The number of GXP's are going to be limited by CAFE. GM has to raise it's average gas mileage dramatically. There are two ways to do this. Sell better mileage cars. or sell enough high mileage cars to offset the low mileage ones. The only way that GM can build a GXP, is to sell 4 Geo Metro's or equivelent, per GXP. I doubt many people want the "offset" car, and until they move them they won't be able build another GXP.

Do not be surprised when there is only one GXP per dealership, and it is $20,000 over list. GM can no longer build what the consumer wants anymore. The United States Government is protecting us from ourselves. In my humble opinion GM will not build enough G8 GT's to fulfill demand, because they can't! They have to average out the fuel economy. If you are holding out for a GXP, good luck...

Maybe GM will just start selling package deals, [Package#1] 1 G8-GXP and 2 G5's, to average the fuel economy out....

By the time you realize this when the GXP is introduced, then it will be too late, because all of the G8 GT's will already be gone.

:cry:

Is there a link saying that?

I don't think GM/Holden would tighten production of the GXP since it's already slated to build them with or without the current CAFE mandated.

It's all speculation until the actual test numbers come out. We presume, based on increased hp , (and rightfully so) that GXP will exhibit worse mpg than GT. We presume that it may be bad enough to trigger GGT, but that is unknown. All we really know is that Mercedes continues to advertise the crap out of 451 hp C63's and they only have smartcar in the portfolio, no more Neons. The GXP is a low volume vehicle to start with. Consider the situation if CAFE were to enact their guidelinmes per model, and not manufacturer- then there would be more 4 cylinder 'vettes than V8's.

The president of GM explained this to me in person. CAFE isn't so much an average fleet number, as it is based on the footprint of the car. Because the G8 is a larger car, it can get away with having crappier gas milage, HOWEVER, it may still fall under the gas guzzler tax (for the GXP), as it doesn't meet the standard set. So, I don't think we're in any risk of losing the G8, but the other cars with smaller "shadows" need to get MUCH better mileage.

One way is to reduce demand for the GXP. Introduce it with a $45,999 sticker price. They can always drop the price, it is much harder to raise it after the fact. There are a lot of Dodge SRT vehicles available, with similar specifications. The combination of GGT and increased production, have created a glut of the Dodges.
The GXP will be possibly the most anticipated new car introduction this year. It will pound the Camaro, and Challenger. Chevrolet expects 70% of the Camaro's to be 6 cylinder. Similar expectations with the Challenger. I personally do not find any of these cars appealing as a 6 cylinder. If I was buying a car for mileage, it would be a Toyota, or Honda, or a purpose built vehicle for mileage, not an "image" of something faster.

But that's just me, time will tell.

It's all speculation until the actual test numbers come out. We presume, based on increased hp , (and rightfully so) that GXP will exhibit worse mpg than GT. We presume that it may be bad enough to trigger GGT, but that is unknown. All we really know is that Mercedes continues to advertise the crap out of 451 hp C63's and they only have smartcar in the portfolio, no more Neons. The GXP is a low volume vehicle to start with. Consider the situation if CAFE were to enact their guidelinmes per model, and not manufacturer- then there would be more 4 cylinder 'vettes than V8's.

Look at the total number of C63's imported, it is a very small fraction of GXP production. MB needed an "image car" and the C63, and various other models oblige. But the total number of 400+ hp MB cars imported each year is VERY LOW.

If I was buying a car for mileage, it would be a Toyota, or Honda, or a purpose built vehicle for mileage, not an "image" of something faster.



Look at cars in a similiar size class to the G8 and you'll find that the real world gas mileage isn't that much better. If you have a heavy foot, you'lll get crappy mileage in those cars as well.

Another useless attempt by CAFE to control the U.S. auto industry. CAFE this and that doesn't make the air cleaner. It's a proven fact that global warming is in fact not caused by cars.. Cars hardly have had an impact on climate. The truth behind global warming is the sun. The sun is increasing in temperature slowly. And Earth is not the only planet thats heating up. Mars, Jupiter are both heating up, But theres no way we can have any affect on those planets. I understand that the idea of global warming is true. But producing high mileage cars and hybrids hardly solves the answer..

If all CO2 producing machines magically vanished.. All the CO2 in the atmosphere will still be here for a long time heating up the planet. What is needed by the government and small terraforming factories that can clean the air and manage pollution. The whole hype of cars causing global warming a crock of bs.. Cities in general out way cars in CO2 production by an extremely wide margin.. So fight against these useless CAFE laws that have no effect on climate to change in a positive way.. :) :wink2:

It's all speculation until the actual test numbers come out. We presume, based on increased hp , (and rightfully so) that GXP will exhibit worse mpg than GT. We presume that it may be bad enough to trigger GGT, but that is unknown. All we really know is that Mercedes continues to advertise the crap out of 451 hp C63's and they only have smartcar in the portfolio, no more Neons. The GXP is a low volume vehicle to start with. Consider the situation if CAFE were to enact their guidelinmes per model, and not manufacturer- then there would be more 4 cylinder 'vettes than V8's.

I think MB paid 30 million in fines in Jan cause they didn't meet the CAFE stds. Bmw pays big fines too. They just consider it part of doing sales in the USA.

This won't take full effect until 2020. In fact, it doesn't even start until 2011. We have a few more years to get the power we want. Quote from autoblog: "The first step on the path to 35 mpg by 2020 will be increases of 4.5% in CAFE standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks over the five-year period spanning 2011 and 2015. This means that standards for passenger vehicles will rise from the current 27.5 mpg to 35.7 mpg by 2015, while light trucks will go from 23.5 mpg to 28.6 mpg. The NHTSA claims the new interim standards will save 55 billion gallons of gasoline and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons. They also claim that drivers will save $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of vehicles that fall under the rule."

I think MB paid 30 million in fines in Jan cause they didn't meet the CAFE stds. Bmw pays big fines too. They just consider it part of doing sales in the USA.

I forgot all about that... If you can sell a car at those prices, you can afford the fines...

