do people really want a new camaro?
07-11-2007 | 04:03 PM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
I would rather have a stripper model with huge power and a good drive train.....
To me the camaro is all performance. If I wanted the bells and whistles I would drive something more comfortable and bigger(a truck).
Adding all this extra stuff is a real turndown for someone like me...I just want a performer, i'm sure it will perform o.k. but how much of this extra stuff is going to break, or cause other unwanted headaches? Just adds things that are not needed to me.......so I won't get one, I'm not the only one that feels that way.
To me the camaro is all performance. If I wanted the bells and whistles I would drive something more comfortable and bigger(a truck).
Adding all this extra stuff is a real turndown for someone like me...I just want a performer, i'm sure it will perform o.k. but how much of this extra stuff is going to break, or cause other unwanted headaches? Just adds things that are not needed to me.......so I won't get one, I'm not the only one that feels that way.
most people, myself included.. do want all the "bells and whistles" in their camaro..
07-11-2007 | 05:59 PM
#18
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 666
From: albany, ny
It sounds like you want a cheap performance car without all the bells and whistles. That my friend is not a Camaro, nor has it ever been that. (Except for maybe the original Z/28s.) Why don't you slap a turbo on that Cobalt of yours and let the rest of us have the Camaro we all want.
i never said they should make a striper model and yes im saying they should make it more affordable. Just selling to the camaro enthuses that are out there now obviously isnt enough or they would have been a new camaro in 2003. They need to draw in a new younger crowd of enthusiasts. Like mdacton said you want a luxury oriented car then go buy something along those lines get sts or a cts v or a corvette or multitude of other cars. I dont understand why a camaro has to be a luxury orientated when there are other cars that fill that roll.
07-13-2007 | 10:30 PM
#19
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,301
From: Detroit, MI USA
GRN -- you ask good questions and make some interesting points. (and I must admit I haven't had time to read this entire thread.......)
That said -- it's important to take a couple of things in context.
First -- price. In order to understand pricing, you really need to go back to late 1966 -- and index that price to 2009 dollars. The 1967 Camaro started at $2466...which seems incredibly cheap today -- however, that was not an inexpensive car in 1967.
Second -- the automotive world was completely different back then. No emissions rules to speak of - there were only a few safety standards -- and they'd been legislated in 1965-1966-- There was no foreign competition to speak of -- other than the VW Beetle. Oh yes -- and we hadn't a clue as to what 'consumerism' meant -- and attorneys behaved themselves back then. (no multi-million dollar lawsuits for missing suit pants or spilled coffee....)
Third -- the insurance companies were just starting to catch on to increased premiums for muscular V8 engines. (I assure you that most Honda Civics have policies written for a stock 4-cylinder engine -- the agent hasn't a clue that the car has been significantly modified)
....going back to point 2 for a moment -- the consumer has a dizzying 270+ nameplates to choose from -- and it's estimated that there will be over 300 by 2010............that's a staggering figure. So for someone to assume we can sustain 200,000 Camaros a year -- perhaps even only 140,000 a year -- is quite unlikely. (there simply aren't enough people who want a coupe -- tastes have moved to sedans, crossovers, and vehicles with more utility. Finally -- we have to make money on the Camaro -- we didn't for a number of years in the 4th gen.........
We -- more than anyone -- know that the new Camaro has to be affordable if we hope to sell it to a wider audience. We aim to do that....however, one could do all the polls possible asking people what they'd pay for a base car -- and the results may have nothing to do with reality. (Don't jump to conclusions with that last line.....) A Base car may not be base to some people.
Suffice it to say that we continue to work on the Camaro -- and we continue to talk to both our "Camaro Disciples" -- our Camaro Enthusiasts -- Mustang owners -- and many others.......
We hope when the car hits showrooms that it meets the needs of many many more people than before.
That said -- it's important to take a couple of things in context.
First -- price. In order to understand pricing, you really need to go back to late 1966 -- and index that price to 2009 dollars. The 1967 Camaro started at $2466...which seems incredibly cheap today -- however, that was not an inexpensive car in 1967.
Second -- the automotive world was completely different back then. No emissions rules to speak of - there were only a few safety standards -- and they'd been legislated in 1965-1966-- There was no foreign competition to speak of -- other than the VW Beetle. Oh yes -- and we hadn't a clue as to what 'consumerism' meant -- and attorneys behaved themselves back then. (no multi-million dollar lawsuits for missing suit pants or spilled coffee....)
