Why the new Camaro will fail

[sciguy_0504]

Watching Ford bathe in the glory of its resurgent, retro-style Mustang has surely been agonizing for General Motors -- as well as deja vu all over again.

Back in 1964, when the first Mustang appeared, GM also had to stand there empty handed, with nothing to offer customers but fumbling excuses -- and promises that something was in the works. Three years later, in 1967, the first Camaro finally appeared. It was a good-looking car and did well. But the Mustang had a critical three-year head start. Camaro was caught playing catch-up. It had some good years -- especially in the mid-late 1970s and through the 1980s, when Tuned Port Injection IROC-Zs were as common as Ocean Pacific shorts and boom boxes as street performers -- but faltered badly in the 1990s after a not-so-hot restyle.

Sales drooped to unsustainable levels within a few years and GM eventually cancelled the Camaro (and its sheetmetal sister, the Pontiac Firebird) after the 2002 model year.

Now GM is frantically rushing an all-new Camaro to market, perhaps as soon as 2007. The news has been accompanied by great fanfare and hagiographical commentary in the motor press -- the same way news that Pontiac would be bringing back the GTO ginned up much tub-thumping and happy scribbling back in 2003. (Much of this rah-rahing issued from the pens and laptops of over-40 guys who could remember the good old days when obstreperous V-8 muscle cars prowled the streets -- and pined for their youthful days-gone-by returning.)

But the revived GTO died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era GTO ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

The new Camaro will probably die on the vine for the same reasons -- and a couple of new ones, too.

And again, it's not all that hard to understand why. Or to see the iceberg dead ahead.

Unlike the Mustang -- which has always managed to appeal to a broad base of buyers ranging from young women to old men and everyone in between -- the Camaro is and always has been a strutting muscle machine. A car for drive-throughs, Friday night cruising, and teenage boys.

That works fine when it's 1969 -- and young, single guys can still afford to buy (and insure) such a car. It doesn't work so well in today's hamstrung, hyper-regulated and cost-inflated world. Part of what killed the latter-day GTO was its $30k price point. The young (under 30) guys who might want such a car couldn't afford it -- and the older guys who could had grown up. They wanted something less goofy. So did their wives. The same problem will surely beset the coming Camaro -- unless GM, by some miracle of Enron-esque accounting, figures out a way to sell the thing for less than $25,000.

And that still leaves the insurance issue. (Will GM offer to cover the nut?) And the reality that the market slice for cars of this type has become narrower than Paris Hilton's waistline. Ford has already vacuumed up a goodly chunk of the prospective buyers. Import sport compacts will prove stiff competition for the remainder. How many new Camaros must GM sell to make the project economically viable? And how hard will that be given the late start, limited buyer pool -- and the very real danger of $3 per gallon (or more) fuel? A 15 mpg V-8 muscle car in a world of $70 fill-ups is apt to be about as popular as Hummers and Navigators and Excursions -- sheetmetal Brontosauri that face extinction (or at least, massive discounting just to get them off dealers' lots).

These are daunting challenges.

But the thing that will drive a stake through the new Camaro's hood, deep into its small-block heart, is the polarizing, hyper-macho cod piece styling. If the production car ends up looking like the show car that's been in every buff magazine and all over the news, it will be the belly flop heard 'round the world.

The enduring genius of Ford's Mustang is that it transcends testosterone -- and the muscle car era. Fitted with a hi-po engine and stripes, it's a car that guys absolutely love. But it doesn't alienate women -- and women are half the market, don't forget (and most guys have a woman in their lives who they'd prefer not to annoy with their choice of car). The previous generation (1994-2002) Camaro was an "in your face" kind of car -- and so is this new one. You either love it -- or you hate it. And the question is, can GM afford such a confrontational machine with inherently limited appeal -- one that's already hobbled by being late to the game, fighting for a relatively small subset of prospective buyers and which will likely arrive just in time for the next ugly uptick in gas prices?

The smart money (or mine, at least) says don't bet the farm on it.

It's 2007 -- not 1967.

Like a botox'd, aerobicized, fish-netted Cher crooning on the mothballed battleship Iowa, you can sing longingly about turning back time all you like. Actually doing it, of course, is a tougher thing to engineer.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9973

[AAS]

So... the Camaro will fail because the GTO did, because it's assumed that it will get poor gas mileage, because of its styling with respect to the more bland mustang, because it's assumed that women hate it, because it's assumed that it will be too expensive...

