When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Boy am I with the two of you about Ed. Super class guy that is all ate up with a love for cars but some of GM's worst rolled out under his leadership. Yes I know this is all very subjective. I wanted to love the CTS coupe that Ed has said he is most proud but I don't think I will ever understand the giant quarter panels with the (what appear to be) tiny wheels and tires on the back.
Lot's of missed opportunities and yes, generally speaking, curves are great!
Boy am I with the two of you about Ed. Super class guy that is all ate up with a love for cars but some of GM's worst rolled out under his leadership. Yes I know this is all very subjective. I wanted to love the CTS coupe that Ed has said he is most proud but I don't think I will ever understand the giant quarter panels with the (what appear to be) tiny wheels and tires on the back.
Lot's of missed opportunities and yes, generally speaking, curves are great!
Yeah of mine had a CTS-V Coupe... the proportions were horrible. Car was so freaking tall.
Top management at GM, given the current and especially tough forecasted financial projections for the whole auto industry, has not yet put their final and absolute approval to produce the mid engine Corvette. So it remains an open question as whether they will give their final go ahead to produce the car. Understandable, given the change in their customers purchasing preferences, the massive investments required in the future for vehicle development, especially the electric cars, and the miniscule financial contribution from the Corvette business. Although there is the PR contribution, that benefit is still a subjective component to a future corporate bottom line which in a financial pressure situation, such as the auto business is under, will always be overshadowed by objective considerations.
Hence, we do not know yet the future of the mid engine. Certainly, I like most everyone here would like a confirmation that it will fly (no pun intended), that is not yet a signed and sealed deal.
Top management at GM, given the current and especially tough forecasted financial projections for the whole auto industry, has not yet put their final and absolute approval to produce the mid engine Corvette. So it remains an open question as whether they will give their final go ahead to produce the car. Understandable, given the change in their customers purchasing preferences, the massive investments required in the future for vehicle development, especially the electric cars, and the miniscule financial contribution from the Corvette business. Although there is the PR contribution, that benefit is still a subjective component to a future corporate bottom line which in a financial pressure situation, such as the auto business is under, will always be overshadowed by objective considerations.
Hence, we do not know yet the future of the mid engine. Certainly, I like most everyone here would like a confirmation that it will fly (no pun intended), that is not yet a signed and sealed deal.
100% totally false. They've been testing the car since 2015 or earlier, the design was finalized late 2016. They've build 30+ IVERS on the BG line. The car is a go... you don't abort this late in the game (Unless your a NY Democrat).
I agree with Tobacco that it's doubtful the GM Board has given final approval to produce the ME, but I suspect it's because there are remaining issues to be handled before taking it to the board. Given the R&D investment and the fact that "finished" cars are being shown to VIPs, it is almost certain to happen, but when is uncertain. The car will not be announced or even officially acknowledged until Chairwoman Barra and the GM Board vote to proceed.
If the bottom drops out of the economy, it's always possible it will be put on the shelf for awhile, but I don't see that as a likely scenario in the next year or so.
I agree with Tobacco that it's doubtful the GM Board has given final approval to produce the ME, but I suspect it's because there are remaining issues to be handled before taking it to the board. Given the R&D investment, it is almost certain to happen, but when is uncertain.
I'm not familiar with the exact order all this happens... board gives approval this late in the game? After spending all this time/money?
Yep, that's the way big corporations work, and I've been in the boardroom advocating and requesting approval of large capital expenditures when I was a senior exec at a Fortune 100 company. The GM Board obviously approved the development program, but they now have to look at the production plan, determine cost, sales, profit projections, etc., before giving the final go-ahead.
I don't expect it to be shelved, and it will likely be a formality, but that's because competent senior execs don't allow things to go to corporate boards before covering all the bases. If it were to fail at the Board level at this point, senior Chevrolet/Corvette execs will likely be invited to "seek other opportunities and spend more time with their families."
What was interesting about that section of the conversation about C8...is he did quickly hint to the fact that there is a "legacy loss" with a mid-engine car, but he asked in a form of a question "should we let that go"? Interestingly, the conversation immediately took on the subject of going too far with the Cutlass and going down a wrong pathway. Knowing that he can honestly ask that question, at least inspires one to acknowledge that these questions have been asked internally about the mid-engine Corvette...as I think that's the big risk here.
I can't help but think of Jeep and certain brands, with very high levels of enthusiast dedication, who have made moves that came with strong backlash, if it infringed too heavily on legacy. For Jeep it was as simple as the round headlights...the base felt that was a defining core that couldn't be left behind. With Corvette, the pop ups to C6 flushies created a little disturbance but that couldn't be avoided. C7 taillights same...but taillights really weren't the defining aspect of Corvette.
To me, Corvette is simple to define...practical, affordable, hits way above the belt in terms of performance, looks great...basically does a lot of jobs and brings excellent value with a legacy and strong core. Will ME disrupt that....remains to be seen. I personally think a mid-engine car struggles due to the fact frontal area is so valuable when you need a lot of heat rejection (due to power/performance), so it can't help from infringe on the only real storage space you have to work with, aside from having a gen1 NSX or Ferrari 308 type of rear boot area (which often leads to higher maintenance/repair costs/costs of ownership). It's also inevitable that mid-engine appears more laid back and low slung and the older owners need fairly decent ingress/egress to own it.
