aurora97

Yes, the last two races were spectacular. Perhaps what F1 needs is some new blood to keep things more dynamic. If not the Corvette, then someone else. But GM made the C8 a rear engine car for what? Ford not only went to Le Mans with the GT but they also put the two year hold on any re-selling of the car to maintain the value. Granted the C8 will outsell the Ford GT but will it outclass it in any other racing series?

Ford brought the GT back to Le Mans. Chevrolet would need to do something different than that to compete in Europe. Ask most people in the US who owns a Mercedes to see if they ever heard of Lewis Hamilton. So the question has to be asked - was the C8 built just to compete in the US against foreign marques? Or is it going to be sold as a world class super car? If it's a world class super car, then where will it go to prove its chops?

If GM *REALLY* wants to go after the European market with the C8, then they should also pony up for a Formula 1 team and bring the US back into the series.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy a 20 year old Catera, drop an LS V8/T-56 in there, and give it GTO suspension and brakes?

Not bad for a project that looks like it was based off the 2002 Cadillac Cien concept car. It's amazing to look back in that time and see how much GM has changed so much and stayed the same since.

CAFE standards is one thing. Developing a new generation of cars that are NOT on a legacy platform that dates back to the Dailmer days is another.

FCA needs to make the effort to keep the Viper/Charger/Challenger/etc. product line relevant with new and fresh offerings. The basic platform dates back to Mercedes days and the Demon while clever was just a one trick pony. Please, Serge, find a way to share the Viper with the rest of the Italian models. They can still retain their European beauty while we can keep our American muscle.

7 speed manual please. Otherwise, at that price point it is better to kiss the cousin and buy a Charger Hellcat.

It would make better sense to have Opel return mainly because of the parts and maintenance that would go along with it. There is already a commonality with most GM cars in order to make the transition into North America be smoother and it would be easier to market, as well. It would be a very hard sell to re-introduce Peugeot and convince me that they have overcome the disaster that was the 1983 505 turbo sedan. I still remember being stranded on Highway 1 as a kid in that thing. No one even knew what it was so how could they fix it?

2018 Porsche Mission E Cross Turismo = 1998 Oldsmobile Aurora?

Couldn't have been applied for the Alpha Platform call overall? Not only would a 7-speed manual Z/28 with the new LT5 been sweet, they could have made the CTS-V with the LT4 engine come to the dealerships having a 7-speed manual. I guess there were no business numbers to justify the effort and cost. Argh.

There may be three reasons why this is happening; 1. This is needed to improve the fuel economy for justifying Camaro sales with big V8 engines. 2. This is being done to maximize the economy of manufacturing a 7-speed manual transmission for multiple models. 3. This gives the Alpha platform the architecture it needs to integrate the 7-speed manual into other cars like the Cadillac ATS and Cadillac CTS. Maybe, just maybe, the CTS-V will get the 7-speed manual with the LT-4 engine that is already in the Z06?

I look forward to pics from the updated interior...... as well as the return of the single cab, short bed S-10.

As the old adage goes, this is where the rubber meets the road. The ball is in Telsa's court to prove they can meet the demand based upon their hype. It's about production, Elon. Get these rigs running. Otherwise, your your snake-oil charm will fade fast.

If a few commercial fleets get the green light on this and the budget is provided for maintenance and life cycle, then there could be justification for wide-spread use with many industries. Yes, there could be a demand. But will they be able to make enough of them in time?

Hey Serg! Let Ferrari be Ferrari. Porsche can waste its time with sedans and SUVs. Even Don Draper knew what luxury and passion was supposed to be when it came to Jaguar;

It's not just the years, it's the mileage.

Bob Lutz has always wanted to be King of his own car company. Maybe it is time for him to come out of retirement. I fondly remember Lee Iacocca's last ad campaign for the LH sedans. "In the car business, you either lead, follow, or get out of the way." Serg -get out of the way. Let Maximum Bob lead this time around.

Maybe it's time for Serg to focus on the sale of his PRODUCTS and not the company as a whole.

