Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://www.chevroletreports.com/blog/1035861_gm-confirms-the-2011-chevrolet-cama ro-z28-is-a-go Figured I'd drop this in here for some of the people who believe that the US government would force GM to build 100mpg shoeboxes, make Americans drive them and be all socialist n' shit. Who knew that the government may actually just want GM to make lots of money and not care about gas guzzlers?! Nah, that's too simple for some people, there has to always be some conspiracy.
My brother-in-law is going to shit bricks when he sees this.
The neo-conspiracy gang lives in a state of near paranoia. Not that I fully discredit their claims but sometimes it can be far off the mark. As far as GM, well during the bailout the govt was very clear that they will not in any way influence the vehicle product design.
I will start the heated part. Mustang > Camaro. Sadly I have a 91 Camaro RS... couldn't ever find a Mustang when I was at a time where I could buy a car. I have had my Camaro for 4 years and it has been broken down in various ways for 3 of them. I don't wish to actually argue mechanics of Ford or Chevy though, as I am not qualified. I just like the Mustang better for looks and whatever. Eleanor FTW.
I like both, however the new Camaro is easily the better looking one in my book. It's down to what your tastes are, but seeing as I'm relatively big, brutish, and ugly, I happen like my cars that way too. As for mechanics, my experience between Ford and GM has been that GM always has had superior build quality, at least in their trucks. I can't really testify to the 3rd Gen F-Body's reliability but they're relatively solid vehicles, and their V8's are bulletproof.
I have a 93 Ford F-150 XLT 4x4 that I bought about a year ago, must have been an old man's truck because it only had 103,000 miles on it. It has a 5.8 litre 351 in it, not so good on gas of course, but it has power and has never given me any trouble. I had a 81 Chevy C10 Silverado before, but it was a beater when I bought it... never actually gave me any trouble other than hard starting on a cold morning, but I was weary of it. No telling how many miles it had on it (said about 65,000)... it prolly rolled over, plus the speedometer was out on it the whole time I had it. I have heard Ford's frames in their trucks are supposed to be better, and they claim to be the best selling truck for 30+ years. I am not picky about vehicles, I just want one that gets me around. My girlfriend's family is a bunch of Chevy humpers though so I get a lot of crap for liking Fords.
The stats on that thing are pretty crazy considering the price...I still think the Challenger is the best looking of the 3. OP, I doubt the Z-28 model will make any kind of significant money for GM...I believe they'll be happy if they break even. Any idea if Corvettes are costing or making GM money? I certainly hope those will be build forever...and their engines made available to the public for a reasonable price (applaud GM for that)...my dream roadster would be fitting a Corvette V8 in a Morgan.
Corvette's are making them a nice tidy profit. Last I checked, the dealer invoice for a base model is about $49,000 (US) and the MSRP for that model is around $53,000 so the dealer stands to gain four grand alone. The 'C7' Corvette is already in the works, and it may come out a bit smaller, and considerably lighter than the current generation. We know the Z28 Camaro here won't be a huge moneymaker for GM, but it won't lose them any because the car's already built for it, and the engine is currently used in the Corvette and Cadillac CTS-V. What is newsworthy about this is because people were actually worried that the government would stop GM from making cars like this (aka, cars that people want), and make us drive Tata Nano clones. On the flip side, lots of people (hippie douchebags) wanted GM to do just that because they (hippie douchebags) feel that they know what's best for everyone. This car is the ultimate "fuck you" to them.
Enviroment aside, I like my "hippy" car, because I get 300+ miles to the tank, at just £30.00 per tank ($47.98 - exchange rate at time of post, assuming petrol is equal cost) That's my "fuck you", to gas guzzling cars.
Don't tell me you're driving a G-Wiz...I always thought you were quite the ginger beer, but damn! Anyway, those electric cars will be the savior of the regular car just like the car saved the horse. People can use the gaymobiles to commute and still have their real car on the side when they want to drive and have fun at the same time...the only petrol-powered cars in production will be cars people actually want to drive. No more Corollas...
I can only hope electric cars will be mainstream in the next couple decades. I'd be happier with a mix of electric/hydrogen vehicles, because both sources can be generated by Pebble Bed Nuclear reactors, and hydrogen can be used in internal combustion engines designed for it.
