Z-06

Thanks K.C. The Truck is my company vehicle, which I have to share with others in case they do not have a vehicle to go to a site.

Eating breakfast at home, taking a break and coming home to eat during lunch, preparing my own dinner. Reducing the speed while driving. Making a list of things and having pros and cons of the things I Really, Really, REALLY want before I buy. Using alternatives and non brands. And going late to work to avoid traffic and save time and gas.

The only reasonable argument against the foreign manufacturers claiming to be producing cars here is that - the foreign cars may be assembled here but the content is still mostly foreign. American cars might be manufactured in Mexico or Canada, but the content is mostly American. By destroying domestic industry you are not only making car manufacturer workers unemployed but also its suppliers' employees.

That is the only Bias factor in this comparo which is irrelevant. You do not vote for present with What ifs factor. We can also add what if next Alpha Camaro then it is better than Hyundai. Grow up Motortrend!

As Chazman has said previously in the tone that GM erred on the heavier side when they went ahead with this Camaro. Yes they did a spectacular job with the chasis and handling and surprisingly with its performance. When compared to the lot lighter and equally powerful Hyundai, Camaro only looses not more than 2/10th in acceleration numbers which is an achievement. But its weight is going to be a handling factor when it comes to comparing cars in this class. And it will be compared to the Genesis. The RS package would have helped in the handling department had the Camaro in the comparo been equipped with it, but it would have also skewed the price game. Overall I will not call a bias because Camaro may have emotional bonds, but Hyundai is today's choice. Had GM team took care of the weight and size aspect, we would not have to call bias and victory would have been outright. I hope GM brings in Alpha soon enough to start putting cars on weight diet.

[source: Motortrend] 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 vs 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Six Shooters: Motortrend Tries to Find the King of the Affordable V-6 Coupes FIRST PLACE: Hyundai Genesis Coupe Best viewed from behind the wheel, where it handles entertaining roads more like a sports car than a pony- or musclecar. SECOND PLACE: Chevrolet Camaro Powerful, refined V-6 and enough style to lend some to Hyundai, its weight and size make it less entertaining on second- and third-gear roads.

[source: MotorAuthority] Mercedes Benz Targets 0.20Cd Drag Coefficient in Next Five Years Sometimes, making cars more efficient is best done through the application of more fundamental principles such as improved aerodynamics, rather than complex and expensive powertrain upgrades. Mercedes Benz is embracing that philosophy, with a plan to bring the respective drag coefficients of its cars below 0.20Cd within the next five years. The carmaker claims it already produces the world's most aerodynamic production car - the new 2010 E-Class Coupe, which scores a drag coefficient figure of 0.24Cd. The new coupe even manages to out-slip the new 2010 Toyota Prius, which for a short time in January could claim it was the world's most aerodynamic production car along with the Honda Insight at 0.25Cd. However, despite the E-Class Coupe already posting impressive aerodynamic credentials, Mercedes is keen to improve in this area. Speaking with Autocar, E-Class Coupe project manager Rainer Tiefenbacher revealed that there was "still plenty more to come" in terms of improving fuel efficiency. "There are big steps to be made, especially around and under the engine hood. Twenty years ago we celebrated a 0.30Cd, in five years we will reach the next big step," Tiefenbacher explained. Mercedes is correct in that area - the current shape of most cars and trucks make them relatively poor aerodynamic performers. But while carmakers continue to extract as much efficiency out of their cars, we hope aesthetics don't get laid completely by the wayside.

[source: MotorAuthority] Foreign Car Dealers' Association Angry with Obama's 'Buy American' Message Toyota, Nissan and Honda all build cars in the U.S. General Motors, Chrysler and Ford all build cars in Mexico and Canada in addition to within the U.S. It's hard to know which car is built where as a consumer, and the American International Automobile Dealer's Association (AIADA) is upset over President Barack Obama's 'buy American' message in during the Chrysler bankruptcy announcement yesterday. The organization, which represents the 11,000 foreign nameplate car dealerships in the U.S., thinks the 'American' distinction is irrelevant. "In today's globalized economy 'buying American' can mean anything from buying a Chevy Avalanche built by Mexican workers in Silao, Mexico to buying a Toyota Camry built by Americans in Georgetown, Kentucky," said AIADA President Cody Lusk. "The real issue is that every car purchased in America today is a shot in the arm for our economy, a boost for car dealers, who are the cornerstones of communities all across this country, and a win for American consumers who have the opportunity to choose the vehicles that best meet their driving needs. President Obama must recognize that protectionist policies and statements like 'buy American' have no place in America's economic recovery," said Lusk. The AIADA and Lusk have a valid point - many Americans work for foreign car manufacturers, their dealerships and suppliers that rely on their business. Regardless of where the corporate profit - or loss - is ultimately going, every car sold in the U.S. does some good for the economy and America. On the other hand, whether a car is assembled in Mexico or Kentucky, if the sale is chalked up for an American carmaker, it could help to boost the bottom lines of the most troubled - and thus most likely to fail catastrohpically - carmakers in America. And that could avert a situation where tens of thousands of Americans would lose their jobs.

