GM Talks Camaro

freak wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:43:35 -0400, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> 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 would also add that the last generation of Camaros were well off the
> mark and left a sour taste in the buying public's mouth.
> Then there was the 3rd generation, F-body base model they released with a
> 4 cylinder 2.5l engine.
> WTF were they thinking?
>
> IMHO there is no faster way to have potential buyers walking out of the
> showroom then to hand them the options list and have them start having to
> add basic things, like an engine, to make the car *drivable*
> It ****es people off.
>
> Where I live, rice rockets and the crazy kids that drive them are
> everywhere.
> So are Mustangs, mostly V6's, quite a few drop tops and some GTs as well.
> But the imports really rule the roost here.
>
> The Camaro is going to be a difficult sell if the base model isn't
> reasonable.

I just posted elsewhere in this thread about how GM will need to rebuild
the customer base for the Camaro. Going too retro may hurt them. They
need to outdo the Mustang base car at the same price point to give the
car a chance to survive. If they can pull some of the ricer crowd in
they will do well. If they don't there may not be enough customers in
the pony car segment to support a Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.

DC may have better luck with the Challenger. They have done a brilliant
job of marketing the hemi engine to tie it with the past. Even though
there is little in common between the hemi of old and the new one.
Putting those old ratty looking Dodge Darts (among other Chrysler
vehicles) in the new commercials is a very smart move. GM and Ford's
marketing skill is extremely poor, IMO. They could learn a few thing
from the DC marketing department.

"HerkyJerky" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>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.
>

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

2007 Chevy HHR
http://welovechevys.com/2007models/2007hhr.jpg

2004 Chevy SSR
http://welovechevys.com/2004models/04ssr.jpg

2001 Chevy Avalanche
http://truckworld.tenmagazines.com/S...valanche-3.gif

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...
www.hummer.com/

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> HerkyJerky wrote:
>> 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.

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...

My Names Nobody wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> HerkyJerky wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> My Names Nobody wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> HerkyJerky wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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:
>
>> 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.
>

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

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:57:19 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>> freak wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:43:35 -0400, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 would also add that the last generation of Camaros were well off the
>>> mark and left a sour taste in the buying public's mouth.
>>> Then there was the 3rd generation, F-body base model they released with a
>>> 4 cylinder 2.5l engine.
>>> WTF were they thinking?
>>>
>>> IMHO there is no faster way to have potential buyers walking out of the
>>> showroom then to hand them the options list and have them start having to
>>> add basic things, like an engine, to make the car *drivable*
>>> It ****es people off.
>>>
>>> Where I live, rice rockets and the crazy kids that drive them are
>>> everywhere.
>>> So are Mustangs, mostly V6's, quite a few drop tops and some GTs as well.
>>> But the imports really rule the roost here.
>>>
>>> The Camaro is going to be a difficult sell if the base model isn't
>>> reasonable.
>> I just posted elsewhere in this thread about how GM will need to rebuild
>> the customer base for the Camaro. Going too retro may hurt them. They
>> need to outdo the Mustang base car at the same price point to give the
>> car a chance to survive. If they can pull some of the ricer crowd in
>> they will do well. If they don't there may not be enough customers in
>> the pony car segment to support a Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.
>>
> The big problem is that you cannot be everything to everyone with
> every vehicle. Yeah the Mustang pulls it off fairly well, but how
> much market space is there for a Mustang from every manufacturer?
> Even before the Asian invasion and only AMC & Europeans to mildly
> contend with the Big 3 weren't able to meet the Market & Bean counters
> "Dream Numbers". Now the margins are even tighter and the consumers
> expectations even higher.

IMO, the Camaro is going to have to break away from a strict pony car
formula mainly for the reason you stated..... the market isn't big
enough for three pony/muscle cars. The Mustang can stay where it is
because of the following it has. There are millions upon millions of
previous Mustang owners and if just 150k of them buy a new car every
year Ford is set. GM and DC don't have this ready made base of buyers
and will need to move their cars outside the box to attract enough
buyers year after year. The Camaro will have been gone for 7 years by
the time the new one is in the showrooms. That is a long time to be
gone and expected buyers to trot down to the showroom like it is 2003
and no time has passed since the 4th gen was killed. Plus, I don't
think GM or DC can out "Mustang" the Mustang.

> The Corvette has lasted five decades as a Marquee vehicle because it
> is an icon for Chevrolet, while not in the same class, the Mustang is
> the same thing for Ford. Not an awful lot of room with in each brand
> for multiple marquee vehicles even within classes. Even Ford lost its
> way with the Mustang for a while.

