Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

CTS-V will not be the problem for us the ZL1 Camaro will


COBRA32

Recommended Posts

The Camaro ZL1 will have 550 horsepower and a tire setup we can only dream about. Big 20-by-11 inch forged aluminum wheels with 305/35 Goodyear Eagle F1 G:2 tires in the rear. The front wheels measure 20-by-10 with 285-width tires. The head engineer said the ZL1 has more manageable torque than the GT500. This means faster acceleration than the GT500. Ford needs to put bigger tires on the GT500 from the factory. It is just down wright stupid for Ford to put these small a$$ tire on the GT500. Ford SVT needs to listen to the Customer and gives us some bigger tires and an auto as option like everyone one else does on their top performance cars. I guess we will have to mod our cars to keep up with a stock ZL1 Camaro. Ford wake up and smell the coffee and slap some bigger tires on it already. So we can launch our cars like they were meant too.

 

 

I'm not worried at all. I bought an '11 Shelby GT500 that was modded by VMP. TVS-equipped...almost 700 RWHP. No problem....just slap some sticky tires on and 'go to town'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wouldn't worry much about this. The Camaro has been playing catch-up for years and years and, wow, maybe it's finally there or even better. But then Ford gets the next move.

 

Still, the Camaro is butt-ugly so it should be fast so we don't have to look at it too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry much about this. The Camaro has been playing catch-up for years and years and, wow, maybe it's finally there or even better. But then Ford gets the next move.

 

Still, the Camaro is butt-ugly so it should be fast so we don't have to look at it too long.

 

Whaaa? 2010 (year-model 2011) is the FIRST year that Ford has produced a Mustang GT capable of beating a 1998 Z28/SS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously......I absolutely love my car. I took it out the other day when it was 45*, laid a bunch of rubber just so I could giggle my ass off. Would I like wider rear tires?......yes. Am I going to widen my stock wheels to be able to do so?...yes. There are always faster cars, blah- fu&%in- blah. I'm not magazine racing ZR1's, Lambos or what the F ever. I bought my car to enjoy the hell out of it. If I won the lottery, I'm sure I'd buy a "supercar" or 2, but I would also still be buying these Shelbys. Point is.....I don't care how fast you make it, it is still ugly as shit. I like the hood, and thats it. You can have a great engine, and wider tires, and a quicker 0-60 but it makes no matter if you're still driving a car who's interior is typical late80's GM. They really dropped the turd/ball on it. I made up my mind to buy one when the concept came out, but the final product is a POS. Go sit in it and drive it. You can take your wider tires and drive off the ugly-cliff.

 

 

I second. I don't drive Government Motor's "products". Want bigger tires, there's tons of tire shops in every town. Want a truly unique car that won't be over produced; buy a Shelby. If you want a car that everyone has the chance to own (i.e., over production), feels like a clown-car when sitting in it, and has as much quality inside as a $3 hooker, don't buy a Shelby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second. I don't drive Government Motor's "products". Want bigger tires, there's tons of tire shops in every town. Want a truly unique car that won't be over produced; buy a Shelby. If you want a car that everyone has the chance to own (i.e., over production), feels like a clown-car when sitting in it, and has as much quality inside as cheaper than a $3 hooker, don't buy a Shelby.

 

 

You do understand that Ford would be bankrupt were it not for Federal intervention a few decades ago, when the president gave Ford a pass and changed Federal regulations which allowed Ford to mail out a sticker declaring cars defective instead of fixing their transmissions (A recall of 23,000,000 vehicles, which would have bankrupted Ford) after a few hundred people were killed, and a study was done which pinned the blame on Ford and the C4 transmission, yes?

 

So yes, you do drive a Government Motor Product. It's called a Ford, who took the largest automotive bail-out in history. They just did it with hush-money to the families of the dead, and a deal with the fed behind the scenes instead of up-front and in the public eye.

 

 

Also, the GT500 is a normal production car. It's not "limited production". That was Ford's fancy way of saying "We think this is how many cars will sell, so that is how many we are making." They came pretty close to the mark except that I can find plenty of new, un-titled 2009's for sale still.