Car makers have to make some very tough decisions this year. Can they afford to get a black eye selling gas inefficient automobiles. I would not like to be the guy that gets pulled in front of congress and has to answer questions about the choices in cars that they make. I think even Toyota will have problems adjusting.

I would not turn down the opportunity to see if I could beat "Top Gear's" record of turning the rear tires of a C63 into threadbare carcasses in only 39 miles... A great episode if anyone saw it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/nextepisode.shtml

Another useless attempt by CAFE to control the U.S. auto industry. CAFE this and that doesn't make the air cleaner. It's a proven fact that global warming is in fact not caused by cars.. Cars hardly have had an impact on climate. The truth behind global warming is the sun. The sun is increasing in temperature slowly. And Earth is not the only planet thats heating up. Mars, Jupiter are both heating up, But theres no way we can have any affect on those planets. I understand that the idea of global warming is true. But producing high mileage cars and hybrids hardly solves the answer..

If all CO2 producing machines magically vanished.. All the CO2 in the atmosphere will still be here for a long time heating up the planet. What is needed by the government and small terraforming factories that can clean the air and manage pollution. The whole hype of cars causing global warming a crock of bs.. Cities in general out way cars in CO2 production by an extremely wide margin.. So fight against these useless CAFE laws that have no effect on climate to change in a positive way.. :) :wink2:

Wow, you're extremely uneducated on how the climate works, aren't you.

1.) You are correct. The impact of car produced pollution (more then just CO2) is unknown, but it isn't helping by any means.

2.) If all CO2 producers were to stop (man made), the CO2 levels would drop. Lil thing I like to call "plants" tend to eat this up. Check out this process, commonly taught in educated states, known as photosynthesis.

3.) The US is working on "carbon sinks", mostly at Coal power plants. Its only sustainable, if we switch over to more powerful energy generators. Nuclear is a good option. Guess what? It produces very little pollution, even including building them.

4.) The reason for high mileage cars isn't for pollution. Its for the limited resource, known as oil. Oil is both limited in total availability and rampup of pumping availability. If you like things like plastics, tires, and food, you'd be trying to conserve more "oil".

Yes, the Al Gores of the world are f'ing nuts tree hugging useless hippies. However, the answer isn't the opposite. Its somewhere in the middle.

This won't take full effect until 2020. In fact, it doesn't even start until 2011. We have a few more years to get the power we want. Quote from autoblog: "The first step on the path to 35 mpg by 2020 will be increases of 4.5% in CAFE standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks over the five-year period spanning 2011 and 2015. This means that standards for passenger vehicles will rise from the current 27.5 mpg to 35.7 mpg by 2015, while light trucks will go from 23.5 mpg to 28.6 mpg. The NHTSA claims the new interim standards will save 55 billion gallons of gasoline and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons. They also claim that drivers will save $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of vehicles that fall under the rule."

4.5% is nothing. Most americans could save gas by modifying their driving habits (both in HOW they drive, and where they drive). Hell, lowering the speed limits would work too, but then again, time is money.

There are MANY ways to increase fuel economy without hurting performance. Efficiency works BOTH ways, less fuel AND more power. Direct Injection (um, new CTS motor), better transmissions (better driving experience), and better aerodynamics (NOT a Chrysler 300 "Barn on Wheels), all are win-win situations for consumers and not a HUGE expense for the car companies.

If you guys want to bitch about fuel economy of cars and the rising prices of cars, complain about the extra 500lbs of safety equipment in cars. Explain to me why I need 6 airbags in my G8...

I love my G8. Its gets about the same fuel mileage as a run of the mill Camry on the highway and only gets worse mileage, when I have my foot on the floorboards. Hell, it also looks nicer, rides better, and option for option, is about the same price.

As I've said before, they didn't even need to have CAFE mandating higher MPG vehicles. Just gradually increase a gas tax over the next several years. Use that to "encourage" manufactures to build more fuel efficient vehicles. I mean, gas prices are already making people buy more smaller/fuel efficient vehicles which is in turn directing manufactures to make smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. The market would work itself out!

But now in a couple years, GM will probably have to throw in a free Geo with every GXP just to even things out. :) Assuming they can manage to keep that type of vehicle around!

Chevrolet expects 70% of the Camaro's to be 6 cylinder.

More like 40-50% 4 cylinder LNF t/c 260hp;
20-30% 300+ hp D.I. V6;
10-20% 361 hp L76
10-20% LS3

Yes, maybe only 30% of Camaros will be available with V8, but they are giving serious thought to the 4 as a not-so-shabby base.

Oops, I did not mean to open this big can of worms... I'm sorry the picture that I painted was more like "Blade Runner", and less like "Back to the Future 2". Who really knows what is in store for us in the future. I don't want kabosh anyones dreams of owning a new GXP. However even the G8 was $5000 over MSRP at introduction. Early adopters will pay for the right to drive one....

More like 40-50% 4 cylinder LNF t/c 260hp;
20-30% 300+ hp D.I. V6;
10-20% 361 hp L76
10-20% LS3

Yes, maybe only 30% of Camaros will be available with V8, but they are giving serious thought to the 4 as a not-so-shabby base.

The 4 cylinder camaro WILL NOT happen. I was told explicitly by the pres of GM, that the mule they were using was an experiment to try the boosted 4 in a full sized car and it will never find its way into the camaro. Its meant more for the chevy fullsize RWD car and he said that it won't happen, as the car wasn't very drivable by american standards.

The DI V6 will also not find its way into the camaro but I was told, to "wait for it" for the G8. I gave him a hard time for releasing the V6 G8 without it.

Just telling you what I heard, right from the mouth of upper management at GM.

Oops, I did not mean to open this big can of worms... I'm sorry the picture that I painted was more like "Blade Runner", and less like "Back to the Future 2". Who really knows what is in store for us in the future. I don't want kabosh anyones dreams of owning a new GXP. However even the G8 was $5000 over MSRP at introduction. Early adopters will pay for the right to drive one....


I have my australian car now, I'm talking more "Mad Max" style. I'll install my 55 gallon drum in the rear seat, plenty of space. LOL

I have my australian car now, I'm talking more "Mad Max" style. I'll install my 55 gallon drum in the rear seat, plenty of space. LOL

Aye mate, get yourself a good Dingo to protect you, and stay away from the Vegemite.... It's disgusting!