Hydrogen is oil industry nonsense imo...Plug-in Hybrids, then Electric Cars (already useful as commuters)...nuclear power & electricity ftw...they're working on finding a way to reduce the waste's half-life to like 25 years
I was kinda surprised they started even making Camaros again, kinda killed the novelty of owning one. Atleast they're not shittified completely though, atleast not yet.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 30 September 2009 18:30 Hydrogen is oil industry nonsense imo...Plug-in Hybrids, then Electric Cars (already useful as commuters)...nuclear power & electricity ftw...they're working on finding a way to reduce the waste's half-life to like 25 years Yeah, I know Hydrogen is more or less a lost cause. The troubles with storage, production, and cost-effectiveness are just too great for the moment. The reason I like it is because it'd help provide diversity in fuel sources, and Hydrogen is a byproduct of a Pebble Bed reactor anyways. As for nuclear, even if the waste's half life is reduced to 25 years, people will still bitch about it, which is a real shame. It's not as if Nuclear generation isn't already efficient: a mid-sized facility produces less than shoebox's worth of waste on an annual basis. Unfortunately, people are dumb in that they're upset that NA uses coal as its main source of generation, but then get super angry when a nuke is proposed. All because of some shitty Soviet-built reactor in Ukraine, and Three Mile Island. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 30 September 2009 18:40 I was kinda surprised they started even making Camaros again, kinda killed the novelty of owning one. Atleast they're not shittified completely though, atleast not yet. They've moved the vehicle into a more upscale position, so it competes with entry-lux vehicles like the 370Z. This new Camaro is anything from shittified.
I like both the Stang and Camaro. Camaro, because it looks good and Stang because it is light and therefore zippy with less power. If GM could do that to the Camaro and stick the LS3 in there like there is now, then the Camaro would be the best. Z28 FTW. btw, my 66 cuda sounds like a mustang with flowmasters only louder. that's with 2.25 inch exhaust, but I also have the 40s series mufflers on it so that helps youtube mustang exhaust and click on the first vid with the 2 white mustangs. It sounds like the second one.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Wed, 30 September 2009 23:26 I like both the Stang and Camaro. Camaro, because it looks good and Stang because it is light and therefore zippy with less power. If GM could do that to the Camaro and stick the LS3 in there like there is now, then the Camaro would be the best. Z28 FTW. btw, my 66 cuda sounds like a mustang with flowmasters only louder. that's with 2.25 inch exhaust, but I also have the 40s series mufflers on it so that helps youtube mustang exhaust and click on the first vid with the 2 white mustangs. It sounds like the second one. Only an American could call a Mustang light and zippy...those things are heavy, have terrible power to weight, have terrible power to engine displacement (Europeans and Japanese get GT-level power out of 2-liter-4 cylinder-engines) and have abysmal WW2-era handling technology. The front wheel powered Focus RS lapped the Top Gear Test Track about a second quicker than the GT 500...the only real purpose of muscle cars is to look imposing, sound imposing and drive fast in a straight line (even though the Australian-designed new Camaros actually handle quite well). How's the space in the Camaros? I heard only midgets fit in the back and the trunk is tiny.. Another question for the Bills and Bobs in here: Are the VRSCs considered real Harleys?
I seen on TV about this guy who lives in northern U.S. somewhere in the woods, he is of course rich and paid a lot for this setup. His house is powered by solar energy during the day, then at night it runs off hydrogen. He has solar panels to gather the energy all day, and the excess is converted into hydrogen and stored in tanks. I am not a scientist or an engineer, but I would imagine that this should be able to be downsized and put into vehicles. I once heard that enough solar energy hits the earth in one second to power mankind for a whole year. Kinda stupid really when you think about it, we have the power coming at us, we have the knowledge to harness it, but we instead put billions of dollars into the oil industry. They have way to much power over it all, they could wipe their ass with 4 ply toilet paper made out of $100 bills and not think twice.
OK, I have no idea what this topic is implying. Can someone care to inform a noob what this is about?