I agree!

[CaddyXLR-V]

Wait, the GTO was too boring, but the Camaro is too in your face? I'm a 21 year old who doesn't love the mustang, I think it is ugly. But I like the Camaro, and I'm not even a Camaro fan. Dodge builds their whole lineup on love it or hate it styling, I don't see that as a problem. It's better then everyone liking it, but no one actually buying it. And maybe when the Camaro is out in a few years, some of those people who bought mustangs might want to trade it in for something with a little more style.

Edited June 20, 2006 by CaddyXLR-V

[ocnblu]

I wonder what kind of horrible accident this guy was involved in to lose his balls. He must work for Car&Eunuch magazine.

[Newbiewar]

hrmmm didnt even read the article... but if hes accusing the camaro of being bland styling... he must be looking at the 3rd or 4th gen...

the GTO didnt fail... the GTO did wonders for production levels in austrailia... its a 33k $ fully loaded vehicle... how many SS camaros were sold in 2002, i bet it was similar to the sales figures of the GTO...

and people are assuming hwy mileage in the 30's for the v8 camaro...

with over 400 hp...

the camaro has the most intensive styling i've ever seen on a car intended for production, the curves are very futuristic with a hint of the past, its the best car for the job i think...

[balthazar]

What the article fails to acknowledge in extrapolating 30-yr old market performance forward to today is, Ford dropped the ball on the 'stang after '70 and handed the market to the Camaro/Firebird. Opponents of retro-styling & Ford haters would probably agree- who's to say Ford won't drop the ball again?

BTW- Camaro sold 220,000 units in '67 (Firebird sold another 82K) but the Mustang was only down 90K from '66 to '67. Guess there was still room in the segment, eh? Where's the evidence that proves there no more room beyond the current Mustang's volume?

[Mr.Krinkle]

this guy was obviously pulling the pud while he wrote this.

he hides behind a big vocabulary, obtained most likely from the thesaurus sitting next to his computer...poor cliches and "un"funny metaphors...with a dash of pop culture and sex reference just to sound hip.

im just not in a fantastic mood and feel like ripping this piece by piece but will just say, by the time it reaches the market and is a success hell have to pull a foot out from the ol pie hole...which im guessing shouldnt be a big deal.

i wouldnt worry about lame-o's like this who just like to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[Northstar]

What a load of bull$h!.

But the revived GTO died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era GTO ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

Umm, hello? Obviously EVERYONE knew from the get-go that the GTO was going to die quickly. It was supposed to be a 3 year run anyways.

And the GTO actually sold pretty well for its market. How many Mustang Cobras do you see? How about Camaro SS and Firebird WS6s? Not many. It sold better than all three of those, but because it didn't have a volume model somehow it sold like $h!.

Unlike the Mustang -- which has always managed to appeal to a broad base of buyers ranging from young women to old men and everyone in between...

The young (under 30) guys who might want such a car couldn't afford it -- and the older guys who could had grown up.

First he says that anyone (he even says OLD MEN) buy Mustangs, then he says that OLDER GUYS don't want this type of car. Rather contradictory, no?

The enduring genius of Ford's Mustang is that it transcends testosterone -- and the muscle car era. Fitted with a hi-po engine and stripes, it's a car that guys absolutely love. But it doesn't alienate women -- and women are half the market, don't forget (and most guys have a woman in their lives who they'd prefer not to annoy with their choice of car). The previous generation (1994-2002) Camaro was an "in your face" kind of car -- and so is this new one.

Ok, first of all, the Camaro transcends more testosterone and also looks like it's from the muscle car era, and it has more power and anyone can put some damn stripes on a car, so what's the problem? It seems to me that the Camaro has taken the Mustang's "genius" and made it better.

And the second part is complete retardedness. He just said the Mustang transcends testosterone, yet the Camaro is too aggressive for women? Something isn't clicking, but wouldn't both imply that they're agressive?

And WTF is his point with the very last part? Who gives a $h! if the last Camaro was in your face and the new one is too. Isn't that what a Camaro is supposed to be? If being in your face is so bad, why don't all agressive cars flop? Being in your face has little to do with a car flopping. The reason the Camaro died was a lack of investment. It got a facelift from 94-2002. There were what, 3 Camrys in that time period?