<slapping self> I'll take the rest to "off topic"....

With all of the unfounded "Doom & Gloom" prophecies from the OP, I caught the smell of troll. :sneaky:

One way is to reduce demand for the GXP. Introduce it with a $45,999 sticker price.

NO NO NO, wrong, fail fail fail. That is the WORST flipping thing they could do. Please reconsider this statement. It will reduce demand alright, to practically ZERO. Again, I say incorrect.

IXLR8,
Didnt you know that all Aussie's have a Dingo at the house !!


http://i25.tinypic.com/1yaa10.jpg

How quickly GXP and CAFE standards, can spiral down to post apocalyptic scenarios....

NO NO NO, wrong, fail fail fail. That is the WORST flipping thing they could do. Please reconsider this statement. It will reduce demand alright, to practically ZERO. Again, I say incorrect.

Think about it, limited production, high desirability, a simple formula car makers use to squeeze every last cent out of you.

At Introduction:
Nissan GTR $25,000 over MSRP
Mustang GT-500 $20,000 over MSRP
MB C63 $20,000 over MSRP
Honda S2000 $7,000 over MSRP
Pontiac G8 GT $5,000 over MSRP (March 2008)
Charger SRT-8 $6,000 over MSRP
Challenger SRT-8 $10,000 over MSRP

This is partial list but it should give you an idea of what to expect. You are fooling yourself if you think within the first few months of production and only pay list price, well good luck....

I came to the realization that although the GXP is my dream car, I will have to settle for GT. Did I really say "settle", cuz the GT is still a kick'in car no matter how you look at it. I wanted a car I could afford this year....

I got my G8 GT in the first few months for MSRP - $1000 loyalty. I will NEVER pay over MSRP and even though the dealer tried to get it, he didn't.

Here is what you do... You go on every board and post what piece crap the GXP is going to be. Too expensive, gets crappy gas mileage, Camaro's are much cooler...

Then when release day comes, no one will be in line, and you can sneak down and pick one up for a song...

"Would it be an evil GXP?" asks Dr. Evil... Don't make Mr. Bigglesworth mad....

Mwah ha ha....

I've looked at several GT's around the area and I haven't seen one with a markup yet. I think local dealerships know they can't do that around here.

Another useless attempt by CAFE to control the U.S. auto industry. CAFE this and that doesn't make the air cleaner. It's a proven fact that global warming is in fact not caused by cars.. Cars hardly have had an impact on climate. The truth behind global warming is the sun. The sun is increasing in temperature slowly. And Earth is not the only planet thats heating up. Mars, Jupiter are both heating up, But theres no way we can have any affect on those planets. I understand that the idea of global warming is true. But producing high mileage cars and hybrids hardly solves the answer..

If all CO2 producing machines magically vanished.. All the CO2 in the atmosphere will still be here for a long time heating up the planet. What is needed by the government and small terraforming factories that can clean the air and manage pollution. The whole hype of cars causing global warming a crock of bs.. Cities in general out way cars in CO2 production by an extremely wide margin.. So fight against these useless CAFE laws that have no effect on climate to change in a positive way.. :) :wink2:

You underestimate the power of the Haliburton/Bush Weather machine!


Muhahahahahahhahaahahahaha!













:wink2:

Here is what you do... You go on every board and post what piece crap the GXP is going to be. Too expensive, gets crappy gas mileage, Camaro's are much cooler...

Then when release day comes, no one will be in line, and you can sneak down and pick one up for a song...

"Would it be an evil GXP?" asks Dr. Evil... Don't make Mr. Bigglesworth mad....

Mwah ha ha....

Is that why you started this post??:judge:

I've looked at several GT's around the area and I haven't seen one with a markup yet. I think local dealerships know they can't do that around here.

Thats why I said "At Introduction". When I went to the dealer there were two cars on the showroom with $5000 addendum stickers. When I inquired about them, he said they were from March when the supply was low.

The prices may drop, or like ticket scalpers, most may end up on eBay. What is the downside? If you buy it and sell it on eBay and make $5000, that's great. You can always sell a 0 mile car, for what you paid if it is in demand.

eBay scalpers buy from wherever they can get them, and that includes Peoria....

I've looked at several GT's around the area and I haven't seen one with a markup yet. I think local dealerships know they can't do that around here.

That's because it's a GT...NOT a GXP! :slap::)

I'm totally uncertain as what the mark-up will be if any. With any highly anticipated / hyped vehicle such as the GXP, the mark-up will be hanging on a balance of the current climate of the American economy. If the economy has slowed down from today then the GXP = NO mark-up! Plus there's always people who knows people or someone that will pay whatever the market adjustment price is.

I myself have never bought into the market price adjustment crap for any small production American late model car especially a PONTIAC simply because 1st. I can't afford to! And because I refuse to play head games with dealers. If I can't buy a new GXP at MSRP or below then a excellent condition pre-owned one will have to do.

The car is still months away from it's showroom debut so who really knows? A car is only worth what a person is willing to pay for it!

IXLR8_ I like your clever strategy !

Wow, you're extremely uneducated on how the climate works, aren't you.

1.) You are correct. The impact of car produced pollution (more then just CO2) is unknown, but it isn't helping by any means.

2.) If all CO2 producers were to stop (man made), the CO2 levels would drop. Lil thing I like to call "plants" tend to eat this up. Check out this process, commonly taught in educated states, known as photosynthesis.

3.) The US is working on "carbon sinks", mostly at Coal power plants. Its only sustainable, if we switch over to more powerful energy generators. Nuclear is a good option. Guess what? It produces very little pollution, even including building them.

4.) The reason for high mileage cars isn't for pollution. Its for the limited resource, known as oil. Oil is both limited in total availability and rampup of pumping availability. If you like things like plastics, tires, and food, you'd be trying to conserve more "oil".

Yes, the Al Gores of the world are f'ing nuts tree hugging useless hippies. However, the answer isn't the opposite. Its somewhere in the middle.

