rx8wannahave

Same here, I went up to Trig but since I was in and out of collegel because of verious situations by the time I got to Calc (is it?? gosh...I forgot the progression of math now, lol) I had forgotten enough Algebra that I could not make Calc work. My teacher always told me...you don't fail Calc, you fail Algebra...I have to admit he was right because half of the time Calc was a breez but you can't get a passing grade with half good work.

I also liked engineering but my math was just not good enough, I blame myself.

Me too! The first actual thing I wanted to be when I grew up was a race car driver, then football player...then I thought it would be GREAT to work on cars (designing them or building them).

Dreams...die hard....

snizzle

I think they are trying to gauge public/press reaction to this new concept car. I don't think it's been set in stone when/if the Camaro is returning.

bascho

Funny as this may sound....Innovation. If you ever attend any technical seminars regarding automotive technology, almost all of the advanced systems of future automobile electronics and safety comes from the American automakers R&D depts. American automakers have always been leaders in innovation.....its inefficiency and waste in execution that hinders them. The Japanese 'automakers' are very good at reducing waste. I use the word 'waste' because that is a term associated with any extra effort used in any process. A good process uses only what it needs.....excess is waste. Americans are all about excess....therefore our culture is wasteful.


I would say never. The Rotary is a niche engine that belongs with the Mazda brand....especially the RX series. I love the way my car looks.....but I am not sure I would have purchased it if it were not for the Rotary engine. I love low production, unique automobiles.......and the RX8 is the essence of that.

bascho

My dad has worked for Ford for 28 years....so he got me in the door. Also, at the time, he was also working in PD. My job is extremely technical....I am a product analyst for electrical system components. Basically, I comb through engineering releases and blue prints to indentify what is needed for service. I then assign a Ford Service Part # to those parts I've indentified as 'required for service'. It is tedious and stressful at times because I am ususally working on future vehicle platforms. Some of these platforms are contented with a lot of new technology, so it's hard to anticipate what will be needed.

bascho

Haven't you heard, Ford is going to be letting like 30,000 people go between now and 2008. We are definitely not hiring.....sorry

bascho

Not sure if the next gen of the Mazda 6 is going to have the Duratec 35 or AWD. I do know that SVT is playing around with the idea of using the MS6 engine to offer a SVT Fusion.....not sure if that is still on the table or not. SVT also had plans for a new SVT Focus with the turbo engine from the Volvo S40......but ended up scrubbing the idea.

Nothing other than the RX8.....in the US.

I hear ya.....and I agree, Ford let the Lincoln name go to waste. But that issue has been addressed and Lincoln is going to turn the brand around......a lot like Caddie did. The 2007 MKX is pretty nice and anyone that was looking at a Lexus RX series needs to have the MKX on their cross-shop list. The Zephyr has a more performance bred cousing coming called the MKS. The MKS is just a concept this year....but it is very close to being a production car if the market shows interest at NAIAS this year. There are some more coming....but I cannot talk about them yet.

I am not going to argue with you on this one as you are obviously well versed in Japanese culture. I would only say that I meant Japanese automakers have shown those attributes that I meantioned earlier.


I agree with your definition of ownership. I also agree that Ford has all the control they could want being a 33% shareholder.....and that 51% would offer no benefit. Probably why Ford has not increased it's stake in Mazda.

bascho

I agree with that fact that the Camaro is no slug in the straightline speed catagory.....I love the SS version. But, I will disagree with the SS being a bully that cannot be beat. I have two friends, one with a 2002 SS convertible and the other with a 2003 Cobra. The Cobra beats that SS in every straightline race they've had. So I would say that the 2003-2004 Cobra is the exception to the Mustang vs. Camaro rule.......I'm sure the 55 extra ponies under the Mustangs hood is the reason.

bascho

It is definitely not a sure thing. My best friend's dad is a high-level GM exec (you can imagine the discussions he and I get into), he says that GM is still tossing up the idea of a '09 Chevelle instead of a Camaro.

snizzle

Well the extra weight of the convertible is one factor.

Ehem.... and the supercharger it took to get up to that point.....

rx8wannahave

…wow, and GM wonders why they have lost touch from reailty??? Why in the world would they bring out the Chevelle instead of the Camaro???

****Commencing prayer for Lutz to slap some sense into GM, OK DONE*****

LOL…gosh

Well, again this is all talk untill we learn more. I hope they do build it...

bascho

The weight is less of an issue with substantial difference in power....even a hardtop would've been beaten. But I agree, they are not evenly matched....but that doesn't stop the SS guy from trying

bascho

Why do you say that? A retro Chevelle would have just as strong a following as a retro Camaro. Hey, a '70 Chevelle SS with the LS6-454 is a badass ride.

snizzle

This is about the dumbest thing they could ever do. If GM does this, they are obviously not listening to the public. Nobody wants a new Chevelle. The Mustang needs it's GM counterpart back in the mix!!

Hey GM, bring back the Chevette please (ok, not a fair comparison but still....)

snizzle

Yeah, the weight is certainly less of an issue.... but still an issue. A hardtop SS would be competitive but would lose for sure given equal driver ability.