IMO, the Corvette has lasted because it has had no real domestic
competition since the 1950s. Had there been a decent alternative in the
late 1970s and early 1980s there might no be a Corvette around today.

> A Camaro that appeals to the Ricer crowd will not appeal to me & mine,
> those who had an opportunity to have the first-gen originals in the
> second-hand market in the early 70's. The styling will be important
> as well as the creature comforts & handling. Us in our 50's can
> afford a sticker in the 30's, but only if they don't miss the retro
> mark by to much. Hell adding in vent windows would get me into the
> showroom .

If they sell the base V-8 model at over $30k then I think it will go the
way of the GTO. There are just too many good cars in the $35k-$50k
range to settle for an overpriced Camaro. Plus there are many people
who can't get past the stigma that all Camaro drivers must sport a
mullet.

>> DC may have better luck with the Challenger. They have done a brilliant
>> job of marketing the hemi engine to tie it with the past. Even though
>> there is little in common between the hemi of old and the new one.
>> Putting those old ratty looking Dodge Darts (among other Chrysler
>> vehicles) in the new commercials is a very smart move. GM and Ford's
>> marketing skill is extremely poor, IMO. They could learn a few thing
>>from the DC marketing department.
> The Challenger is hitting all the right buttons from the looks of it.
> It has all of the right styling cues both external & internal, they
> got the engine right and the handling should be dead-on. The only
> thing left to be determined is the sticker price.
>
> The whole wild card in all of this is going to be both the price &
> availability of fuel which could send the whole house of cards
> crashing in just like it did in the 70's. The way everything is going
> I'm getting a 4 decade old case of deja vu.

I don't see a crash yet. If gas hits $3.50-$4.00 per gallon for any
length of time then things will really get ugly, IMHO. We will all be
saying f***k the caribou and the pretty coastal views of California and
Florida. We will take the cheaper gas and burn the tree huggers at the
stake.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> Nah, the GTO missed the because of absolutely no styling cues what so
> ever. There was no history cues at all in that car. It was just to
> bland for its price. To ill conceived. It had the powerplants but
> nothing else to give any clues to its history. It looked nothing like
> a GTO at any stage of its history.

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.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
>
>> Nah, the GTO missed the because of absolutely no styling cues what so
>> ever. There was no history cues at all in that car. It was just to
>> bland for its price. To ill conceived. It had the powerplants but
>> nothing else to give any clues to its history. It looked nothing like
>> a GTO at any stage of its history.
>
> 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.

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:02:23 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>> ZombyWoof wrote:
>>><snip>
>> IMO, the Camaro is going to have to break away from a strict pony car
>> formula mainly for the reason you stated..... the market isn't big
>> enough for three pony/muscle cars. The Mustang can stay where it is
>> because of the following it has. There are millions upon millions of
>> previous Mustang owners and if just 150k of them buy a new car every
>> year Ford is set. GM and DC don't have this ready made base of buyers
>> and will need to move their cars outside the box to attract enough
>> buyers year after year. The Camaro will have been gone for 7 years by
>> the time the new one is in the showrooms. That is a long time to be
>> gone and expected buyers to trot down to the showroom like it is 2003
>> and no time has passed since the 4th gen was killed. Plus, I don't
>> think GM or DC can out "Mustang" the Mustang.
>>
> Well it ain't going to cut it as a Ricer wannabe a either. Detroit
> ain't going to pull that off real well either. The original First-Gen
> Camaro's were able to keep the Mustangs on their feet quite
> effectively first time around. The Mullet crowd to didn't adopt the
> Camaro's until 3rd & 4th Gen's when they become the preferred
> transportation for the trailer trash crowd. I think that is one of
> the reason GM killed it.

I'm not saying it should be a ricer. It needs to appeal to a broader
base than those that remember the first generation Camaro. There just
isn't enough of those buyers to keep the car alive year after year. The
Mustang has a huge following that is rewarding Ford partially for the
retro look but mostly for delivering a car with a great
value/performance ratio. GM needs the same value quotient but it needs
to be packaged to appeal to buyers outside the Camaro's inner circle of
fans.

>>> The Corvette has lasted five decades as a Marquee vehicle because it
>>> is an icon for Chevrolet, while not in the same class, the Mustang is
>>> the same thing for Ford. Not an awful lot of room with in each brand
>>> for multiple marquee vehicles even within classes. Even Ford lost its
>>> way with the Mustang for a while.
>> IMO, the Corvette has lasted because it has had no real domestic
>> competition since the 1950s. Had there been a decent alternative in the
>> late 1970s and early 1980s there might no be a Corvette around today.
>>
> For whatever reason nobody ever even tried based the First gen when
> Ford gave it a whack with the First Gen T-Bird prior to taking it in a
> completely different direction.

