GM Talks Camaro

Ford has left that as opening for GM. GM would be foolish not to take it. However, by announcing it now, Ford should be able to have it on the Mustang by the time the Camaro shows up.

Brent P wrote: >

Let's not forget the Challenger will come with an IRS, too. The Challenger will also have MDS, the Camaro could possibly come with AFM depending on which base V8 they use. I heard that Ford is working on a DOD motor, too, and they may need to push for a production IRS, too, to keep up with everyone.

No matter how you slice it, car choices in 2009 will rock!

Thanks, Scott

GM and DC should keep one thing in mind when developing these cars - price. Ford knows from experience that it isn't things like IRS, extreme refinement etc. that has kept the Mustang alive. It has been its value. If GM and DC don't keep the entry level price of the V-8 versions of the Camaro and Challenger well below $30k I doubt they will be very long lived. Sounds like they are laying on the fluff too thick and the price will be in the mid $30k range. If this happens and Ford keeps the entry level Mustang GT in the $25k-$26k range they will eat GM and DC's lunch in sales numbers. Pontiac tried to sell a $35k-$40k muscle car with the GTO and now it is on the scrap heap even though is was a decent performer. Once the price hits the mid $30k range, and above, they will be competing with a variety of cars and not just the Mustang.

Michael Johnson, PE wrote: >

I agree, price is going to be important. The Mustang GT starts just shy of $26K, the Charger just shy of $31K and I would guess the Challenger starts just under the Charger's sticker. I would not be surprised if it starts around $28-29K, and that includes a 345-hp MDS V8 and IRS (the tranny is still unknown). You pay a little bit more, but you get a little bit more, so we will see how it all pans out. I don't work in the industry, so I have no idea what tricks they can, or cannot, pull out of their sleeves. I don't see the Camaro with V8 starting at $26K, but it wouldn't surprise me if you can get the base V8 (well over 300-hp) with a

6-speed manual tranny and IRS in the $28-29K range.

Thanks, Scott

Scott Moseman wrote in news:xJbDg.3528$1D.2198 @tornado.texas.rr.com:

All things considered, the price that really matters is the base price of the base car (think marketing here, guys).

In the business section of today's paper, Wagoner said that GM hopes to keep the base Camaro in line with the base Mustang. IOW, $19,999 in today's dollars. We'll see what DC does with the Challenger.

Absolutely!

As a person who is new car shopping for a sports/muscle (if you will) car, when I look at stickers over $30k the first thing that goes through my mind is, "Is this car really worth $30k? Is ANY of this class of car really worth $30k?".

It's kind of like a gigantic mental block.

I'm yet another mid 40's male going back into my childhood and now that I have the money, I'm looking for a nice sports car.

I'm true blue Detroit American made (well alright, American based!) car, but I HAVE looked at a couple of rice rockets and yea, some of them are kinda sharp, but over the long haul? I dunno. I keep my cars FOREVER! Haven't had one not go 200k miles before I sold it.

None of my rice rocket owning friends comes even close. They get 100k maybe 150k and then things fall apart.

Getting back to the Camaro/Mustang debate, one of the things that attracted me to the new stangs is the entry level V6 model.

It's a dammed nice car for the money and has plenty of power right out of the box, unlike the old 3.8l V6s which were terrible. Yea the GT has more power, and it too in it's class is also a hell of a deal.

I looked at the Dodge's, and I will say they are an excellent family car with a LOT of power. A great combo for people who want a muscle car but also have to haul kids around. The interiors are very well laid out and look and feel expensive. With the middle V8, a decent amount of options and the employee price plan, you can come in well below $30k for a nice car.

Problem is, IMHO they are butt ugly! My wife thinks they are *cute* so it's love/hate from what I can tell.

I looked at the GTO and they are NUTS charging that amount of money. Everyone I saw, which was about 5 I think, was pushing $40k. For a car that looks like just about every other car I see.

No way Jose'!

The Pontiac Solstice was a neat car for $24k or so but the motor seemed a bit rough to me and it's also a 2 seater but a real looker! They are also price gouging on it.

The Eclipse is nice, but insurance is REAL HIGH on that car and Mistsubishi seems to be making noise about pulling out of the American market so I don't think it's wise for the long haul. The Mistsu. reliability is also questionable.

If GM offers a V6 with guts, basic options like pw/dl/ke standard and a decent interior and prices it at about $21k it will sell. Put the V8 at about $25k and the big boy v8 at $27k and they might have a winner. Go over $30k and it's going to sink like a rock.

Just my opinion.

Ford hasn't done many things right lately but they have hit the bull's eye with the new Mustang on several levels. First, the car looks very good. Second, they gave the base model a very good performance/value ratio. It has as much power as my '89 LX 5.0L had from the factory. Third, they have kept the car affordable which makes a buyer forgive any little nit picky issues they may have with the car. Fourth, they typically offer four levels of performance with a base, GT, specialty version (aka Mach 1, Bullit and the upcoming Boss) and the Cobra. It costs very little for them to offer these variations and they honestly make a decent improvement in performance for each successive level. It also helps that Ford doesn't have other models that a high performance Mustang would infringe upon and take away sales.

