Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

El Kabong

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by El Kabong

  1. El Kabong
    I said PERFORMANCE no-man's land, not NUMBERS. Who cares about your engine if your chassis, transmissions, and brakes aren't up to snuff? 4.4 to 60 is probably not gonna cut it against the Alpha, especially at similar price points. This holds true for the track and the showroom.
  2. El Kabong
    My record is spotless. Let admin figure out who's to blame for what.
  3. El Kabong
    No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Ford's new 5.0 only puts out numbers as good as the old one, although no doubt it does so in a much more refined manner. And if the V8 feel is the main thrust of what you're looking for then by all means buy a basic one for a lower price than a 37-large SS. In theory you will be able to. In reality, we have already seen C/D drive an ECOBOOST Mustang that went for over 42 grand. Which tells me that most sales of these cars will be on the high end of the scale. It may also explain a bit of the Shelby's pricing strategy too, because I'm guessing re-engineering your chassis and drivetrain one model year in ain't cheap.
  4. El Kabong
    But elsewhere you were the guy complaining about the Camaro being overpriced for the driveline it offers. Do you really think that if the Shelby cannot decisively put a run-of-the-mill SS back on the truck that people will overlook it? And again, for possibly as much as an extra TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS? Sorry, man. That dog don't hunt. Yes, I still feel that a BASE Camaro SS starting north of 37,000 is high. In a straight line? or on a track, again? Because, I've mentioned this before, as cars get quicker and quicker one tenth of a second becomes a larger deal than it was 10 years ago. Cars can only accelerate to 60mph so fast(theoretically lets just say 1 second is the fastest POSSIBLE) so as they are slowly approaching that golden 1 second mark 0.1 is a larger and larger percentage of time. 0.1 for a car that goes to 60mph in 15 seconds is nothing. 0.6% of time. 0.1 off of a 4 second 60mph sprint is 2.5% of the time shed. Does this make sense where I'm going with this? It means that a 0.1 second win is more of an engineering feat today than that same victory 10 ears ago. So if it wins by 0.1 while a VERY marginal number so us average drivers it is actually a decent gap as cars are progressing and becoming quicker and quicker. Is 0.2 or 0.3 of a second worth 12k? Not to me. But let's flip that and say is 0.1 worth the gap from a Mustang GT to a Camaro SS? Heck, what's the Z/28 sprint to 60mph in? MT tested at 4.0 and 12.3 through the 1/4(You were ONLY looking at straight line numbers - but that car isn't about straight line speed, like the GT350). So let's look at those numbers again and put them into perspective.. Dollar:Performance:Want ratio and you can make an argument for all of them. I just think it is unnesessary to be as cocky as you are about two cars in which we don't have numbers on yet. I have yet to see a new 5.0 GT break 4.4 to 60. If you can find a credible link by all means post it. If the new SS even matches (instead of exceeds) GM's numbers, you're looking at 4/10 of a second to 60 alone. And in the real world, most of these cars will be on the high end of the price spectrum. In reality, the 5.0 would exist in a performance no man's-land between the V6 and V8 Chevies, and the small and big Hemis. If they price it out low, it'll probably move out of showrooms. But the bang for the buck is going to be critical.
  5. El Kabong
    Why are you feeding him (as evidenced by his lack of knowledge as to why production stopped on the previous F bodies in the first place)? I'm just putting up facts and third-party articles, as I usually do to back up my points. The folks in charge know what's what. The points I brought up about the Shelby's projected performance numbers were an illustration of how you need to improve all aspects of a car before you can jack prices and keep sales strong. I used Mopar as an example of how to do it right, and I expect that I may be able to use GM in a few day's time.
  6. El Kabong
    Ccap: Once again, read the article. C/D have already commented on both the slower steering and more conservative tires on the GT350 compared to, say, the outgoing Z/28. So, if you have a 3700 pound car that has real-world tires, it ain't gonna be a Z/28 killer, though it'll still probably be a nice track machine. More likely it'll be a ZL1-focused style of performance, with a peakier engine. And, as has already been pointed out, it'll cost a lot more. To keep this sales-focused: pumping up prices without pumping up performance is probably not going to work, if Mopar and GM are any examples to go by. And price. Don't forget the PRICE DIFFERENCE. It's a holistic thing, is what I'm saying. Especially as it pertains to sales.
  7. El Kabong
    But elsewhere you were the guy complaining about the Camaro being overpriced for the driveline it offers. Do you really think that if the Shelby cannot decisively put a run-of-the-mill SS back on the truck that people will overlook it? And again, for possibly as much as an extra TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS? Sorry, man. That dog don't hunt.
  8. El Kabong
    Well... The ATS-V and CTS-V its did pretty well for themselves in Lightning Lap and Best Drivers Car, so I don't think the VSport cars are really going to lack for much.
  9. El Kabong
    You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But after driving the "much more powerful" Shelby on street and Laguna Seca, C/D estimated (no doubt via sneakiness and timing equipment) that it would hit 60 in 3.7-3.8 seconds (as you will see in the magazine, should you care to look). Similarly, they peg the quarter-mile times and traps at roughly Caddy ATS-V numbers. Thing is, the ATS-V's engine and driveline numbers (and the car's weight) are pretty similar for that of the Camaro SS... which is going to be lighter and torquier than the Shelby. Also, GM claims 0-60 in four flat for the eight-speed, and their numbers will probably be a bit conservative. Bottom Line: they may well be saying "ruh-roh" in Dearborn come Oct. 16 or so. And if not, perhaps they should be.
