NOW, that’s what I want to see, like the old days (well, almost). This watching nearly identical cars going round and round is like watching paint dry for me. BOOORRRRING. (was more a drag racing fan than NASCAR anyway).

If GM needs to keep a toe in the game, spend the budget on cars and programs that are people can more easily recognize, such as Corvette Racing.

The joys of driving a high hp/tq RWD monster. And you wonder why automakers use AWD and/or super-active-nanny-control on their “super” cars … repeat business is hard to get from the dead, no matter how rich they are.

As for F1 – there is plenty of knowledge and technology to be gleaned from there. It’s not a total coincidence that Honda’s and Toyota’s next super cars have V10’s in them – development began on them with F1 was running 3.0 liter V10s. There’s also still some discussion ongoing, but the FIA (which over sees both F1 and the WRC) are pushing to have some sort of hybrid energy return systems utilized in F1 to help make the sport more relevant. While I can’t say for sure where that will lead, or if in fact it will be relevant to road going cars, it certainly will be interesting to see what the teams/manufactures come up with.

NASCAR is a waste. I almost anticipate it going to single manufacturer route soon with the Detroit 3 hurting so badly. There really isn’t anything relevant in it and hasn’t been for a number of years other than a huge advertising event.

Oh, yes. I think some involvement in racing is a good idea just to keep the company’s name out in the public, hopefully in a good way. As far as the Corvette racing, how much exposure does this provide compared to the amount of money spent? And, how well does this exposure translate into sales? I know Nascar provides a lot of exposure, but I am uncertain of the cost relative to that exposure and how well it translates into sales.

I dunno. I mean, that mantra worked well for Subaru and to a lesser extent, Mitsubishi. They can point to one car and say the development of that car through racing paved the way to their revival. Audi is another, banking off of the legacy of their Group B superhero, and is doing it again with the R10 TDI they won LeMans with a few years back. BMW and Mercedes has no shame in drawing from decades of racing history. When you effectively market your racing success, it can translate into showroom success.

Monte Carlos. Fusions. Chargers. Camrys.*
Reason for existing: High volume passenger cars.
Racing connection?
Most consumers, not all, but most know Jeff Gordon and the rest of the good ol boys don’t drive real Monte Carlos. ….just race cars with decals for lights.

Advertising exposure? Some, but not nearly as much as the primary sponsors (Dupont, Home Depot, AAA etc etc) pay for (and that’s assuming your guy is running in the Top 10).

“Win on Sunday/sell on Monday”? There is no one at the 2.8 anymore naive enough, not even the most cloistered EVP, to think that still holds true.

Technology transfer? …maybe by accident …if a young engineer somehow lucks into a racing rotation and then goes back to minivans.

*Camry: Toyota has a longterm strategy to “Americanize” their image..build a truck plant in the heart of Texas, get into NASCAR, etc. Their goals are a bit different than the 2.8.

The sulphur dioxide smell is from unburnt fuel, yes. An over-rich condition can cause this, but so can using too high of an octane. To be noticeable the octane would have to be much higher, true.

No one is disputing that higher octane can be better, when matched with proper timing and compression. Race gas, correct timing, and 14:1 compression can be a beautiful thing.

However we are discussing an octane rating higher than what is necessary.

I guess the guy that came up with this phrase never had a website. So it goes unpublished.

Fact is that motorsports used to have a geat influence on sales of many items. Tide, Coke, Home Depot, Viagra, GMAC, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels.

Spark advance and Octane mistruths:

Not true, on many levels. Modern vehicles DO retard the necessary advance to quelch detonation. It’s tabled and dependant on other factors.

Well, Many US manufacturers do it this way. Could be that the software algorithms and controls hardware are where the Asian companies are saving money. They’e always been late to the technology table in terms of controls engineering. Unless you pay the freight to do with a higher end product; aka, Acura, Lexus, Inifiniti, etc.

European manufacturers are mainly BOSCH driven and they’re pretty damn sophisticated in thsi area. It’s a maximization of performance.

Asians are more worried about making a buck…

No Bucky, Too high an octane won’t give the “rotten egg” sulphur dioxide smell. That is an over rich condition.

Facts here again so sit down.
With more BTU’s in the higher octane fuel, you need less to get the same affect so you actually do input less hydrocarbon into the mixture to get the given energy out of the chosen fuel. The greater spark advance will “optimize” this choice. But higher octane generally won’t yield more mileage, unless your engine is calibrated to utilize this level of fuel. Higher compression, valve timing, software will optimize the combination.
It could, but “your mileage will vary.”

I think bill h. is correct.

Using a higher octane likely causes a negligible reduction in power and mileage. More importantly, as this source says “…using a fuel with a higher octane rating than the vehicle requires sends unburned fuel into the emissions system and catalytic converter. This puts unecessary stress on the emissions system. For some vehicles, a rotten egg smell coming from the tailpipe signals use of too-high octane gas.”

The Ring-time cockfight between the GT-R and Corvette makes sense. Tuning performance cars–even stretching the definition to cars like the HHR SS–on the track makes sense. Paying millions of dollars to line the pockets of the France family for the privilege of putting Monte Carlo stickers on a bodyshell does not

Look, here’s why. Does WRC or F1 do Toyota any good at all? No, and it’s because they’re a full-line manufacturer whose bestselling products have zilch to do with their racing efforts. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday is dead outside of, say, Ferrari.

Now, that said, you could probably keep the Corvette program and the Kappa and Delta “grassroots” programs open. The C6R does “rub off” on the Corvette a little and the grassroots programs do a lot for the street cred of cars like the Cobalt SS and Solstice GXP. If they had to, though, they could kill the C6R programs as Vette buyers aren’t going to be swayed in numbers by non-participation.

NASCAR, by the same token, is pretty much a worthless money pit as the demographic intersection (NASCAR followers versus GM products) probably doesn’t result in many high-profit sales. Seriously: how many people would buy a Camry or Fusion because they saw cars with stick-on headlights in a race the previous day?

Racing successes probably make GM management and it’s die-hard fans fell good, but those people are going to buy GM anyways. And unlike Toyota and it’s F1 program, GM does not have the resources to flush down the toilet of diminishing returns.