surreal1272

Need anymore be said about the performance of the new Camaro? This sums it up nicely, "Hats off once again to Camaro boss Al Oppenheiser and his team. They took on Germany’s performance standard-bearer, objectively tied it, and subjectively blackened the M4’s eye." Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/?sm_id=social_aumomotortrendhub_MotorTrend_20160303_58923156&adbid=10153544176401312&adbpl=fb&adbpr=18332466311

We are not talking about diesels that were never sold here in the first place Bong. We are talking about a car that has been around for 26 years now and has a stellar reputation as being well built and reliable, in addition to being fun to drive. No Fiat enjoys that same reputation, hence them piggybacking off of Mazda here.

2015 or 2016 Colorado (going out on a limb here) since you have said that you really like them now.

All I know is that I would take a Mazda motor over a Fiat motor.

The motor does not. Fiat is using their turbo charged 1.4L as opposed to Mazdas 2.0L, making it a valid concern as to it's reliability.

Other than the massively overdone read end (which I suspect will be toned down for production models), it actually looks okay and better than the sedan which just looks like a baby Crosstour to me (and that's not a good thing). Good to see Honda jump back into the hatch game here regardless.

That's because those were FWD pretenders in sporty disguise and people caught on to that. You also fail to see that your premise hasn't hurt Mustang sales and it shouldn't hurt here, which is why I originally asked about any production issues. Nothing else you say really applies unless you can answer that specific question.

Condolences to her family and Olds and his family as well. Very sad indeed.

Because the Camaro is not a crossover. Seriously though, I think it will do better in warm weather months. A problem with the Camaro is it hard to see out of or get in and out of. I don't think it's that hard to see out of personally, but I get the consensus. However, that view (which is worse in the older model btw) did not stop the last one form selling better than this.

The negative result is because of the big reduction in rental numbers. "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago." I don't think it matter what the reason behind the negative is, less vehicles were sold, period. Right? How can the claim of "fastest growing full-line brand" when your overall sales are down from last year's? It's honestly confusing to me. If somebody can make it make sense in my head for me I would appreciate that! Well, for starters there is more profit per retail uni sold than fleet or rental unit. If you are at least offsetting your overall sales (and GM is right now) numbers with that formula, then that means more profit, which I hear is a good thing (or at least that's what Ford fans always say ). Profitability over Volume, but great when you can get both. Not disagreeing with that but they are correcting a past wrong of putting volume over more sustainable profits per unit. The results are positive thus far IMO but they still have a long way to go.

Before one down votes, one should read why I ask. Here is one reason why I ask. https://www.enterprisecarsales.com/list/buy-a-car-1#0/20/Make/a//make%3D%22FORD%22%20model%3D%22ford--mustang%22 You will find just as many on Avis, Hertz, and Budget sites. It was well known when the new Stang came out, that the V6 was primarily for fleet and rentals. What is surprising to me, is a fair number on the Enterprise website are Eco-Boost models. Note: There are quite a few Camaros on there too but they are all 2015/older generation models. This is a new generation Mustang we are talking about. It also has been well noted on the Sales Ticker thread that GM has steadily been decreasing the number of rental cars that sell while they increase their retail sales.

The negative result is because of the big reduction in rental numbers. "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago." I don't think it matter what the reason behind the negative is, less vehicles were sold, period. Right? How can the claim of "fastest growing full-line brand" when your overall sales are down from last year's? It's honestly confusing to me. If somebody can make it make sense in my head for me I would appreciate that! Well, for starters there is more profit per retail uni sold than fleet or rental unit. If you are at least offsetting your overall sales (and GM is right now) numbers with that formula, then that means more profit, which I hear is a good thing (or at least that's what Ford fans always say ).

The negative result is because of the big reduction in rental numbers. "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago."

My question is why are the Camaro numbers so low? Are there production issues keeping the numbers down? Hell, it barely beat the Challenger last month.

I wonder how many V6 Mustangs made its way to rental lots?

And why GMs numbers are a little down (and why it's not a bad thing, unlike what certain people are trying to convey here). "Due to a planned reduction in rental deliveries, GM’s total sales of 227,825 were down slightly year over year. GM reduced daily rental deliveries by about 16,500 units, or 39 percent in February. GM grew its Commercial business in February for the 28th consecutive month." and "As a result of lower rental deliveries, GM expects its fleet mix in 2016 to be about 20 percent of total sales, compared with a historical range of 22 to 24 percent. In 2015, GM reduced rental deliveries by about 50,000 units compared to 2014. In the first two months of 2016, rental deliveries are down about 30,000 units, compared to a year ago."

You do realize that it has to start somewhere though right? This is the same infrastructure that the Bolt will be using after all.

4WD adds more weight and would decrease the already small fuel gain it gets with the hybrid system. That is probably one reason why it's not available in 4WD.

The unrestricted record for Talledega is 228. Pre-restrictor qualifying laps were around 212 MPH IIRC. I'm not seeing the math that dropping 450 HP results in a decrease of only 12 MPH. If they went to 250 HP, could they still hit 180? Who but either way, they have been running with this lower HP setup since the introduction of restrictor plates. It's crazy how much it drops yet these cars can still push 200mph without much trouble.

At the 2015 GEICO 500 held May 3rd 2015 @ Talledega, the 3 top qualifiers set lap speeds of 200.xxx MPH. Do you REALLY think they did that with only 435 HP ??? Cutting power from 850-900 down to 435 would cut race speeds in HALF. Who's going to watch a gaggle of race cars going 100 MPH?? Actually, with cautions & such, the average speed at the end of that race was 160 MPH, so change that '100 MPH' to something like 60 MPH. Yeah; 435 HP. Actually they're 450HP for Daytona and Talledega. http://www.buildingspeed.org/blog/2014/07/how-fast-would-nascar-cars-go-at-daytona-without-restrictor-plates/

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette. A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance. If the stock has to keep that plate on (which is only for the safety part of rules), then the Veyron should get one too. Take it off, and the Veyron really does not stand a chance. Just stop man.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes. A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome. . I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners. A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons. As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing. I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either. Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher. And rarity. Most are four hours. I've been to two of them at Daytona. And please stop this Veyron non-sense. It doesn't even merit a response. It is just that asinine. It's as asinine as your race driver assumptions because you can prove neither and what little evidence there is out there, is not on your side. Maybe will just discount the fact that NASCAR stock cars are built for that 200mph all out for all 500 miles of Daytona (save for speed drops in the turns of course). A Veyron would not make it 10 laps all out like that. It is not built for it. A stock car also has a better power to weight ratio than the much heavier Veyron. Just that little bit of evidence right there, kills your silly argument. Sorry, until someone is willing to pony up a $2.6 billion dollar risk by racing that Veyron that long, it is all a pipe dream.

I think you are wrong. Of course, I've actually sat in the old and the new Camaro. It is not worse in any way.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

The numbers that MB uses for their sales total includes those vans. The cost of the van is irrelevant btw and again you obviously missed the bigger point of what I was saying because I named your precious Mercedes in my post. Exactly. Cheaper than any BMW sedan. The GLA is also $2K cheaper than the cheapest BMW CUV (the X1). Yeah SMK, they are not trying to win on price at all </sarcasm>