2024 Camaro?

[ABM2SS]

That thing is terrible. Makes me feel sick.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Dan82679

Vigilante I love my cell phone but trying to write fast while at work can be challenging. I was a Bell Atlantic/Verizon land line technician in the late 90's early 2000's .I was pro cell phone then and we actually had laid out the infrastructure for cell phone adoption before we released the technology. Very different than the government mandating EV when the infrastructure is not there Slippy let's agree to disagree. Let's say your right with 77° you have nothing better than to troll because of 7°?
Everyone is missing the point since the start of the forum that we do not have the infrastructure for mass adoption of EV. Coal and gas power plants are the main source of power and solar/wind turbines are secondary at best. The Government has there own agenda for pushing EV and it is definitely not to help the masses. Politicians do not care about you or your Family.
Keyboard tough guys can mock me for my spelling,trollers can troll I don't care the bottom line is we are not ready for EV Mass adoption. I'm out of this thread.

Today we are not. But starting adoption today we are. You still saying we shouldn’t do something in 2035/40 because we aren’t ready today.

Originally Posted by Dan82679

Get a life

Ahhhh the internet.

Originally Posted by 90503

All this hands-free driving is absolute garbage.

No matter how it's presented, it is fraught with danger, selfish profit motive, video-game mentality and unsafe. I hope Congress will at some point ban it completely. Hiding behind "oh, they just didn't use it right" doesn't rationalize the simple fact that it should never have been considered to be in any automobile in the first place and is a completely unnecessary gimmick that has taken innocent life.

Sleep well.

So it’s clear you’ve never driven a car or truck with Level 2 technology. Almost every word in your post is incorrect. They work and do so as designed. When you hang a weight off the steering wheel, buckle the seat belt and sit in the passenger seat not so much. A car that can brake when you aren’t paying attention or nudge your car back in your lane when again aren’t paying attention is simply not a bad thing. Should standard on every car and truck.

Level 4 now is a different discussion.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not even close. GM declared their intent to go all EV in 2019. Trump was president and GOP controlled both houses. Please prove me wrong.

While I wait for that, I’ll post a couple statements from GM President Mark Reuss and others on the topic. Reuss would certainly be a bit more knowledgeable on the topic than most since it’s his job. Reuss is also a car guy. He pretty much single handily green lit the 5th Gen Z/28 and the ZL1 1LE and he is one of the best track drivers at GM, despite his faux pas with the ZR1 at the Detroit Grand Prix. And just as much as it’s Mark Reuss’s job to pilot GM product strategy, it’s my job to cover and consult on this stuff.

From January 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://electrek.co/2019/01/15/gm-mo...-all-electric/

From June 2019 (before Biden Administration) https://ecolodriver.com/gm-working-o...evy-silverado/

From December 2019 (before Biden Administration)
https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-12-...cles-2030.html

Please prove me wrong.

When I’m in a meeting a people respond like they are to you I draw a circle on the marker board and write “bang head here” in the circle.

It doesn’t fit their internet fostered narrative so no matter what you say you are wrong.

Tesla, even after dropping $300 per share is STILL WORTH 10x what GM is even though GM is far more profitable. GM is trying to make stock holders happy, not Joe Biden.

Originally Posted by 90503

Those 2019 articles and statements do not mention "going all electric" and announce any end to ICE production. It was "all electric" as opposed to hybrid. No mention of ending ICE.
That didn't happen until the Biden administration was in and the goal of ending fossil fuels was put into action. Sure, they could plan on EVs in 2019 (Tesla had been building them for years and GM and many others just couldn't wait for Tesla to fail). Only when the Biden administration artificially promoted EVs with subsidies and anti-fossil fuel policies and the woke New Green Deal and Paris Climate Accords agendas did GM (gm) go all in on EVs and start bragging about ending ICE.

Pretty sure GM and Tesla aren’t getting subsidies anymore. Now Tesla selling credit to Stellantis is a different discussion.

Also, no one mentions it but Biden and the Democrats HATE Tesla. Non union shop.

Originally Posted by SaReNi

all I can say is, if I can't hear it, I don't want to drive it.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

All of this is true, but GM had announced the intent to go 100% electric and to operate factories at zero net carbon emissions long before these changes to the rule making were finalized.

Truth doesn’t work on the internet anymore.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So it’s clear you’ve never driven a car or truck with Level 2 technology. Almost every word in your post is incorrect. They work and do so as designed. When you hang a weight off the steering wheel, buckle the seat belt and sit in the passenger seat not so much. A car that can brake when you aren’t paying attention or nudge your car back in your lane when again aren’t paying attention is simply not a bad thing. Should standard on every car and truck.

Level 4 now is a different discussion.

The times I have used autopilot, it has worked great. It's a good system when properly used, which is mostly for highway driving.