Third -- the insurance companies were just starting to catch on to increased premiums for muscular V8 engines. (I assure you that most Honda Civics have policies written for a stock 4-cylinder engine -- the agent hasn't a clue that the car has been significantly modified)
....going back to point 2 for a moment -- the consumer has a dizzying 270+ nameplates to choose from -- and it's estimated that there will be over 300 by 2010............that's a staggering figure. So for someone to assume we can sustain 200,000 Camaros a year -- perhaps even only 140,000 a year -- is quite unlikely. (there simply aren't enough people who want a coupe -- tastes have moved to sedans, crossovers, and vehicles with more utility. Finally -- we have to make money on the Camaro -- we didn't for a number of years in the 4th gen.........
We -- more than anyone -- know that the new Camaro has to be affordable if we hope to sell it to a wider audience. We aim to do that....however, one could do all the polls possible asking people what they'd pay for a base car -- and the results may have nothing to do with reality. (Don't jump to conclusions with that last line.....) A Base car may not be base to some people.
Suffice it to say that we continue to work on the Camaro -- and we continue to talk to both our "Camaro Disciples" -- our Camaro Enthusiasts -- Mustang owners -- and many others.......
We hope when the car hits showrooms that it meets the needs of many many more people than before.
07-13-2007 | 10:45 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 929
GRN -- you ask good questions and make some interesting points. (and I must admit I haven't had time to read this entire thread.......)
That said -- it's important to take a couple of things in context.
First -- price. In order to understand pricing, you really need to go back to late 1966 -- and index that price to 2009 dollars. The 1967 Camaro started at $2466...which seems incredibly cheap today -- however, that was not an inexpensive car in 1967.
Second -- the automotive world was completely different back then. No emissions rules to speak of - there were only a few safety standards -- and they'd been legislated in 1965-1966-- There was no foreign competition to speak of -- other than the VW Beetle. Oh yes -- and we hadn't a clue as to what 'consumerism' meant -- and attorneys behaved themselves back then. (no multi-million dollar lawsuits for missing suit pants or spilled coffee....)
Third -- the insurance companies were just starting to catch on to increased premiums for muscular V8 engines. (I assure you that most Honda Civics have policies written for a stock 4-cylinder engine -- the agent hasn't a clue that the car has been significantly modified)
....going back to point 2 for a moment -- the consumer has a dizzying 270+ nameplates to choose from -- and it's estimated that there will be over 300 by 2010............that's a staggering figure. So for someone to assume we can sustain 200,000 Camaros a year -- perhaps even only 140,000 a year -- is quite unlikely. (there simply aren't enough people who want a coupe -- tastes have moved to sedans, crossovers, and vehicles with more utility. Finally -- we have to make money on the Camaro -- we didn't for a number of years in the 4th gen.........
We -- more than anyone -- know that the new Camaro has to be affordable if we hope to sell it to a wider audience. We aim to do that....however, one could do all the polls possible asking people what they'd pay for a base car -- and the results may have nothing to do with reality. (Don't jump to conclusions with that last line.....) A Base car may not be base to some people.
Suffice it to say that we continue to work on the Camaro -- and we continue to talk to both our "Camaro Disciples" -- our Camaro Enthusiasts -- Mustang owners -- and many others.......
We hope when the car hits showrooms that it meets the needs of many many more people than before.
That said -- it's important to take a couple of things in context.
First -- price. In order to understand pricing, you really need to go back to late 1966 -- and index that price to 2009 dollars. The 1967 Camaro started at $2466...which seems incredibly cheap today -- however, that was not an inexpensive car in 1967.
Second -- the automotive world was completely different back then. No emissions rules to speak of - there were only a few safety standards -- and they'd been legislated in 1965-1966-- There was no foreign competition to speak of -- other than the VW Beetle. Oh yes -- and we hadn't a clue as to what 'consumerism' meant -- and attorneys behaved themselves back then. (no multi-million dollar lawsuits for missing suit pants or spilled coffee....)