Altzan wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 14:09 OK, I have no idea what this topic is implying. Can someone care to inform a noob what this is about? If you don't know, then you don't care. Also Muad - light and zippy? It's ridiculously heavy (though not Camaro-heavy) and as JohnDoe said, the hp to liter ratio is awful. As of right now, the only decent engine is in the GT500... which has to move a lot more weight to begin with. However, the next Mustang V8 is supposed to be far more powerful (to compete with the Camaro I presume).
Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 17:15 If you don't know, then you don't care. What marvelous logic. I'm going to have to get a car soon so this kind of thing is relevant. But I read the article and don't see what the deal is. So far this thread seems to be just another car preference debate.
Altzan wrote on Fri, 02 October 2009 06:22 Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 17:15 If you don't know, then you don't care. What marvelous logic. I'm going to have to get a car soon so this kind of thing is relevant. But I read the article and don't see what the deal is. So far this thread seems to be just another car preference debate. Read the first post, then stfu. ty
Altzan wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 17:22 Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 17:15 If you don't know, then you don't care. What marvelous logic. I'm going to have to get a car soon so this kind of thing is relevant. But I read the article and don't see what the deal is. So far this thread seems to be just another car preference debate. In most cases, I would rail against that kind of logic, but when it comes to something like this it's perfectly warranted. You say you're looking to get a car soon? Well, you're looking for a car, but you're not a car enthusiast (since you have no idea what a Z28 is), therefore you definitely won't be looking for this car. The Z28 is a Camaro SS on steroids. It'll probably burn more gas in a day than most of your prospective cars will in a week. Believe me, it's not for you. This is simply GM proving they're not going to simply cater to the more faint-hearted.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 05:23 Another question for the Bills and Bobs in here: Are the VRSCs considered real Harleys? I think they're a real Harley, but they don't have the same mystique as a Dyna or Soft Tail. Plus, it seems everyone and their grandmother owns one. In my opinion, a more preferable power-cruiser is a Victory Hammer S which is still all American, but a little better built than Harley.
I saw on the news today that GM sales are still tanking hard. Now after the success of 'cash for clunkers' and the fact that they have closed so many plants and laid off so many people they can't produce the cars fast enough and people are going else where.
luv2pb wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 20:08 I saw on the news today that GM sales are still tanking hard. Now after the success of 'cash for clunkers' and the fact that they have closed so many plants and laid off so many people they can't produce the cars fast enough and people are going else where. Annnddd they just announced they're dumping Saturn. Good fucking game.
Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 18:13 luv2pb wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 20:08 I saw on the news today that GM sales are still tanking hard. Now after the success of 'cash for clunkers' and the fact that they have closed so many plants and laid off so many people they can't produce the cars fast enough and people are going else where. Annnddd they just announced they're dumping Saturn. Good fucking game. So? Nobody liked Saturn, and nobody likes it now. They're shitbox cars.
Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 18:30 You say you're looking to get a car soon? Well, you're looking for a car, but you're not a car enthusiast (since you have no idea what a Z28 is), therefore you definitely won't be looking for this car. The Z28 is a Camaro SS on steroids. It'll probably burn more gas in a day than most of your prospective cars will in a week. Believe me, it's not for you. This is simply GM proving they're not going to simply cater to the more faint-hearted. I'll make a conjecture here that the point of this thread is that the Government is actually allowing GM to build a mega-gas guzzler. Thanks for the reply, Ethenal. And I agree - Gas mileage will be a big factor in my decision, and I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice looks and comfort for less gas stops.
Dover wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 20:17 Ethenal wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 18:13 luv2pb wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 20:08 I saw on the news today that GM sales are still tanking hard. Now after the success of 'cash for clunkers' and the fact that they have closed so many plants and laid off so many people they can't produce the cars fast enough and people are going else where. Annnddd they just announced they're dumping Saturn. Good fucking game. So? Nobody liked Saturn, and nobody likes it now. They're shitbox cars. I didn't say anything about Saturn itself, I simply said the fact they're dropping it shows what a state they're in.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_vs_ 2009_dodge_challenger_rt_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt/index.html I meant compared to the new Camaro, the mustang is light and zippy. And if you guys will notice the stats on these cars, you'll notice that they are very very good. well, aside from the Challenger's handling and Camaro's weight.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Thu, 01 October 2009 22:18 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_vs_ 2009_dodge_challenger_rt_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt/index.html I meant compared to the new Camaro, the mustang is light and zippy. And if you guys will notice the stats on these cars, you'll notice that they are very very good. well, aside from the Challenger's handling and Camaro's weight. Oh, well that's totally different if you're comparing it to the other two. Then yes, the Mustang is light and zippy. The Camaro weighs way too fucking much. Damn aussies and their Zeta faggots.