My guess is there isn't enough buyers in that segment to support
domestic branded multiple two seat high performance sports cars. Plus,
Chevy has done wonders with the Vette since the early 1990s which makes
it hard for Ford or DC to really compete with them. Just like Chevy
can't out "Mustang" the Mustang, Ford can't out "Corvette" the Corvette.

>>> A Camaro that appeals to the Ricer crowd will not appeal to me & mine,
>>> those who had an opportunity to have the first-gen originals in the
>>> second-hand market in the early 70's. The styling will be important
>>> as well as the creature comforts & handling. Us in our 50's can
>>> afford a sticker in the 30's, but only if they don't miss the retro
>>> mark by to much. Hell adding in vent windows would get me into the
>>> showroom .
>> If they sell the base V-8 model at over $30k then I think it will go the
>> way of the GTO. There are just too many good cars in the $35k-$50k
>> range to settle for an overpriced Camaro. Plus there are many people
>> who can't get past the stigma that all Camaro drivers must sport a
>> mullet.
>>
> Nah, the GTO missed the because of absolutely no styling cues what so
> ever. There was no history cues at all in that car. It was just to
> bland for its price. To ill conceived. It had the powerplants but
> nothing else to give any clues to its history. It looked nothing like
> a GTO at any stage of its history.

Styling was a problem for the GTO but so was its price. The $35k-$40k
bracket is full of very good cars. GM was dumb to think that an aging,
overweight and under styled sedan could survive in it. It certainly
didn't help that they were burdened by converting a fully engineered
right hand drive car to left hand drive. The expense of this alone must
have been fairly substantial for such a limited production run of GTOs.

>>> The whole wild card in all of this is going to be both the price &
>>> availability of fuel which could send the whole house of cards
>>> crashing in just like it did in the 70's. The way everything is going
>>> I'm getting a 4 decade old case of deja vu.
>> I don't see a crash yet. If gas hits $3.50-$4.00 per gallon for any
>> length of time then things will really get ugly, IMHO. We will all be
>> saying f***k the caribou and the pretty coastal views of California and
>> Florida. We will take the cheaper gas and burn the tree huggers at the
>> stake.
>>
> Nor does anybody else and they didn't see it in the 70's either, but
> came it did. There were plenty of things that were on the drawing
> boards that never made it into the showrooms because of what happened
> with fuel & government regulations. It just could happen again.
> Insurance could be another wildcard if they get to frisky with the
> horsepower.

It may be coming for all I know. I don't think the insurance companies
will kill the current horsepower wars for a couple of reasons. First,
they are charging huge premiums already and it is just another reason
for them to charge more. Second, the age of the people buying these
high performance cars are not like it was in the late 1960s and early
1970s. Today you need to be well into your thirties to afford the car
and the insurance. This wasn't the case in the late 1960s and early
1970s. In that time you could buy a muscle car for cheap and afford to
insure it. Also, with the older drivers come more responsibility. I
don't see many forty or fifty year olds hot rodding the new $50k Vettes
and Cobras. They have too much to loose if they do something stupid.

> I still think the Retro styling 40-decades after might be the key.
> You had the Mustang re-do at the 40 year point. Looks like the Camaro
> is going to be at the 40 year point. The Challenger way hit a tad
> early so it isn't late to the party. No Plymouth around to bring back
> the Cuda, but boy would that be a great one to bring back as well.
> Look how much those bad boys are going for in the resto market.

I predict the whole retro craze will be short lived. IMO, there aren't
enough of us nostalgia nuts to go around. My wife could care less about
retro. She wants an "E" class Mercedes or something modern. I think
there are way more people like her than you and I. Plus, the Japanese
has a strangle hold on the youth market in this country. There are
generations growing up that have no grounding or experience with muscle
cars. To prove this, how long would the Mustang last if you eliminated
all buyers over forty years of age? I bet it would be gone in two
years. The future for of retro and muscle cars looks grim, IMHO. Us
baby boomers are keeping it alive, for now, but we are not going to live
forever. If Ford and GM doesn't attract young buyers in 20 years the
Japanese will own the car market in this country.

> As long as Chevy doesn't go nuts and try to do a Nova we might have a
> whole revival on our hands. Sometimes everything old is new again.
> Look at fashion. Hell maybe well even get a second gen Firebird T/A,
> screaming chicken and all (My Favorite) to join the retro craze.

I would be very interested in a Firebird variant of 5th gen F-body. I
have always like the Pontiac versions over Chevy's.