Why do you think the 4th Generation didn't sell as well as it should have?
04-11-2008, 01:52 PM
#41
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of interesting opinions on the subject, but all opinions. who knew why gm killed off the camaro unless you sat in the board room on the day the ax fell. none of us will really know. with 2001 sales at 29,000 units total i would say sales . gm is not going to kill a car that sells no way, no how. thats what gm does , make money, not loose money. at its peak in 79 the camaro sold 300,000 units.when i worked at GMAD in Tarrytown i was told that the line had to run at 60 jobs (or cars) an hour to be profitable and run 2 shifts , just to outweigh operating costs. so at approximately 960 cars a day thats about 2 months worth of production so double that to 4 months because of the firebird production and that leaves a plant idle for 8 months out of the year, all the time still paying taxes and heating and lighting the plant. thats that, if cars don't sell plants close! gm doesn't care about peoples live lets get that straight right from the beginning. when Tarrytown closed it idled 5000 workers and destroyed a town that depended on that plant for revenue
04-12-2008, 03:33 AM
#43
The real reason the fbody was canceled:
1. GM managment was shortsighted
2. Slow sales
3. Totally new chassis needed for future cars
GM managment never recoginzed that they were the reason for shitty sales. Coupes need a completely new bodystyle every 4-5 years. Should have done a complete restyle for 1998, and a completely new car for 2003.
Another reason was that the fbodys were a pita to live with every day, compared to a Mustang. Long doors, low seat position, poor visibility all crippled the fbody mass market appeal.
I absolutely love the butt on the ground, wide stance, crazy windshield rake, and exotic car styling. Most of the general public didn't like this radical departure from a convential car though, and the fbody didn't sell.
1. GM managment was shortsighted
2. Slow sales
3. Totally new chassis needed for future cars
GM managment never recoginzed that they were the reason for shitty sales. Coupes need a completely new bodystyle every 4-5 years. Should have done a complete restyle for 1998, and a completely new car for 2003.
Another reason was that the fbodys were a pita to live with every day, compared to a Mustang. Long doors, low seat position, poor visibility all crippled the fbody mass market appeal.
I absolutely love the butt on the ground, wide stance, crazy windshield rake, and exotic car styling. Most of the general public didn't like this radical departure from a convential car though, and the fbody didn't sell.
04-12-2008, 10:42 AM
#44
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (35)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paramount CA
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It comes down to marketing, and that the Mustang appeals to a much broader market. Ford has done a great marketing job with the Mustang, starting back in the day of the first generation.
And to all the guys that say all Mustang drivers are pussies- That's like saying all Camaro owners are inbred rednecks with mullets.
Simple, they really weren't profitable. Had they been, GM would have found any excuse to keep them. It didn't make financial sense, so they axed both.
Ahem... remember the '00 Cobra R? And the '99 and '01 Cobras were right up there with the LS1 cars. Not to mention the '03 and '04 Cobras and the Mach 1s even though they were two years after the F body kicked the bucket.
And to all the guys that say all Mustang drivers are pussies- That's like saying all Camaro owners are inbred rednecks with mullets.
Simple, they really weren't profitable. Had they been, GM would have found any excuse to keep them. It didn't make financial sense, so they axed both.
Ahem... remember the '00 Cobra R? And the '99 and '01 Cobras were right up there with the LS1 cars. Not to mention the '03 and '04 Cobras and the Mach 1s even though they were two years after the F body kicked the bucket.
99 and 01 Cobras don't stand a chance against ANY 1998-2002 Fbody that was produced. They were mid to low 14 second cars at best. I believe SVT was involved in a law suit for overrating the engine in the early 99-01 cobras. That is the whole reason why they went ***** out with the 03/04 Cobras...
03 and 04 Mach 1's are usually right on pace with LS1 powered cars with the LS1 having a slight edge
03-04 Cobras have a decent edge over any LS1 F-body, but the edge is marginal at best Cobras in the high 12's(12.7-12.8) and Fbods in the low low 13's(13.0-13.2) on average
04-12-2008, 12:40 PM
#45
As far as its sales vs the Mustang.. it really does make sense. I mean performance trims aside.. look at our base model Firebirds/Camaros vs their base model Mustangs based on non-performance attributes.
