New Camaro Is Now Officially A Go

Willy wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:28:13 -0700, NoOption5L wrote:

> > As everyone expected the new Camaro has been approved for production.
> > The car will feature two V8s and a V6. Looks like IRS will also be
> > part of the equation. 100,000 units per year is the sales target.
> > Look for it in early 2008.

> GM will screw it up, trust me.
> These days I believe GM could screw up a cast iron cannon ball.

Not if the Corvette boys have a hand in it.

> Here is my predication:

> They will make the V6 a wheezer motor.

I doubt it'll be any worse than the Mustang's V6.

> The big V8 will be grossly overpriced.

All they have to do is get it under the $40k-$41k the GT500 is going
for which shouldn't be hard considering the Vette's V8 is already
bought and paid for and doesn't require a blower/intercooler.

> The entry models will be so stripped of options they will turn off people
> from the get go (ie: You mean power windows;door locks is an option?)

I see no evidence of this in GM's current lineup or the previous
generation Camaro. If anything, IMO, GM tends to go overboard with
options.

> They will make the inside like an old fart car OR they will try to go
> retro and pick the absolute worst Camaro's to copy (1982 F bodies in my
> book).

Their inspiration was the '67-'69 models. And from the photos it looks
like they'll use that interior design as a base. Let's just hope they
don't use the old-style gauges Ford used on the Mustang.

> They will price the car way too high.
> If a Cobalt SS is about $25k, what is a V8 Camaro going to cost?

I'll guess and say the base V8 will sticker at about $26K and the big
dog V8 will sticker about $33K-$35K.

> ....and so forth

> GM needs to flush their design department right down the sewer.
> The Cobalt is one of the better models, but those Monte' SS cars?
> Yikes!!
> Everything else sucks.
> Impala yuk
> Malibu double yuk

Agreed.

But the Vette, Caddys and Hummers are all lookers.

> Drive through a GM dealers lot and it looks like a trip to a rental car
> place.

The same can be said of Toyota and Ford

> One of the biggest reasons the new Mustang has been a sales success is
> that even the entry model is a well equipped, nicely done car.

It would be better with the new 3.5 liter V6.

> The options are more or less reasonably priced and packaged although I
> feel the interior upgrade package should be part of the Pony Package,
> anyway.

> GM is going to hose the whole thing.
> You watch and see.

GM does have a history of not finishing the job -- i.e. SSR, Solstice
(still needs works) and previous-generation F-bodies.

But, hey, let's be happy they're building Camaros again!

Patrick

In article .com>, wrote:

>> GM will screw it up, trust me.
>> These days I believe GM could screw up a cast iron cannon ball.

> Not if the Corvette boys have a hand in it.

I don't think the camaro is going to have the clout to stop bean counters
and marketeers and general stupidity the way corvette does.

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > If the 'seccetaries' dont buy it, it will fail AGAIN for the same reason!
>
> I completely agree. GM should spend 95% of its design effort toward
> making the base model competitive with the base Mustang and some of the
> sporty foreign models. It's easy to make a car fast but not so easy to
> make it desirable to the masses.

I have seen that 100,000/yr number also, and there is no way they can
hit it, year after year after year. To sell that many cars requires a
plain vanilla, lowest common denominator approach. The Crapmaro
concept misses that target for at least two reasons -- the styling is
ridiculously cartoonish, and it sits too low for comfortable use as a
daily driver by big fat Americans (male AND female). At the very least
Chevy should buy a Mustang and take a tape measure to it and copy, to
the 1/4 inch, every important dimension.

180 Out

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > If the 'seccetaries' dont buy it, it will fail AGAIN for the same
>> > reason!
>>
>> I completely agree. GM should spend 95% of its design effort toward
>> making the base model competitive with the base Mustang and some of the
>> sporty foreign models. It's easy to make a car fast but not so easy to
>> make it desirable to the masses.
>
> I have seen that 100,000/yr number also, and there is no way they can
> hit it, year after year after year. To sell that many cars requires a
> plain vanilla, lowest common denominator approach. The Crapmaro
> concept misses that target for at least two reasons -- the styling is
> ridiculously cartoonish, and it sits too low for comfortable use as a
> daily driver by big fat Americans (male AND female). At the very least
> Chevy should buy a Mustang and take a tape measure to it and copy, to
> the 1/4 inch, every important dimension.
>
> 180 Out


I don't see them selling more then 100k cars past the first year even if
that is possible. With the revised 2009 Mustang looking more like the
aggressive '69-70 Stang, a new Dodge coming out, and the new GTO on same
platform as the Camaro that's allot of competition.

GM couldn't sell 100k Camaro/ Firebirds combined let alone one flavor. If
they would only market these two cars again as a one two punch they might
succeed 100k altogether. For instance the cars were to similar and competing
with each other. The Camaro should be raw power, moderate looks, straight
axle, less costly. Trans Am raw power, better handling, IRS, exciting looks,
more costly. Hmm might be nice if Ford did the same with the Mustang and
Cougar? Also why not make the GTO almost on par with the Vette rather then
another Pony car? It already shares the same engine and might increase at
least another 10-15k cars on that platform. And for crying out loud make the
Vette a Mid engine car like they've discussed since 1975! Then for sure they
wont be competing within. I hope someone from GM and Ford is listening cause
I am not done talking lol.

