| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2008 12:38:41 AM · #1 |
I went to the Motor Trend international car show in Las Vegas today. I saw her across the room, but alas I must wait for she will not be available till next year. Sigh[thumb]742832[/thumb]
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 01:02:25 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
... but alas I must wait for she will not be available till next year ...[thumb]742832[/thumb] |
... if ever ... next year may be too late for GM. |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 01:05:49 AM · #3 |
| wow! thats very impressive, i hope you get one so you can take sexy photos of it:):) oh, yeh, and drive it:D |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 01:42:10 AM · #4 |
| wowww .. amazing .. I wonder how much would it cost to get one .. |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:07:08 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by EL-GHOOL:
wowww .. amazing .. I wonder how much would it cost to get one .. |
I hear a little higher then the Mustang, with a 6 cylinder low end model and a 8 cylinder high performance. Irregardless way too expensive for me. With the low gas prices, and a $6 entrance fee, it was a inexpensive way for my wife and I to enjoy a pipe dream.
BTW anybody up for a Jeep.
[thumb]742872[/thumb]
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:15:48 AM · #6 |
Good looking gas guzzler but it's a GM.
How many times have GM resurrected the Camaro and then two years later admit it was a mistake? Announcing this when the auto industry is going down hill makes it quite clear that giving these guys billions to get them out of their mess is just plain wrong.
Then they ask why they're not doing well, business wise. lol |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:38:32 AM · #7 |
Nice try, but falls short of what the Mustang did to resurrect the interest of the Baby Boomers.
Typical GM, too little, too late......they were two years behind the first time, and once again.....
That said, I loved my '68 SS 350 Camaro, and my '68 Firebird 400 convertible.
Had both those cars for over 100K and loved 'em!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:51:03 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
I went to the Motor Trend international car show in Las Vegas today. I saw her across the room, but alas I must wait for she will not be available till next year. Sigh[thumb]742832[/thumb] |
Love is an illusion, and with the auto industry is fleeting.
The car you love today will be pulled from underneath you like a rug, and before your emotions can react to the fall, the car companies will distract you with something else you don't want, while the C.E.O.'s cash in their millions of dollars of bonuses.
Keep that picture close and remember the feeling. Someday you will cash in on your illusion.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 10:44:16 AM · #9 |
I traded in my jeep this summer to get me one step closer to the camaro; I now have a 2008 cobalt SS turbo. The thing can fly, even with only 4 cylinders (tops out at 160, though I've only gotten to 120 so far) and is faster and handles better than an 8 cylinder mustang. Yea, its front wheel drive, but I've gotten over it.
My last chevy was an '84 Z28 camaro. Got 250K miles out of her before I sold her (yes, sold her) - only replaced the transmission at about 150K.
One can bash american cars all one wants but out of 7 cars I have owned, 6 were american, and 3 went well over 150K before I sold them - all GM (the two jeeps I sold before 70K miles with no repairs ever done, and the one I own now are the other 3). While I had my jeep grand cherokee, my friend had her BMW SUV. Over three years, hers spent 6 weeks in the shop. I got oil changes.
I will buy the camaro, if GM and the car are still around in two years. In fact, I am already in line to buy one, just like I was in line for the cobalt turbo. Hey Jeb, next time I'm up your way, I'll take you for a ride - PA has some amazing roads perfect for winding out the gears...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 10:57:23 AM · #10 |
Looks like the current mustang to me
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 11:34:16 AM · #11 |
| "What's that car?... you want me inside you?" |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 11:54:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I traded in my jeep this summer to get me one step closer to the camaro; I now have a 2008 cobalt SS turbo. The thing can fly, even with only 4 cylinders (tops out at 160, though I've only gotten to 120 so far) and is faster and handles better than an 8 cylinder mustang. Yea, its front wheel drive, but I've gotten over it. |
Careful! Gotta compare apples to apples, and the GT350 will run away and hide from your Cobalt.
And what's wrong with front wheel drive???
Originally posted by dahkota:
My last chevy was an '84 Z28 camaro. Got 250K miles out of her before I sold her (yes, sold her) - only replaced the transmission at about 150K. |
You were VERY lucky! Those were really really bad years for GM quality control-wise!
I worked in an Olds dealer, and just had to have the beautiful, gleaming back & silver 442 when it rolled off the truck in late '85.