Not necessarily. There is more than a little debate about temp levels and CO2 levels.

It is beginning to look like the "Algores" have it wrong. That is, Temps go up and then CO2 levels rise. NOT the other way around.

Algore's fiction movie was full of distortions and worse cases. The biggest sources of manmade CO2 are industrial plants and HOMES. The best way to lower CO2, conserve oil and create jobs in the depressed homebuilidng industry would be to spend money on insulating houses, and retrofitting industrial plants with scrubbers. This auto stuff is just the usual left wing attack on the automobile industry and the personal freedom it provides.

why all the hype w/ manmade CO2? what about all the CO2 produced by livestock? just build more nuclear plants. there is no such thing as clean burning coal. and if you believe the polls most Americans and Europeans don't care.

I got my G8 also on March 11, 2008. The first night they wanted $7500 over sticker. I waited 7 days...got it $1000 under sticker...
I would never pay over sticker for any vehicle...

Back the the mileage topic (Holy thread hijacking), I have a fleet off over 600 vehicles under my control at work. Being a car nut, and the boss, each year I run a mileage test where we pull 10 vehicles and run them on a set route, same day, same traffic, no AC, windows up and swap driver midpoint to even things out. In 2006 we did 1/4 ton, 1/2 ton, 3/4 tons, 2007 was 1 tons, 1.5 tons and 2 tons.

The BIGGEST SINGLE improvement was also the cheapest...every single truck we pulled off the line had low tire pressure. Every one. The 3/4 ton+ were the worst. many of the drivers do not realize that the design pressures are 70 psi (GM and Ford) on the heavy duty pick-ups.

We run GMC, Ford and some Dodges plus I have 1 Toyota Tacoma 4 cyl. The GMC 4.8s are the best. They get better mileage that the 5.3 Hybrids we had (1st generation). The 5.3 DOD is still 20% higher consumption based on our tests which was low on stop and go by the way. I wish they had a 4.8 DOD. The GMC 1500 series with V6 gets the same mileage or worse than the 4.8s The GMC 2500 series with the 6.0L are pigs. The Ford F250s with 5.4 Tritons are better but not as nice a truck IMHO.

If you add 4x4 we tested same body style, same engine/trans, one 2WD one 4WD. The 4x4 used 25% more gas even in 2WD. Consistent across the three makes.

We do this because the manufacturers are not required to publish fuel economy ratings above 1/2 ton and they don't. I've searched the net and have yet to locate this type of data (if you know of it PLEASE P.M. me).

The Diesels were interesting. The new GM and Fords are excellent but for $10,000 more per truck and the Mileage we put on a unit they never save you money. Dodge's are too loud IMHO but super tough. The diesels do retain almost 80% of the extra cost at resale. You need to watch the hidden costs. For example if you get the 6.2 GM you must also order the Allison 6 speed transmission.

My 2 cents...P.S. I don't care, I want a GXP when and if Pontiac sells one in Canada. We still have yet to see the first G8s.

All this talk about H/P differences between GT and GXP along with mpg differences and performance differences.... I have a liquid red G8 GT that I have already tinted, H-pipe and flowmaster axle back exhaust (thanks to stolen fox by the way) and a CAI from lmspeed by roto-fab. I can tell you from a seat of the pants feel, these 3 things have gained me a substantial % of hp and tq. And I havent even tuned it yet. And I just returned from a trip to ohio from florida and I got close to 25 (24.8) mpg average with city and highway driving mixed in. So go ahead and wait for the inevitably more expensive GXP. I am just gonna enjoy driving the !#*% out of mine right now.

The biggest sources of manmade CO2 are industrial plants and HOMES. The best way to lower CO2, conserve oil and create jobs in the depressed homebuilidng industry would be to spend money on insulating houses, and retrofitting industrial plants with scrubbers. This auto stuff is just the usual left wing attack on the automobile industry and the personal freedom it provides.

The industrial plants being the biggest polluters is correct. In my county (bordering Davidson--Nashville), we are required to do emissions tests on all cars. But, 98% (let me repeat that--98%) of this county's pollution comes from the industrial plants. The biggest polluter: Nissan's Smyrna auto plant.

On another topic, CO2 is listed as one of the greenhouse gases helping to heat up the climate. But, since humans are cutting down every tree that they can find, it's getting harder for nature to balance out our pollution. I'm at least glad that Al Gore didn't get into the oval office, but he's not the only one studying global climate change.

That's because it's a GT...NOT a GXP!

My point was markups are NOT a given. I went to the biggest Pontiac dealership in the area two weeks before the first GT arrived. They weren't going to mark it up, they told me. I showed up at the dealership an hour after it got off the truck. I was the first to drive it, and they still weren't marking it up.

Maybe it's just the kind of new cars I look at, but none in this area are marked up. I haven't seen one. Dealers know that can't do it here. I don't expect the GXP to be any different.

The industrial plants being the biggest polluters is correct. In my county (bordering Davidson--Nashville), we are required to do emissions tests on all cars. But, 98% (let me repeat that--98%) of this county's pollution comes from the industrial plants. The biggest polluter: Nissan's Smyrna auto plant.

On another topic, CO2 is listed as one of the greenhouse gases helping to heat up the climate. But, since humans are cutting down every tree that they can find, it's getting harder for nature to balance out our pollution. I'm at least glad that Al Gore didn't get into the oval office, but he's not the only one studying global climate change.

The oceans suck up far more CO2 than any forest or forests could.

The oceans suck up far more CO2 than any forest or forests could.

Perhaps you mean the aquatic life in the ocean? We are slowly killing them off as well. The problem is that some people are hardcore & some people are "I don't care". The hardcore people are so pushy that people don't want to follow their example. The people that don't care just want enough for their lifetime. Oil is "supposed" to run out in my lifetime. But, I don't want to have to go back to horses & bicycles because of that.

Plants love CO2, not that I have any experience in this field but I have heard that if you grow "hemp" and you add a little CO2 to the room, you will create a jungle... So maybe in the future "hemp" will absorb all of the CO2, and save us from ourselves.