This author needs his head adjusted.

[Variance]

I think this guy is trying to write Jeremy Clarkson-style...

Anyway, I'll just pick a random paragraph to comment on:

And that still leaves the insurance issue. (Will GM offer to cover the nut?) And the reality that the market slice for cars of this type has become narrower than Paris Hilton's waistline. Ford has already vacuumed up a goodly chunk of the prospective buyers. Import sport compacts will prove stiff competition for the remainder. How many new Camaros must GM sell to make the project economically viable? And how hard will that be given the late start, limited buyer pool -- and the very real danger of $3 per gallon (or more) fuel? A 15 mpg V-8 muscle car in a world of $70 fill-ups is apt to be about as popular as Hummers and Navigators and Excursions -- sheetmetal Brontosauri that face extinction (or at least, massive discounting just to get them off dealers' lots).

Insurance? That can vary from person to person. I don't see it being anymore of an issue than it would be with the Mustang.

Ford already taking buyers in the market? There are people that won't touch Fords or that don't like the Mustang's styling, you know. And some of those current Mustang owners can always jump ship.

Gas? First off, why are you saying "15 MPG V8" when we don't know what mileage the Camaro's V8(s) will get? I don't see it being that low, anyway. Plus, I'd like to think buyers of the Camaros, Mustangs and the like don't give a damn about fuel consumption. But for those who do, there's always the V6 Camaro. :AH-HA_wink:

[KillFort]

Mr.Krinkle, nice commentary. lol.

[hyperv6]

As long as they have a affordable practical V6 Model that will be the volume leader of the line the reast will take care of itself.

GM never had a problem selling Z28 4th Gens but could not give away the V6 models it dearly needed to keep the volume of cars to keep the line profitable.

The new car has many things the Camaro has lack since the late 60's A more upright appearance, a trunk, a back seat that is more than a jump seat, easy to get in and out of and many other things that helpped sell the Stang to women and people turned off by the low slung hard to see out of 4th gen.

If they improve an affordable V6 that guy would want and just bring women into the mix at near 50% like the stang the car will sell well. If the update the car more often it will retain sales and not drop off like the others did with they long in the tooth runs.

As for insurance the V6 and a 5 star rating will go a long way to retain cost for insuraning the car.

This car will not save GM but it will help supply funds needed to help bring it back better vs just another FWD Monte coupe.

[Chicagoland]

The author brushes over the late 70's when the F body did well, and even at that it was 7 yers old! It appealed to a broad range of buyers from the base Camaros with a 305 V8 to the high end Trans Am's with 400's.

What hurt was the gas crunch of 1979-81 and the 1970 era designs aging. The 82's were hot, but then they got too stereotypcial by later 80's.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Chicagoland

[Guest YellowJacket894]

This guy is ignorant to the facts, not to mention his writing is bland, thin, transparant, and just flat out cheesy. His metaphors are tasteless and boring.

The new Camaro will sell. That's a fact. Will it sell like a Craptastic-Camry? Listen, if you're expecting a sales phoenomeon like that for the Camaro, your head is buried way far up your ass. It seems whenever I read an article that writes home about how a car like the Camaro will not sell, they expect the car to sell one unit per driveway in North America.

Someone tell these Friedman-Bandwagon-Assholes to quit throwing stones from their glass houses.

The Camaro will probably have sales equal to that of the Mustang; maybe more or less, but I won't go out on a limb here by predicting the future and branding the car a flop. The styling is masculine, as was the original first-generation car, and timeless while being semi-retro. It's a good blend. (And I guess if the new Camaro's styling scares the wuss who wrote the article in the starting post, he must be $h!ting himself silly over the classic Camaros and suffering heartattacks over the classic Firebirds). Just because the car has been styled with a set of huevos the size of watermelons in mind, doesn't mean female buyers will refuse to buy the car -- just look at the scoccer moms who peddle around in Hummer H3s.

The reason the Goat didn't sell so hot was because there wasn't a cheaper model available to pull the price below the thirty-something-thousand mark. You couldn't delete certain equipment or opt for lower equipment, either, to cut the cost down. If GM made the car available in different trims going from blue-collar-cheap to whoa!-damn-expensive, the Goat could have lived maybe one more year from the three inital years available.

