Mach 1 vs Camaro SS 1LE

[Schwerin]

Gee, at my age a daily is something to celebrate


The only reason to drop a model is poor sales, so why the poor sales. Is it quality, or appeal, or something else that makes the Camaro fall short in sales.

Thats not true. For the first 2-3 years of the Ford Focus the Escort continued outselling it and yet the Escort was cut. In fact, the Focus has never reached the same sales number that the Escort had. In 1998, just before the Focus came out, the Escort sold over 292K, the Focus has NEVER passed 286K and that was in 2000. In that same year the Escort STILL sold over 110K which is 74k less than the Focus AVERAGE over the last 20 years. In 2001 the Focus dropped to 264k already, which was just 4k more than the Escort had in 1999. After that the Focus NEVER broke 250K again.

From 85-2004 the Escort sold over 5Mil cars and averaged 250K a year, with multiple years over 300K and 2 yrs selling over 400K. While from 99-19(1 extra year than the Escort) the Focus only sold 3.8Mil and average just 184k/yr.

The Escort was CLEARLY more successful.

Sponsored

 

[shogun32]

but electric will be the only thing for sale (new) in another 15 years or so. The manufacturers will simply not offer any ICE vehicles for sale.

Because the totalitarian govt held a gun to their/our head or because of natural demand?

Govt dictates ALWAYS fail. Sadly it may take a couple decades and cause all kinds of suffering and privation in the interim but eventually they collapse. The recent mindless EV bleating has all the hallmarks of a spectacular implosion to come. IMO we will worship oil men in the not too distant future for rescuing mankind from electric car hell.

 

[Atlas1]

[QUOTE="shogun32, post: 3295742, member: 39823"
By 2030 (probably sooner) I think the auto industry is going to casually forget about all their stupid pronouncements when the customers simply wont' buy their EVs.

I wish we could all come back here in 2030 to visit this quote and see how wrong it was. Granted, ICE vehicles will be on the road for perhaps another 30 years (as the last ones sold slowly die away), but electric will be the only thing for sale (new) in another 15 years or so. The manufacturers will simply not offer any ICE vehicles for sale.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you can answer for us…….how are all of these cars going to be able to recharge in places such as California with their unreliable, inadequate power grid of today? It will be in even worse shape in 2030 WITHOUT the addition of more electric cars. Add in additional millions of cars that need to pull from that power source and what will happen? Where will the electricity come from?

 

[martinjlm]

Maybe you can answer for us…….how are all of these cars going to be able to recharge in places such as California with their unreliable, inadequate power grid of today? It will be in even worse shape in 2030 WITHOUT the addition of more electric cars. Add in additional millions of cars that need to pull from that power source and what will happen? Where will the electricity come from?

It’s actually quite simple. Almost every state in the country is adding new power plants powered by solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas, replacing older coal plants. By 2030, 2035 there will be enough capacity on the refreshed grid. Europe is already in the process of doing the same thing. So is China.

 

[Atlas1]

It’s actually quite simple. Almost every state in the country is adding new power plants powered by solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas, replacing older coal plants. By 2030, 2035 there will be enough capacity on the refreshed grid. Europe is already in the process of doing the same thing. So is China.

California last time I read is trying to shut down their nuke power. There is also a heavy push to close natural gas plants to appease the mouth breathing followers of saint greta. Good luck with their solar panels I guess. Maybe if they blanket the entire state in panels in the next 9 years they might be able to avoid some of the rolling blackouts.

and China? I guess you haven’t been following their actions with respect to coal powered plants.

 

[martinjlm]

California last time I read is trying to shut down their nuke power. There is also a heavy push to close natural gas plants to appease the mouth breathing followers of saint greta. Good luck with their solar panels I guess. Maybe if they blanket the entire state in panels in the next 9 years they might be able to avoid some of the rolling blackouts.

and China? I guess you haven’t been following their actions with respect to coal powered plants.

Notice I didn’t include nuclear in the types of plants being added. China is adding coal plants in their Tier 3 cities, but they are more rapidly adding solar powered power generation in their Tier I cities that are more densely populated and are the areas where electric cars are selling most.

 

[EP10R80]

There is the same discussion on the Camaro forum. They hate Mustangs lol.

 

[ChitownStang]

Do any Camaro versions get a track day for free?