 

The GT500, like I said, kicks ass, but I don't know where some people get their ideas about it being a hyper-exclusive car from a company that never screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that Ford would be bankrupt were it not for Federal intervention a few decades ago, when the president gave Ford a pass and changed Federal regulations which allowed Ford to mail out a sticker declaring cars defective instead of fixing their transmissions (A recall of 23,000,000 vehicles, which would have bankrupted Ford) after a few hundred people were killed, yes?

 

So yes, you do drive a Government Motor Product. It's called a Ford, who took the largest automotive bail-out in history. They just did it with hush-money to the families of the dead, and a deal with the fed behind the scenes.

 

 

 

Also, the GT500 is a normal production car. It's not "limited production". That was Ford's fancy way of saying "We think this is how many cars will sell, so that is how many we are making." They came pretty close to the mark except that I can find plenty of new, unused 2009's still.

 

The GT500, like I said, kicks ass, but I don't know where some people get their ideas about it being a hyper-exclusive car from a company that never screwed up.

 

 

 

When you find me a figure that shows Chevy making less than 3,545 Camaros, I'll agree with you. Note the 3,545 is the total 2010 GT500 coupes made. Further, when Chevy finally rolls out their convertible as they said they would more than 2 years ago and doesn't go over 913 (i.e., total convertibles made in 2010), I'll agree with you. Till then the exclusivity is on Ford's side. Finally, I don't remember the size of the bailout you reference for Ford. Mind stating the figure that they received?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you find me a figure that shows Chevy making less than 3,545 Camaros, I'll agree with you. Note the 3,545 is the total 2010 GT500 coupes made. Further, when Chevy finally rolls out their convertible as they said they would more than 2 years ago and doesn't go over 913 (i.e., total convertibles made in 2010), I'll agree with you. Till then the exclusivity is on Ford's side. Finally, I don't remember the size of the bailout you reference for Ford. Mind stating the figure that they received?

 

 

The Camaro isn't a limited production car.

 

Limited Production American Cars are cars like the FGT or the Viper ACR. When there are more than 20,000 units produced, I just can't call it limited unless you want to cite the laws of supply and demand.

 

Ford received no money. Federal regulation was changed which allowed them to save the cost of replacing 23 MILLION transmissions and they were only required to mail out a sticker to be placed on the cars. You can argue semantics all you want on that one, but without Federal intervention, Ford would have gone under just like GM would have. So if you would rather own a car made by a company that knowingly installed transmissions which killed people, and then got the fed to bail them out so they wouldn't have to take responsibility than a car made by a company which was managed poorly and produced sub-standard vehicles that noone wanted to buy, go for it, but the kettle needs to stop calling the pot black.

 

-518 Z06's were made last year. I still don't call my Z06 "limited production". Because it's not. 518 were all that were made because that's all the market supported. Just like the GT500's, examples from 2009 still all over new for sale. Sure, you can consider the Z06 "Just another 'vette", and I can consider the GT500 "just another mustang", and we are equally right/wrong depending on how you look at it, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I doubt you can argue that the mustang is an exclusive ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Camaro isn't a limited production car.

 

Limited Production American Cars are cars like the FGT or the Viper ACR. When there are more than 20,000 units produced, I just can't call it limited unless you want to cite the laws of supply and demand.

 

Ford received no money. Federal regulation was changed which allowed them to save the cost of replacing 23 MILLION transmissions and they were only required to mail out a sticker to be placed on the cars. You can argue semantics all you want on that one, but without Federal intervention, Ford would have gone under just like GM would have. So if you would rather own a car made by a company that knowingly installed transmissions which killed people, and then got the fed to bail them out so they wouldn't have to take responsibility than a car made by a company which was managed poorly and produced sub-standard vehicles that noone wanted to buy, go for it, but the kettle needs to stop calling the pot black.