I almost bought a used 2004 Saturn a few months ago, but the didn't trust the car lot... I have known quite a few people that have had them, and had some problems, but they say overall they are good cars. In all honesty though... is there a decent looking, affordable, long lasting vheicle anywhere? You either pay way too much for them, or you just bend over and wait for them to screw you in the ass.
There is nothing wrong with Saturn as long as you know what you are buying. You get what you pay for. So long as you know you're getting a car that is made of plastic and will be falling apart by 50000 miles then fine. I mean those things are dirt cheap.
^sounds like every American car I've ever been in...
itt GM continuing to make shitty cars after killing public transport and the electric car.
Thanks for your intellectual contribution to this topic, JohnDoe.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 02 October 2009 15:15 ^sounds like every American car I've ever been in... Right, which is why there's plenty of Chevy and Ford pickups that have been beaten to hell and back and yet are still used as daily drivers...
Chew wrote on Fri, 02 October 2009 08:23 In all honesty though... is there a decent looking, affordable, long lasting vheicle anywhere? You either pay way too much for them, or you just bend over and wait for them to screw you in the ass. I've had my civic for almost 15 years now (Well, at any case it's been in my family for 15 years), and it still works surprisingly well. The only thing that's broken down on it since is the air conditioner, and since I've moved to Monterey it doesn't make much financial sense to put money into the car to fix it. Not only that, but it gets 30 mpg (More mpg on a 15 year old car than half the new-model American cars get). Now, I don't know how much a new Civic costs, but I'm sure it isn't that much. It might be more than a new comperable Saturn, but my guess would be that's the price you pay for getting a proper car instead of a cardboard box. OH WAIT THERE ARE NO NEW SATURNS HAHA.
so when is the new honda civic coming out?
Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:49 Now, I don't know how much a new Civic costs, but I'm sure it isn't that much. It might be more than a new comperable Saturn, but my guess would be that's the price you pay for getting a proper car instead of a cardboard box.[/color] honda civics are around 15000
Ethenal wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:40 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 02 October 2009 15:15 ^sounds like every American car I've ever been in... Right, which is why there's plenty of Chevy and Ford pickups that have been beaten to hell and back and yet are still used as daily drivers... I said cars, not pickup truck (wow...)...pickups generally have the worst interior in the world, so American ones don't look too terrible in comparison and I'm pretty sure you can put a Toyota Hilux through a lot more abuse than Fords and Chevys...
In (highly belated) response, no, I drive a Daewoo Matiz SE. (3 cylinders, 796 CC). I love it for the fact it's cheap to run, I can't afford a faster car. Not that the roads where I live allow you to drive fast, far too many sharp bends.
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 14 October 2009 01:39 In (highly belated) response, no, I drive a Daewoo Matiz SE. (3 cylinders, 796 CC). I love it for the fact it's cheap to run, I can't afford a faster car. Not that the roads where I live allow you to drive fast, far too many sharp bends. Do you really need a faster car, though? If I'm still getting speeding tickets in my little old Honda, then I'm going fast enough. I don't know how your Daewoo is, but I'm sure it's something similar to my Honda.
Dover wrote on Wed, 14 October 2009 10:34 CarrierII wrote on Wed, 14 October 2009 01:39 In (highly belated) response, no, I drive a Daewoo Matiz SE. (3 cylinders, 796 CC). I love it for the fact it's cheap to run, I can't afford a faster car. Not that the roads where I live allow you to drive fast, far too many sharp bends. Do you really need a faster car, though? If I'm still getting speeding tickets in my little old Honda, then I'm going fast enough. I don't know how your Daewoo is, but I'm sure it's something similar to my Honda. If you're the people behind me, I need a faster car. According to a friend who's owned one, they can do 110 MPH if you try (That's nearly twice the legal limit on all but the really major roads round here) but then she's blown parts of the engine three times, so... I can do sixty, but the acceleration is pitiful, which cause a lot of impatient drivers behind me to get annoyed. I also have no real power, so should I need to actually move something (tow a trailer or whatever) I probably couldn't.