And, of course, the Goat will be back after a short hiatus. I think the author forgot that.

The Camaro will, of course, offer trim levels from blue-collar-cheap to whoa!-damn-expensive. It has to. The Camaro isn't a low volume car, nor a halo car, and it has to cater to everyone who wants to buy it and be flexible with their budgets. GM knows that. GM executives aren't backwoods Michigan rednecks with 15 teeth or less.

I'm going to sit back and watch the car sell way better than this Friedman-Bandwagon-Asshole expects it to.

[balthazar]

But the revived GTO died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era GTO ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

But the ferrari enzo died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era ferrari ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

Look; I'm a hip auto journalist!

[FAPTurbo]

I wonder what this guy would've said or thought about the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum...

Chances are, North America may have proved him wrong on that one...

[DetroitNut90]

If Ford can sell the Mustang for under $25,000, I can't see GM not being able to do the same thing. IIRC, the Mustang GT starts around $25,000, so GM had better be able to give us a V6 Camaro for well under that amount. And I don't understand why he's fussing over insurance-that differs from area to area, company to company, situation to situation, person to person. I can think of cars that would cost more to insure (Ferrari, Bugatti Veyron, Bentley, etc) than a Camaro.

I honestly don't see where this guy is coming from. What did the Camaro ever do to him? Personally insult him?

[AAS]

But the ferrari enzo died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era ferrari ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go.

Look; I'm a hip auto journalist!

Excellent work!

[tmp]

First of all, it's 2006 and not 1967. So maybe the writer could drop his antiquated, stereotypical rant aboout what women will and won't buy.

As for the insurance issue, I am sure that GM is smart enough to know that just like the last time, they will sell a lot of insurance-friendly sixes on the back of those V-8's, and that the six must be a nice package. I'm at an age where I can afford to insure the V-8, but if they can give me 8/10ths of the useful performance in the six, I'll buy it and save the grand a year.

I would be very happy with this car as a convertible (no retractible, too complex) with a six. Edgier than a Sebring, less chunky than the Mustang (which to me looks bloated: Kirstie Alley before Jenny Craig) and more useable than a Solstice or a Miata. Decent mileage, decent insurance costs, and a back seat to toss luggage or grocery bags into. The V-8 is for the serious boys. If that makes me a secretary, so be it.

[Mr.Krinkle]

Do you think everyone who went out and bought a Solstice would have bought a Miata instead had the Solstice not come out?

the same thing with the gto. of all the goat sales how many people were considering something else from GM? id bet not many. it was always always considered a very small market from the git go. 12-18,000.

and thats what they sold. hell, they only brought over 18k.

it was never about volume, more so just something for car nuts.

so many dont seem to get that simple little fact. even the more supposed reputbale mags and media in general ovewrlook this. i always saw it as a car brought here for people who were specifically looking for a car like that. and basicall thats what it was and thats what it is and thats what it did, end of story.

12-18k. it was brought here for people who wanted something special, no more no less.

and only now i hear things like--its a car that will be missed once its gone, or--if you havent driven one you dont know what you missed.

[hyperv6]

I think the large dealer mark ups also did not help the GTO when it arrived. Then factor in the release soon after of the Mustang.

The GTO did what it was supposed to do.

[Camino LS6]

The author simply knows nothing, he doesn't have the facts straight.

He is wrong on GTO.

He is wrong on Camaro.

His article does a disservice to the reading public.

He needs to go back and do his homework.

[ShadowDog]

The author simply knows nothing, he doesn't have the facts straight.

He is wrong on GTO.

He is wrong on Camaro.

His article does a disservice to the reading public.

He needs to go back and do his homework.

...or one could simply consider it an 'opinion' and disregard it.

[Sixty8panther]

I wonder what kind of horrible accident this guy was involved in to lose his balls.  He must work for Car&Eunuch magazine.

Yup... this guy makes me feel sorry for him. I wonder how

much he over-payed when he bought his tan Camry LE.

[Camino LS6]

...or one could simply consider it an 'opinion' and disregard it.

