GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why dont they just make GM partner up with a german motor company? or is there something behind it that i didn't get in the article?

looks like GM is getting a huge free ride while chrysler is getting it up the ass.

And how do you propose to force a german company to buy another company? You can't.

And GM isn't really getting a huge free ride, they have loans to pay back and also Obama just fired their CEO. Hardly what I'd call a "free ride."

 

[LTC8K6]

And how do you propose to force a german company to buy another company?

You offer them 6 really big ones from the citizens of the USA if they merge?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much been the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

For reference, 03 Cobra is 3665 lbs 4.5s 12.8s completely stock down to the crappy Eagle F1 275mm tires and 3.65" pulley.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

So a modded car can beat a stock car...the hell you say.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

So a modded car can beat a stock car...the hell you say.

I'd bet that a stock '03 Terminator would outrun a 2010 Camaro SS :

http://www.modernracer.com/fordmustangsvtcobra.html

0-60 mph : 4.5 sec.
0-¼ mile : 12.4 sec @ 112.1 mph

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

So a modded car can beat a stock car...the hell you say.

No I said a stock '03 car can beat a stock '10 car and even more so when mods start on both cars.


For reference, 03 Cobra is 3665 lbs 4.5s 12.8s completely stock down to the crappy Eagle F1 275mm tires and 3.65" pulley.


The 2003 Cobra is still the benchmark and the car to beat for every modern muscle car that has come out since.

 

[SparkyJJO]

How much was the terminator brand new?
Terminator is FI, not NA.

So really what kind of comparison is it?

The SS is nearly at those numbers NA as it is 4.7sec 0-60 and 110mph 13 sec 1/4, and that is with poor traction on a cold day.

Just saying.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
How much was the terminator brand new?
Terminator is FI, not NA.

So really what kind of comparison is it?

The SS is nearly at those numbers NA as it is 4.7sec 0-60 and 110mph 13 sec 1/4, and that is with poor traction on a cold day.

Just saying.

7 years newer and much larger engine (cid).

Just saying.

It would actually be pretty sweet if it wasn't 4k lbs like every other "muscle" car since 2003.

Don't get me wrong I'd drive any of them, but in the "modern muscle" community the Terminator is still the car every new muscle car is compared to form a pure performance standpoint.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

So a modded car can beat a stock car...the hell you say.

No I said a stock '03 car can beat a stock '10 car and even more so when mods start on both cars.


For reference, 03 Cobra is 3665 lbs 4.5s 12.8s completely stock down to the crappy Eagle F1 275mm tires and 3.65" pulley.


The 2003 Cobra is still the benchmark and the car to beat for every modern muscle car that has come out since.

I can't find one link stating the Cobra's 0-60 time being 4.5, can you provide a link please.

I'm sure with a little more effort someone will get the Camaro down to about 4.5 from it's current 4.6.

How's the 2003 Cobra at the Nurburgring btw? What about warranty, safety features and mileage. All this stuff matters.

I'm not saying the '03 Cobra isn't a phenomenal car, but if you're going to compare it to a newer car it's not just about 0-60 and the quarter mile.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that can beat a new Mustang as well, probably.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wasn't an old Buick GNX quicker than that? Maybe we should go back to those?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Camaro SS = 33k for 426hp. Sounds right to me. People don't care about the price, they care about the badge. Although, thanks to financial crisis, I think people are starting to get some fking sense back and realizing that it's better to have an ok car and some money, than to drive a snobmobile and be broke.

Imagine if the Camaro was ~3000lbs instead of a rolling block of cement

That would be awesome considering that that block of cement is already faster than anything in its class.

I don't think there's a car that can beat it without spending quite a bit more. Maybe an Evo or an STI, but those aren't exactly competing cars.

2003 Cobra can still beat it after all these years, and is infinitely cheaper to mod and you get way more bang from each mod.

The 03 Cobra has pretty much the reference car and the car to beat for all the new "muscle" cars that have come out since. And so far they fail due to all of them being 4,000 lbs +

So a modded car can beat a stock car...the hell you say.

No I said a stock '03 car can beat a stock '10 car and even more so when mods start on both cars.


For reference, 03 Cobra is 3665 lbs 4.5s 12.8s completely stock down to the crappy Eagle F1 275mm tires and 3.65" pulley.


The 2003 Cobra is still the benchmark and the car to beat for every modern muscle car that has come out since.

I can't find one link stating the Cobra's 0-60 time being 4.5, can you provide a link please.

I'm sure with a little more effort someone will get the Camaro down to about 4.5 from it's current 4.6.

How's the 2003 Cobra at the Nurburgring btw? What about warranty, safety features and mileage. All this stuff matters.

I'm not saying the '03 Cobra isn't a phenomenal car, but if you're going to compare it to a newer car it's not just about 0-60 and the quarter mile.

All you'd ever want to know about it : http://www.musclemustangfastfo...helby_gt500/index.html

Let me know when you take a car to the Nurburgring.

It's just telling that a 2003 car performs at or above the level of a competitor from 2010. Weight is what kills the Camaro in this regard. 30-something extra HP is a bit weak when it has a tremendous amount of extra weight to deal with.