 

-518 Z06's were made last year. I still don't call my Z06 "limited production". Because it's not. 518 were all that were made because that's all the market supported. Just like the GT500's, examples from 2009 still all over new for sale. Sure, you can consider the Z06 "Just another 'vette", and I can consider the GT500 "just another mustang", and we are equally right/wrong depending on how you look at it, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I doubt you can argue that the mustang is an exclusive ride.

 

 

Because "A Salvage Factory" states that this was the largest auto bailout doesn't make it so. Further, I never said "exclusive" in my entire post. If you reference the posts, you used the word; not I. I said unique. I also was comparing a Shelby, not Mustang, to the Camaro SS and likely upgrade - not the Corvette. Lastly, I don't need a lesson on economics; I teach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where oh where to start. Maybe lets try staying on topic.

 

Tires: What a tired lame topic. Anyone that has driven one of these cars would know that increasing the size to 305s or even 335s would have a nominal effect if any using any street tire. Dont you guys know that Ford understands if someone really wants good 60ft times they are going to buy tires specifically made for that purpose regardless of how big or what tire come on the car from the factory? The car pulls a solid 1G. What more do you want? This is from an American Hot Rod with 4 seat. If anything as an owner I would like to see some sort of launch control. The 60ft times would not be as good as with drag radials but it would bridge a huge gap for the stock street tires.

 

Auto Trans: Is this still really a topic? Why even bring it up? Ford is not going to make this car with an auto. If you want an auto go buy a CTS-V! They are fast and bad ass but no where to the limit as these cars are ask anybody who has truly driven both. Can you imagine trying to get Ford to warranty your auto on a car that has been modded even if just a little. Go take a look at the GTR forums and see how much fun it is for them. Bottom line is this cars is a blast to drive with the 6sp (yes I know about the 2 gear issue as my car is at the local Ford dealer right now getting fixed) and thats not only how I want it but evidently everyone else driving a GT500.

 

The ZL1 or Z28 whatever its called will be a great car. As a car lover it is good that the GT500 will finally have some competition. Its getting lonely up here at the top of the hot rod heap. (BTW, anyone who compares a Corvette to a Mustang is a goof ball. They are in two completely different market segments!) Competition is good for both companies. I know the Challenger gets more HP this year but how awesome would it be if they really got into the mix with a limited production car that competed with the GT500 and ZL1/Z28?

 

We could argue all day as to which car looks better as that is opnion. Go sit in a Camaro and you will get a felling for how poor the drivers visability is. The real achilles heal of the Camaro is its chassis. They can put all the power and goodies to it they want but it is limited by its chassis. The Mustang has a superior chassis weather V6, GT, or GT500. There are several videos where a stock GT500 goes up aginst modded Camaros both in power and suspension and the GT500 just drives better.

 

Now if the ZL1/Z28 is better in all categories (it wont be but lets just say it is) then woop-de-do! I bought my car because I LOVE it! Its my hard earned money and thats all that should matter.

 

With all that said I cant wait to smoke the first ZL1/Z28 I see!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like some others have stated...Im glad Chevy has finally brought some fight to the GT500. Competition is good for all of us....forces the best from all manufacturers. Should be a fun time.....Not digging the camaros interior, exterior is not too bad..... but kind of looks too "Hot Wheels" for my taste. But performance wise....a great car most likely. Have not seen any tests as of yet, but Im sure it will compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is GM has stepped up it's game in at least the traction department. It's time for Ford to respond and do the same. I don't think Ford will be happy with second place as they know GM has been using a 2011 with the SVTPP as the baseline for testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford received no money.

 

 

I'm not obsolving Ford for any misdeeds in the past. Every auto manufacturer has screwed up. However, Ford has rebounded quite well in managing their business, overall. They restructured several years ago....before the 'crash' came and they were able to 'weather the storm'. GM was unable to do that. Over the years, bad management & unions had run their company into the ground. They were going bankrupt. They were forced to take billions and billions with the goverment pulling some additional strings in their business. Just be thankful they still make the 'vette. I don't care about their new atrocious-looking Camaro. I have a good friend who is a GM guy and he hates the look of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because "A Salvage Factory" states that this was the largest auto bailout doesn't make it so. Further, I never said "exclusive" in my entire post. If you reference the posts, you used the word; not I. I said unique. I also was comparing a Shelby, not Mustang, to the Camaro SS and likely upgrade - not the Corvette. Lastly, I don't need a lesson on economics; I teach it.

