 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / July 2005OT: And we thought the new Z06 was a Bad a.s.
Wow! http://autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102690 Patrick '93 Cobra That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the new Mustang and see there is a market for an AFFORDABLE performance car? At least Ford is giving the masses a nice affordable Mustang before offering cars like the GT. While it is nice, that car is really the last thing GM should be spending their apparently limited resources on. > Wow! > > http://autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102690 > > Patrick > '93 Cobra > That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into > the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the > new Mustang and see there is a market for an AFFORDABLE performance car? > At least Ford is giving the masses a nice affordable Mustang before > offering cars like the GT. While it is nice, that car is really the > last thing GM should be spending their apparently limited resources on. Good questions, Michael. But, remember, they do have the GTO, and don't be surprised if you see a new Camaro protoype hit the auto show circuit within a year. Seems Mustang's hot sales numbers are powering a Camaro revival. Patrick '93 Cobra '03 Focus ZX3 > > Wow! > > > > http://autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102690 > > > > Patrick > > '93 Cobra >>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into >>the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > circuit within a year. Seems Mustang's hot sales numbers are powering > a Camaro revival. I will believe that they are reviving the Camaro when I see them sitting on the showroom floor. IMO, GM's management has done nothing to impress me in the last 5-10 years aside from the Corvette. The GTO isn't likely to survive for much longer and it was really a poorly executed operation. Think about it, who but GM would take an aging, Australian, right-hand drive chassis, convert it left hand drive and style it like a FWD POS Grand Am and pawn it off as a GTO? The car had decent performance but so do the LS1 F-bodies. Didn't they learn a lesson? For what they blew on the GTO they could have freshened up the old F-body and sold a decent, affordable pony car for a few more years. I really don't have much hope for GM's future if what they have done recently is their best effort. >>>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into >>>the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > really don't have much hope for GM's future if what they have done > recently is their best effort. I dont see what the RH v LH drive has to do with it, or the fact that the design is "aging". The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their needs and tastes are different than ours. The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where GM AGAIN missed the boat. This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the "Brand- identification" algorythm. Witness the new Caddy-Corvette OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >>>>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into >>>>the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I dont see what the RH v LH drive has to do with it, or the fact that the > design is "aging". Converting a right hand drive car to left hand drive is no small feat. Especially for a low production model. IMO, it just an indication of GM's sad state of affairs that they had to go to this extreme to get a RWD V-8 car to the showroom floor. > The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their needs > and tastes are different than ours. I bet their tastes aren't to far off ours. They love muscle cars as do many here. This still doesn't mean GM made a good decision to base the GTO off an aging Australian chassis. > The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where GM > AGAIN missed the boat. Absolutely. They had an opportunity to put out a car that would give the Mustang some true competition. Instead they offered an over weight, over priced car that was doomed to fail from the start. The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just how castrated the Pontiac Division has become. They no long warrant a model they can claim as their own. My guess is that GM is reading them for the chopping block and doesn't want to spend too many resources to keep them afloat. > This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with the > right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the "Brand- > identification" algorythm. Ford has a much better attitude. They are excelling with low volume specialty vehicles and trucks but are failing miserably with the high volume bread and butter cars like the 500/Taurus. I don't think Ford has any horribly engineered cars - many are just too damn bland to get anyone's attention. > Witness the new Caddy-Corvette I personally wouldn't pay an extra $30k-$40k for a Corvette with a convertible hardtop and an upgraded interior. There are too many good Mercedes models to choose from for less money. > OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. It Ford would make the AWD standard on that car, sport up the styling and give it a good solid 250 hp with some decent torque they might have a real winner, as far as sales are concerned. Ford has lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced the Taurus it was a truly bold statement and something fresh and new brought to the market. It paid off big for them. Same thing goes with the Explorer. IMO, they need to get back to this mind set to be competitive. >>>>>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs >>>>>into the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > indication of GM's sad state of affairs that they had to go to this > extreme to get a RWD V-8 car to the showroom floor. All in all, I'm sure it was ultimately less expensive to do that than to come up with an entirely new car, which