That would leave with a huge need to dispose of the "hemp"... Any ideas?

The oceans suck up far more CO2 than any forest or forests could.

And we'd be better off trying to save the oceans from humans then anything else. We're turning them into barren wastelands, which is probably MORE of a function of why the planet is warming.

Overall, its a balance. Cut down where you can in your life, make an honest impact, but there is no reason to go nuts in any one aspect.

What really amuses me, is the people who drive a Prius, but own a 5000sqft house. At least in New England, heating for something that big far outstrips what a car uses for energy, and there are no "emissions" on heating systems.

I just pointed this out to a coworker. I drive a fuel pig, but I live in a 750sqft Condo with my better half. My "ecological footprint" is WAY smaller then his, even though he drives a civic hybrid. He kind of changed his view pretty quickly.

Plants love CO2, not that I have any experience in this field but I have heard that if you grow "hemp" and you add a little CO2 to the room, you will create a jungle... So maybe in the future "hemp" will absorb all of the CO2, and save us from ourselves.

That would leave with a huge need to dispose of the "hemp"... Any ideas?

While reading your post, I got a vision of the guy smoking joints in the Simpsons movie.

And we'd be better off trying to save the oceans from humans then anything else. We're turning them into barren wastelands, which is probably MORE of a function of why the planet is warming.

Overall, its a balance. Cut down where you can in your life, make an honest impact, but there is no reason to go nuts in any one aspect.

What really amuses me, is the people who drive a Prius, but own a 5000sqft house. At least in New England, heating for something that big far outstrips what a car uses for energy, and there are no "emissions" on heating systems.

I just pointed this out to a coworker. I drive a fuel pig, but I live in a 750sqft Condo with my better half. My "ecological footprint" is WAY smaller then his, even though he drives a civic hybrid. He kind of changed his view pretty quickly.

Man, great post. There is more wisdom and truth in those few paragraphs that in scores of global warming books. to paraphrase, "It's the ocean stupid!"

The oceans are 75% of the earths surface. The plant plankton are the primary modality to convert CO2 to O. Larger animal plankton eat the plant plankton...and fish eat the animal plankton. Some good material out there on how the overfishing of the sea is leading to an overabundance of animal plankton...which is depleting the plant plankton. Which would lead to rising CO2.

Funny if the only real man-made problem is overfishing. But possible, in many areas 90% of the fish have been wiped out. Now you take 90% of the fish over 75% of the earth's surface and that could change the CO2 balance...unlike all of man's other activites which maybe account for 1-2% of the Co2 inthe atmosphere.

Plants love CO2, not that I have any experience in this field but I have heard that if you grow "hemp" and you add a little CO2 to the room, you will create a jungle... So maybe in the future "hemp" will absorb all of the CO2, and save us from ourselves.

That would leave with a huge need to dispose of the "hemp"... Any ideas?

Can we make Ethanol from it?:wink2:

That would leave with a huge need to dispose of the "hemp"... Any ideas?

Ahhhh, I can come up with some fun ideas, but not very practical ones! Wouldn't the burning, in any manner, create even more of a problem? I mean all that smoke and the release of all the hydro carbons? We could always make brownies with it thou!:pimp::err::wink2:

Man, great post. There is more wisdom and truth in those few paragraphs that in scores of global warming books. to paraphrase, "It's the ocean stupid!"

The oceans are 75% of the earths surface. The plant plankton are the primary modality to convert CO2 to O. Larger animal plankton eat the plant plankton...and fish eat the animal plankton. Some good material out there on how the overfishing of the sea is leading to an overabundance of animal plankton...which is depleting the plant plankton. Which would lead to rising CO2.

Funny if the only real man-made problem is overfishing. But possible, in many areas 90% of the fish have been wiped out. Now you take 90% of the fish over 75% of the earth's surface and that could change the CO2 balance...unlike all of man's other activites which maybe account for 1-2% of the Co2 inthe atmosphere.

Its always been my major gripe with tree huggers. They pick ONE battle to fight, which is never the entire answer. The real answer is always raising the level of responsibility on EVERY aspect. But, you don't have the intelligent people making decisions on items like this, because those who CAN, DO. Those who CAN'T, blow air like a loose balloon.

Maybe they should take all of the CO2, and can it in beverage cans. Maybe we could hire Coca Cola or Pepsi to solve the problem. Everyone could help by storing it in their homes. Take the can and put it in a sealed container with a plant. Open the can, the plant loves the CO2, gives you oxygen in return, problem solved!

By the way the hemp does not have to be burned, it could be made into rope, and other tree hugger friendly items.

All this talk about H/P differences between GT and GXP along with mpg differences and performance differences.... I have a liquid red G8 GT that I have already tinted, H-pipe and flowmaster axle back exhaust (thanks to stolen fox by the way) and a CAI from lmspeed by roto-fab. I can tell you from a seat of the pants feel, these 3 things have gained me a substantial % of hp and tq. And I havent even tuned it yet. And I just returned from a trip to ohio from florida and I got close to 25 (24.8) mpg average with city and highway driving mixed in. So go ahead and wait for the inevitably more expensive GXP. I am just gonna enjoy driving the !#*% out of mine right now.

That's all fine and dandy but when I add those things to my GXP, I'm sure I'll see the same improvements with a much better starting point.

By the way the hemp does not have to be burned, it could be made into rope, and other tree hugger friendly items.

Hemp is NOT marijuana. If you'd like to try and smoke it, by all means, have fun.

Hemp is NOT marijuana. If you'd like to try and smoke it, by all means, have fun.

Its kind of a male/female thing isn't it?:huh:

That's all fine and dandy but when I add those things to my GXP, I'm sure I'll see the same improvements with a much better starting point.

I had the same argument with my Charger Daytona vs Charger SRT, in the end the Daytona was .30/mile cheaper to own. So far the G8 GT is about .40/mile cheaper to own that an SRT-8, and just as quick. The GXP, not so much...

(value derived from Cost new, selling price, gas cost, gas mileage, insurance cost, interest from cost difference invested in CD's, interest on loans)

Your mileage may vary...