People are trying to make Level 2 technology do what it can't do. They use it on local roads, use defeat devices, etc because they hate the act of driving. The system does not know that a curve cannot be taken at 40 MPH and needs to slow down. It will take that curve at 40 MPH and off the road you go.

To the only defense for these people misusing the system is that Tesla's naming scheme is highly deceptive. Full self driving is hardly full self driving.

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I don't think it's a prank. It may be a bit speculative, but most likely not a prank. GM has shown and spoken of an intent to offer a "low-roof performance EV". Low-roof is GM-ese for car. That opens the door for CT4 / CT5 replacements which could be named whatever, a Camaro replacement, which could be named whatever (including Camaro) or even a Corvette replacement or addition to the Corvette portfolio. Anyone who says they know for sure either has a very high paying job in GM Product Development or they're just guessing like the rest of us.

Well if you don't think that the article is a prank then this leaves me a bit sad and discouraged. Let me present another analogy; Chevrolet once faced the dilemma with Monte Carlo (at least one time), as they pondered whether to make it a sedan. In a way they came close to this with the re-introduction of the Lumina in '95. They did the right thing by retaining the Lumina name and calling the coupe Monte Carlo. In the end the Monte was canceled (alas at the top of its performance).

Another scenario Chevrolet could look at is developing a nameplate with synonyms relating to the camaro (such as Panther). I'm not too sure how that name would work, but Chevrolet could at least investigate the possibility. It would just be a shame to see the camaro change, and then become watered down or insignificant. Our current camaro proudly represents the best of the heritage.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

…
When I’m in a meeting a people respond like they are to you I draw a circle on the marker board and write “bang head here” in the circle.

It doesn’t fit their internet fostered narrative so no matter what you say you are wrong.

Tesla, even after dropping $300 per share is STILL WORTH 10x what GM is even though GM is far more profitable. GM is trying to make stock holders happy, not Joe Biden.



…
Truth doesn’t work on the internet anymore.

And now I’ll reveal my dirty little secret… often when I’m replying to those who fit your very accurate description above, I’m tailoring my response less towards them and more towards those who may be reading both posts and actually open to factual information. I pretty much know when there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of getting someone to accept facts counter to their assumptions.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

Well if you don't think that the article is a prank then this leaves me a bit sad and discouraged. Let me present another analogy; Chevrolet once faced the dilemma with Monte Carlo (at least one time), as they pondered whether to make it a sedan. In a way they came close to this with the re-introduction of the Lumina in '95. They did the right thing by retaining the Lumina name and calling the coupe Monte Carlo. In the end the Monte was canceled (alas at the top of its performance).

Another scenario Chevrolet could look at is developing a nameplate with synonyms relating to the camaro (such as Panther). I'm not too sure how that name would work, but Chevrolet could at least investigate the possibility. It would just be a shame to see the camaro change, and then become watered down or insignificant. Our current camaro proudly represents the best of the heritage.

Let me add a scenario…Dodge Charger.

1966-78 it was a rear wheel drive 2-door coupe with performance options.

1982-87 it was a front wheel drive 2-door hatchback with performance options.

2006 - today it is a rear wheel drive 4-door sedan with performance options

So what is a Charger, really? It’s whatever Dodge ( who owns the trademark to the name) wants it to be. Same is true of Camaro. It’s whatever GM wants it to be. I will say this…Dodge would be stupid NOT to use Charger as a name for an electric car.

[ABM2SS]

Same is true of Camaro. It’s whatever GM wants it to be.

When the 5th gen Camaro was released, the biggest criticisms that I read were that the trunk opening was too small, the dash had too much plastic and there was little passenger room in the back seat. But to me that had been, is, and always should be the very definition of a Camaro.

But in your defense, GM will do whatever they want with the "trademark".

[mariojas]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Let me add a scenario…Dodge Charger.

1966-78 it was a rear wheel drive 2-door coupe with performance options.

1982-87 it was a front wheel drive 2-door hatchback with performance options.

2006 - today it is a rear wheel drive 4-door sedan with performance options

So what is a Charger, really? It’s whatever Dodge ( who owns the trademark to the name) wants it to be. Same is true of Camaro. It’s whatever GM wants it to be. I will say this…Dodge would be stupid NOT to use Charger as a name for an electric car.

You forgot AWD option in Charger which makes it even more weird. Especially older (2008?) models with 5.7 V8 AWD

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Let me add a scenario…Dodge Charger.

1966-78 it was a rear wheel drive 2-door coupe with performance options.

1982-87 it was a front wheel drive 2-door hatchback with performance options.