 

 

Whether it was or was not the largest bail-out, people died because of purposeful use of junk parts, and it was glossed over by the feds and some hush-money. Not exactly a move that a company can make and then look down their nose at GM for the current bail-out over.

 

The GT500 is a mustang.

 

I second. I don't drive Government Motor's "products". Want bigger tires, there's tons of tire shops in every town. Want a truly unique car that won't be over produced; buy a Shelby. If you want a car that everyone has the chance to own (i.e., over production), feels like a clown-car when sitting in it, and has as much quality inside as a $3 hooker, don't buy a Shelby.

 

 

You have stated that the Shelby (GT500 implied, as that's what is in your sig, unless you mean a real Shelby that actually went through the Vegas plant, in which case I agree with you 100%, that is indeed what I would think could be called limited production--but it's still a mustang, though.) is a car that "not everyone has the chance to own" and that is "truly unique". So...what is the definition of exclusive?

 

1

a : excluding or having power to exclude b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group

2

a : excluding others from participation b : snobbishly aloof

 

 

Sounds a LOT like what you are talking about. I think the difference is, I just came out and said it in one word while you wrote a few lines trying to convey it.

 

Don't go telling me you're an English teacher, now. You can't do justice to Econ AND English unless we are talking 100 lvl stuff. :slapfight:

 

 

I'm not obsolving Ford for any misdeeds in the past. Every auto manufacturer has screwed up. However, Ford has rebounded quite well in managing their business, overall. They restructured several years ago....before the 'crash' came and they were able to 'weather the storm'. GM was unable to do that. Over the years, bad management & unions had run their company into the ground. They were going bankrupt. They were forced to take billions and billions with the goverment pulling some additional strings in their business. Just be thankful they still make the 'vette. I don't care about their new atrocious-looking Camaro. I have a good friend who is a GM guy and he hates the look of it.

 

 

Oh I agree that GM has sucked it up, and am not happy with the bail-out. However, from what some people say you would think that Ford never made a mistake. Both companies have had serious issues in the past.

 

I never was a fan of the 5th gen F-body. It's no faster than the 4th gen, and looks way worse to me.

 

Gm has improved just as much as Ford in my opinion, except that Ford seemed to really get on the ball around 2005 and it took GM until around 2008 or so to start upping quality measurably. I know when I was working for Ford and the new GT came out, I couldn't believe how much nicer it was in every way than the 2004 models we had. SO MUCH stiffer in 'vert form it was ridiculous.

 

I think GM had to keep the 'vette, though. Regardless of profit margins on the car. Who would buy a GM if they killed their halo car? Once a company kills it's halo car, I want nothing to do with it. That is part of why I didn't go with a lightly used Viper. I have no faith in Chrysler as a company. I have THE MOST faith in GM, because the govt. has a vested interest in it, GM will bleed the country dry before it dies, and then I could care less about my 'vette at that point. They just seem the most stable from a warranty-claim standpoint to me for that reason.

 

Bottom line is GM has stepped up it's game in at least the traction department. It's time for Ford to respond and do the same. I don't think Ford will be happy with second place as they know GM has been using a 2011 with the SVTPP as the baseline for testing.

 

 

GM has always made cars with great traction/power balance. Ford never has (during my life-time). That is how I kept killing mustangs that had more power than me. They always spin on the 1-2 shift and my F-body just dead-hooked and gave me an instant car, to car and a half lead every time. Even back in 1993 the F-body got the appropriate amount of rubber to hook it up without wheel-spin on the 1-2 shift. My 1995 F-body was the same way. Just dead-hooked.