I look forward to Ford getting some competition again in the muscle car segment.

rx8wannahave

I guess cause I wasn't born till 1977 so I care more about the Camaro than the Chevelle, on top of that the Camaro was better looking in my opinion.

rx8wannahave

Oh, and didn't the Camaro have more history?

snizzle

I just feel like a lot more people will recognize the Camaro name and know what it stands for (especially younger people) than the Chevelle.

bascho

I definitely think that younger people recognize the Camaro name over the Chevelle name....no question. But the marketing guru's are not considering 'America's youth' as their target market for these retro muscle cars. They have a much greater appeal to the baby boomers that owned the original versions. I am just guessing, but I bet they target 35-60 yr old males. I don't know too many young people that can afford the insurance on 2-door, V8 powered RWD muscle cars very easily. Usually the young folks own the V6 versions....which in my opinion SUCK!!!

Dodge is thinking of bringing back the Challenger name.....that is another name plate that died out in the 70's like the Chevelle. Remember, GM is not thinking only of Ford if they bring a retro muscle car to the market. They would want to be competitive with both Ford Mustangs, Dodge Chargers and Dodge Challengers.....that is why GM is torn between Chevelle and Camaro. Personally, if it looks good and has the right amount of power, I don't care what they call it.

bascho

Tricky question. The name Chevelle was used for the performance inspired 2-door Malibu. The Malibu name definitely has more history than the Camaro just because it was around longer. The Chevelle name was used in a much shorter time period than Camaro.....but Chevelle was around first. Also, Chevelles rec'd GM's most powerfull engines of the time period and were known for being very fast at the track. It really depends on the age of the person considering the two name plates. I am only 28, so Camaros were always fast cars as long as I have been alive. But if you were to ask my dad, he would prefer the Chevelle....because he has great memories of the guy down the street....or the guys that wasted him on such n' such highway. And I think that is the dilema, because the guys making the decisions at the big three are baby boomers.....and they have different memories of name plates than we do.

FlyingLeggs

I was referring to the Camaro being a bully to us, as 8 owners. I have seen many debates b/w Ford and Chevy though. Different years and models have definitely shifted the battle back and forth.

FlyingLeggs

If a rebirth is to happen, the Camaro is the way to go. No question. People talk about the 68 Camaro and the Z28 like it has a history. The Chevelle is cool but not the same.

Japan8

I hoep the mazda6 will be getting more power, but... I dunno. Mazda has been using the MZR DISI Turbo engine in everything recently... MS6, MS3, MPV, CX-7... what's next? MS MX-5? Prod. ver. Kabura? next gen Mazda6? I wouldn't doubt it making an appearance in a few more models.

And SVT Fusion? AWD and that engine tuned a bit better (as I know SVT can)... I just might have to consider one. It'd better be stick.... I'm getting really sick of the lack of MT... ESPECIALLY by US automakers.

Doh! That would have been a nice Focus. Although I have to admit... I'm not a fan of the Focus styling. I REALLY don't like the interior of the new Civic, but would probably get one over the Focus. There is just something... both bland and "ewww" about the styling.


I thought so. Ford is losing out on this market segment. Try the Thunderbird name again... but this time as a hardtop (or retractable hardtop) competitor for this market. Oh well. At least I like the RX-8...

Looking forward to seeing what's coming. Ford started to build up some steam with the LS and then just let the ball drop. Hopefully they'll get the follow-through right this time.

I won't argue with you that the Japanese can be very good at QA. Both a postive and negative thing... negative because it delays releases and raises costs when they refuse to approve a product release because of a minor bug.

In automanufacturing... well a former co-worker's uncle works high up in Toyota. He said you never want to work there... it's the most boring job around. Engineers just work on one part of a subsystem... like it would be your job just to design mirrors for the Lexus IS... and that is all you do. So of course they are well-made.

Again in autos... Japanese cultural norms can cause big problems leading to crappy products. Mitsubishi would be the best example. Superiors ignore or hide problems and juniors have to toe the line because if they don't they get bullied, not promoted or fired.

But enough about this...

Also owning 51% stake or more greatly increases Ford's legal obligations as well...

Japan8

And the Camaro SS' displacement is? 5.7L was it?

The Mustang Cobra uses what? 4.6L V8?

OH... I thought so. Use of a supercharger is more than fair in this case. If both were a smiliar displacement, then it's another story.

bascho

If I ran Ford Motor Company here is what I would do with the T-bird.....

I would start with the Jag XK platform, using its two powertrains, both the standard V8 and the supercharged V8 with 400hp. Redo the retro along the 1955-57 lines and go after the Vette. The T-bird and the Vette were huge competitors in that time period....until '58 when Ford decided to go bigger. I would again offer both soft-top convertibles and removeable hardtops. Set the base price right around $40K with the standard V8 and $45K for the supercharged. I think that would sell.

What do you guys think?

snizzle

Well I guess it's hard to compare any car unless both engines are exactly the same displacement then huh?

The engines are very different anyway with the 4.6 being a SOHC and the 5.7 being a pushrod. As you know i'm sure, the Mustang engine being more complex and technically superior. I'm more impressed with N/A power since bolting on a supercharger seemed like the only way the Mustang was going to catch up using the same powertrain. They've got a 5.4 now for a reason in the new GT500.

But being the Mustang guy that you are, I could see how you'd have a problem with my earlier statement