All European cars show that you can get good looks with good gas mileage, compared to American car gas mileage, that is. My 1996 (!) Peugeot 106, which is still being used in the family, already did 800 km with 40 liters of Diezel. That's 10,5 gallon for almost 500 miles. OK, it seriously lacked power and was very small but it's still running like there's no tomorrow. But if you look at the current Audi, VW, BMW, but also the japs like Toyota, Mazda, ...: they all are quite good at gas mileage, are quite powerful (the lack of power is also compensated by making them less heavy) and have good looks.
On that note, did I add my car was 11 years old? If not, I do now. (It should be added that when we purchased it, our mechanic gave it a serious makover internally, the engine is actually built a combination of components from two identical engines, our mechanic using whichever was best - I should probably also add our mechanic is awesome)
GM cars are actually stepping up their game with fuel economy. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the only 500hp+ car to get off without a gas guzzler tax in America, if that says anything.
weighing 200 lbs more than my 66 cuda probably helps a lot.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 17 October 2009 22:04 weighing 200 lbs more than my 66 cuda probably helps a lot. If by that you mean that it's so light, then yeah. It also helps that the engine is so damn powerful that you can shift from 1st to 4th (the computer actually inclines you to do so if you're not flooring it) and it runs perfectly fine.
Well, it's a car made out of plastic. Not the most sophisticated way of building a car, but it gets the job done (at least with the ZR-1). Cudas are ill, tho...props on that choice.
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 19 October 2009 07:39 Well, it's a car made out of plastic. Not the most sophisticated way of building a car, but it gets the job done (at least with the ZR-1). Cudas are ill, tho...props on that choice. Fiberglass... although it is a kind of plastic, still a difference. Saturns are made out of plastic. Not Corvettes.
It's racecar plastic...you can still push in the back with your hand.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 02:22 It's racecar plastic...you can still push in the back with your hand. Been watching Top Gear?
Ethenal wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 23:44 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 02:22 It's racecar plastic...you can still push in the back with your hand. Been watching Top Gear? Every single episode...but I did try it myself and was surprised how easy it was. Say, I just checked Corvette specs and this genuinely puzzles me: How the fuck is the cargo volume rated at 22.4 ft³??? http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06/features-specs/ That has to be a typo, right? It's not only the z06, but every hardtop Corvette on the site...the convertible's is 11.0 ft³, which seems pretty large as well.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 21 October 2009 07:13 Ethenal wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 23:44 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 02:22 It's racecar plastic...you can still push in the back with your hand. Been watching Top Gear? Every single episode...but I did try it myself and was surprised how easy it was. Say, I just checked Corvette specs and this genuinely puzzles me: How the fuck is the cargo volume rated at 22.4 ft³??? http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06/features-specs/ That has to be a typo, right? It's not only the z06, but every hardtop Corvette on the site...the convertible's is 11.0 ft³, which seems pretty large as well. Haha, I just started watching recently so I've got a lot to catch up on. And no, that's correct: the Corvette is well known for having as much cargo room as it does lol
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 21 October 2009 07:13 Ethenal wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 23:44 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 20 October 2009 02:22 It's racecar plastic...you can still push in the back with your hand. Been watching Top Gear? Every single episode...but I did try it myself and was surprised how easy it was. Say, I just checked Corvette specs and this genuinely puzzles me: How the fuck is the cargo volume rated at 22.4 ft³??? http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06/features-specs/ That has to be a typo, right? It's not only the z06, but every hardtop Corvette on the site...the convertible's is 11.0 ft³, which seems pretty large as well. It's a hatch/fast back. It better have a lot of space in the back considering how deep it is.
It's not very deep at all, tho...I guessed that would put the capacity somewhere in the sedan area, not station wagon territory. That laptop wouldn't fit in 80% of the trunk if you left it open...