 

I am glad that Ford is putting 9.5" rims on the BOSS. It means that they will probably carry that philosophy over to the rest of the GT line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The REAL point is that ZL1 shouldn't even have had the chance to be. For $80B, I'd put man on the moon - and cure herpes while I'm at it, with enough money left over to finish-off tribal areas of Pakistan and take care of North Korea on the way home - once and for all. Not to mention that EVERY vehicle GM and Chrysler produces is a tax every OTHER car maker will be paying in perpetuity, particularly Ford who SHOULD be spending its time figuring-out which marbles it wants to keep and which ones to throw away. Driving home a GT500 is no achievement, if you've pissed-away the house and the kids' college fund to do it. There's nothing about Camaro to celebrate whatsoever.

 

Fortunately for Ford's sake, Camaro has Corvette and CTS-V squatting over it, meaning it will never be any faster, handle any better, or be any nicer to sit inside than either of them. All the muss and fuss, and all it can achieve is relative power parity to a last-generation Ford motor. The mag-ride suspension is nice, but hardly worth the cost of development, and it only exists in Camaro to offset weight and other inherent problems with its "form over function" ENTIRELY cosmetic design - which was then sent-out to Chrysler for its interior. Even the gussied-up ZL1 is suede over crap with cheap contrast stitching - it solves NONE of the problems that make it a miserable place to drive from and hopelessly impractical for any kind of daily use.

 

Similarly fortunate, even before the 2014 50th Anniversary year, everything ZL1 offers is already in the Ford parts bin - and it will hopefully force Ford to correct some of its residual "car think" that survived to the final product. There's absolutely NO excuse for not having 360 collision sensing or a backup camera, if only as a nod in appreciation to people willing to buy a $60K Mustang who don't want to ding them. The same goes for heated seats.

 

Unless there's a bona fide performance need, no superior trim should ever not be a superset of every feature offered in lower models - as a matter of principle, and as a defining characteristic of the brand. If you want "stripped down", offer a weight-oriented performance Rapid Spec Ford can even charge for. Charger brings some nice notions to the game through integrated telemetry into the Navigation display - like 0-60 times and lateral G's on display. Combined with ZL1's HUD, and the off-the-shelf technology that's otherwise available, there's absolutely no reason these can't or shouldn't be part of a class leading performance car in the 21st century.

 

Power isn't GT500's problem, though a TVS screw would certainly benefit GT500, as would bolting it to the 5.0 Coyote. The 5.4 L is done, done and done. Where pre-2014 GT500's really need to improve to be competitive are through better suspension (at least ride select is now an option within Mustang), wheels and tires, and brakes. Power isn't the problem - mating the car to the road IS. 6/4-piston Brembos on the front and back would go a long, long way - as would going to tubular steel rather than stamped control arms. It'd eviscerate a good part of the aftermarket, but Ford would be well-served by putting first things (customers) first.

 

For whatever ZL1 may be, it's still a Zeta-based Camaro with more than enough problems to overcome - that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing it. we've finally found 305 wide tires that will "match" the type that comes on the car.

 

Awfully nice of GM to spec out a set of 305/20 G:2's. Now all I need are 11" rims.

 

 

I heard it was "330's" and assumed the article meant "325's"

 

If they are 305's, that's awesome! Just widen the SVTPP rims a touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't found any spec listing the weight of the ZL1. I'm going to guess it's north of 4000 lbs.

 

 

Pretty safe bet, I doubt that carbon-fiber hood is going to cut it, lol.

 

If it were to weigh anything less than the porcine SS, GM would have hooted about it a good bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard it was "330's" and assumed the article meant "325's"

If they are 305's, that's awesome! Just widen the SVTPP rims a touch.

 

 

I keep finding 285/35/20 Fronts and 305/35/20 rear. That means the 2011 GT500 PP rears are probably what it rolls up front and then the back are new meats.

 

Outstanding news for those who happen to like the G:2's. IF for no other reason now there are 2 cars that will be consuming that 285/35/20 tire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep finding 285/35/20 Fronts and 305/35/20 rear. That means the 2011 GT500 PP rears are probably what it rolls up front and then the back are new meats.