Think about it, limited production, high desirability, a simple formula car makers use to squeeze every last cent out of you.

At Introduction:
Nissan GTR $25,000 over MSRP
Mustang GT-500 $20,000 over MSRP
MB C63 $20,000 over MSRP
Honda S2000 $7,000 over MSRP
Pontiac G8 GT $5,000 over MSRP (March 2008)
Charger SRT-8 $6,000 over MSRP
Challenger SRT-8 $10,000 over MSRP

This is partial list but it should give you an idea of what to expect. You are fooling yourself if you think within the first few months of production and only pay list price, well good luck....

I came to the realization that although the GXP is my dream car, I will have to settle for GT. Did I really say "settle", cuz the GT is still a kick'in car no matter how you look at it. I wanted a car I could afford this year....



As soon as the G8 GT's starting showing up at the dealership, my buddy almost bought one for 32k. But he actually walked away, because he doesn't want to pay that much for one. He'll wait until he can get one at or below MSRP.


But some dealerships do jack up the price hoping some sucker walks in. We have a small Subaru dealership in my area that wanted 38k for a the 2004 STi's when they first came out (back in the spring of 2003). They would not come off their price.
I ended up driving 100 miles to a different dealership that was selling them for $31,500 (that's $6,500 less).
So it pays to shop around (get on the phone, internet, etc) and find a good dealership.

In all the whining about the new CAFE standards, I still do not see where it is a global warming/pollution/Al gorish issue. Higher mileage cars and trucks do not inherently produce less carbon dioxide. The CAFE is an attempt to counteract the fiasco which is the oil industry by providing the American consumer with less costly cars to operate. Since the Bush Administration has a vested interest in oil, we know they won't spend any time or money to investigate or regulate that industry.

In all the whining about the new CAFE standards, I still do not see where it is a global warming/pollution/Al gorish issue. Higher mileage cars and trucks do not inherently produce less carbon dioxide. The CAFE is an attempt to counteract the fiasco which is the oil industry by providing the American consumer with less costly cars to operate. Since the Bush Administration has a vested interest in oil, we know they won't spend any time or money to investigate or regulate that industry.

It's BECAUSE the oil industry is so overregulated that gas costs $4 gallon. Let em drill in ANWR, off Florida and in N. Dakota, and let them build refineries, and gas would be $2

It's BECAUSE the oil industry is so overregulated that gas costs $4 gallon. Let em drill in ANWR, off Florida and in N. Dakota, and let them build refineries, and gas would be $2

NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard. This is the battle cry of the conservationist groups, and most people that move in next to nuisance facilities, i.e., refineries, airports, schools, shopping malls, etc., etc. If they didn't want the noise, pollution, crime, etc., etc., they should have moved somewhere else, and/or better researched the planned zoning and future development plans of the area around the home they wanted to buy. 90% of all of these facilities either existed or were planned long before the housing was built around them. I mean you have a brain for a reason, not just to keep your ears apart! USE IT PEOPLE! Then again, we have vast deserts in the western part of this country that nobody currently lives in. Why not use parts of it for our refineries? Most people are pretty benign with regards to pipelines, especially the underground type. So put the refineries in the deserts and pipe the product back and forth to where we need it! Not having a new refinery built in the USA in the last 30+ years has a lot to do with the cost of gasoline! Our country isn't shrinking, so the demand on existing refineries is growing more every year with no relief in sight! We have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to energy and its development/refinement..........or be prepared for the $10/gallon gasoline! :banghead::soapbox:

With gas companies making record profits, how come there aren't more refineries?

I mean you have a brain for a reason, not just to keep your ears apart! USE IT PEOPLE!

I hope you haven't forgotten that using your brain could be thought of as work. This is the land of the lazy & the home of the immigrant. :nonono:

With gas companies making record profits, how come there aren't more refineries?

The record profits have been mostly for the past few years, three or four at the most. Also because they have a very long and involved process to get approval from the EPA, the states, and local authorities to build them. Then they have to fight the conservationists tooth and nail, then the NIMBY people. That is why I said build them in the deserts. With the Democratic Congress holding hearings on everything, and I do mean everything, maybe they will come to the conclusion that the deserts will be OK, if it isn't already to late to make a difference. I think the oil companies would probably go along with the desert idea, given the right incentives and the green light. It would be a huge investment, probably in the $100B range or more, so it would be something they'd want protection from lawsuits and delays on in order to be able to recoup their investment in a reasonable time frame. With our bureaucracy the way it is, this may be asking too much of it.:rolleyes:

With gas companies making record profits, how come there aren't more refineries?

The refineries aren't making record profits the OIL companies are. Two different entities (in terms of business). The refineries are actually cutting BACK capacity because of drooping demand. Blame crude prices, not the price to refine. Refineries have always got the short end of the stick and always have razor thin margins.

The refineries aren't making record profits the OIL companies are. Two different entities (in terms of business).

So the Shell oil refinery in Bellingham, WA is a different Shell than the oil company? Huh, never heard that before.:confused:

So the Shell oil refinery in Bellingham, WA is a different Shell than the oil company? Huh, never heard that before.:confused:

they're run as different business units, independant from eachother. If you look at Shell's (and Exxon's) financial statements every quarter, you'll see that they make almost NO money off their refineries.

they're run as different business units, independant from eachother. If you look at Shell's (and Exxon's) financial statements every quarter, you'll see that they make almost NO money off their refineries.

But wouldn't they still be able to dig into the corporate coffers to fund new refineries if they so desired? In other words, all those big profits of recent years could be used to increase the capacity and improve efficiency.:huh:

they're run as different business units, independant from eachother. If you look at Shell's (and Exxon's) financial statements every quarter, you'll see that they make almost NO money off their refineries.

It's all smoke and mirrors! You can't sell unrefined oil as a product.:judge:

Personally, I hope the price of gasoline gets so high that all kinds of alternatives will become economically viable, then we will be free at last!