  10. El Kabong
    Wait, you just concluded that if a 'tracked-out' SS runs close to a GT-350....which it now within price reach of....then Ford will have problems emulating Chrysler. I don't follow that logic at all. What are you talking about???GM announced that the SS would start at 37 large. The Shelby will start at 49. That's 12 grand difference! Now, add the Track Pack to the Shelby and it goes into the mid fifties. For arguments sake, wel will assume that a magnetic ride Camaro will cost as much (probably not, but I will play nice). Still at least 12 grand's difference on the price tag. All I know is that if there ain't 12 grand's worth of difference on the street, strip, and track then Dearborn will have a problem.
  11. El Kabong
    Agreed on both points. The Mustang is like most sporty cars, be they pony cars or roadsters or whatnot: a new one always brings interest, and thus sales. For GM fans, the '84 Corvette and '10 Camaro are the bellwethers for this phenomenon. It should also be noted that these were extreme cases: the C4 was the first "new" Corvette on 16 years (and the first new one under the skin in 21!), and the Camaro was coming back from eight years of... well, death. Generally speaking, the more dire straits the outgoing product was in, the better the new one will do, at least initially. The next trick is to try and retain that initial momentum. On this point everyone has to tip their hats to Mopar, because the Challenger is doing insanely well overall. The reason is because they have offered steady improvements, and those improvements have not come with any loss of affordability. Even the Hellcats, at 70-odd grand in the real world, offer good bang for the buck. This is why I'm looking forward to seeing the first drive reports on the Alpha Camaro in a day or two (or whenever Jalopnik decides to break the curfew). If it can offer similar performance to the Shelby GT350 in SS trim then I think that Ford will have a problem emulating Chrysler.
  12. El Kabong
    I dunno... a Ferrari IPO and a wobbly Volkswagen may ensure that Sergio (and Chrysler as a whole) get to keep that horseshoe firmly stuck where the sun don't shine.
  13. El Kabong
    Anybody remember Back to the Future II? Remember who won the World Series in 2015? The Chicago Cubs are kinda freaking me out right now.
  14. El Kabong
    Not sure if I misunderstood you, but yes the 335 hp LGX is the Camaro's midlevel engine upon release. Wow, I've been too fixated on the four and smallblock
  15. El Kabong
    The nice thing about batteries is that, like a gas tank, they can be shaped and positioned in various ways to suit your packaging needs. Actually, because gravity isn't an issue like it is with fuel, you can probably do more with them. So as energy density increases with batteries you have a lot more leeway with packaging. Omega could probably accommodate some Voltec-type setup pretty easily, albeit (probably) with less range.
  16. El Kabong
    It will. But only one time. Sergio needs to get this right.
  17. El Kabong
    Congratulations on the mod posting. Just noticed it!
  18. El Kabong
    And impressive improvements they are! Wonder if the V6 will be getting under the hood of the Camaro in a year or so.
  19. El Kabong
    The Jays gain momentum.
  20. El Kabong
    That's not an electric car. It has a gas engine. Of course, any would be. But none of them exist as of this time. When they will, Tesla will also have the Model 3 for sale. Tesla's got the brand equity, the reputation and the backs of early adopters. They hold a position of strength. People do complain that Tesla loses money of every sale, but then we have to consider what's the reduced cost of every Volt produced? How about an i3? or Leaf or Focus electric? My guess: atleast a few multiples of the supposed $4000 that Tesla loses; and Tesla's losses are attributable to their massive investments in charging infrastructure and product development, not because of products that are salesproof to the vast majority of the conventional buyers for the respective brands. The first cars were luxury products until, Ford for example, rationalized the idea of selling at a lower price by radically increasing production volumes and keeping product permutations to a minimum. Musk is doing the same for electric vehicles. Why not get the most out of the transition period? Anyways, back to the Bolt everyone. I'm done indulging why Tesla is still a winner. If they are losing money on every $100K car they are currently selling, how will they continue to be 'winners' by introducing a Model 3 that generates far less ATP's? I don't see it. I didn't explicitly or implicitly suggest or intended to suggest for Tesla to win it will beat others in the electric segment profitability. Back to Bolt. It IS an impressive vehicle, isn't it?
  21. El Kabong
    Does Eric work for Ford?
  22. El Kabong
    Now. Back on topic. I am impressed with GM truck sales. Anytime you can introduce a smaller product and it sells like it does without hurting sales of your larger product is cause for celebration.
  23. El Kabong
    Jinxed "might be" the wrong word? So you realize that you're using inflammatory language, but don't really apologize for it. Did you not read the post about the tighter moderating?
  24. El Kabong
    The Jays live to fight another day.
  25. El Kabong
    So... either you believe in jinxes, or you're just using inflammatory language to try and provoke a response. I'll just notify Admin so they can make that decision for themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search