 

[Jimmy Dean]

It’s actually quite simple. Almost every state in the country is adding new power plants powered by solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas, replacing older coal plants. By 2030, 2035 there will be enough capacity on the refreshed grid. Europe is already in the process of doing the same thing. So is China.

take it from an engineer, anyone trying to rely on solar/wind is f'ed very soon. So is hydro, but more for a 'it does more damage to the eco than it saves by not burning coal/gas.

We can look at Texas for ways for gas to fail, but know that it was an extreme event that would shut down literally any plant, anywhere. none are built for the extremes that that environment they are in never sees, and Texas 'never' sees that type of weather widespread. That is like blaming a state that gets 10 inches of rain a year on average for flooding when they get 40 inches in a weekend.

Nuclear IS the answer, and the states that are going to require the highest EV car population refuse to go that route, and are going to be begging other states for power when that time comes. So...eh, fuck 'em. A good mix of EVs and ICE and fuel cell, and a strong nuclear electrical backbone is the way to go. I can go into a doctorate level tangent about the way to go with power, but, meh, not tonight.

Anyways, the only way to make EV useful country-wide is not charging stations, but battery swap stations, with a price based off of the cycles of the battery being pulled vs the one being installed. Then you have to consider the shipment to remote locations that are too far away from a generation station to warrant on site charging....

Anyways, have a good evening. Sorry for the mini rant.

(As for what you said about having enough generation by 2035, doubtful. The issues we are seeing in new plants/new generation, you won't have enough capacity by 2050 to cover the desire by 2025, much less 2035.)

As an ICE loving engineer, who dailies an 86 Bronco for Christ's sake, I would love to have an EV for my daily commute only. But the initial price, plus repair/replacement price on the packs makes less than 0% financial sense. I can keep my 86 bronco running, assuming a new engine every 50k miles, for about 7500 less per year over a 20 year period than a new or slightly used EV. Battery cycles are a bitch. This is why I am more a proponent of fuel cell tech using a nuclear backbone than I am for EVs.

 

[Atlas1]

take it from an engineer, anyone trying to rely on solar/wind is f'ed very soon. So is hydro, but more for a 'it does more damage to the eco than it saves by not burning coal/gas.

We can look at Texas for ways for gas to fail, but know that it was an extreme event that would shut down literally any plant, anywhere. none are built for the extremes that that environment they are in never sees, and Texas 'never' sees that type of weather widespread. That is like blaming a state that gets 10 inches of rain a year on average for flooding when they get 40 inches in a weekend.

Nuclear IS the answer, and the states that are going to require the highest EV car population refuse to go that route, and are going to be begging other states for power when that time comes. So...eh, fuck 'em. A good mix of EVs and ICE and fuel cell, and a strong nuclear electrical backbone is the way to go. I can go into a doctorate level tangent about the way to go with power, but, meh, not tonight.

Anyways, the only way to make EV useful country-wide is not charging stations, but battery swap stations, with a price based off of the cycles of the battery being pulled vs the one being installed. Then you have to consider the shipment to remote locations that are too far away from a generation station to warrant on site charging....

Anyways, have a good evening. Sorry for the mini rant.

(As for what you said about having enough generation by 2035, doubtful. The issues we are seeing in new plants/new generation, you won't have enough capacity by 2050 to cover the desire by 2025, much less 2035.)

As an ICE loving engineer, who dailies an 86 Bronco for Christ's sake, I would love to have an EV for my daily commute only. But the initial price, plus repair/replacement price on the packs makes less than 0% financial sense. I can keep my 86 bronco running, assuming a new engine every 50k miles, for about 7500 less per year over a 20 year period than a new or slightly used EV. Battery cycles are a bitch. This is why I am more a proponent of fuel cell tech using a nuclear backbone than I am for EVs.

Preach it

 

[shogun32]

Do any Camaro versions get a track day for free?

I don't think so but maybe the ZLE does. But a track day is all of $300 so the 5 grand I save buying Camaro is 10 track days and the tires needed to run them. And anyway Ford's "track days" by the sound of posts on here are VERY lame/tame and not worth anything as an instructive exercise.