But wouldn't they still be able to dig into the corporate coffers to fund new refineries if they so desired? In other words, all those big profits of recent years could be used to increase the capacity and improve efficiency.:huh:

Econ 101:

The price you see at the pump is NOT related to refining costs all that much. The price you see at the pump is directly related to the COST of a bbl of oil. With US demand DOWN almost 2% from last year, why would they build more refineries? They're already at 87% capacity and looking to shut down even more. The refineries are almost subsidized by crude, because the oil companies need a product people will buy.

This whole gasoline thing has zero to do with gasoline. It has everything to do with retarded futures traders jacking the price of oil up for NO reason, other then greed.

Here's something to mull over. Natural gas has almost zero to do with oil price, yet its climbing as well. Explain that one. :)

Personally, I hope the price of gasoline gets so high that all kinds of alternatives will become economically viable, then we will be free at last!

And this is why you see all the oil companies investing in alternative energy right now. They know that they are shooting themselves in the foot. With the price of crude so high, the entry costs to alternatives are affordable, except... solar/wind requires no additional inputs. Neither does hydro. Nukes do, but barely. If we start the switch, the oil companies are over with. Welcome to the side of capitalism that bites the ass, real hard.

But wouldn't they still be able to dig into the corporate coffers to fund new refineries if they so desired? In other words, all those big profits of recent years could be used to increase the capacity and improve efficiency.:huh:

What is needed to get to a viable alternative fuel is "pure" research which will need to be funded through taxes. Capitalist profit making companies do not spend money on "pure" research. Look at all the spin-offs from the space program. The pure research that formed the beginning of those products was funded through tax dollars in the NASA program.

As long as the oil companies are making huge profits they are not interested in changing a thing. Spending money on research or new refineries only diminishes profit. They are not in business to diminish profit, only increase it. It seems perverse, I know. That is how capitalist companies work. It seems like there is no vision for tomorrow. The senior execs there now figure they have their own 5 year plan, then they're out, why rock the boat??:slap:

Econ 101:

The price you see at the pump is NOT related to refining costs all that much. The price you see at the pump is directly related to the COST of a bbl of oil. With US demand DOWN almost 2% from last year, why would they build more refineries? They're already at 87% capacity and looking to shut down even more. The refineries are almost subsidized by crude, because the oil companies need a product people will buy.

This whole gasoline thing has zero to do with gasoline. It has everything to do with retarded futures traders jacking the price of oil up for NO reason, other then greed.

Here's something to mull over. Natural gas has almost zero to do with oil price, yet its climbing as well. Explain that one. :)

OK, I agree with your statement, although I think from what I've heard it is speculators that are driving up the price of energy commodities, kind of a newer subclass of the futures buyers that don't even take possession of the product, but sell it before that happens, lately for large profits.

But my original premise was that the oil companies could use some of the recent profits they've run up to build new refineries, that would improve capacity and improve efficiency, thus reducing their costs (from what I understand the refining is the biggest cost in the product chain of energy related products), and in turn, allowing them to lower prices, or at least not raise them so much.:confused:

Not to mention, when you get an oil company talking head in an interview, one of the things they cite is the lack of new refineries in the USA with the associated costs to maintain older less efficient plants. We see spikes in gas prices every year when they shut down various ones to perform " annual maintenance" and the drop in production supposedly creates shortages, increasing prices at the wholesale and retail ends. Wouldn't new refineries prevent or help prevent this type of thing from happening, or at very least, reduce the effect of it?:dunno:

OK, I agree with your statement, although I think from what I've heard it is speculators that are driving up the price of energy commodities, kind of a newer subclass of the futures buyers that don't even take possession of the product, but sell it before that happens, lately for large profits.

But my original premise was that the oil companies could use some of the recent profits they've run up to build new refineries, that would improve capacity and improve efficiency, thus reducing their costs (from what I understand the refining is the biggest cost in the product chain of energy related products), and in turn, allowing them to lower prices, or at least not raise them so much.:confused:

I love you man! But you're not getting it. In a capitalist economy profit is the reward for doing something right. While the oil companies are making record profits, suggesting to them that they should do something different is going to seem to them as a very strange idea.

The oil companies are NOT going to develop alternative energy sources. They are oil companies, not energy companies. The rest is BS :bs::judge:

I love you man! But you're not getting it. In a capitalist economy profit is the reward for doing something right. While the oil companies are making record profits, suggesting to them that they should do something different is going to seem to them as a very strange idea.

Thanks for all the love! But I do get it. What I am saying is what is the lesser of two evils, your government requiring you to do something, or you doing it your way on your own? We don't exactly have a "big business" friendly government in Washington these days, and from all accounts, the head person at 1600 Penn. Ave. probably wont be either. It would be a lot stranger outcome if the guys in Washington get involved and dictate what the oil companies must do.

The oil companies are NOT going to develop alternative energy sources. They are oil companies, not energy companies. The rest is BS :bs::judge:

They sure as hell will..........if they can make big profits off of it! Oil isn't going to last forever, and those in the alternate fuels markets first get the lion's share of the profits. Does the name Rockefeller ring a bell?:wink2:

OK, I agree with your statement, although I think from what I've heard it is speculators that are driving up the price of energy commodities, kind of a newer subclass of the futures buyers that don't even take possession of the product, but sell it before that happens, lately for large profits.

Thats what futures people do... blame them.

They sure as hell will..........if they can make big profits off of it! Oil isn't going to last forever, and those in the alternate fuels markets first get the lion's share of the profits. Does the name Rockefeller ring a bell?:wink2:

You made my point...Rockefeller did not discover oil, he exploited it for profit once it was discovered.:pir_flag:

You made my point...Rockefeller did not discover oil, he exploited it for profit once it was discovered.:pir_flag:

If you want to get right down to it, who did discover oil? Jed Clampett?:err::biggrin2:

They sure as hell will..........if they can make big profits off of it! Oil isn't going to last forever, and those in the alternate fuels markets first get the lion's share of the profits. Does the name Rockefeller ring a bell?:wink2:

Then why aren't big oil companies trying to get rich on the next big trend? If CNG actually caught on, then they would have to install at least one pump at each station. Or biodiesel. Or E85 (which has taken a while). Or hydrogen. Or whatever. They would have to fork out money to accomodate these buyers & have to refine the fuels for that small percentage. What big oil appears to be waiting on is a giant wave of consumers to switch. How giant? Don't know for sure, but it would take auto makers doing the pushing. The car buying public has already spoken with the recent trends in new vehicle purchases.