 

Outstanding news for those who happen to like the G:2's. IF for no other reason now there are 2 cars that will be consuming that 285/35/20 tire.

 

I have heard very mixed reviews about the G:2's. heard they hook worse than the old F1 EMT's, and heard they corner better. I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

per the Camaro chief engineer, taken from Insideline.com

 

"Oppenheiser also went on to say that unlike previous generations of cars -- and previous generations of GM -- the Camaro program isn't mandated to slot below the Corvette in price or performance. If there's a market for a Camaro that will mop the floor with a Corvette, they'll build it. They'll be building this one starting in the first quarter of 2012."

 

 

That MAY be more true than it's been, particularly as Corvette is seeing all-time lows in production numbers and relevance. From a business perspective, it'd make MUCH more sense to make Corvette the $100K sports car and let Camaro run free reign, but with CTS-V in the mix - and for as long as Camaro is on the bloated Zeta, there's little chance of any Camaro mopping the floor with anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That MAY be more true than it's been, particularly as Corvette is seeing all-time lows in production numbers and relevance. From a business perspective, it'd make MUCH more sense to make Corvette the $100K sports car and let Camaro run free reign, but with CTS-V in the mix - and for as long as Camaro is on the bloated Zeta, there's little chance of any Camaro mopping the floor with anything.

 

 

Lets just wait and see. I don't have a dog in this fight, and I am not predicting one way or the other, the jury is out on this one as far as I am concerned until we see 3rd party test numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Me neither, apart from GM being an offense to mankind. Once GT500 moves to the 5.0 L, it'll be on equal footing to the LSA anyway - and ZL1 points out more things GT500 hasn't done, but should be doing, than anything particularly remarkable. I WOULD agree that anything that helps move Ford off its "as little as we can get away with" perch is inherently better - for both Ford and GT500 owners. Mulally has got the company working right, and those fundamentals have begun finding their ways into vehicles, but Ford would really benefit from honest-to-Jesus non-car product expertise in terms of guiding content, particularly for items like brake cooling ducts which are SO expensive and disruptive because they involve cosmetic work, which could be done on the line for pennies.

 

 

 

What exactly do you find offensive about GM that Ford hasn't done equal, similar or worse than? Unions? Ford uses those. Bail-out? Ford's products killed hundreds and the feds let them slip out the back door and changed regulations so they wouldn't have to recall 23 million vehicles.

What exactly is it that GM did that Ford is so innocent of?

 

I understand if you are upset about the tax bail out. I hate paying taxes for stuff I don't want, either (Kids, welfare, social security, etc.), but that's life. I wouldn't exactly call if "an offense to mankind" considering how many people they keep employed in our sinking economy. You are forgetting that those tax-dollars are keeping Americans employed. Think of it as a Welfare program that requires drug-screening and rewards work instead of lazy porch-sitting.

 

I do like where Ford is heading. IRS. Lighter cars across the line-up. More horsepower. More up-scale features in its cars (6-speed manuals instead of 5-speeds, etc.) It's finally headed where it should have been headed 2 decades ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't exactly call if "an offense to mankind" considering how many people they keep employed in our sinking economy. You are forgetting that those tax-dollars are keeping Americans employed. Think of it as a Welfare program that requires drug-screening and rewards work instead of lazy porch-sitting.

 

 

I can't speak to product liability issues from another era. And even if the short term economics were to have made sense, which they don't - the beyond-the-immediate costs, which will accrue in perpetuity, not only upon Ford, but every U.S. enterprise that invests in certain foreign markets based upon the presumption of market forces, and every foreign business who will choose to invest elsewhere rather than put itself at risk by choosing to invest elsewhere.

 

The net-handful of jobs that were saved are the most expensive, poorly-executed, and worst value-for-money government subsidy in history - that was given for the worst possible reason, which includes every worker for those companies who ratified contracts that contributed to over-milking the cow - who became de facto beneficiaries and expected me to put out their house fire because it happened to be burning closely to mine.

