FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
THE LOBBY A gathering place. Introductions, sports, showin' off your ride, birthday-anniversary-milestone, achievements, family oriented humor. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As to the rest of your comments - what you're telling me is your prefer (actually require) a bigger car. I get that. But it doesn't mean the Challenger is the BETTER car. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Precisely WHERE on any public highway are you going to find a roadway where you can test that handling? That ISN’T reality; it’s the pipe dream of wannabe road racers who assume they are Niki Lauda. Have you driven both? What is your metric other than a nameplate? Ever driven a Camaro for more than the length of a test drive? I have nearly nine YEARS actual driving experience in the Camaro. On short trips( less than three hours) it’s a great vehicle; it genuinely SUCKS on longer trips, especially if you get tangled up in traffic and are sitting.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Dr. Thomas Sowell |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Take your arguments elsewhere, please. Saying the Challenger is better than the Camaro, or the Camaro is better than the Challenger, is pointless - it all comes down to personal needs and preferences.
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
I don’t think anyone actually said the any non-GM product was better per say.
I think the quibbling is that GM seems to have lost sight with what your every day driver wants in a car. Even though I was still upset with GM for killing the Firebird, then Pontiac all together, on some level I wanted to like the Camaro, but they always seemed to miss the mark; I really paid attention when the Mustang and Camaro came out with boosted four cylinder versions; Not because I am all about four bangers, but they are generally on lower entry level priced cars, and can act as a decent stop gap from a sport compact to a real V8 pony car - and can be cheaper to drive based on fuel economy (smaller engines typically require less fuel). IIRC one of the last articles/reviews on the 2.0l-turbo Camaro essentially summed it up to say that the car was boring in spite of all it had going for it on paper… even though the writer wanted to give it rave reviews, he just couldn’t - and that right there seems to get the jist of it… GM is pouring money into cars that very few people younger than baby-boomers can afford (Caddilacs and mid engined Corvettes), then complains that they don’t sell enough of models that are intended for enthusiasts - meanwhile those same models intended for the enthusiast market miss the mark for the very same buying audience - and then they shoot themselves in the foot and try to upsell to that very market segment… which further hurts their model sales. Meanwhile the other guys are making cars that the buying base respond to… and the sales numbers say it all. I still love my daily driver; If GM would have kept building them, I would have bought another. I believe GM declared my daily driver to be a failure, in spite of the model being launched at an economic down turn which nearly bankrupt GM; This Chevrolet(!) is a fantastic car that has gained something of a following in the time since it was discontinued; I love the GM Performance Division seats, and this model held a Nürburgring record for (I believe it was) over a decade!
__________________
1970 Formula 400 Carousel Red paint on Black standard interior A no-engine, no-transmission, no-wheel option car. Quite likely one of few '70 Muncie three speed Formula 400's left. 1991 Grand Am: 14.4 @ 93.7mph (DA corrected) (retired DD, stock appearing) 2009 Cobalt SS: 13.9 @ 103mph (current DD; makes something north of 300hp & 350ft/lbs) Last edited by unruhjonny; 03-26-2023 at 07:25 PM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to unruhjonny For This Useful Post: | ||
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Enjoy all new muscle cars while they last, they will soon be gone.....again....for good.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to 59safaricat For This Useful Post: | ||
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Imagine a 2 door sport coupe the size of a late 90's Integra or Ferrari 360, AWD with 200+ mile range, superb handling and 13 second acceleration, hatch, large greenhouse with good visibility. Not every pony car has to be a fire-breathing monster. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
I'd take a used Cadillac CT6 any day. Even with the occasionally troublesome Super Cruise. What a solid, high speed highway car. I'm 53, fat, angry, and need something worth owning.
__________________
Clutch Guys Matter _______________________________________ 53 Studebaker, 400P/th400/9" 64 F-85 72 4-4-2 Mondello's VO Twister II 84 Hurst/Olds #2449 87 Cutlass Salon 54 Olds 88 sedan |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Did you catch ghat GM is spending almost 1 billion on new V8 motor design speed across r plants on Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and New York.
I would guess they need a new fresh design to do a atomized fuel spray in the cylinder, plus multiple cams. Anyway, at least for the truck market and service industries, that bridges the next 10 to 15 years most likely. We know 15% ethanol isn't going away and maybe they are designing toward that alternative. |
The Following User Says Thank You to stevesbirds For This Useful Post: | ||
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I really wanted to like the new Camaros. When they came out with that Synergy Green man I wanted that car. Same thing with the bright yellow 6th gen. My dad did too. We both drove it and it just wasn’t a comfortable car. It wasn’t enjoyable for me. When my truck was stolen I rented a Hendrick racing Camaro for a week. No convenient cup holders, no where to put my phone, the console was so big when I picked up my daughter she held her bag in her lap because it was too much effort to put it in the backseat.
Now I drive my other daughters Mustang and it is much easier, more convenient and has more places to put things. In my opinion the car didn’t sell because it wasn’t comfortable. I think it looked good, had power, just wasn’t enjoyable. |
Reply |
|
|