I think you answered your own question. They are holding off to see what will win out as the preferred alternative. Perhaps they don't want to be caught in a VHS/BETA type situation. Let the market work it out then jump in with both feet. I seriously doubt that most of them don't have fingers in all the popular pies right now. After the consumer decides what flavor they want, and the manufacturers start mass producing, the pumps (or whatever) will pop up everywhere. JMHO:wink2:

So far, it appears that E85 is the magic potion for now. But, this means that while they brag about being leaders & innovators of new fuels, they are simply being lazy & slow to react to the changes.

I seriously doubt that most of them don't have fingers in all the popular pies right now.

You bet your ass they do. GM is doing the same thing. They have a gigantic portfolio of "innovative" technology just waiting to be used, when the new flavor of the week comes out. If the market won't bear new technology, they won't release it. We're sitting on the cusp of an energy revolution right now. If the oil companies are smart (they are), they'd shift the market. Saudi Arabia just announced yesterday they're going to increase capacity. They're not stupid, they know if oil stays high, they'll be following the dodo and the middle east is a one trick pony. They don't have anything else going for them.

Don't know how true this is, but one of the talking heads on CNBC today quoted a figure of $9.00 to pump out a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia! $9.00!! If those SOBs are so happy we saved their butts from Saddam, maybe they ought to show it by giving us a deal on the oil we buy from them! I would think a 25% discount would be fair and prudent!???:gr_jest::gr_jest::gr_jest:

Don't know how true this is, but one of the talking heads on CNBC today quoted a figure of $9.00 to pump out a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia! $9.00!! If those SOBs are so happy we saved their butts from Saddam, maybe they ought to show it by giving us a deal on the oil we buy from them! I would think a 25% discount would be fair and prudent!???:gr_jest::gr_jest::gr_jest:

The feds are investigating collusion and price fixing on wall street. Oil went down $4. Here we go...

KERRRPLOP! That sound you hear is the oil bubble bursting!:boink:

Thats what futures people do... blame them.

I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros, the billionaire speculator who hates the USA that lets him make his $billions, is one of the major factors pushing up the speculative oil futures market.

I wouldn't be surprised if George Soros, the billionaire speculator who hates the USA that lets him make his $billions, is one of the major factors pushing up the speculative oil futures market.

Could be some merit to that - liberals want to force us into alternative forms of energy and high price oil is the linchpin of that argument.

Could be some merit to that - liberals want to force us into alternative forms of energy and high price oil is the linchpin of that argument.



*SSHHHHH* My company develops a lot of "alternative energy" technologies. I need to keep raking in the money. Is it bad that I'm using my pay from a "green" company to pay for a gas guzzling V8 super beast? LOL

Now back to seriousness.

Do you know HOW gasoline came to be, specifically how it was pushed into cars? Oil in general was a niche market, until whale blubber became a lot harder to come by and the prices skyrocketted. Kerosine was the switch over product, developed from crude oil. Then, along comes edison (bastard :) ) and invents the electric lightbulb. Now, kerosine barely has a market, but this neat little "byproduct" called gasoline is kicking around. Around the same time, cars using internal combustion engines are coming to be. Oh look... shove the gasoline into them, make it cheap, HORAY!

It happens all the time. Supply is plentiful, stuff is cheap... Something happens, it gets expensive, something comes and takes its place. This isn't a conspiracy, its how society and technology has worked for ever.

Maybe it's time to look at the "Volt" GXP....

Maybe it's time to look at the "Volt" GXP....

THAT would be cool!:driving:

The GXP will be possibly the most anticipated new car introduction this year. It will pound the Camaro, and Challenger. Chevrolet expects 70% of the Camaro's to be 6 cylinder. Similar expectations with the Challenger. I personally do not find any of these cars appealing as a 6 cylinder. If I was buying a car for mileage, it would be a Toyota, or Honda, or a purpose built vehicle for mileage, not an "image" of something faster.

I agree totally.

I agree totally.

I think the top dog Camaro will have the same 404 hp engine as the GXP. So it will probably be just as fast. Remember ,the Camaro is going to have to contend with the Challenger SRT8, and I don't think GM is going to let it get beat.

I think the top dog Camaro will have the same 404 hp engine as the GXP. So it will probably be just as fast. Remember ,the Camaro is going to have to contend with the Challenger SRT8, and I don't think GM is going to let it get beat.

The LS3 Camaro should still be a hair faster than the GXP. Even with the same HP rating, gear ratios, & transmission choice, the Camaro will have a couple hundred pounds less weight to carry.

Alright kids a class on the history of earth and it's climate. This planet has heated up and cooled more than fifteen times since earth was born, ever heard of the ICE AGE?, well earth has had many and they were followed by a great warming period. There was also far more leathal gases in the atmosphere millions of years ago than today. We're going slowly into another warm up as we just came out of a recent Ice Age. Mother earth needs to be left alone to clean her air up! we mess with this process and we will throw everything out of balance and bring on catastrophy by our own doing, heck we're already headed down a dark road thanks to bush and such.

I think MB paid 30 million in fines in Jan cause they didn't meet the CAFE stds. Bmw pays big fines too. They just consider it part of doing sales in the USA.

Exactly, Domestic auto manufacturers have not paid any fines ever. The germans, and other luxury brands pay the government for not meeting the regulations almost every year.

Exactly, Domestic auto manufacturers have not paid any fines ever. The germans, and other luxury brands pay the government for not meeting the regulations almost every year.

Can you say PR? What do you think the liberals/environmentalists would say if a US car manufacturer failed to meet CAFE standards and had to pay a fine? That manufacturer would NEVER hear the end of it!:nonono:

The LS3 Camaro should still be a hair faster than the GXP. Even with the same HP rating, gear ratios, & transmission choice, the Camaro will have a couple hundred pounds less weight to carry.

A Magnacharger would make up the difference....:)