Well lets agree to disagree. Class guy? Yes. Good design instincts...Some of GM's worst came out during his period. I'm still not crazy about the sharp creases on GM vehicles, particularly Cadillac, which are legacy from his period.
He is absolutely right that the Cutlass one one of the hottest selling vehicles in the world and they screwed it up and lost to the Camry. And where is Oldsmobile today?
It's not Welburn's fault that GM couldn't build a reliable and practical sedan on the same level as Toyota and Honda. Few people buy cars like the Camry for the styling, and I reckon Toyota has tested this theory with their most recent styling efforts. Honestly Toyota could wrap the Camry in a turd and it would sell the same because it's such a well engineered and reliable vehicle.
Yep, that's the way big corporations work, and I've been in the boardroom advocating and requesting approval of large capital expenditures when I was a senior exec at a Fortune 100 company. The GM Board obviously approved the development program, but they now have to look at the production plan, determine cost, sales, profit projections, etc., before giving the final go-ahead.
I don't expect it to be shelved, and it will likely be a formality, but that's because competent senior execs don't allow things to go to corporate boards before covering all the bases. If it were to fail at the Board level at this point, senior Chevrolet/Corvette execs will likely be invited to "seek other opportunities and spend more time with their families."
Normally they don't fire incompetent managers at GM, preferring instead to move them to positions where they can still draw a salary while causing less trouble. Check out what happened to Oppenheiser after he destroyed the Camaro: transferred to some vague EV related role in which he doesn't actually control development of any single vehicle. In a healthy corporate culture he would have been tossed out on his *** for ruining such a lucrative model.
OK, I guess that's an alternative way of "inviting them to seek other opportunities and spend more time with their families," but that's not the way it works where I've been.
Normally they don't fire incompetent managers at GM, preferring instead to move them to positions where they can still draw a salary while causing less trouble. Check out what happened to Oppenheiser after he destroyed the Camaro: transferred to some vague EV related role in which he doesn't actually control development of any single vehicle. In a healthy corporate culture he would have been tossed out on his *** for ruining such a lucrative model.
Ruining? Last I've heard he was a hardcore car guy and responsible for making the Camaro as competent as it is today. The car does fantastic on track.
Ruining? Last I've heard he was a hardcore car guy and responsible for making the Camaro as competent as it is today. The car does fantastic on track.
The problem is how it performs at dealers. Ford's Mustang is cheaper, looks cooler, has a more powerful base engine, larger and more accessable cargo volume, and better visibility. It's better at being a daily driver, and a lot of pony car buyers want a daily driver.
I can't say I love it, but I don't dislike the styling. I think it's as attractive as the Mustang, but in a different way, and certainly more bad-*** looking.
My issue is that they've both gotten too big. Every time I'm at a stoplight beside one or the other in my C7, I find myself thinking those are big-assed cars.
Am I the only guy that loves the latest gen Camaro?
I like the 2016-2018 just fine.
The 2019 was a step backwards for the front and the rear. Ugly.
The 2018+ Mustang also got uglier on the front, but the rear is fine. the 2015-2017 Mustang is a very well designed car aesthetically. Very true to what Mustang is. The GT350 even moreso.
Here's a sample of how badass the Gen 6 Camaro looks. Or can look.Its my 2017 2SS with Anderson Composites carbon fiber front to back. Seriously though this thing looks like a line backer about crush someone. I think the Gen 6 Camaro is the toughest looking muscle car on the planet. Pic of my 2011 GS 3LT which I love also but my Camaro gets all the attention.
'16 - '18 Camaros aren't bad, and I do admire the geometric flair of the front end, but to my eyes it looks juvenile from the A pillar back. My preference is for more subtle flowing designs with sensuous lines and bulges.
That said, if I could see out of the Camaro I would have bought one last month when I test drove it. As a Porsche enthusiast I wanted to see what all the fuss was about the LT1, and maybe buy a used 2SS Camaro to tide me over until the C8 drops (already sold my Cayman to make space for the C8). Well you guys are right, what a masterpiece of an engine! I expected the Camaro to handle well, but what surprised me was the ability of the LT1 to pin me to the back of the seat no matter where it is in the power band. The responsiveness is nothing like my other GM vehicles so that really shocked me.
Anyways, back to my original point on the Camaro as a daily driver - it's poor sales spooked GM management so they terminated development of the next gen Camaro. Oppenheiser focused so hard on the track he forgot he designing a daily driver. High volume pony car sales are the 4 and 6 cylinder models bought by younger folks who own one car, so it has to have practicality. The Camaro failed in this respect, and as usual, GM management don't want to learn from their mistake and come back with a better car, no, they want to tuck tail and run for the hills.
02-12-2019, 12:17 PM