Another thing the Challenger and Camaro have against them that the Mustang has in spades is a huge fan base. IMO, there is a big difference between winning over buyers and retaining them. I agree with you. If the base V-8 models aren't in the $27k-$28k range while offering noticeably better performance than a Mustang it might be a short run for either car.

I agree. Without a strong base model none of these cars will be around long. This is where I see GM coming up short. They put too much emphasis on performance numbers and not enough on utility and comfort. Like I said in another post, Ford hasn't done much right lately but they did as good a job with the new Mustang (base, GT and Cobra models included) as could be done for their sticker prices. IMO, they gave us Mustang fans more than we dared wish for with the new model.

I haven't kept up with the Camaro enthusiasts' reception of the styling of the car. How has it been? I suppose it could change some from the concept, but the concept front end looks almost cartoonish. I just saw the movie Cars, and I'm thinking the Camaro concept would fit right in there with that big grinning look it gives me.

There has been little buzz from what I can tell. Maybe they have been hopeful too many times and don't quite believe GM is serious. I still think there is a good chance GM could pull the plug on this whole operation. If they continue to loose market share they may need the resources elsewhere. The Camaro won't be a big money maker for them and I doubt they will sell 100,000 units, annually, like they plan.

I have noticed over the last 3-4 years that there have been many Camaro fans that have jumped ship. They felt abandoned by GM. There weren't that many to begin with so I think the new Camaro had better not get too retro because that styling will lost on most people. They need to almost totally rebuild the user base for the car, IMO.

Cartoonish and god awful ugly are nothing new for Chevrolet or GM.

2007 Chevy HHR 2004 Chevy SSR 2001 Chevy Avalanche Hummer, this big joke, horrendously ugly body on a Chevy truck frame. None, that's ZERO of the off road advantages of the original H-1 HMMWV, and all of it's ugliness...

Where I live, Northeast, I rarely see Ford commercials on the tube and in the local papers there are not a lot of advertisements for Ford dealers compared to the imports and DC.

We have a lot of Ford dealers around here, but advertising is nowhere to be seen.

DC really went out on a limb with the retro look and while I don't particularly like it, evidently enough people do because I see those cars all over the place.

GM had better do their homework as far as market research is concerned because if they continue on releasing models (cars) like the past 5 years worth they will be gone in the not too distant future.

Perhaps, but I, like the many Mustang Fans of the PRE-1974 (really pre-71, except for the panicle of Ford's engine offerings for decades to come,

429SCJ, Boss 351) Mustangs, believe none of the 1974-2004 Mustangs hit the mark. Ford was still making and selling Mustangs, (Remember that gaud-awful 74-78 design sold like hotcakes) but they really didn't get the styling right from the 69-70 body style until the new 2005's...

I have always been a Mustang enthusiast and owner. I can proudly say that they were and are all pre and post 1974-2004 Mustangs.

IMO, If the bowtie guys get the retro part right, the Camaro fans will come flocking back in droves...

If GM were looking to really hit the retro mark I think they should have targeted the 2nd gen F-body. They sold way more of this generation than the first. When the public thinks of a Trans AM/Camaro most will not envision a '67 model. I think a 2nd gen retro look would go over better with the ricer crowd too. IMO, the current 350Z and a few others take some styling cues from the 2nd gen F-bodies.

Well, admittedly, I'm not a Camaro fan, but by far the 1971-1973 body style is my favorite.

My Names Nobody wrote: >

The first generation are the absolutely best looking ones! I won't deny that a nice second generation is pretty sweet, but for my money, there's nothing better than the '67-'69s.

Thanks, Scott

I don't know that had to. It was probably a mistake bringing in an Austrailian market car and calling it a GTO because of what people expected. However there isn't much in the way of special styling cues to the original GTO either. I think the car holds true to the original GTO concept, the get up and go in the family sedan... thing is, the public expected something more like the judge.

So I agree it failed for the reasons you say, but for a somewhat different reason. I think the car they delivered fit the GTO concept. But it wasn't what the buying public expected to be called a GTO. It would have done much better if it reminded people of the early 70s GTO judge.

GM had no chassis that would allow that type of car on the cheap. They had to go the family sedan route for the GTO. I have to admit that I don't have much confidence in GM's ability to deliver the "right" Camaro. They have a knack for doing things half-assed. My guess is they will put too much effort into winning the numbers game with the Mustang and Challenger and let the rest of the car be mediocre at best.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:32:30 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:

The Suspension on the GTO was just to rough to compete in the 30k+ us car market. To many other cars in its price range had a better overall presentation off all aspect then it did. Without the styling cues there was nothing to drag them off the showroom floors.

Yeah it fit the concept, but on the wrong platform. A platform that was built for a different market with a different type of road infrastructure and hence a different type of suspension. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." -- Alexander Tyler