You have a Mustang that sits at a normal ride height... has a trunk... sunroof option... blends in better with the rest the cars on the road and although there isn't a middle seat belt, it does have a bench seat in the back where you could carry 5 passengers if needed. And as I look at that list that describes the Mustang and think to myself how much more I like sitting lower, having a pony car that resembles more of a sports car and an option for T-Tops in my F-Body... I realize the huge market difference between the two cars that are suppose to directly compete with each other.
Plain a simple, the Mustang appeals to a much wider audience. Those V6 Mustangs bleed into the same market of ppl that are looking to buy a higher trim midsized coupe (for example, cars that compete in the same market as the G6 and the old Grand Am).. those just looking for a sporty looking car as an every day driver for a low price. The base model F-Bodies didn't have even close to the same type of buyer unless it was someone who wanted a pony car (for the most part).
Then u get into the V8 trims and you have a Mustang GT that has no direct competition. The Cobra (minus 00, 02 and the 03/04s obviously) was the car that competed with the V8 F-Bodies that we all drive.. and for anyone that was just looking for a V8 powered sporty car, the Mustang GT was a big seller because it was cheaper than the other V8s.
I wouldn't give up my Trans Am for anything, but thats because, just like the rest of you for the most part... am in the exact market our cars were directed at... and thats not a big market (but do notice how we have more V8s on the road vs our V6s than they do
). Obviously thats just one of many many many reasons that led to our cars being canned in 2002, but it does explain the big ratio difference of Mustangs on the roads vs F-Bodies and the ppl driving each.
You have a Mustang that sits at a normal ride height... has a trunk... sunroof option... blends in better with the rest the cars on the road and although there isn't a middle seat belt, it does have a bench seat in the back where you could carry 5 passengers if needed. And as I look at that list that describes the Mustang and think to myself how much more I like sitting lower, having a pony car that resembles more of a sports car and an option for T-Tops in my F-Body... I realize the huge market difference between the two cars that are suppose to directly compete with each other.
Plain a simple, the Mustang appeals to a much wider audience. Those V6 Mustangs bleed into the same market of ppl that are looking to buy a higher trim midsized coupe (for example, cars that compete in the same market as the G6 and the old Grand Am).. those just looking for a sporty looking car as an every day driver for a low price. The base model F-Bodies didn't have even close to the same type of buyer unless it was someone who wanted a pony car (for the most part).
Then u get into the V8 trims and you have a Mustang GT that has no direct competition. The Cobra (minus 00, 02 and the 03/04s obviously) was the car that competed with the V8 F-Bodies that we all drive.. and for anyone that was just looking for a V8 powered sporty car, the Mustang GT was a big seller because it was cheaper than the other V8s.
I wouldn't give up my Trans Am for anything, but thats because, just like the rest of you for the most part... am in the exact market our cars were directed at... and thats not a big market (but do notice how we have more V8s on the road vs our V6s than they do
). Obviously thats just one of many many many reasons that led to our cars being canned in 2002, but it does explain the big ratio difference of Mustangs on the roads vs F-Bodies and the ppl driving each.That, and I remember only seeing ONE 4th gen commercial/ad in my life. This is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZwONYWUu0Y
04-12-2008, 05:21 PM
#47
i remember in 98 my dad wanted to get a truck but my mom wouldnt let him spend 19k on a silverado so he bought a new 98 v6 camaro instead. sticker was 16.5 and i believe (after throwing a fit in the showroom about the price of a car with manual windows and no radio) he talked them down to 14k. i remember sitting inside a red z28 waitin while they negotiated the price and the sticker on the automatic t-top z was $22,300. hell if you were a complete *** like my dad was and willing to spend all day negotiating a cash price im sure you could have gotten it for $19,000.
the cars were a great bargain, but because they werent redesigned or marketed they didnt sell very well because they had no buzz generated around them. if gm would have redesigned in 98 the price would have jumped. they figured with a generic redesign like the mustangs did in 99 they could still make sales, but the mustang actually had new bodylines and created new sales
the cars were a great bargain, but because they werent redesigned or marketed they didnt sell very well because they had no buzz generated around them. if gm would have redesigned in 98 the price would have jumped. they figured with a generic redesign like the mustangs did in 99 they could still make sales, but the mustang actually had new bodylines and created new sales
04-12-2008, 07:57 PM
#48
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two reasons:
Windshield rake.