would've been the only alternative. >> The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their >> needs and tastes are different than ours. > > I bet their tastes aren't to far off ours. They love muscle cars as > do many here. This still doesn't mean GM made a good decision to > base the GTO off an aging Australian chassis. Well, up until this year the Mustang chassis was older than ancient. And the present chassis is still borrowed. >> The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where >> GM AGAIN missed the boat. > > Absolutely. They had an opportunity to put out a car that would > give the Mustang some true competition. Instead they offered an > over weight, over priced car that was doomed to fail from the start. I don't think they ever intended the GTO to compete with the Mustang. I think it was slotted somewhere in between the Mustang and the Corvette. > The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly > affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just > how castrated the Pontiac Division has become. They no long warrant > a model they can claim as their own. My guess is that GM is reading > them for the chopping block and doesn't want to spend too many > resources to keep them afloat. Which may explain why they never developed a "new" GTO. >> This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with >> the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > think Ford has any horribly engineered cars - many are just too damn > bland to get anyone's attention. What "low volume" vehicles are they excelling with? I don't see it. The Mustang is a runaway success, but that's definitely a high-volume unit. Without the Mustang, Ford is just as bad as GM except for the truck line. >> Witness the new Caddy-Corvette > > I personally wouldn't pay an extra $30k-$40k for a Corvette with a > convertible hardtop and an upgraded interior. There are too many > good Mercedes models to choose from for less money. Which Caddy are you guys talking about? The 2-seater? Fageddaboudit. The CTS-V is the Caddy to deal with. It's a 4-door Corvette. And don't start with the "it ain't a sports car if it has 4 doors" crap. ;) >> OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. > > It Ford would make the AWD standard on that car, sport up the > styling and give it a good solid 250 hp with some decent torque they > might have a real winner, as far as sales are concerned. No way. The public wouldn't buy it simply because it's not a Volvo, Audi, or VW. Fercrissakes, it's a _Ford_! > Ford has > lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced > the Taurus it was a truly bold statement and something fresh and new > brought to the market. It paid off big for them. Same thing goes > with the Explorer. IMO, they need to get back to this mind set to be > competitive. They can't afford to. Not now, at least. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to come up with an entirely new car, which would've been the only > alternative. Trouble is that it added to the cost of the GTO when it really should have been priced $5k less than they sold for. Also, I see it as just the latest example of why GM has been in decline for the last 10-15 years. Instead of looking forward and designing a RWD platform that could have spurred many new RWD vehicles across many brand names, they hacked and chopped their way to a half-assed effort on the GTO, IMHO. For the life of me I don't see why they even made the car. It's gone the way of the Camaro (good drive train but lacking in style/execution) except the Camaro took a decade to achieve what the GTO did in two years! >>>The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their >>>needs and tastes are different than ours. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, up until this year the Mustang chassis was older than ancient. > And the present chassis is still borrowed. I have plenty of venom to spew at Ford too. I will give them credit in that they at least made the Mustang look different (inside and out) and improved the chassis over the 25 year life of the Fox bodies. Also, at that critical moment when the Probe was set to replace it Ford listened to us and saved the car from termination. We all owe them a big one for that move. GM pitched their F-body fans right over the side without a bit of remorse. >>>The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where >>>GM AGAIN missed the boat. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think it was slotted somewhere in between the Mustang and the > Corvette. I really can't figure out what they intended with it. At first I thought it was a replacement for the F-bodies but it was too expensive and heavy. Then I thought they might be moving upscale but they have plenty of Caddies to fill that nitch and the foreign competition in the market segment they were competing in is very tough. >> The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly >>affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which may explain why they never developed a "new" GTO. I think Pontiac is headed for the scrap heap in the 3-5 years. It is a real shame too. I always thought of Pontiac as one of the better GM divisions. They have had some great cars over the years. I think Pontiac could design some killer cars if GM would let them run free. >>>This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with >>>the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > unit. Without the Mustang, Ford is just as bad as GM except for the > truck line. The Mustang is selling well this year and maybe next but it will slow down some. I consider the F-trucks, Explorer, Taurus, Focus (or whatever the current econo car is) as Ford's real earners. I also think that GM and Ford are suffering the consequences from focusing so much attention on the SUV/truck segment and letting the Japanese run away with the car market. They're going to have a hell of a time catching up. >>>Witness the new Caddy-Corvette >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't start with the "it ain't a sports car if it has 4 doors" crap. > ;) I never been a Caddy person. I think they are good cars but for the price I'll take a Mercedes or a Beemer. >>>OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No way. The public wouldn't buy it simply because it's not a Volvo, > Audi, or VW. Fercrissakes, it's a _Ford_! That's why they need to raise the stakes. They need to compete with these auto makers because they aren't going away. IMO, there is no reason they can't provide a car just as good for less money. >>Ford has >>lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They can't afford to. Not now, at least. Maybe they can't afford not to do it. ;) >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > train but lacking in style/execution) except the Camaro took a > decade to achieve what the GTO did in two years! I've never driven one or even rode in one, but what's so god-awful about it? The present car is a pretty decent ride from what I've seen and heard. >>>>The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their >>>>needs and tastes are different than ours. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bodies. Also, at that critical moment when the Probe was set to > replace it Ford listened to us and saved the car from termination. I suspect that was more due to fear of lost sales than loyalty to buyers. > We all owe them a big one for that move. GM pitched their F-body > fans right over the side without a bit of remorse. The general public bought more Mustangs, so that "debt" has more than been paid. GM's ditching of the f-body car was finally the right move to make. Their big problem was that they didn't follow up with anything. Instead, they left a gaping hole in their lineup that still exists today. They've been trying to fill it with cars like the G6 and dare I say the "new" Impala SS. But it hasn't worked at all. >>>>The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where >>>>GM AGAIN missed the boat. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > competition in the market segment they were competing in is very > tough. I think the GTO was born out of desparation due to the disappearance of the f-body car. I'll bet GM engineers tried their best to keep costs down but they didn't realize what niche the car would actually fit into until it was ready for production in America. As it were, it ended up a notch above the Mustang in price, power, and weight, but it's certainly underneath the Cadillacs and, of course, the Corvette. This year GM has decided to keep going upwards with it, with the new motor, dual exhausts, etc. They could've kept the same motor and worked at reducing the weight and improving the chassis, but the easy way out was to simply stuff the new motor in and go for it. >>> The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly >>>affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think Pontiac could design some killer cars if GM would let them > run free. I think more than Pontiac will be on the block before too long. Ultimately, GM should simply be Chevy and Cadillac. Everything else should either be absorbed/rebadged or ditched. >>>>This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with >>>>the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > slow down some. I consider the F-trucks, Explorer, Taurus, Focus > (or whatever the current econo car is) as Ford's real earners. The trucks and SUVs, definitely. But I don't see big profits for Ford coming from their car sales. I'll bet Lincoln-Mercury turns a bigger profit per vehicle average than Ford does. > I > also think that GM and Ford are suffering the consequences from > focusing so much attention on the SUV/truck segment and letting the > Japanese run away with the car market. They're going to have a hell > of a time catching up. Except for the Mustang, very true. >>>>Witness the new Caddy-Corvette >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I never been a Caddy person. I think they are good cars but for the > price I'll take a Mercedes or a Beemer. What Beemer can go head to head with the CTS-V for the price? There may very well be one; I'm not that familiar with the current BMW lineup. As for MB, they're Chryslers! ;) >>>>OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > these auto makers because they aren't going away. IMO, there is no > reason they can't provide a car just as good for less money. It's not the stakes, it's the image. Ford's image can't compare with Audi's or Volvo's. VW is a good example of a company that's successfully changed it's image over the years. Ford and GM need to take notice. Look what Chrysler's done, also. Their image is far from what we used to think about them years ago. >>>Ford has >>>lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe they can't afford not to do it. ;) Time will tell. But Ford, DC and GM will be around for quite a while. The country can't afford to do without one of them. >>>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > about it? The present car is a pretty decent ride from what I've seen > and heard. It's not that it was God awful but for a new model it was already long in the tooth. GM should know by now that hp alone will not sell cars. The car just didn't sell. It had a problem in some respect connecting with the buyer. It can't be from lack of advertising because it seemed there was a GTO commercial on every time I turned on the TV. If GM had spent half that much on the F-bodies they might still be around. :) >>>>>The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their >>>>>needs and tastes are different than ours. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I suspect that was more due to fear of lost sales than loyalty to > buyers. I'm not too picky about why they did it - just greatful they did it. :) >>We all owe them a big one for that move. GM pitched their F-body >>fans right over the side without a bit of remorse. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exists today. They've been trying to fill it with cars like the G6 > and dare I say the "new" Impala SS. But it hasn't worked at all. GM should have taken a play from Ford's Mustang playbook. Reskin the car, make some chassis improvements, throw a new dash in it and market the hell out of it. They could have squeezed another 10 years out of it. Heck F-body buyers aren't any more discerning the Mustang buyers. ;) >>>>>The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where >>>>>GM AGAIN missed the boat. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > worked at reducing the weight and improving the chassis, but the easy > way out was to simply stuff the new motor in and go for it. To me, if that is true, then GM has some serious issues to fix with their product development process. Looks to me they would have been better off selling the F-bodies for a few more years. At least they sold better than the GTO. I think what doomed the Camaro was that Ford had finally stepped up with the '03-'04 Cobras and brought them very close to the Corvette's performance levels. To close for the Camaro to follow because it would steal away potential Corvette buyers. Then once the F-bodies lost the hp war there wasn't much left to beyond the car's drive train to attract new buyers. I think the GTO was still born because the real GTO fans (who are the buyers) never bought GM's concept of an import car badged as a Goat. It didn't matter to them that the car could perform. Plus, IMO, the car got bad press from day one and never recuperated from it. >>>>The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly >>>>affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ultimately, GM should simply be Chevy and Cadillac. Everything else > should either be absorbed/rebadged or ditched. I think that will cost GM market share to loose too many divisions. They almost have to keep the GM truck division too. They are just in a horrible position right now. I do think that the long they wait to make a big restructuring move the greater the pain will be. >>>>>This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with >>>>>the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > coming from their car sales. I'll bet Lincoln-Mercury turns a bigger > profit per vehicle average than Ford does. That might be. When we were looking for a new car we opted for a loaded up Sable over a Taurus. Mercury just did a better job with the car than Ford. I think it has to do with Lincoln/Mercury relying on car sells more than truck/SUV sales. They know what their buyers want in a CAR. Ford had better get its act together quick on improving their car line. If gas goes much higher I think SUV sales are going to drop like Paris Hilton's panties when a video camera is turned on. >> I >>also think that GM and Ford are suffering the consequences from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except for the Mustang, very true. I think they are five years from being able to compete head to head with the Japanese car makers. I read somewhere that Toyota is actually worried about Ford and GM's sales figures and profitability. So worried that they are raising the price of their cars to be less competitive. They fear a public backlash against foreign automakers should one of them face bankruptcy. >>>>>Witness the new Caddy-Corvette >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > may very well be one; I'm not that familiar with the current BMW > lineup. As for MB, they're Chryslers! ;) Now let's be correct. The new Chryslers are actually MB's. :) >>>>>OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > take notice. Look what Chrysler's done, also. Their image is far > from what we used to think about them years ago. This is why I think they have have to be bold in future designs. It will change their image. The reason we think of Volvo, VW, Audi, etc. as upscale is because they have very good cars that are bold statements. Ford did have cars like this. The Taurus was seen as a ground breaking car when it came out and now it is the poster child of boring sedans. Chrysler did an image make-over the easy way by leaching off of MB's chassis' and drive trains. Ford and GM have to do it the old fashioned way through market research and good engineering in-house. >>>>Ford has >>>>lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Time will tell. But Ford, DC and GM will be around for quite a while. > The country can't afford to do without one of them. I think they will both come back and be strong as ever. Most people in this country would prefer to by an American branded car if the quality is there. Ford has shown what is possible with the Mustang. I bet they could export as many of them as they sell here. Why they don't do it is beyond me. I think it would help sell their cars overseas. <snip> >>>Trouble is that it added to the cost of the GTO when it really >>>should have been priced $5k less than they sold for. Also, I see [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > time I turned on the TV. If GM had spent half that much on the > F-bodies they might still be around. :) Some great points, Michael. Bottom line though, I think the GTO simply doesn't have too much of a market right now. There are just too many cars out there to choose from, and few people are making a beeline to their local Pontiac dealer because they actually _want_ a GTO. <snip> >>>I have plenty of venom to spew at Ford too. I will give them >>>credit in that they at least made the Mustang look different [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > years out of it. Heck F-body buyers aren't any more discerning the > Mustang buyers. ;) LOL! That may be true, but then we'd _really_ be bashing it in here. ;) <snip> >>>I really can't figure out what they intended with it. At first I >>>thought it was a replacement for the F-bodies but it was too [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > better off selling the F-bodies for a few more years. At least they > sold better than the GTO. I don't know - what are the GTO sales now compared to the Cam-Bird's last year? > I think what doomed the Camaro was that > Ford had finally stepped up with the '03-'04 Cobras and brought them > very close to the Corvette's performance levels. To close for the > Camaro to follow because it would steal away potential Corvette > buyers. Then once the F-bodies lost the hp war there wasn't much > left to beyond the car's drive train to attract new buyers. Wait a minute - when did the f-bodies lose the hp war? And what about the Camaro SS? > I think > the GTO was still born because the real GTO fans (who are the > buyers) never bought GM's concept of an import car badged as a Goat. > It didn't matter to them that the car could perform. Plus, IMO, > the car got bad press from day one and never recuperated from it. Yeah, the spin on the car was pretty bad from the beginning. But giving cars names from the past is a dangerous game. Sometimes it works, other times not. Look at the flak the Charger's been getting just from its name. >>>>>The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly >>>>>affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in a horrible position right now. I do think that the long they > wait to make a big restructuring move the greater the pain will be. Yes, the trucks should definitely stay. But I can't see why there should be a Chevy and an almost-identical GMC. It should all be one line with maybe several option levels. <snip> >> The trucks and SUVs, definitely. But I don't see big profits for >> Ford coming from their car sales. I'll bet Lincoln-Mercury turns a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relying on car sells more than truck/SUV sales. They know what > their buyers want in a CAR. I'm wondering about that now. The last few ads I've seen for LM were for the Mark LT, which is their gussied-up F150. It seems that LM is pushing their SUVs more than the cars now. > Ford had better get its act together quick on improving their car > line. > If gas goes much higher I think SUV sales are going to drop like > Paris > Hilton's panties when a video camera is turned on. LOL! Great analogy. But I wonder about even that. Personally, I'm still going to be driving the Dakota around even though it gets a miserable 14 mpg. I just can't give up the torque to drive a weeniemobile. :) The SUV thing goes beyond mere transportation. It's status and personality. It's the whole "I'm bigger and badder than you are" thing. >>> I >>>also think that GM and Ford are suffering the consequences from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cars to be less competitive. They fear a public backlash against > foreign automakers should one of them face bankruptcy. There ya go - proud to be an American. Especially this weekend. ;) >>>>>>Witness the new Caddy-Corvette >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now let's be correct. The new Chryslers are actually MB's. :) LOL! But is that a better thing? ;) >>>>>>OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > do it the old fashioned way through market research and good > engineering in-house. I think it comes down to vision. Where do the top guys at Ford want to be in five or ten years? What do they want to be known for? What's the first thing you think about when you hear the name 'Ford'? Even though DC "remade" themselves through MB's parts bins, the image you get from hearing the mane "Dodge" or "Chrysler" is pretty clear and concise. IMO Ford and especially GM don't have that identification. >>>>>Ford has >>>>>lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > they don't do it is beyond me. I think it would help sell their > cars overseas. Agreed. But I think the big dollars are here. Anyway, when it comes right down to it, the way these corporations do business has to change if they all want to survive. GM won't be able to do squat until they address their association with UAW and solve their financial/people problems. And Ford isn't far behind in that arena. Business is changing, and these companies need to change to stay in business. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > cars out there to choose from, and few people are making a beeline to > their local Pontiac dealer because they actually _want_ a GTO. The sporty four door sedan niche is loaded with good cars. The GTO was just outclassed. GM relied too much on brute hp to sway buyers who want the whole package. Trouble for GM was they could get it from other auto makers. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > LOL! That may be true, but then we'd _really_ be bashing it in here. > ;) They would have survived it. How many years did we take that same beating and still lived to see the '05 born? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I don't know - what are the GTO sales now compared to the Cam-Bird's > last year? I think the Cambirds sold around 50,000-60,000 combined units. Last I heard the GTO was around 30,000. Don't quote me on these numbers. >>I think what doomed the Camaro was that >>Ford had finally stepped up with the '03-'04 Cobras and brought them [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wait a minute - when did the f-bodies lose the hp war? And what about > the Camaro SS? Well if you want to get technical they didn't loose it when comparing model years (i.e. 2002 models) but the '03 Cobra would have likely come out on top. Especially when $1,200 in mods got you close to 500 rwhp/rwtq. With that engine Ford would have made sure they won. Plus I don't think Chevy would give the Camaro a hp level that would be nipping at the heals of a Corvette. >>I think >>the GTO was still born because the real GTO fans (who are the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > times not. Look at the flak the Charger's been getting just from its > name. The C&D television program pretty much savaged the GTO when it came out. Plus they put it up against the '05 Mustang and worked the numbers to give the Stang the slight win. Plus the F-body mullet heads trashed it because they were pissed at GM because, in their opinion, they ditched a better performing car for an over weight, four door sedan with a $10k higher sticker over a base V-8 Camaro. I kinda have to agree with the mullet heads on that one. :) >>>>>>The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly >>>>>>affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > should be a Chevy and an almost-identical GMC. It should all be one > line with maybe several option levels. I think Chevy sells way too many trucks for GM to screw with them. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for the Mark LT, which is their gussied-up F150. It seems that LM is > pushing their SUVs more than the cars now. The LM management have visions of Escalades dancing in their heads. :) >>Ford had better get its act together quick on improving their car >>line. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > status and personality. It's the whole "I'm bigger and badder than you > are" thing. I knew you would like that reference to Paris Hilton's panties. You and I are probably the only men left that hasn't taken them off. :) I heard someone say today on TV that gas consumption hasn't slowed at all. They predicted it would $3/gallon prices to really slow it down. >>>>I >>>>also think that GM and Ford are suffering the consequences from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There ya go - proud to be an American. Especially this weekend. ;) What's next, Toyota gives away a free Focus with every Camry they sell? :) >>>>>>>Witness the new Caddy-Corvette >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > LOL! But is that a better thing? ;) Can we agree on the term MB-Lite? The slogan can be "Great Performance, Less Payment". >>>>>>>OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hearing the mane "Dodge" or "Chrysler" is pretty clear and concise. IMO > Ford and especially GM don't have that identification. Chrysler is putting bold designs on the showroom floor, IMO. The 300 is a good example of it. They aren't afraid to think outside the norm. When GM thinks outside the norm we get an Aztek. :) Ford is just plain scared to leave the box. >>>>>>Ford has >>>>>>lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > problems. And Ford isn't far behind in that arena. Business is > changing, and these companies need to change to stay in business. I think Ford has the desire to change but they just can't put the right product line together yet. The new Mustang, F150 and small SUV's (even a hybrid SUV) they have are very good vehicles and shows they can get the job done. IMO, GM has much deeper seated problems. They need to flush out 80% of their management staff across all levels and get fresh blood in place. I don't think they have the stomach for that type of change though. so thats why they called them "the terminator"...! =) seriously tho i thought gm cancelled the cambird a year before the 03 cobra came out? didn't they announce disco'ing for the 2002 model year, and the first 03 cobra's hit the streets in june 2002? something like that - (but yes your'e right - the industry insiders knew what was up and that it was in development) chris 04 comp orange cobra vert > I think what doomed the Camaro was that Ford > had finally stepped up with the '03-'04 Cobras and brought them very > close to the Corvette's performance levels. To close for the Camaro to > follow because it would steal away potential Corvette buyers. Then once > the F-bodies lost the hp war there wasn't much left to beyond the car's > drive train to attract new buyers. The Camaro and Terminator never met head to head in the same model year but I think we know what the outcome would have been. To have the Camaro compete with the Terminator meant it would likely decrease Corvette sales. There's no way GM would allow that to happen, IMO of course. Having to compete with the Terminator wasn't the sole reason they discontinued the Camaro but it may have been one of the many reasons. > so thats why they called them "the terminator"...! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>the F-bodies lost the hp war there wasn't much left to beyond the car's >>drive train to attract new buyers. > I will believe that they are reviving the Camaro when I see them sitting > on the showroom floor. They need to do a retro Camaro redesign. The current design is too vanilla Euro to appeal much to Americans.  Signature"This space for rent." >>I will believe that they are reviving the Camaro when I see them sitting >>on the showroom floor. > > They need to do a retro Camaro redesign. The current design is too vanilla > Euro to appeal much to Americans. They should but I really doubt GM has the ability to to it as good as Ford did with the Mustang. Their latest retro effort was that abortion of a pickup truck that was way off the mark, IMHO. They need to turn the Corvette guys loose, after they thoroughly study the Mustang, to design a retro, AFFORDABLE, Camaro. >> That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into >> the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >circuit within a year. Seems Mustang's hot sales numbers are powering >a Camaro revival. It's too bad they are forced to stick with the name, "Camaro" or "GTO." That tells me they are trying to sell these things to baby boomers who remember the originals. The Mustang crosses all age barriers and so will always have a larger market. GM could develop a new name if they wanted. -Rich >>>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs into >>>the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the sales of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > GM could develop a new name if they wanted. > -Rich How about naming it the "Cambirdgoat"? GT killer? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.