ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

by a wide margin.


http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showth...=446711&page=2


http://www.torquenews.com/106/ford-m...combined-march

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I think this will be the way of things, at least for the foreseeable future.

NowhereFast

I would love to buy a new Camaro. The performance of them is incredible.

However, they managed to make it look worse than the 5th gen, and still kept the ridiculously small windows.

JROC

In terms of overall sales why do we always go for the slower, lesser performing car in the late model Muscle Car/Pony car segment? I mean that's always the case it seems other than maybe for 2010.

I mean year for year the Gen4 Fbodies pretty much skeeted all over the SN95 Mustangs in terms of performane other than for your Cobra R's and Terminator, but the Mudstains killed the Fbodies in sales. Then you had that BFP (big fat pig) called a Gen5 Camaro who in general was bettered in performance by a Coyote Mustang weighing several hundred lbs less but the Gen5 Camaro easily outsold the Mustang from those years. Here again we have 2 new models of Camaro and Mustang with the Camaro offering a noticeable performance advantage, but the Mustang has regained the sales crown.

I do understand that the Mustangs base price is noticeably less for the v8 cars, but opinions quickly jack its price way up to the Camaros level. I do think the new BFP Mudstain is a "nicer" car than the new Camaro, but a better performer it is not and these are performance cars and not luxury vehicles.

Apparently the new BFP Mudstain is saling well all over the globe.

JD_AMG

Have you seen one on the road yet? Everyone has their own opinion but IMO GM made these much better looking than the 5th gen, which now looks dull and a big "downsy" in comparison.


Id like to see a break down of the models selling.
The vast majority of the SN95 mustang sales were V6s cars, mostly to girls and women, while the majority of 4th gen Fbody sales were V8s.
There are far more "regular car buyers" than there are performance enthusiasts, thats why the lesser car usually sells so well, they are buying it for the styling, name, price etc. not the actual performance.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

as ive argued and discussed this for years on this site racing enthusiasts make up a very small margin of buyers.


5th gens were successful because of its styling. yes,power is important but being the fastest isnt as has been proven before.


comfort and refinement along with options are what also attracts buyers.

i think both 5th ans 6th gens are very attractive cars.

JROC

I disagree. I see a lot more SN95 and New Edge GT's than I see V8 Fbody cars, and I see a lot more LT1 cars than I do LS1 cars and I'd bet money that the majority of Gen4 sold were V6's cars much like they were with Mustangs. Hell my parents still own their 00 V6 Fireturd.

Regardless the SN95 platform outsold the Fbody so much that GM stopped making them, but in general the Fbody was without a doubt a better performer than the Mudstain in both V8 and V6 form.

JD_AMG

In 2000, 2001,2002 more V8 firebirds were made than V6 cars, in 98 and 99 they were almost even, within 2000 units of eachother. The Camaro wasn't quite the same, but in 2002 they made more V8s than V6s, 2001 was about even, 2000 was roughly a 5,000 unit difference, 1999 was an 8,000 unit difference, and 1998 was close to double the V6s vs V8s.
In 98, 99, and 2000 ford made over three times as many V6 mustangs as they did GTs, 2001 was around 2.5 times as many V6s, and 2002 they made 2 times as many V6s as they did GTs.
Its a fact that they made FAR more mustang V6 cars then they did any of their performance versions, the Fbody did not follow this trend, while some years they made more V6 cars it wasn't anywhere near the percentage Ford did.


This is also false.
GM had a contract with the Canadian assembly plant they were being built at, they could not build a car called "Camaro" anywhere else until this contract was over. The car was due for a redesign due to new safety regulations and GM could not afford to do the necessary revamp of the whole plant to make the new car, dropping the car (temporarily) was already known and planned for by the mid to late 90s, regardless of sales.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Even with options, the Mustang is considerably cheaper. The price gap between the two has only grown with each generation, the current sales slump (in comparison) is likely due to styling and runaway pricing of Camaro (at least at the V8 level, I have no idea how smaller engine variant pricing compares.)

Overall, THIS is mostly the answer to your question:

...and not only that, but even performance minded shoppers don't all intend to push their vehicles to the absolute limits at the track or drive at WOT 100% of the time on the street, so the performance gap between the two might not be enough to justify the price gap for said shoppers. The '16 Camaro SS is faster in all-out competition, but the 5.0 GT isn't a slouch by any means and still has plenty of power to be fun.

I look at that same picture and have a totally different reaction. The 6th gen looks like a caricature or sci-fi version of an otherwise "proper" 5th gen. After having seen a couple on the road, I really dislike the front of '16 Camaro, much more so than the rear (which, interestingly, is the opposite reaction that I had when seeing the first autoshow images hit the internet.)