Maybe VW is using an electric retro bus to clean up their image from the diesel emissions scandal. Hate to be a cynic but someone needs to call them out for this.

What will sell more? The Z4 or Supra?

From today's editorial board in the Wall Street Journal; Trump’s China Trade Sally Beijing steals U.S. business IP, but tariffs could backfire. Donald Trump’s trade policy has been more measured than his campaign rhetoric, but on Monday he ramped up the pressure on China by ordering an investigation into its rampant theft of intellectual property from U.S. firms. The danger is that the stick the President is brandishing, Section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, could harm efforts to open markets to American goods. Mr. Trump is right that China is breaking the promises it made to enter the World Trade Organization in 2001. Instead of embracing freer trade, the country has turned in the direction of import-substitution under current leader Xi Jinping and predecessor Hu Jintao. The “Made in China 2025” program that Mr. Xi started in 2015 aims to boost the Chinese-made content of manufactured products to 70% within eight years. It also calls for China to become the leader in 10 industries through state investment and closing off its market to foreign companies. The Obama Administration released a damning report in January on China’s mercantilist strategy to dominate the global semiconductor industry—to pick one example of the squeeze Beijing puts on U.S. companies. China’s developed-country trading partners are united in believing that these practices are unacceptable, and Beijing has retreated somewhat in response to criticism. But history suggests it will continue to pressure auto makers and technology firms to hand over cutting-edge technology to the government and joint-venture partners. The problem is that Section 302(b) is a blunderbuss weapon that could backfire because it allows the U.S. executive to play judge, jury and executioner, and take any action the President deems appropriate. In the 1980s the Reagan Administration used tariffs to counter Japan’s nontariff barriers and a rising bilateral trade deficit. Instead of opening Japan’s markets, the U.S. and Tokyo settled for managed trade in the likes of semiconductors, which divvied up market share and kept prices higher than they should have been. That outcome was due in part to the lack of a binding mechanism to force Japan to follow international trade law. The conflicts of that era led to the 1995 creation of the WTO along with an appellate division that decides when countries have broken their treaty obligations. So what would happen now if the Trump Administration raised duties on Chinese goods? First, Beijing could pose as the victim and bring the U.S. to the WTO. If the dispute escalated, companies on both sides would lose opportunities, consumers would pay more and the economies would slow down. The conflict would also erode respect for the rules-based WTO system, which could work to China’s advantage. Beijing could use its position as the leading trade partner of East Asian nations to cement its pre-eminence in the region and marginalize the U.S. America’s trading relationships with allies would suffer. The U.S. thus has a strong interest in maintaining the rules-based trading system it helped to build. The flip side of China’s trade surplus is the need to invest in foreign assets, and Beijing wants to diversify from U.S. Treasurys. The Trump Administration is rightly emphasizing reciprocal treatment, and regulations give it the power to hold up Chinese investment, especially in fields using advanced technology. That suggests a more WTO-compliant way to retaliate if Beijing continues to restrict the ability of American companies to invest in China. If the U.S. and other developed countries work together on this issue, they can insist that Beijing follows the trade law it signed up to.

The inherent problem with the Chinese acquiring all of this infrastructure is that they do not trust their own people with the knowledge needed to create it in the first place. The printing press was a success in Europe because it allowed the introduction of Islamic texts and once-thought-lost Greek writings to many, many citizens. Thus all of that new-found knowledge brought forth the Renaissance. Eventually, the Industrial Revolution that brought forth the coal, steel, and automobile was caused from that cultural momentum. China deliberately crushes any information and knowledge from outside their country. The Great Firewall of China censors Google, Apple, Facebook, et al. and prohibits any chance of individuality among its people. Yet another industrial engine (pun intended) will be had to continue their juggernaut all of at our expense. We can't do anything about it because they already own the majority of the $20 Trillion in debt that we have accumulated. Where is our cultural momentum now?

The industrial revolution started (and is ending?) in the West. Apart from gunpowder and noodles, what, as they would ask in "Life of Brian", have the Chinese done for us?