Third -- the insurance companies were just starting to catch on to increased premiums for muscular V8 engines. (I assure you that most Honda Civics have policies written for a stock 4-cylinder engine -- the agent hasn't a clue that the car has been significantly modified)
....going back to point 2 for a moment -- the consumer has a dizzying 270+ nameplates to choose from -- and it's estimated that there will be over 300 by 2010............that's a staggering figure. So for someone to assume we can sustain 200,000 Camaros a year -- perhaps even only 140,000 a year -- is quite unlikely. (there simply aren't enough people who want a coupe -- tastes have moved to sedans, crossovers, and vehicles with more utility. Finally -- we have to make money on the Camaro -- we didn't for a number of years in the 4th gen.........
We -- more than anyone -- know that the new Camaro has to be affordable if we hope to sell it to a wider audience. We aim to do that....however, one could do all the polls possible asking people what they'd pay for a base car -- and the results may have nothing to do with reality. (Don't jump to conclusions with that last line.....) A Base car may not be base to some people.
Suffice it to say that we continue to work on the Camaro -- and we continue to talk to both our "Camaro Disciples" -- our Camaro Enthusiasts -- Mustang owners -- and many others.......
We hope when the car hits showrooms that it meets the needs of many many more people than before.
*sigh*
Understood.
But I still wish for that line-item list of options, and the veto power that would come with it.
Born just a bit too late for that,I guess.
I hate this "least common denominator" market we all live with.
07-13-2007 | 11:52 PM
#21
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,301
From: Detroit, MI USA
Note of interest: I was having dinner with a GM Exec. who has since retired a while back -- and we were talking about the DeLorean era --
.......according to him, at one point, Chevrolet was losing money -- and the biggest reason? No build protocol. COPOS and endless option lists were horribly expensive.
As late as 1973, we did not have option packaging -- rather, each car line had a carbon order form -- and you literally 'checked off boxes' as you ordered a car---
Tidbit: in the 1997 model year, does anyone want to guess the number of build combinations available on a Camaro?
(no peeking.....)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
over 15.5 MILLION BUILD COMBINATIONS.........
..........and we built 60,202 cars.
That's why we have to carefully look at the option packages.
We need to give you good choices --
.......but on the other hand, we have to try to prevent the following from happening:
Dealer orders Camaro.
Dealer orders Camaro with some desirable options, but not a few others.
Camaro dealer orders is too loaded for some, and not enough for others.
Dealer has car on the lot for a year before it sells.
Dealer never wants to order another as his carrying costs far outstripped the profit he made on the car.
Customer bought the Camaro -- customer is unhappy that it didn't have exactly what he/she wanted....further, paint condition isn't pristine 'cuz it's a year old.
Both Dealer and Customer not happy.
Translated to: diminished brand in the eyes of both.
07-14-2007 | 02:21 AM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Note of interest: I was having dinner with a GM Exec. who has since retired a while back -- and we were talking about the DeLorean era --
.......according to him, at one point, Chevrolet was losing money -- and the biggest reason? No build protocol. COPOS and endless option lists were horribly expensive.
As late as 1973, we did not have option packaging -- rather, each car line had a carbon order form -- and you literally 'checked off boxes' as you ordered a car---
Tidbit: in the 1997 model year, does anyone want to guess the number of build combinations available on a Camaro?
(no peeking.....)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
over 15.5 MILLION BUILD COMBINATIONS.........
..........and we built 60,202 cars.
That's why we have to carefully look at the option packages.
We need to give you good choices --
.......but on the other hand, we have to try to prevent the following from happening:
Dealer orders Camaro.
Dealer orders Camaro with some desirable options, but not a few others.
Camaro dealer orders is too loaded for some, and not enough for others.
Dealer has car on the lot for a year before it sells.
Dealer never wants to order another as his carrying costs far outstripped the profit he made on the car.
Customer bought the Camaro -- customer is unhappy that it didn't have exactly what he/she wanted....further, paint condition isn't pristine 'cuz it's a year old.
Both Dealer and Customer not happy.
Translated to: diminished brand in the eyes of both.
.......according to him, at one point, Chevrolet was losing money -- and the biggest reason? No build protocol. COPOS and endless option lists were horribly expensive.
As late as 1973, we did not have option packaging -- rather, each car line had a carbon order form -- and you literally 'checked off boxes' as you ordered a car---
Tidbit: in the 1997 model year, does anyone want to guess the number of build combinations available on a Camaro?