2006 - today it is a rear wheel drive 4-door sedan with performance options

So what is a Charger, really? It’s whatever Dodge ( who owns the trademark to the name) wants it to be. Same is true of Camaro. It’s whatever GM wants it to be. I will say this…Dodge would be stupid NOT to use Charger as a name for an electric car.

Alright.........we're going on a limb here. I see your Charger analogy. Yes Chrysler and Chevrolet can elect to do whatever they want. Their idea may even work.

But look at this little scenario. Do people look at or regard the 2006 and up Charger the same way as people look at the '66-'70 Charger? Does the sedan charger elicit the same excitement as the two door charger from the '60's? The newer chargers are more powerful, faster, and probably more reliable than the sixties version, but are they really more desirable or memorable? Would one reasonably expect anyone to choose a new or modern sedan Charger over a mint and/or restored '68 or '69 Charger 383, or 426 Hemi, given if one had an opportunity to buy one??

That is what I'm hinting at. By changing the footprint or the hertiage you throw out the very element that makes the car valuable. Even when the Camaro had its exit in '02, with sales and interest down, it was still highly regarded as a living legend, with performance and other features to back it up. To this day (I wager) the 4th generation Camaro is still looked at with high favor because (although its looks changed) it held on to the basic heritage and layout that made it special.

Ford is guilty for some bastardizing with its SUV, but its current mustang still holds on to its basic heritage. You don't see them offering it as a 4 door sports car. This is why people still like Mustang.

I would rather see a car go at its prime than to weaken it with a hasty and ill chosen design theme, but that's me.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

Alright.........we're going on a limb here. I see your Charger analogy. Yes Chrysler and Chevrolet can elect to do whatever they want. Their idea may even work.

But look at this little scenario. Do people look at or regard the 2006 and up Charger the same way as people look at the '66-'70 Charger? Does the sedan charger elicit the same excitement as the two door charger from the '60's? The newer chargers are more powerful, faster, and probably more reliable than the sixties version, but are they really more desirable or memorable? Would one reasonably expect anyone to choose a new or modern sedan Charger over a mint and/or restored '68 or '69 Charger 383, or 426 Hemi, given if one had an opportunity to buy one??

That is what I'm hinting at. By changing the footprint or the hertiage you throw out the very element that makes the car valuable. Even when the Camaro had its exit in '02, with sales and interest down, it was still highly regarded as a living legend, with performance and other features to back it up. To this day (I wager) the 4th generation Camaro is still looked at with high favor because (although its looks changed) it held on to the basic heritage and layout that made it special.

Ford is guilty for some bastardizing with its SUV, but its current mustang still holds on to its basic heritage. You don't see them offering it as a 4 door sports car. This is why people still like Mustang.

I would rather see a car go at its prime than to weaken it with a hasty and ill chosen design theme, but that's me.

I’m liking this dialogue. Hopefully we can keep it going.

You are not at all wrong. Spot on, actually. All of that is true from an enthusiast’s point of view. From a manufacturer’s point of view it’s only interesting as long as it can impact the bottom line. Let’s take the fwd Charger for example. Standing here in 2022 most of us would say that thing should never have existed or at the least definitely shouldn’t have been called Charger. It simply doesn’t meet our definition of what a Charger should be. But from Dodge’s perspective in the early ‘80s, all hell was breaking loose in terms of regulation and they had to react to a lot of things. The Charger name meant something and they weren’t ready to let it go softly into that dark night. So they put it on the best vehicle they could build at the time. Everything was going front wheel drive except trucks and a few large luxo-cruisers. Their crystal ball could not yet see the improvements in engine technology 30 years down the road that would result in 900 horsepower Hemi V8s. So within the context of the times they made the best decision they could with what they knew. GM made a different decision with Camaro. The reason for the 2002-10 gap is more because GM didn’t have the right platform at the right cost to make it work. But since there was a lot of energy behind the scenes to come up with the right platform, it made since to tuck the name away until the right solution presented itself. It would have been easy to build something sporty on Epsilon platform and call it Camaro, but there was already evidence of a better approach becoming available.

As for Mustang…you say that you are glad that at least they didn’t do a 4-door sedan. More than likely it’s coming. Ford has stated that Mustang, F150, and Bronco will all be sub-brands and each will have multiple configurations available. For Mustang it will be coupe, CUV, and sedan. The sedan will be EV. The coupe will be ICE, at least for now, and will include hybrids. We already know what the CUV is. And for what it’s worth, other companies and brands will be doing the same thing. Take a quick drive through the Corvette forums and look at what’s got them all riled up.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’m liking this dialogue. Hopefully we can keep it going.