I was an awful car! I spent 11 hours doing warranty work ion it a 9000 miles; I knew the trans in the car was sketchy at best, and it had three transmissions by 45K and I changed the fluid and filter religiously in that thing about every 12K and I STILL got shrapnel out of it every time.
The electronics were abysmal, the engine management system was a joke......GM just fought tooth and nail to not go to EFI, and totally unacceptable stupid sh*t just broke right and left. The same was pretty much true of my '83 Silverado truck, too.
I like American cars, but by and large, the American automobile industry has cut its own throat.
The Asian manufacturers would not be what they are today were the big three building cars well.
Originally posted by dahkota:
One can bash american cars all one wants but out of 7 cars I have owned, 6 were american, and 3 went well over 150K before I sold them - all GM (the two jeeps I sold before 70K miles with no repairs ever done, and the one I own now are the other 3). While I had my jeep grand cherokee, my friend had her BMW SUV. Over three years, hers spent 6 weeks in the shop. I got oil changes. |
You were lucky......I'm thinking you're one of those people who lead a charmed automotive life. I was fortunate to have a few of those as custyomers when I had my shop.
You pull any ten people off the street that have had a couple of American cars and they'll have a horror story or two.
I worked in the automotive industry for almost four decades and I feel qualified to say that the American car isn't what it should be.
We are learning from our mistakes; cars are better today than they've been, but it shouldn't have taken pressure from the industry to force us to build better cars.....we should because we can.
And yes, I have two American cars now.
Originally posted by dahkota:
I will buy the camaro, if GM and the car are still around in two years. In fact, I am already in line to buy one, just like I was in line for the cobalt turbo. Hey Jeb, next time I'm up your way, I'll take you for a ride - PA has some amazing roads perfect for winding out the gears... |
Uh......you kind of frighten me with that.......8>)
LOTS of great roads! Those two cars that I put over 220K on were recreation rides, so that was mostly exploring where I live.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 11:54:57 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
... if ever ... next year may be too late for GM. |
Too many Union (Democratic voters) jobs for a Democrat controlled house, senate, and white house, to lose. Not to mention all the other jobs from suppliers etc., that would follow behind.
Hopefully the government will be strong enough to hold out for real changes in management. You can also count on the same for Ford. The UAW swings a pretty big stick. Not as big as they used to, but let them think that the Democrats sold them out; and you will see a Republican resurgence fueled by union dollars faster than you ever thought possible.
Message edited by author 2008-11-29 11:55:19.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 12:25:21 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That said, I loved my '68 SS 350 Camaro, and my '68 Firebird 400 convertible. |
I hear you, Jeb. I still kick myself for selling my '67 Firebird 400 years ago.
That said, I have had many Jeep products and my current Chevy Trailblazer, and quality has been quite good, overall. MY worst car (although the fastest and most fun since that old Firebird) was a 1987 Misubishi Starion. 200 h.p. / 145 mph (4 cylinder) car.
Why is it taking so long to get the new Camaro to market? I saw the prototype for Bumblebee (Transformers movie) over 4 years ago... |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 01:46:51 PM · #15 |
Im still kinda partial to my original 1980 z28 which my mother bought new and passed on to me :) LOVE driving that car!!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 02:17:55 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I traded in my jeep this summer to get me one step closer to the camaro; I now have a 2008 cobalt SS turbo. The thing can fly, even with only 4 cylinders (tops out at 160, though I've only gotten to 120 so far) and is faster and handles better than an 8 cylinder mustang. Yea, its front wheel drive, but I've gotten over it. |
Careful! Gotta compare apples to apples, and the GT350 will run away and hide from your Cobalt.
And what's wrong with front wheel drive??? |
This is what I got from a website on the '65 shelby
"Engine output was 306hp at 6,000 rpm, 0-60 mph times came in at 6.8 seconds, the quarter-mile happened in 15 flat at 91 mph, and top speed was close to 135 mph.
Here's the numbers on my cobalt ss:
"My, how times change-this cute Cobalt SS you see here, with a puny 2.0-liter four-cylinder spinning the front wheels and with help from a new "no-lift shift" launch control can scorch 60 in just 5.5 seconds and the quarter in 13.9 at 102.5 mph. Legit? You should see it at the track."
The new mustangs also don't fair that well, according to Motortrend's handling comparison. And $ for $, the 1/2 cost and 2X gas mileage makes up for the .1 second difference in the 0-60.