No, because he proceeds from a false premise. If he had the facts and still felt that the Camaro would fail, then it would be just a matter of opinion. The point is that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[regfootball]

so funny. he does make a lot of good valid points.

the whole thing is all the pent up sperm all the enraged lads have over camaros is enough to sell a few of these things for a few years. and then it will nosedive again unless GM keeps its fresh.

he's right, women and sophsiticates are turned off by it. that will keep it in the redneck / guido car status. The Mustang is more palatable for the masses which helps temper its image and keep it endearing and mainstream.

the camaro must bear the sins that come with it. I think it can long enough to sell in decent numbers. It will still sell less than the Mustang over time. It will still get ridiculed by much of society. But it can make many testosterone filled guys happy in the meantime.

Honestly. No woman fresh out of college with bucks to spend and working in a corporate setting will buy one. More Jettas for them. And plenty of guys buying the imports and sedans as well.

[deftonesfan867]

I say if all those "I car what people think becuase I have no real back bone and I want everyone too like me" people don't want the Camaro then the hell with them. Car posers make me sick anyways. Look...it might take some time after it, but im going to buy my black z-28 and go down the street scaring all the mustang driving yuppies back into they're homes.

[enzl]

I think he's somewhat humerously expressing what GM management had concerns about and most of the general public think about a future Camaro anyway:

A new Camaro will (again) be a response to the Mustang's success. While all of us enthusiasts root for its return, I think the 'redneck/NASCAR/mullet' image of the previous few generations may dampen sales figures....a continuing gas crisis or economic downturn may result in its actual failure, from an economic perspective.

GM might be better served investing in a 300,000/year kick-ass Malibu or crossover...I think many here have been blinded by their passion for GM and the Camaro specifically....I'm wondering how many of us here would or could buy a new Camaro when it comes out....

[Shinlyle]

Well...this article f***ing sucks.

"The Camaro will fail because the GTO did" is the dumbest bit of logic I'v eheard in many a year.

I suppose that the writer of said article didn't stop to think abou the die-hard Chevy fans that wouldn't piss on a Ford to put out a fire, or the nearly 40 years worth of fans the Camaro has accumulated in its own right.

Moron.

If the Camaro fails, it'll be because Gm doesn't support it. Alot of people will gladly pay 30,000 dollars for a bad-ass Bow-Tie machine just to kick dirt in the face of an OVERRATED Mustang. People will look on the Chevy lot, see a 'Vette for 75-80,000 bucks, and then see a Camaro for 25-40, 000 bucks, and they will make their decision accordingly.

Camaro will fail....stupidity....utter stupidity.

[enzl]

Well...this article f***ing sucks.

"The Camaro will fail because the GTO did" is the dumbest bit of logic I'v eheard in many a year.

I suppose that the writer of said article didn't stop to think abou the die-hard Chevy fans that wouldn't piss on a Ford to put out a fire, or the nearly 40 years worth of fans the Camaro has accumulated in its own right.

Moron.

If the Camaro fails, it'll be because Gm doesn't support it. Alot of people will gladly pay 30,000 dollars for a bad-ass Bow-Tie machine just to kick dirt in the face of an OVERRATED Mustang. People will look on the Chevy lot, see a 'Vette for 75-80,000 bucks, and then see a Camaro for 25-40, 000 bucks, and they will make their decision accordingly.

Camaro will fail....stupidity....utter stupidity.

1st- GTO's 'failure' was that it was too expensive...and based on its performance figures, it should have been an easy sellout.....

2nd-Vette bases at $44k- a $40k Camaro will fail. A $25k Camaro V8 will be a huge success

3rd-Just one man's opinion, so, who cares? I think we get blinded here by passion....again, I'd love to survey exactly what % of this GM site's users WILL buy a Camaro....I think 10% would honestly respond 'Yes', and only some of those actually will.

[Eric77TA]

First of all, it's 2006 and not 1967.  So maybe the writer could drop his antiquated, stereotypical rant aboout what women will and won't buy.

And an incorrect stereotypical rant as well. From the demographics I remember there were years where 4th gen sales ran nearly 40 percent female for base Camaro coupe and 30 percent female for Z28. No, it's not the 56 percent female buyership that V6 Mustangs have, but they can keep that distinction, IMO. This guy makes it sound like no woman ever bought a Camaro. I see women driving them all the time!