Pearl Jam - Jeremy

How about Fiat/Chrysler 500 Abarth, Ford Focus or Fiesta or the Kuga?

Yes Sir. I think since 2007 or late 2006, when Corvette went on a Europe onslaught.

You online whore. May be you should have that as a part time job. Coming back to cars. The E46 BMW has a new found respect in my heart. But my car is still the Corvette, and the ones with Z moniker or the 427 StingRay and No other car can take that away from it.

Amen Brother. Water - the best thing ever made. Accepts everything thrown at it never feels it has been stressed. Can never be caught or destroyed, but is only restrained. Yet when the restrains are off the force it can create can destroy the tallest of the dams or mountains that stand against it.

[New York Times] Chrysler's Fall May Help Administration Reshape G.M. WASHINGTON — Fresh from pushing Chrysler into bankruptcy, President Obama and his economic team are hoping that the hard line they took last week gives them leverage to force huge changes in General Motors, a far larger and more complex company. Officials say that, difficult as Mr. Obama's decision was on Wednesday to take all the risks of a Chrysler bankruptcy, the politics of reshaping G.M. will be far harder. Already a shadow of the company that once dominated the American landscape, G.M. will be forced to eliminate tens of thousands of additional jobs and close factories and dealerships nationwide. In Chrysler's case, the tough job-cutting decisions had already been made and the government is taking only a small stake. An alliance with Fiat envisions selling the company's cars in new markets around the world and adding cars that use Fiat's fuel-efficient technology. But in G.M.'s case, Mr. Obama will be forcing deeper cuts and becoming the controlling shareholder. He will also be overseeing the radical downsizing of G.M.'s work force as he is trying to reverse rising unemployment. "G.M. is very different than Chrysler," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, said Friday. "But I suppose the one lesson for G.M., and all the other players, is that this is a moment when a Democratic president said, 'I am really willing to let a company dissolve, and there's not going to be an open checkbook.' There's got to be real viability." No one thinks Mr. Obama is going to allow G.M. to be broken up, its assets sold or abandoned. But if the Chrysler legal process unfolds as the White House hopes it will in coming weeks, the bankruptcy option may look increasingly attractive for G.M. as well, officials on Mr. Obama's automotive task force said. Bankruptcy may also be the only way to force the kind of paring down that Chrysler, with a third of G.M.'s workers and half the number of plants, did not have to endure. "The threat of bankruptcy is very important in the negotiations with the bondholders and the dealers and others," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. "Without a clear and present danger to them, they won't make a reasonable deal." G.M.'s latest restructuring plan — which the White House has yet to approve — calls for trimming 47,000 jobs worldwide, closing more than a dozen plants in the United States, eliminating four brands and shuttering 2,600 dealerships. Even that may not be enough. As the leaders of Mr. Obama's task force faced down recalcitrant Chrysler creditors on Wednesday, a team of more junior officials was in Detroit assessing whether G.M. was cutting deeply enough to turn a profit. "Our marching orders were to do both Chrysler and G.M. the way we would do a strictly commercial deal," said a senior official on the task force, who would not speak on the record because the negotiations with G.M. were still in progress. "We're not going to sit there and tell G.M. how many jobs to cut, or what models to eliminate. But we are going to look at the financials, the balance sheet, and see if the plan they come up with passes that test." Because Chrysler was already the most marginal of what were once called the Big Three — this will be its third corporate reincarnation in a decade — Mr. Obama could afford to take a hard line. But when dealing with a company as politically sensitive and as large as G.M., the administration will have a far harder time separating the economic decisions from the political challenges. In Chrysler's case, a handful of the company's 46 lenders presented the biggest roadblock. Mr. Obama could portray them as obstructionists who put their demands for repayment ahead of preserving the company. But General Motors' creditors number in the tens of thousands and include pension funds that bought the company's unsecured bonds. G.M. bondholders have no claim on its plants or inventory, but they will probably attract more sympathy than Chrysler's Wall Street lenders did. The Treasury Department will pay $2 billion to Chrysler's bondholders, but it is offering only stock in a new G.M. to its creditors — 225 shares for each $1,000 in debt held, making them minority owners who are invested in the company's success. "That's the bargaining chip," said Mr. Cole of the Center for Automotive Research. Ahead of the June 1 deadline, Mr. Obama holds all the leverage: The bondholders' only alternative would be to get in a long line of creditors who will be paid relatively little, because G.M. bonds are trading at about 10 cents on the dollar. It "may not be such a bad deal in the end," Mr. Cole said. G.M.'s case also differs from Chrysler's in another crucial sense: there is no Fiat in the wings, no big private investor ready to bring new money and new technology. Instead, Mr. Obama will effectively use taxpayers as that investor, with the federal government getting slightly more than a 55 percent stake in the company in exchange for forgiving $10 billion in the automaker's outstanding federal loans. The United Automobile Workers' retiree trust would have just under 40 percent of the stock, under the G.M. plan. The huge federal stake in G.M. — even if temporary — means that for all of Mr. Obama's protests that he is a reluctant investor, eager to fix the company and sell the controlling interest ( hoping for a hefty profit), he will be judged by whether his plan actually works. Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that he is not an automotive engineer and has no desire to pick models, engines, factories or corporate governance structures. But while he may not be choosing automotive designs, he has already started dictating the company's direction. The president has made it clear that G.M. must produce small, fuel-efficient, low-carbon-emitting cars — steps G.M. has taken only haltingly. Its vehicles range from the Cadillac Escalade, which gets 12 miles to the gallon in the city, to the experimental Chevy Volt, an electric car that it says will go 40 miles gas-free. Members of Mr. Obama's auto task force say that even after the government owns a majority of the company, it will have no role in management. That, they say, will be farmed out to professionals, the work supervised by government-appointed members of a new G.M. board. But at some point, some task force members acknowledge, the drive for profitability is likely to collide with Mr. Obama's fuel-efficiency and low-emission goals. G.M. produced heavy gas-guzzlers because they were among the most profitable in its line and, for a long time, the most popular. It is unclear whether smaller cars can be as profitable — or, for a few years, competitive with offerings from Toyota and Honda and a raft of inexpensive cars under development in China.