 

You're abiding the cancer to avoid the chemo, which was precisely what put GM and Chrysler in the positions they found themselves and can be traced back to the center of virtually EVERY way government and society have pissed away the nation during the past 30-40 years. Nobody's EVER been willing to bite the bullet - and now everybody wants to know where their wallets went. Combine that with the fact that GM and Chrysler would've been smaller, but they certainly wouldn't have evaporated altogether. And what about the jobs other makers who rushed-in to fill the voids would've added?

 

It also disincents the virtues businesses like Ford, who bet their entire future to right their own ships, from doing the same thing in the future. It sets a precedent that's no more sustainable than what put GM out of business and, from a personal perspective, something I'm having to fund personally by the disproportionate tax burden I shoulder ATOP the share price appreciation, dividend, an every other benefit my Ford stock ownership should've entitled me, which is compounded by the fact that most of those whose jobs were "saved" are likely to face no consequence whatsoever in the taxes they pay - while indulging more porch sitting than you'd like to admit, or at least allowing them to be caught doing it a half-dozen time before they're written-up, re-written-up, terminated, grieved, then reinstated.

 

Combine that with the fact that UAW has driven more jobs and done more to damage America's middle class than if GM, Chrysler AND Ford had collapsed in 2009, and can't rationalize it away by claiming the ends justify the means - or abide those who do, particularly at a time when one in 7 Americans would've LOVED to have those jobs on sustainable terms, particularly the ones UAW has voted to send packing like the former GM facility in Indianapolis that was spun-off, and sent to Mexico when UAW decided it didn't meet their particular standards - and shouldn't meet anybody else's.

 

But the most offensive part of all, and one reason in particular I'd be just as happy if GM suffered a not-so-slow and steady demise are the people who directly benefited from it who are behaving like saving THEIR jobs was actually for MY benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to product liability issues from another era. And even if the short term economics were to have made sense, which they don't - the beyond-the-immediate costs, which will accrue in perpetuity, not only upon Ford, but every U.S. enterprise that invests in certain foreign markets based upon the presumption of market forces, and every foreign business who will choose to invest elsewhere rather than put itself at risk by choosing to invest elsewhere.

 

The net-handful of jobs that were saved are the most expensive, poorly-executed, and worst value-for-money government subsidy in history - that was given for the worst possible reason, which includes every worker for those companies who ratified contracts that contributed to over-milking the cow - who became de facto beneficiaries and expected me to put out their house fire because it happened to be burning closely to mine.

 

You're abiding the cancer to avoid the chemo, which was precisely what put GM and Chrysler in the positions they found themselves and can be traced back to the center of virtually EVERY way government and society have pissed away the nation during the past 30-40 years. Nobody's EVER been willing to bite the bullet - and now everybody wants to know where their wallets went. Combine that with the fact that GM and Chrysler would've been smaller, but they certainly wouldn't have evaporated altogether. And what about the jobs other makers who rushed-in to fill the voids would've added?

 

It also disincents the virtues businesses like Ford, who bet their entire future to right their own ships, from doing the same thing in the future. It sets a precedent that's no more sustainable than what put GM out of business and, from a personal perspective, something I'm having to fund personally by the disproportionate tax burden I shoulder ATOP the share price appreciation, dividend, an every other benefit my Ford stock ownership should've entitled me, which is compounded by the fact that most of those whose jobs were "saved" are likely to face no consequence whatsoever in the taxes they pay - while indulging more porch sitting than you'd like to admit, or at least allowing them to be caught doing it a half-dozen time before they're written-up, re-written-up, terminated, grieved, then reinstated.

 

Combine that with the fact that UAW has driven more jobs and done more to damage America's middle class than if GM, Chrysler AND Ford had collapsed in 2009, and can't rationalize it away by claiming the ends justify the means - or abide those who do, particularly at a time when one in 7 Americans would've LOVED to have those jobs on sustainable terms, particularly the ones UAW has voted to send packing like the former GM facility in Indianapolis that was spun-off, and sent to Mexico when UAW decided it didn't meet their particular standards - and shouldn't meet anybody else's.