Rattles (Hatchback).
These things just don't make great daily drivers. It feels like you're sitting in a cockpit, and until the redesign, everything but the WS6 and SS looked like it was carved out of a bar of soap. If someone hadn't basically handed me a 60k mile WS6 clone vert out of their barn for next to nothing, I never would have gotten near a 4th gen.
Previous generations were much more driver friendly vehicles. GM sold scores of those things. They sit in the dirt, but it feels halfway like a normal car for that era once you're inside, and isn't besieged by rattles. The third-gen was still fairly driver friendly, but GM made the car into a plastic hatchback rattlebox by that time, which didn't help its reputation over the long term.
Basically, the only market for 4th gens was guys who wanted an LS1 in something cheaper than a vette, and guys who wanted a V6 car that looked like it went fast but didn't. Well, and the WS6, which was in a league of its own. Girls wanting "sporty" cars mostly bought Sunfires, which look an awful lot like a shrunken Firebird. Who GM intends to market that new Camaro to, I have no idea.
Once again they have designed something that looks to me like it has very limited market appeal. Very pointy, angular, bulky, and pumped up full of teenage testosterone, unlike the Mustang or Challenger.
Windshield rake.
Rattles (Hatchback).
These things just don't make great daily drivers. It feels like you're sitting in a cockpit, and until the redesign, everything but the WS6 and SS looked like it was carved out of a bar of soap. If someone hadn't basically handed me a 60k mile WS6 clone vert out of their barn for next to nothing, I never would have gotten near a 4th gen.
Previous generations were much more driver friendly vehicles. GM sold scores of those things. They sit in the dirt, but it feels halfway like a normal car for that era once you're inside, and isn't besieged by rattles. The third-gen was still fairly driver friendly, but GM made the car into a plastic hatchback rattlebox by that time, which didn't help its reputation over the long term.
Basically, the only market for 4th gens was guys who wanted an LS1 in something cheaper than a vette, and guys who wanted a V6 car that looked like it went fast but didn't. Well, and the WS6, which was in a league of its own. Girls wanting "sporty" cars mostly bought Sunfires, which look an awful lot like a shrunken Firebird. Who GM intends to market that new Camaro to, I have no idea.
Once again they have designed something that looks to me like it has very limited market appeal. Very pointy, angular, bulky, and pumped up full of teenage testosterone, unlike the Mustang or Challenger.
04-12-2008, 08:19 PM
#49
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The WS.6 is in a league of its own? Its an over-hyped "performance package" that handles a bit better and is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarely faster than a base Trans Am/Formula/Z28. The hood looks great... but how does that make it in a league of its own?
04-13-2008, 01:02 PM
#50
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why. Appearance. No other car looks as ridiculous(ly cool) as a 98+ WS6. There's your built in micro-market (and built in turn-off): All the guys who still wish Pontiac made cars with giant screaming chickens on the hood (me).
04-15-2008, 12:12 PM
#51
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it that GM didn't feel they had to market anything with an LS1? Yes, all the gearheads reading Hot Rod Magazine were in the know and many lined up to get one. But Hot Rod only makes up what percentage of the intended F-body market? True, the motor was astonishing in '97 and is still amazing today but a motor alone does not sell to the masses.
I am trying to talk a buddy of mine into buying an LS1 F-body and I let him drive my car as a test drive of what to expect. #1 he did not like the lack of visability. #2 he said making sharp turns at 4-way intersections took guesswork since he wasn't sure where the front wheels were. #3 The doors are too long and they ding into just about everything. So an F-body is unfortunately not likely for him. So I started telling him about the '03-'04 Mach 1 and Cobra.
Don't be mad at me guys, he's driving a Grand Prix GTP and was looking at a Lancer EVO...
I am trying to talk a buddy of mine into buying an LS1 F-body and I let him drive my car as a test drive of what to expect. #1 he did not like the lack of visability. #2 he said making sharp turns at 4-way intersections took guesswork since he wasn't sure where the front wheels were. #3 The doors are too long and they ding into just about everything. So an F-body is unfortunately not likely for him. So I started telling him about the '03-'04 Mach 1 and Cobra.