The '03 Cobra can also be modded to run like a scalded demon with some cheap stuff, which is a bit tougher to do starting with a NA setup like the Camaro.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Wasn't an old Buick GNX quicker than that? Maybe we should go back to those?

No. Most tests of the '87 GNX stock put them in the ~5s+ 0-60 range, which was hellishly fast for the era, but not up to modern 400hp+ land tanks.

 

[LTC8K6]

C & D was 4.7s, which is right there, and the Buick was way heavier.

Plus we were talking about modding the cars, too...

It's pointless to go back and cherry pick cars that are "better" or "faster".

Earlier cars are less safe in a crash, anyway.

Are they carrying what a '10 model is required to carry in the form of safety equipment, etc.?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
C & D was 4.7s, which is right there, and the Buick was way heavier.

Plus we were talking about modding the cars, too...

It's pointless to go back and cherry pick cars that are "better" or "faster".

Earlier cars are less safe in a crash, anyway.

Are they carrying what a '10 model is required to carry in the form of safety equipment, etc.?

I don't think safety has changed much in auto construction in 6 years, the biggest safety change I know of is the push for side and headrest airbags.

 

[lurk3r]

LoL, did someone actually say cobra and nurburgring in the same sentence?

 

[ElFenix]

how about a 2010 mustang gt with ford racing's warranted blower?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: lurk3r
LoL, did someone actually say cobra and nurburgring in the same sentence?

Idk, kinda out there

Fwiw, the Cobras handle pretty damned well for what they are. Obviously they aren't an Exige or whatever, but first and foremost, they're straight-line muscle cars capable of astonishing power for cheap.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
How's the 2003 Cobra at the Nurburgring btw?

Not what you want, but the closest thing you'll probably get considering American automakers and consumers don't care enough for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh-4MSDbwFY

Widely accepted average numbers for the Terminator are 0-60 4.5, 1/4 12.8s, and 0.90g skidpad. Eg: M3/Corvette numbers.

It was seriously not me intent to start a car debate or flex epeen but rather put into perspective how lackluster the new cars are. Performance should improve after 7 years, not degrade or be a sidegrade at best. And weight is the biggest factor responsible.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think safety has changed much in auto construction in 6 years, the biggest safety change I know of is the push for side and headrest airbags.

Well, the GNX is from 1987...

We have safety cages, stability systems, TPMS, etc.

More weight and complexity for all cars.

We have tighter emissions controls and more stringent economy standards too.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

I don't think safety has changed much in auto construction in 6 years, the biggest safety change I know of is the push for side and headrest airbags.

Well, the GNX is from 1987...

We have safety cages, stability systems, TPMS, etc.

More weight and complexity for all cars.

We have tighter emissions controls and more stringent economy standards too.

Who's standards are those? Certainly not mine or the market these kinds of cars are aimed towards.

Free market ftw?

Give me a <= 3,500 lb Camaro without all that crap and I'll bite.

Which opens up the other question of "making cars people want to buy" vs "making cars that PEOPLE don't want but rather what the GOVERNMENT wants..."

Someone buying a Camaro doesn't care about fuel economy...yet people who would never by a Camaro anyway thinks it should be required by law to get 60 mpg.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
C & D was 4.7s, which is right there, and the Buick was way heavier.

Plus we were talking about modding the cars, too...

It's pointless to go back and cherry pick cars that are "better" or "faster".

Earlier cars are less safe in a crash, anyway.

Are they carrying what a '10 model is required to carry in the form of safety equipment, etc.?

I don't think safety has changed much in auto construction in 6 years, the biggest safety change I know of is the push for side and headrest airbags.

A lot of reinforcements have been added in the last ten or so (yeah, I expanded a little ). I'm not sure when some of the bigger ones were added like the distribution stuff on the front end (the beam that makes it so the whole front will crush instead of just the part that's hit).

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Ktulu
How's the 2003 Cobra at the Nurburgring btw?

Not what you want, but the closest thing you'll probably get considering American automakers and consumers don't care enough for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh-4MSDbwFY

Widely accepted average numbers for the Terminator are 0-60 4.5, 1/4 12.8s, and 0.90g skidpad. Eg: M3/Corvette numbers.

It was seriously not me intent to start a car debate or flex epeen but rather put into perspective how lackluster the new cars are. Performance should improve after 7 years, not degrade or be a sidegrade at best. And weight is the biggest factor responsible.

^ This in a nutshell. I'm not saying the new Camaro is a bad car, just that it seems to be entering a muddled market chock full of high-hp, overweight designs, that deliver performance that barely equals, or in most cases falls short of .. the standard set by the Terminators. I'm not even taking the ridiculous modding potential into account here.

Keep the drivetrain in the 2010 Camaro, but shave 500lbs, and you'd be instantly talking numbers that set a new standard.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, new cars are required to carry that stuff around/deal with those rules. So you should consider it when comparing and complaining that the newer cars are lackluster.

I can't imagine GM and Chrysler will get any more inspiring under government supervision...

 

[LTC8K6]

Keep the drivetrain in the 2010 Camaro, but shave 500lbs, and you'd be instantly talking numbers that set a new standard.

It would probably cost a lot to shave 500 pounds.