 

But the most offensive part of all, and one reason in particular I'd be just as happy if GM suffered a not-so-slow and steady demise are the people who directly benefited from it who are behaving like saving THEIR jobs was actually for MY benefit.

 

 

 

I can't argue against the sentiment you have against hand-outs or the economic sense of it, but I can say that what GM has done is no different than what a lot of businesses have done.

 

However, I refuse to defend what GM did because I don't agree with it. I simply propose that they made a darn good vehicle (As demonstrated by the PPH rating of said vehicle, the corvette, at 71, as compared to the mustang, at 77, which is also pretty darn good!).

 

Further, I propose that the "do no wrong" sanction you seem to have for Ford is misplaced.

 

Ford was FAR! less successful than GM was, regarding the debt they accrued. Very poorly managed. The difference was that GM took the govt. bail-out and Ford sold their soul.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/23/autos-ford-debt-business-autos-ford-debt.html

Although Ford's debt is about three times bigger than General Motors...

As to the UAW workers, Ford employs 41,000 of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that it was Ford's soul to sell, and I'm sure it sold it with the presumption that if it hadn't, it wouldn't have been bailed-out. Moral hazard is precisely what compelled Ford to save itself. I'm sure it also included the presumption that any future competitors would bear at least the minimum burden of having to act rationally rather than a suicide bomber in the crowded marketplace. In this case, GM survived, AND got the 72 virgins.

 

And any debt Ford holds is between Ford and its creditors, who ALSO chose to lend to Ford under the same presumption that Ford's largest competitors would be subject to the same moral hazard - meaning going out of business if they did things that were stupid enough. Nobody having anything to do with Ford is there for any other reason than they chose to be. And even those who chose to own or lend to Ford voluntarily find themselves affected by rules rewritten after the fact.

 

What's most galling is that even among those who flit along life in a world that's all about feeling good and being happy - where making the books balance can always be somebody else's problem, very few people have any appreciation for the inherent lack of wisdom in turning one stable legitimate car maker into three marginal ones at HUGE expense, but they also fail to appreciate the effect upon every other maker, including those like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai who ALSO have to compete with these new and virtually-unlimited development budgets despite ALSO putting Americans to work and without requiring a cent of bailout. Toyota and Hyundai have been a FAR better corporate citizens to America than GM or Chrysler have EVER been during the same period.

 

It's just something that's fundamentally unjust, that I'm not willing to abide or make excuses for - to such an extent that despite being more than able to afford a CTS-V or ZR1, I'd never own one - because they simply shouldn't continue to exist in the first place, and if I were to buy one, I'd be nothing but a hypocrite who'd have nobody but himself to blame when I've been put out of business despite being better, more profitable, or creating greater value than any of my competitors.

 

It may mean a Taurus SHO is the closest thing to an American performance sedan I ever have the chance to own - so be it. I can do so with a clear conscience. It also doesn't mean I have blind loyalty to Ford despite its many faults and the many areas of its business that it hasn't yet corrected, but I'm willing to continue to support them as long as it continues to make meaningful progress toward improving them.

 

It's not because I have any inherent bias against any other car maker - I owned a Chevy and a Benz until 2009 when I chose to support Ford directly by converting to Ford and Lincoln. It's because I care so much about my economy (which includes myself) that I feel so strongly - in support of Ford as both a car maker and an example of what America SHOULD be doing - rather than ignoring.

 

Though, to be fair, I have to admit it was worth a billion or two, as Wagoner and Nardelli were begging for scraps and pleading to keep their jobs for $1/year, just to hear Mulally tell Congress, "I think I'm ok where I am," while Wagoner didn't "have a position on that." He has FAR more class than I do, or I'd have been making an "L" with my hand against my forehead while the other two were testifying.

 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AutoEx/start/15586/stop/15709

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do not like the camaro i think it is ugly as hell and the interior is probably one of the ugliest i have ever seen. i have owned a couple z28's and it was the same story but the motors were awesome. i think we and the gm fans will benefit greatly from this, the next generation horsepower wars.i am just glad gm finally showed up now if the challenger will get into the mix also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...