(no peeking.....)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
over 15.5 MILLION BUILD COMBINATIONS.........
..........and we built 60,202 cars.
That's why we have to carefully look at the option packages.
We need to give you good choices --
.......but on the other hand, we have to try to prevent the following from happening:
Dealer orders Camaro.
Dealer orders Camaro with some desirable options, but not a few others.
Camaro dealer orders is too loaded for some, and not enough for others.
Dealer has car on the lot for a year before it sells.
Dealer never wants to order another as his carrying costs far outstripped the profit he made on the car.
Customer bought the Camaro -- customer is unhappy that it didn't have exactly what he/she wanted....further, paint condition isn't pristine 'cuz it's a year old.
Both Dealer and Customer not happy.
Translated to: diminished brand in the eyes of both.
Totally agree with you a dealership has a cobalt SS 2.4 they have had it a year now and it didnt have a 6 disc changer and ONStar that i wanted. They lost a sale because they wouldn't come down $300.00. My mom and Dad works for GM and gets the GM Supplier Discount which AKA blows.
The GM Supplier discount is a joke we ask them why they couldnt come down $300.00 we told them we had the GM Supplier Discount they said they was givings us a better deal and the discount is worth $50.00. So basically if you dont have GMS discount you dont have nothing, which i thought GMS is GM Supplier but its not what a joke.
07-14-2007 | 08:12 AM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
$2466 in 1966 would be $15,200 today ... that'd be a nice base price for new Camaro 
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
07-14-2007 | 01:17 PM
#26
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 139
Dealer orders Camaro.
Dealer orders Camaro with some desirable options, but not a few others.
Camaro dealer orders is too loaded for some, and not enough for others.
Dealer tries to put the wood to everybody who even get to close to the car.
Dealer cant sell car cause he pisses everyone off who even considers buying it.
Dealer blames car
Seen it happen time and again.
Dealer orders Camaro with some desirable options, but not a few others.
Camaro dealer orders is too loaded for some, and not enough for others.
Dealer tries to put the wood to everybody who even get to close to the car.
Dealer cant sell car cause he pisses everyone off who even considers buying it.
Dealer blames car
Seen it happen time and again.
07-14-2007 | 02:24 PM
#27
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,301
From: Detroit, MI USA
$2466 in 1966 would be $15,200 today ... that'd be a nice base price for new Camaro
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
OK....now add safety and emissions equipment -- 5mph bumpers -- more insulation and better build materials -- better drivetrains (yes -- you heard me) -- and that number goes WAY past $20K.
That does not include standard equipment that was once optional.
07-14-2007 | 02:26 PM
#28
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,301
From: Detroit, MI USA
Totally agree with you a dealership has a cobalt SS 2.4 they have had it a year now and it didnt have a 6 disc changer and ONStar that i wanted. They lost a sale because they wouldn't come down $300.00. My mom and Dad works for GM and gets the GM Supplier Discount which AKA blows.
The GM Supplier discount is a joke we ask them why they couldnt come down $300.00 we told them we had the GM Supplier Discount they said they was givings us a better deal and the discount is worth $50.00. So basically if you dont have GMS discount you dont have nothing, which i thought GMS is GM Supplier but its not what a joke.
The GM Supplier discount is a joke we ask them why they couldnt come down $300.00 we told them we had the GM Supplier Discount they said they was givings us a better deal and the discount is worth $50.00. So basically if you dont have GMS discount you dont have nothing, which i thought GMS is GM Supplier but its not what a joke.
actually, it's not a joke. It's a substantial discount. And the dealer was wrong on the $50 dollar discount -- that or you misunderstood him.
Question: what do you think a dealer should be able to make in terms of profit on a Cobalt?
07-14-2007 | 03:02 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
From: Confederate States of America
07-15-2007 | 04:09 PM
#30
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 666
From: albany, ny
. i got the estimate of about 28k from stars1010 on his build your camaro thread. http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=490016.I will wait till it comes out and hit show room floors. I just think its getting crazy with the list of things that people want to see in this car that all. Im surprise no one has asked for a coffee maker in the glove box or a refrigerated cup holder for there soda.
i really want a new camaro but if im looking at around 28-30k for a base model v8 im proably gonna have to pass on one as it looks right now with my current finances.
Last edited by GRNcamaro; 07-15-2007 at 04:59 PM.