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Exactly this!

Couple other points:

1. Marketing - GM marketed the hell out of the 5th gen, I've seen very little in terms of the 6th gen.

2. "New factor" - While the 6th gen is a new platform like the S550 - the styling was a slight progression, whereas the S550 was a much different design and platform than the previous gen. Add to that a new IRS for the S550, and while the Alpha platform is proving very capable, IRS isn't "new" to the 6th gen in as much as it is to the S550.

Both great cars - and as always, subjective looks are polar opposites from both sides. You either like one or the other, but rarely both it seems (myself included). I'm thinking GM really needs to up their marketing game with the 6th gen, it's a great car and they need to sell those mainstream lower models to support the "racer" models us few enthusiasts spend countless hours arguing about, and sometimes even owning.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

i honestly think this current mustang is one if not one of the best looking ford has ever designed.


pricing is also good.


but you are getting more car with a 6th gen.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Of all the new(er) Mustangs since '95 - the 2013-2014 is the best looking IMO - but again, pony cars are love it or hate it cars. I can't get into the new front on the S550s.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

The new Camaro still costs more, and the 2017 pricing shows that prices are going up (again). As stated, this will be the new normal. Camaro is still a lot of car for the price, but that price is losing them some sales. GM has clearly chosen to maximize profit margin over volume, so we're likely looking at a repeat of the late '90s here - Camaro (and Firebird) being the better car but selling in lower numbers due to price.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Base V8 Camaro wasn't significantly more expensive than base V8 Mustang in the '98-'02 years. F-body certainly sold far less units, but MSRP wasn't really a factor as it was pretty close between Z28 and GT (and also between V6 models, from what I recall.) Trans Am was obviously more expensive to start though.

JROC

If I remember correctly I think your base Z/28's and Mustang GT's started in the $21k range. How times have changed. Lol

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

imo besides price times have changed for the better.


youre getting so much more than you did from these cars compared to decades ago.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Correct. Base price for my '98 Z28 was $20,470.

Obviously this is pure fantasy on my part, but I really wish I could buy a brand new 4th gen with an LS3 factory installed; it'd have a full warranty and all fresh parts. That, to me, would be ideal as I don't prefer modern gadgetry, styling or complexities. I don't even prefer the Gen V LT1 as an LS3 would offer plenty of stock performance (and performance potential), especially in something as light as a 4th gen, for my needs without the added complexities of the LT1.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

As much as I appreciate my 4th gen, I'm glad new Camaro owners don't have to deal with that S10 rear end, passenger catalytic converter hump, terrible power window motors/regulators, and an engine that is half under the cowl. Not to mention the leaps in interior quality as far as materials go (not getting into any subjective opinion on looks/functionality).

JROC

I would go along with that if they did a few updates.

-Most obvious would be to give the car a much better rearend. A 10 bolt bolt has a hard enough time supporting a LS1 much less a LS3.

-Second they would need to use better paint. I think GM's new paint is probably much improved like Fords paint is, but both brands paint from back in the 90's and early 2,000's is not very good at holding up and scratches so damn easy.

-Third they need to fix little problems like put a drain hole in the upper shock mounts, use beefier and higher quality components for things like swaybar end-links. Also making a more reliable window motor would be great.

-Fourth as long as they are updating the rest of the drivetrain using the modern day manual and auto trannies would be great.

-Fifth keep certain packages that you could get on the 4th Gens like the offer a stripper package for people not needing the power accessories and wanting to minimize weight. Also keep the SLP and 1LE option for people not wanting to deal with the DeCrappo's and willing to spend a little extra to start with Bilsteins or Koni's.


There's a lot to like about the new cars. Their modern build quality, refinement, and comfort can be very nice especially on long trips. Still there are 3 big issues that keep me from considering one.

-For one they are really ugly and stupid looking for the most part. **** on PT Cruiser for ever starting this retro fad BS. It's as corny as Puff Daddy music was in the 90's. Remember how all Puffy's hits were other peoples music that he jacked and changed the lyrics up a little and then sold it as his own, and got rich for it? That's the same **** that these automakers are doing. They are too unoriginal to come up with a new design so they try and taking old designs and modernize them a little bit and use the excuse that it makes them look like a Camaro or a Mustang because that's just how they are supposed to look, but I disagree. It trips me out when I think that when I was 10/11 and the 93 Camaro first came out I thought "what a sleek and modern looking car that is." The Gen 4's just looked fast. The retro cars look like boats that compromise performance to appease baby boomers as opposed to evolving into sleeker and better design that would improve looks, performance and MPG's.