Next rising gas prices will certainly have adverse effects on this market
segment. Could you imagine what higher EPA standards (example CAFE) in the
nearer future might do? I sadly have a funny feeling that with rising gas
prices we will see a repeat on what happened to big block cars in the 70's
and Ford might have it right with sticking with a 4.6L and forget the cubic
engine war as GM/ Chrysler Scramble for a smaller more economical engine.
All Ford will need to do is put their cars on a diet and weigh about 15-20%
less.

Nick

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>
>> The A/C can stay (it's hot down here) and the PS/PB.
>> Power windows/locks/seats? Delete! Auto lamps? Delete!
>
> You willing to pay MORE to have them left out? That's the
> economics of it. Especially on those.. ONE door assembly.
> The seat's a tossup as to cost of option build.
>

I have no problem understanding the economics of them.
It doesn't mean that I have any desire for the options.

Paying more for a stripper is logically real backwards.
But depending on the actual costs, I'd think about one!

Thanks,
Scott

wrote:
>
>> They will price the car way too high. If a Cobalt SS
>> is about $25k, what is a V8 Camaro going to cost?
>
> I'll guess and say the base V8 will sticker at about
> $26K and the big dog V8 will sticker about $33K-$35K.
>

You can spend almost $40K on a TrailBlazer SS, but that
doesn't mean you can't get a Tahoe for $34K. Chevy will
need to price it in the ballpark of the Mustang GT, so I
would agree that $26-27K for the base V8 is a good range.

I'm curious what V8s they would use. I assume the higher
model would use a "detuned" (only on paper) LS2. I think
they should use an AFM 5.3 (or similar) for the base V8,
behind an optional 6-speed manual, and really get awesome
mileage numbers while making 320-hp or more.

Thanks,
Scott

"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
>With the revised 2009 Mustang looking more like the aggressive '69-70
>Stang,

What? Where'd that come from? The only thing I've heard is that there will
be an update. Where did that specific info come from?
--
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

In article >, Blue Mesteno wrote:
>
> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
>>With the revised 2009 Mustang looking more like the aggressive '69-70
>>Stang,
>
> What? Where'd that come from? The only thing I've heard is that there will
> be an update. Where did that specific info come from?

Had the same question... did some googling all I turned up was a rather
stylized sketch that could have come from anywhere. Kind looks like it
has some influence from the ~1967-8 show cars and concepts for '69...

http://www.themustangnews.com/carnews/st-06_2009mst.htm

"Brent P" > wrote
> Had the same question... did some googling all I turned up was a rather
> stylized sketch that could have come from anywhere. Kind looks like it
> has some influence from the ~1967-8 show cars and concepts for '69...
>
> http://www.themustangnews.com/carnews/st-06_2009mst.htm
>

Yech!! I still like the original concept introduced 4 years ago better.
--
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

Well,

Just check the stock price of GM and Toyota on hte NYSE. that says it
all. in my mind, it is ALL about quality. GM is building crappy cars.
check out a Consumer Reports magazine. say what you want about the
magazine, but GM cannot construct a safe reliable vehicle at this
stage. ever wonder why a 5 yera old camry sells for more than a 2 year
old Alero? because a toyota with 75000 miles will have fewer problems
than a GM product when it is new. seeing that GM is bleeding losses, i
doubt that they can produce a high quality Camaro that can compete with
well-built sports cars that sell well, and decent gas milage (Miata,
the Scion coupe and RSX acura).

i have owned 3 stangs (93 LX, 96 Gt and a 01 GT conv.), and a Maro (98
z28 m6). The only the 93 and that 01 ran well. the 96 blew out the
upper intake, and the camaro was a total mess of factory defects. GM
refused to repair the Camaro's defects under the warranty until i
threatened to go to court. MY 93 was a stripped 5L lx and had few
options - so nothing much broke on it. mind you with only 3000 miles on
it, the innerds of the rear ax were bent and had to be totally redone.
this was a 2500$ job under warranty. my 01 GT's was a nice car, and
drove well. But keep this in mind, all you had to do was grab the door
handle of the 96 or 01 on the outside or pull the door shut on the
inside and you can feel cheap plastic flexing and creeking. the bottom
line, these were all nice cars, but built in a cheap flimsy way. if a
loyal Miata owner tests a camaro with sad plastic handles like that,
there is now way they will gamble on a GM car with garbage reliability.

If GM makes a camaro, they better build a reliable car that hints that
quality was an objective. i like look and nostalgia of the "old" 69
design (with is a beautiful car), but those old cars were also really
poorly built. bad quality is something that GM should be actively
trying to help those buyers to forget.

Harry in montreal