And as far as GTO, it doesn't meet 2007 MY airbag standards. That and the end of Monaro production are the main reasons why it is going away. it was a rebadge of a car with already amortized tooling and helped the plant run at full capacity. Like many others have said, it did what it was supposed to do. However, I do think if it had come out in 2004 with the hood scoops and 2005 rear end and dealers had sold them at sticker, it could have met the 18,000 number.

[Sixty8panther]

Actaully I have stacks of proof (including VHS

commercials of the 1st gen cars) that prove

the 1967 Camaro was one of the first cars to

be marketed directly to women.

[regfootball]

Actaully I have stacks of proof (including VHS

commercials of the 1st gen cars) that prove

the 1967 Camaro was one of the first cars to

be marketed directly to women.

camaro porn?

[Chicagoland]

Camaros were shown on old TV show "Bewitched", with both Samanta or Darrin driving. My parents got a Mustang then as a 2nd car. So, the Pony cars were not originally 'muscle machines for young guys only'.

If GM can market the new Camaro as well as they did from 1967-82, then it will sell.

BTW: Even though it's not revered now, the Mustang II sold well against F bodies, and led to the huge aftermarket Fox based ones.

[Camino LS6]

Umm, I can and might buy a new Camaro.

I can and do promise that I will buy at least one new zeta.

Oh, and the f-bodys have nothing to do with NASCAR.

[Sixty8panther]

No, not porn.

Anyone ever hear of the Camaro Movie? I bought a copy on ebay

a few years ago. It's a hokey marketing flick about an hour in

length that talks about the youth oriented F-body and how it is the

most advanced and unique product from GM ever.

This is partially true since the 1st gen. F-body was the first vehicle

in history to use computers to aid to its engineering, design &

even to determine specification of it's semi-unibody construction

as well as some suspension design.

The video includes a few TV commercials for the 1967 Camaro and

IIRC 4 out of the seven are specifically GEARED towards women.

The Camaro will be a huge success for some of the same reasons

why the 300C & Charger have done so well... traditional American

nameplate from the golden era reworked with modern technology

but using the "if it's not broke don;t fix it" approach.

RWD, killer looks, V8 availability & a pedigree that would make a

Porsche 911 envious = GREAT SELLER!

[enzl]

Umm, I can and might buy a new Camaro.

I can and do promise that I will buy at least one new zeta.

Oh, and the f-bodys have nothing to do with NASCAR.

I was refering to 'image'..(never understood how the Fusion became a racecar...)but the 'racecar' in Ford's lineup is the Stang & the Camaro was Chevy's, as a midmarket aspirational product...The midmarket has been squeeezed so badly that GM has been hesitant to reinvest.

[Flybrian]

1st- GTO's 'failure' was that it was too expensive...and based on its performance figures, it should have been an easy sellout.....

In terms of MSRP or actual transaction price, because $30-32k for a car like the GTO does not seem very unreasonable.

[capriceman]

The Camaro Wont bring in Mass Profits but it will sell 79,000k+ easily.

The Stang is a pussy chick car anyway......

Plus I can get cheaper Insurance on a C6 Corvette Z06 cheaper than a 02 camaro SS IS SOMTHING WRONG THERE??????

[Sixty8panther]

Insurance rates really were sickening for the 4th gen. F-body.

Still are probably... not sure why they're so much more than

the Mustang... I know fatality rates were pretty bad because

of all the morons who drove their SSes & WS6es inot trees &

guardrails at 155 mph.

------------

~ Silvester AKA Chapman

The greatest automobile ever conceived by man: two shifters, FWD & small

enough to be driven into the back of a matching red Plymouth TrailDuster.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Satty]

Because mullets cause blind spots which cause accidents?

Edited June 24, 2006 by Satty

[Sixty8panther]

Because mullets cause blind spots which cause accidents?

I have never had a Mullet + 1st gen Camaro = no B-pillar which = great visibility!

[enzl]

In terms of MSRP or actual transaction price, because $30-32k for a car like the GTO does not seem very unreasonable.

At $25-30k, it would have sold out...following transaction prices for the defunct T/A...and that's where your market lies.

Keep in mind that the first motorheads looking to buy were confronted with ADM's in the thousands, bringing the payments to 3 series territory...by the time sanity returned, there were fewer initial sales than expected.

A year-old at $22k is even more attractive. I'm not attacking the GTO- superb in many ways- I'm disturbed by the poor effort to market & price it correctly.