You are not at all wrong. Spot on, actually. All of that is true from an enthusiast’s point of view. From a manufacturer’s point of view it’s only interesting as long as it can impact the bottom line. Let’s take the fwd Charger for example. Standing here in 2022 most of us would say that thing should never have existed or at the least definitely shouldn’t have been called Charger. It simply doesn’t meet our definition of what a Charger should be. But from Dodge’s perspective in the early ‘80s, all hell was breaking loose in terms of regulation and they had to react to a lot of things. The Charger name meant something and they weren’t ready to let it go softly into that dark night. So they put it on the best vehicle they could build at the time. Everything was going front wheel drive except trucks and a few large luxo-cruisers. Their crystal ball could not yet see the improvements in engine technology 30 years down the road that would result in 900 horsepower Hemi V8s. So within the context of the times they made the best decision they could with what they knew. GM made a different decision with Camaro. The reason for the 2002-10 gap is more because GM didn’t have the right platform at the right cost to make it work. But since there was a lot of energy behind the scenes to come up with the right platform, it made since to tuck the name away until the right solution presented itself. It would have been easy to build something sporty on Epsilon platform and call it Camaro, but there was already evidence of a better approach becoming available.

As for Mustang…you say that you are glad that at least they didn’t do a 4-door sedan. More than likely it’s coming. Ford has stated that Mustang, F150, and Bronco will all be sub-brands and each will have multiple configurations available. For Mustang it will be coupe, CUV, and sedan. The sedan will be EV. The coupe will be ICE, at least for now, and will include hybrids. We already know what the CUV is. And for what it’s worth, other companies and brands will be doing the same thing. Take a quick drive through the Corvette forums and look at what’s got them all riled up.

Could GM in theory make this EV sedan an Impala SS and then do a coupe variant named Camaro sort of like the old Impala/Monte Carlo combo? May not satisfy the purists still, but at least keep Camaro close to its roots.

Or do you see GM thinking the coupe market is a dying breed and abandon it?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Could GM in theory make this EV sedan an Impala SS and then do a coupe variant named Camaro sort of like the old Impala/Monte Carlo combo? May not satisfy the purists still, but at least keep Camaro close to its roots.

Or do you see GM thinking the coupe market is a dying breed and abandon it?

At this point your guess is as good as mine. What you suggest is very much possible. It’s a matter of how GM wants to manage the brand. I’m not sure if they’ve actually made any naming decisions yet.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Could GM in theory make this EV sedan an Impala SS and then do a coupe variant named Camaro sort of like the old Impala/Monte Carlo combo? May not satisfy the purists still, but at least keep Camaro close to its roots.

Or do you see GM thinking the coupe market is a dying breed and abandon it?

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if GM does something like this as an Impala...


https://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/crown

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’m liking this dialogue. Hopefully we can keep it going.

You are not at all wrong. Spot on, actually. All of that is true from an enthusiast’s point of view. From a manufacturer’s point of view it’s only interesting as long as it can impact the bottom line. Let’s take the fwd Charger for example. Standing here in 2022 most of us would say that thing should never have existed or at the least definitely shouldn’t have been called Charger. It simply doesn’t meet our definition of what a Charger should be. But from Dodge’s perspective in the early ‘80s, all hell was breaking loose in terms of regulation and they had to react to a lot of things. The Charger name meant something and they weren’t ready to let it go softly into that dark night. So they put it on the best vehicle they could build at the time. Everything was going front wheel drive except trucks and a few large luxo-cruisers. Their crystal ball could not yet see the improvements in engine technology 30 years down the road that would result in 900 horsepower Hemi V8s. So within the context of the times they made the best decision they could with what they knew. GM made a different decision with Camaro. The reason for the 2002-10 gap is more because GM didn’t have the right platform at the right cost to make it work. But since there was a lot of energy behind the scenes to come up with the right platform, it made since to tuck the name away until the right solution presented itself. It would have been easy to build something sporty on Epsilon platform and call it Camaro, but there was already evidence of a better approach becoming available.

As for Mustang…you say that you are glad that at least they didn’t do a 4-door sedan. More than likely it’s coming. Ford has stated that Mustang, F150, and Bronco will all be sub-brands and each will have multiple configurations available. For Mustang it will be coupe, CUV, and sedan. The sedan will be EV. The coupe will be ICE, at least for now, and will include hybrids. We already know what the CUV is. And for what it’s worth, other companies and brands will be doing the same thing. Take a quick drive through the Corvette forums and look at what’s got them all riled up.

All that I would like to express that whatever Chevy and GM does, that it should have meaning to it. Not necessarily to keep up with the Joneses. The Camaro is and was one of those creations that only comes once perhaps in a hundred years. I'm really not that mad at Charger, to be honest, because I'm not a strict fan of it. In fact if the Charger were a new style, I probably would look at it. Its just the feel of it and how special the car is that makes a difference.

You brought a good point. There should be healthy dialogue between the car buying public, fans, and concerned people in the automotive business that can shape the cars that we would like to see in the future.