Don't be mad at me guys, he's driving a Grand Prix GTP and was looking at a Lancer EVO...
04-15-2008, 08:45 PM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shreveport,Louisiana
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am currently reading the book 'All Corvettes are Red', which documents the development of the C5 Corvette. I find the book to be very interesting reading giving a lot of insight into what was going on in the late 80s and early
90s at GM. They simply lost their way! They were bleeding money lost stuck pigs and didn't have any real leadership. They almost pulled the plug on the Corvette! The C5 was originally supposed to have debuted as a 93 model, but was delayed until 97 for a variety of economic reasons, and almost didn't make it to production due to lack of real leadership at GM. So if Corvette, the #1 GM and US automotive icon almost was killed off, it is not surprising that the Camaro and Firebird were even more neglected.
90s at GM. They simply lost their way! They were bleeding money lost stuck pigs and didn't have any real leadership. They almost pulled the plug on the Corvette! The C5 was originally supposed to have debuted as a 93 model, but was delayed until 97 for a variety of economic reasons, and almost didn't make it to production due to lack of real leadership at GM. So if Corvette, the #1 GM and US automotive icon almost was killed off, it is not surprising that the Camaro and Firebird were even more neglected.
04-15-2008, 08:49 PM
#53
I have not read prior comments but heres my thoughts. The car was to much for the kiddies to buy and too uncomfortable for the 30-40 yr olds that could. Most do not like sitting so far to the ground (I do) so they get the bustang.
04-20-2008, 05:12 PM
#54
it took the rest of the world 10 yrs. to figure out what a ls1 was.
now that everybody knows what it is,
its being retrofitted in to everything from honda hatchbacks to new bimmers and there are even kit cars and swap kits built around lsx motors
imo
the lsx motor is the primary reason the camaro will come back even if for a few yrs.
just to bow out again,
now that everybody knows what it is,
its being retrofitted in to everything from honda hatchbacks to new bimmers and there are even kit cars and swap kits built around lsx motors
imo
the lsx motor is the primary reason the camaro will come back even if for a few yrs.
just to bow out again,
04-22-2008, 10:13 PM
#55
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had 3 4th gen Camaros. The first was a '98 V-6 5-speed bought for the wife as an economy car. No performance? You're nuts. The thing would beat 95% of the cars on the street at the time, and almost 100% of the trucks/SUVs. It would cruise all day at 90mph, and would get 30 mpg doing it. If I slowed down to 75, I'd get 32+ mpg. And with discounts, it cost the same as a Sunbird. The second was a '02Z. Just over $20k with the option package (all power stuff), cloth seats, hardtop and 6 speed. 0%financing. The third was a B4C at under $19k with every option imaginable - power everything, 6-speed, leather, ASR, Hurst, CD changer, etc.
There was and is nothing that could compare to the out the door price on these things for a careful shopper. The closest thing now would be well over $12k more.
Yeah, I don't like the front warped rotors, the squeaks in the back suspension, and the shitty window motors, but they are relatively easy to fix.
There was and is nothing that could compare to the out the door price on these things for a careful shopper. The closest thing now would be well over $12k more.
Yeah, I don't like the front warped rotors, the squeaks in the back suspension, and the shitty window motors, but they are relatively easy to fix.
04-24-2008, 04:00 AM
#56
1. Mustangs were marketed towards women.
This is what it all winds down to. If it's marketed towards women, it will sell. Plain and simple. No ifs or buts about that.
Look at cell phones..enough said.
Clothes....enough said.
Drama shows on tv...who likes them? Women! That's why tv sucks and there are so many damn drama shows...if women like them they will be on tv. Shows like dancing with the stars...you all know what i mean.
2. They were underrated.
Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't the output numbers of the ls1 similar to the mustang...and the mustang was cheaper?
There's a good reason.
3. No advertising.
This is what it all winds down to. If it's marketed towards women, it will sell. Plain and simple. No ifs or buts about that.
Look at cell phones..enough said.
Clothes....enough said.
Drama shows on tv...who likes them? Women! That's why tv sucks and there are so many damn drama shows...if women like them they will be on tv. Shows like dancing with the stars...you all know what i mean.
2. They were underrated.
Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't the output numbers of the ls1 similar to the mustang...and the mustang was cheaper?
There's a good reason.
3. No advertising.