 

[Hi-PO Stang]

I have been having a great time reading all these posts. A lot of good information being posted. A lot of good points to think about. I myself don't compare prices of various options and total car prices to comparable vehicles. I buy what I want and select what I want. Comparing track times of the Mach 1 to a Camaro is interesting , but does not cause me to choose one make over the other. As I recall , the Mach 1 is 300 pounds heavier than the Camaro. A heavier car is going to have a longer stopping distance and accelerate less quickly out of a corner . Track times will favor the lighter car. It takes a lot of horsepower to push 300 more pounds around a track quickly. I am impressed with the Ford engineers ability to take the heavier Mach 1 to the level they have. The Ford engineers have not had as much time to play with the IRS as engineers from GM. I am waiting for Ford to put 4:56 rear gears in the Mach 1 for a Drag Pack option. Then game on.

 

[shogun32]

I am waiting for Ford to put 4:56 rear gears in the Mach 1 for a Drag Pack option.

didn't they already do that? They just put the "gears" in the A10 trans.
300lbs extra is like subtracting 45HP from claimed figures. So 480-45 = 435 (M1) vs 455 (C6). I don't know if the 1/4 mile estimators based on HP and weight bear this out or not.

 

[martinjlm]

There is the same discussion on the Camaro forum. They hate Mustangs lol.

Not everybody. There’s only one, maybe two guys in that thread that are just looney tunes about anything that isn’t Chevrolet. Several of the guys on that thread own Camaro and Mustang and are discussing the issue very rationally. Same as here. A few guys here have both cars and are very rational. Some guys are still butthurt about the GM bankruptcy, so there’s that, too.

 

[martinjlm]

take it from an engineer, anyone trying to rely on solar/wind is f'ed very soon. So is hydro, but more for a 'it does more damage to the eco than it saves by not burning coal/gas.

We can look at Texas for ways for gas to fail, but know that it was an extreme event that would shut down literally any plant, anywhere. none are built for the extremes that that environment they are in never sees, and Texas 'never' sees that type of weather widespread. That is like blaming a state that gets 10 inches of rain a year on average for flooding when they get 40 inches in a weekend.

Nuclear IS the answer, and the states that are going to require the highest EV car population refuse to go that route, and are going to be begging other states for power when that time comes. So...eh, fuck 'em. A good mix of EVs and ICE and fuel cell, and a strong nuclear electrical backbone is the way to go. I can go into a doctorate level tangent about the way to go with power, but, meh, not tonight.

Anyways, the only way to make EV useful country-wide is not charging stations, but battery swap stations, with a price based off of the cycles of the battery being pulled vs the one being installed. Then you have to consider the shipment to remote locations that are too far away from a generation station to warrant on site charging....

Anyways, have a good evening. Sorry for the mini rant.

(As for what you said about having enough generation by 2035, doubtful. The issues we are seeing in new plants/new generation, you won't have enough capacity by 2050 to cover the desire by 2025, much less 2035.)

As an ICE loving engineer, who dailies an 86 Bronco for Christ's sake, I would love to have an EV for my daily commute only. But the initial price, plus repair/replacement price on the packs makes less than 0% financial sense. I can keep my 86 bronco running, assuming a new engine every 50k miles, for about 7500 less per year over a 20 year period than a new or slightly used EV. Battery cycles are a bitch. This is why I am more a proponent of fuel cell tech using a nuclear backbone than I am for EVs.

A lot to unpack in the stuff I’ve grayed out. I’m only on 1 cup o’ coffee so far, so I may touch on some of that later. I’m not an energy expert, but my company has a whole battery of them (see what I did there) that are tracking developments in national and global power generation plans. Long story short…they’re saying it is not without some risk, but what we (the Automotive side of the company) are projecting for 2030 is doable.

Anyway, one of the big draws for BEVs is total cost of operation (TOC) due to the significantly lower cost of maintenance. First, all….A.L.L. BEV manufacturers warranty the battery for 8 yrs at a minimum. Some warranty for longer, but US requires 8 years. Then think about the maintenance costs. Things you’ll never replace on an EV include

• Exhaust system
• Air filter
• Coolant
• Oil

You’ll also have significantly reduced brake system maintenance due to regen braking. We had our 2012 Volt from 2012 - 2016. We’ve had the 2017 since 2016. Haven’t ever serviced even the brake pads on either car. Then of course there’s the cost of gasoline / diesel vs cost of electricity that started this whole adventure.

Sponsored