I'll admit, the engine noise, rear wheel drive, and look of the mustang blow away the cobalt ss. But I can run circles around the mustang in real world driving conditions and have on more than one (or 6) occasions. I'm a speed nut, brought on by my father driving me through Kansas at 160MPH+ in a triumph when I was 8.
Anyway, maybe I do have exceptional luck with cars (with the exception of the Fiat Spyder). But I would buy any of the cars I've owned again, from the 455 Rocket Olds (probably my favorite and never needed repair) to the chevy I have now. I love cars. Especially fast cars. :)whoops.
Message edited by author 2008-11-29 14:26:32. |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 02:22:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm a speed nut, brought on by my father driving me through Kansas at 160MPH+ in a triumph when I was 8. |
"In" a Triumph? What Triumph automobile was ever capable of a sustained 160mph? I can think of Triumph motorcycles that could do that, do you mean "on" a Triumph? Or was this some heavily-modified Triumph automobile? I'm an aging speed freak too, though I was never into American muscle. My list is a pretty funny one :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 02:33:30 PM · #18 |
| Modified for racing. He was a lawyer and was given the car for payment for his work on a case of drunk driving and speeding. In a triumph. It had a small block Buick V8. The car eventually ended up under the back end a semi, the result of going too fast with brakes not capable of stopping it quickly enough. |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 03:05:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Modified for racing. He was a lawyer and was given the car for payment for his work on a case of drunk driving and speeding. In a triumph. It had a small block Buick V8. The car eventually ended up under the back end a semi, the result of going too fast with brakes not capable of stopping it quickly enough. |
Buick never made a small block.
Chevy was the only GM that ever had the big/small block config, the BOP engines were all big block.....even the semi-weird late model 301 Pontiac and the 307 Olds.
There was the strange 215 aluminum engine that was a Buick design that Olds shared with them in '62-'64, but they sold off that engine to the Rover Group in late '64....and then spent nearly twenty years trying to buy back once they realized what a blunder they'd made when the '70s hit.
That engine is still in use today in Range/Land Rovers.
That engine was used in the Rover 3500s and the TR-8s as well.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 03:22:18 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 03:41:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
This is what I got from a website on the '65 shelby
"Engine output was 306hp at 6,000 rpm, 0-60 mph times came in at 6.8 seconds, the quarter-mile happened in 15 flat at 91 mph, and top speed was close to 135 mph.
Here's the numbers on my cobalt ss:
"My, how times change-this cute Cobalt SS you see here, with a puny 2.0-liter four-cylinder spinning the front wheels and with help from a new "no-lift shift" launch control can scorch 60 in just 5.5 seconds and the quarter in 13.9 at 102.5 mph. Legit? You should see it at the track."
The new mustangs also don't fair that well, according to Motortrend's handling comparison. And $ for $, the 1/2 cost and 2X gas mileage makes up for the .1 second difference in the 0-60.
I'll admit, the engine noise, rear wheel drive, and look of the mustang blow away the cobalt ss. But I can run circles around the mustang in real world driving conditions and have on more than one (or 6) occasions. I'm a speed nut, brought on by my father driving me through Kansas at 160MPH+ in a triumph when I was 8.
Anyway, maybe I do have exceptional luck with cars (with the exception of the Fiat Spyder). But I would buy any of the cars I've owned again, from the 455 Rocket Olds (probably my favorite and never needed repair) to the chevy I have now. I love cars. Especially fast cars. :)whoops. |
Sorruy....I meant the re-iteration of the Shelby......the GT500. My old age is showing.
The early GT350s, while a lot of fun weren't really fast, they had terrible handling, and the brakes sucked.
No, you're not going to find me in the "Don't build 'em like they used to....." misty eyed stuck in the past crew. Cars are better, faster, handle, stop, and just in general are waaaaaaay better than they ever were.
The first GTOs didn't even have disc brakes!!!!! And they had skinny tires on 5000 pound cars. The weight balance was awful, and recirculating ball, 4 turns lock to lock doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Today's Shelby will sit there at a light, all 500 horsepower, idle, run smoothly in traffic, and pretty much dust anything shy of $100K right off the map. The balance is good, the 4 wheel discs are immense, and a lot of time and technology went into making the beastie handle.
