 are recognized as a legitimate threat to our food production system. I little research will clearly show that as it exists today, there is a direct competition whereby land used to produce biofuel materials directly detract from that being used to produce food for human consumption. There is already a considerable amount of concern - I wouldn't call it a crisis yet since that word seems to be over-used so much over the past couple months - about this.

Further, if you're a farmer and are making claims that corns is not used for "people food", I've got to really scratch my head right now. To the contrary, there is growing concern that corn is used TOO MUCH for people food. You of all people should be aware of the high propensity of corn products in foodstuffs of all kinds - not to mention how much corn is used (rightly or wrongly) for livestock. So, you can say use another crop, right? Wrong. Where's it going to be grown?

Arable land is in short supply, and continues to decline. I'll point you to http://dieoff.org/page40.htm which is one of countless studies done more than a decade ago showing the clear problem. The studies have not changed - they have grown more concerning. This is not "global warming". This is simple math - the amount of agriculturally viable land compared to the population requiring its support.

I understand your points and concede that there is some merit, but at the end of the day my points remain valid. Obviously neither of us are likely to change our minds, and I appreciate you have put thought into this, however I remain overwhelmingly convinced tht fuels such as E85 are actually a very very poor choice which would result in a far worse condition.

[martZ]

OK off topic BUT this is where you so wrong, One Ethanol production has been and always will be one of the most cost efficient processes developed, used to be farmers, distilled corn liquor because it was easier to transport.


It's not "easier" to transport. In fact, Ethanol is a polar solvent which in layman's terms is: water soluable. So, it can't be transported via pipeline. From a spill clean-up point of view, it's a nightmare.

If it wasn't for goverment subsidies, ethanol wouldn't float in the free market. It can't compete with oil. Can you make ethanol work? Yes.