I think that is what precisely P-C-S was referring to when he made the comments of GM as a body dying and the parts needed to survive.

I think the reason why Croc puts them together is because, both have been quirky in their own way. SAAB may be minuscule here, but it can be a huge potential in Europe, just like we think Pontiac has a huge potential. If those two share the same vehicles, with RWD treatment in some cases, then a legitimate case can be made for a symbiosis and potential survival of both brands under GM umbrella.

Guys, let us bring harmony here. Emotions are high. Time to stay calm and talk about the subject of the thread.

P-C-S. Good luck with your work at BMW. Keep us posted about the development of my second favorite brand. I hope in the near future you get transferred here and be here.

Two Gallardos One F430 heading to the Auction in South Orlando

It is more fun if you are a right handed person. Trust me.

BMW, since that is the only car company which can replace the EXCITEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!! lost and since PCS is now going to a new job at BMW (i.e. closing it) after he finished his job of closing Pontiac.

Why does Corvette need a V6 when it already offers the fuel economy of a V6 or in some cases of an I4? Seriously it is a political and greenie perception that Corvettes are gas guzzlers, yet these cars with a V8 return same gas mileage as their 4-cylinder Camries. As someone who owned a C5 Z06 for six months I have milked out 26 mpg in the city by careful driving and currently the BMW barely beats that number despite of it having lesser cylinders. I can relate an incident. While returning to FL after flogging the Vette in the Carolinas, I had stopped in Georgia for filling gas, a blue girl (Kerry 2004 on her bumper) was filling gas in a Sequoia besides me. She gives me this evil look and asks, "How much fuel does the gas guzzler burn?" I said I just got about 30 mpg in a tank. She looked like a cadaver after hearing that number. It seems like the politicians have lost or completely forgotten what America means and what it stands for. I hope these dimwit people realize the values of this country before it is too late.

Yes it is a Lambo and the first one somehow makes me think it was a Pinninfarina concept.

GM has its own platforms. The problem is GM is not giving the public those platforms and in a timely manner. The only platform GM lacks is a solid, ultra modular/flexible, RWD platform. Something which can cater from a small 1 series size vehicle to right up to a SUV of size of Escalade if Escalade goes uni-body. A platform similar in concept to Audi's ultra modular platform. Ideally GM will need only three platforms. Ultra Modular FWD with AWD capability, Ultra Modular RWD with AWD capability, and a BOF platform with AWD and 4x4 capability. The rest shall be playing with the widths and wheelbases.