0-60? 4.6 Sec. 1/4 Mile? 12.5 @ 110mph
Unlike its predecessor with the 428, it's no nose-heavy pig, either.
Just FYI.....the Camaro I had, I hand built out of all carefully selected GM parts.
350, 11.0:1-.030 over TRW forged Z/28 pistons , 327/350 horse cam, distributor curved for the engine/cam, cast iron intake, Quadra-Jet, cast iron manifolds, 4WD truck clutch, wide ratio Muncie out of a '67 442, 3.08 ten bolt cone-type posi out of a '70 Camaro, high effort/variable ratio steering box, 15x7 rims, disc brake on the front, finned aluminum drums on the back.....this was a legitimate 150 mph car that took me about three years to get dialed in and it was a lot of fun. I had the benefit of years of European sports car experience that enabled me to make the ol' girl steer, stop, and handle, so though it wan't any Lotus, it was decent, and dead predictable and forgiving. I knew I had it sorted one night when I ran one off with a friend of mine on a 650 Suzuki. Yeah, he jumped me six car lengths out of the hole, but once I hooked up and took off, he never gained on my the whole way 'til he ran out of top end at about 135.
Someone mentioned a Starion......one of the wickedest cars of that era was that ESI Starion and its sister, the Conquest TSI. The '87s were a little lacking, but the '88-'89 cars were WICKED!!!!
Little 3500 pound car with Corvette size rubber on 'em, a fully independent suspension, four wheel discs, and a 2.6 turbocharged & intercooled engine that would make mincemeat out of most anything else on the road. A friend of mine had one, and she didn't drive it well when she got loaded, so I put it back together a couple of times when she piled it up. I got to spend a fair amount of seat time in it and the car was one of the most serious pieces of sports car machinery I *EVER* had the pleasure of thrashing. I used to punish 944 Turbos with it, and they were supposed to be the baddest thing on the road at the time.
And if this girl couldn't kill the thing, NOBODY could! I seriously considered buying one and prepping it for Pro Rally......the thing was THAT tough!
Okay....enough rambling.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 08:27:24 PM · #22 |
| one of my future goals displayed on my profile is to get myself a shelby. it will happen someday... just thought id throw that out there:) |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:10:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Buick never made a small block. |
Tell that to Wiki. According to my father, it was a TR6 frame and skin with a modified small block Buick V8 engine. Probably influenced my first car purchase, a 1980 Fiat Spyder. I still love the roadsters...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:28:45 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Buick never made a small block. |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Tell that to Wiki. According to my father, it was a TR6 frame and skin with a modified small block Buick V8 engine. Probably influenced my first car purchase, a 1980 Fiat Spyder. I still love the roadsters... |
The family difference isn't quite as specified there in Wiki.
That 215 was markedly different from the later iron engines, and for the most part, Buick really only used their iron engines, the 350, 400, 430, and 455s.
They had mostly interchangeable everything, as did Olds and Pontiac in their engine families, whereas Chevrolet's two distinct engine families used different everything.
Yeah, there are a few anomalies here and there, but mostly, that's the way it was in the real world with the regular production cars.
You DO know that Wiki is written by everyone, right?......8>)
And that the information can be sketchy?
The engine that was most likely in that Triumph was a 215, and it IS an orphan bastard engine, NOT to be confused with the rest of the Buick engine family.
BTW, there was an Olds version of that engine that was turbocharged......called the Jetfire, it was the first production application of a turbocharger in a car.
Oh.....for your nostalgia trip:
[thumb]660555[/thumb]
Message edited by author 2008-11-29 21:30:47.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 09:29:52 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Buick never made a small block. |
Tell that to Wiki. According to my father, it was a TR6 frame and skin with a modified small block Buick V8 engine. Probably influenced my first car purchase, a 1980 Fiat Spyder. I still love the roadsters... |
She's right about that, Jeb. Buick definitely made a variety of "small block" enjgines back in the day. I particularly remember the aluminum ones, which were considered fairly radical...
And thanx, Courtenay. Now that you mention it, I have vaguish memories of people "Detroiting" Triumphs and doing some smokin' hot performance numbers...
Of course, the ultimate "Detroiting" occurred when Carroll Shelby bought some AC automobiles... And a friend of mine dropped a Corvette engine in a bug-eyed Sprite, that was insane...
R.
|
|