-Two these new cars are way too big and heavy. If these are so called "Pony Cars" then they shouldn't weigh what old full-sized Muscle Cars rocking all-iron BB motor weighed. People try and pawn their weight off as a result of modern safety standards, well yeah I guess bigger and heavier cars tend to be safer than smaller, lighter cars, but the real problem that makes them so heavy is that they are physically large cars packed with things that are worthless to a budget performance car. These new Mustangs and Camaro's are the size of Crown Vics and Capri's. There should be no good reason for a budget, most bang for the buck, mid-size, RWD, all-aluminum SB, N/A performance coupe to weigh anymore that 3,500 lbs. That's what Camaro and Mustang are supposed to be, and not some large, full-sized, luxury sport coupes made to compete with Europe. People have seemed to forgotten just how big a role weight plays in performance. Look at C6Z's. Their best feature is how light weight they are for how powerful they are. In many cases you had stock Z06's pulling on 600+ whp Cobras running TS blowers. That's not small feat for a car making 440-460 whp to do even for a better aerodynamics/geared/higher-end car to do. These manufacturers day minus GM with the Gen6 seem to neglect the cars weight because power has become so easy for them that they can match or better the older cars factory acceleration with more powerful motor. If you take say a Foxbody and give it the suspension and tire to handle a new LT1 or Coyote and you sway a stock one of those motors in it then it will eat both a new Gen6 Camaro or Mustang alive in acceleration. Obviously a Foxbodies refinement or build quality isn't on either of those cars level but it performance would blow them away and with a capable driver in good conditions would likely be a high 10/low 11 second car with factory motors. Just like I don't like obese women I don't like obese N/A, aluminum motor, RWD sport coupes.

Third they are way too much money. Higher quality materials adds both weight and cost to a car. Back in the 90's and early 2,000's the auto magazines flames Fbodies and Mustangs for not having as nice a materials as BMW's and Benz's. What person that considers a one cared? They also didn't approach $40K +. It you think a Fbody is full of hard plastic then you should try a old F150. I absolutely love the hard plastic in my 03 Lightning. At 170K miles they still look as good as new. There are many benefits to using the older style hard plastic interiors. They're very durable and don't really wear out, flack, or fade. The don't get nearly as hot as leather. They keep cost down and if the need arises they are cheap to replace and not damage. Are they as high quality feeling? No, but who cares? I don't get in my truck and start tapping on my dash or door panels with my knuckles thinks how terrible they are and how much not having them be leather has shortened my lifespan. One of the few modern features I appreciate is the rear-view camera's. You give me a modern car with one of them, a decent sound system, and all the power features that came on a Gen4 or SN95 Mustang and I'm happy. Some of these new features that cars have are are too complex to really enjoy.

Sorry for the long rant. I'm just saying the reasons I stick with the older cars as opposed to the newer ones. Weight is my main pet peeve with them, but they are getting too expensive for a Camaro or Mustang, and I think they are both unattractive cars.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

A 10-bolt would still be fine. The problem is the 7.5" version of the 10-bolt that was used. GM had a much better 10-bolt designed any ready to go dating back to 1972 - the 8.5". This rear was found in all kinds of cars (not just high power/high performance), so it wasn't something expensive only found in premium muscle cars and shouldn't have affected base price by much. The 8.5" is nearly as strong as a 8.875"/12-bolt, and has held up to all kinds of power in applications such as the Turbo Buicks.

All we would have needed is an 8.5" stock, 2nd gens had these as common equipment. Especially with an auto, that rear would be fine into the 10s or better.

I don't notice any quality difference between the paint on my '98 Camaro and the paint on my wife's 2012 Malibu. Really no difference at all, and neither is poor quality in my experience/opinion. A good example of poor quality stock paint can be found on mid-'80s GM vehicles. Some years even had recalls for the paint (1986 perhaps?) on some models. 1986-88 seemed to be particularly troublesome years for paint at GM. Stuff from the late '90s/early '00s is as tough as bedliner compared to mid-'80s paint and poor clear coating process.

This x1000! Most definitely. Nothing else to say about this one.

I have not been very happy with the shift speed or shift patterns of most newer GM automatics. With tuning they are much better, but there is no excuse for why some of these more "advanced" automatics shift sloppier than a 4L60E in stock form. Honestly, I'd rather skip the "new tech" in terms of auto transmissions and just get a 4L80E stock. Yeah, it's heavier and costs more power, but it's worth it IMO.

I have no opinion regarding manuals...I'm an auto guy.

Agreed.