I'm looking forward to the Zetas, but I think GM is again playing catch-up. The LY's will be in 2nd gen. format and DCX is threatening to use the LY tech in Mercs. I'm fairly certain it'll be an improved product at that time.

[cavalier36]

the reasons why the GTO didnt do well are boring styling, too high of a price and when it first came out the dealers added thier little B.$hit " market adjustment" sticker to the already high window sticker..

[Camino LS6]

At $25-30k, it would have sold out...following transaction prices for the defunct T/A...and that's where your market lies.

Keep in mind that the first motorheads looking to buy were confronted with ADM's in the thousands, bringing the payments to 3 series territory...by the time sanity returned, there were fewer initial sales than expected.

A year-old at $22k is even more attractive. I'm not attacking the GTO- superb in many ways- I'm disturbed by the poor effort to market & price it correctly.

I'm looking forward to the Zetas, but I think GM is again playing catch-up. The LY's will be in 2nd gen. format and DCX is threatening to use the LY tech in Mercs. I'm fairly certain it'll be an improved product at that time.

First of all, many actual GTO transactions were in the range you indicate in your post (including mine).

Second, the GTO was not in the same market as the T/A.

Third, the GTO was worth every penny of the sticker price - it is that good.

Fourth, the assumption that the car was a failure is simply false.

[enzl]

First of all, many actual GTO transactions were in the range you indicate in your post (including mine).

Second, the GTO was not in the same market as the T/A.

Third, the GTO was worth every penny of the sticker price - it is that good.

Fourth, the assumption that the car was a failure is simply false.

Ist-I agree....It's just the first few suckers paid $10k over and everyone else waitied 6 months to buy theirs at 25-30K

2nd- T/A pricing...I didn't state they were in the same market, but I'll take that point on as well...although I'm not sure how you can differentiate between a powerful RWD 2+2 and, lo and behold, a powerful, RWD 2+2...I mean, what other cars were in Pontiac's (or Buick's or GMC's) showrooms that was the substitute/replacement for the T/A...oh, yes, um....NONE.

3rd-Not questioning its VALUE (look at my posting again, I call it a worthwhile vehicle)...I questioned the way it was marketed and priced...I would have at least offered a decontented vehicle and rushed the appearance package as well

4th- It was a failure as a HALO vehicle. You're correct that they never expectedto import more than 18k/yr., however, it produced little showroom traffic and little buzz (I should know, we have a Pontiac-Buick-GMC dealer next door...it was a morgue)...Look at the Solstice (a limited -20k/yr. build vehicle that is packing showrooms and creating waiting lists...GM was offering $4-6k dealer spiffs on the GTO after 10 months on the market...that how you don't do it.

GTO sold out because of its instrinsic goodness, but not without major missteps along the way. I made a point of saying that above....

[Flybrian]

I would also argue the GTO had a similar market placement as the Trans Am, but not the entire Firebird line. Imagine taking the high-output power of the late Trans Am and distilling it into a vehicle with features and interior materials worth its asking price. You would end up with something similar to the GTO.

[Camino LS6]

I would also argue the GTO had a similar market placement as the Trans Am, but not the entire Firebird line. Imagine taking the high-output power of the late Trans Am and distilling it into a vehicle with features and interior materials worth its asking price. You would end up with something similar to the GTO.

I understand the temptation to see the two cars in a similar light, but as an owner of both I have to tell you that they are dramatically different. So different, in fact, that it is hard to believe that they are products of the same corporation. The GTO has far more in common with a 3 series BMW in its quality and driving manners than it does with a Firebird. Even the performance of the LS1s in each car are dissimilar.

[evok]

The GTO has far more in common with a 3 series BMW in its quality and driving manners than it does with a Firebird.

Well you are comparing a 25 year old F Body design to a 15 year old Opel design.

I would say the GTO is more comparable to a Cadillac Catera with a modern version of the LSx motor.

[Sixty8panther]

Well you are comparing a 25 year old F Body design to a 15 year old Opel design.

That's simplifying things quite a bit.

According to that logic the Camry is 15+ years old under the skin

and the Ranger & Crown Vic. are 25 years old, actually those are

much more fair comparisons than the Opel/F-body one.

[-Camaro-]

I only agree about the price tag... 30k is TOO MUCH!!