94LT1Maro

In my post I wasn't mocking "Keep The Faith" if I gave you the impression that I was mocking it then i'm sorry. Also I never said that I wasn't going to buy one. I said I am not a committed buyer yet, simply b/c I don't have enough information on the car. I want to know how much it is, and what i'm getting for my money before I make a decision. As a consumer, I don't see that as being ignorant. If anything i'm just looking out for my own financial intrests.

Do I like the car? Yes I do like the car, but i'm not going to put myself 25 - 30K in debt, until I have more info on it. Like I said time will solve that problem, i'm sure they will release information over the next two years. And in two years if I can afford it, and if I think it's worth my dollar, i'll buy one.

I hope this clears everything up, I didn't post this to start a fight. But at the same time I don't want people to misunderstand what i've said. I am happy the Camaro is back, and i'm willing to wait for them to get it right. But i'm not willing to commit to buy a car that I know almost nothing about.

krazzycowgirl

what the FLIP Does that mean?

Just because you dont or do trust someone doesnt mean the rest of us have to follow your little flock.

Anyways I was told I dotn know if you guys remember it or not that it would be 5 to 10yrs to bring out the Camaro IF it came back out.

Good Ph.D

Those don't two cars dont have anything to do with Camaro. Thats like saying they should have built Camaro instead of LaCrosse, meaningless.

This Camaro isnt out now for the same reason it wasnt out in 1997, there is nothing to build it on. Sad it takes ten years for this and every other product they needed the issue is a little more complicated then them going, "We're cancelling it... (ten years)... Wait lets make it again"

It doesen't exist. Those are probably the same people who say the Concept looks like a Mustang.

The people making those comments are stupid. Dont know what else can be said. Mustang had a four year head start in 1969 but Camaro still stayed around 35 years. Why would now be any different?

91Z28350

Umm, please get the numbers right. Mustang came out mid year 1964 , Camaro came out Sept 1966 as a 1967.
1967 - 2002 = 35 years

Shellhead

I'm not sure how many specifics I remember, but I can say that IRS was a HUGE issue for the 'stang. If I remember correctly, they actually pushed program timing out because they wanted IRS in the worst way. The final decision to go with a live axle was a huge blow that no one was happy about. IRS basically came down to packaging, and while everyone was breathing a little easier because they could get things to fit better, no one wanted IRS gone. It was largely thought that IRS would be a huge selling point and without it, the "new" Rustang would be kinda "old". I got the impression that management finally gave up on IRS because they were basically at an impasse on rear packaging.

Also, no one was happy with using an existing platform. The tweaks that were needed were never made, and stuff had to be made to fit because there were key structural components that simply couldn't move. This also led to some stiffness issues in the car when they toyed with removing some supports. More than once I heard people on the program suggest that a Focus platform would be a more suitable starting point for the 'stang if they wanted to go back to the original car for inspiration.......but that was a far cleaner sheet of paper than management wanted to start with.

I don't mind saying that after working on that program my overall impression of Ford was not too favorable. I thought the people were absolutely solid and capable folks - definitely a talented bunch. But the management was abyssmal. This is a program that had a manager hold a motivational off-site only to wind up YELLING at his people to get excited. I remember I was stunned to see this because I kept thinking "It's the Mustang, how can you NOT be pumped?"......but they weren't. And I don't blame the people - they worked their butts off, but there was simply no leadership, no passion driving things.

The best example of this was in weekly open issues meetings. You'd have component A and component B each occupying the same space. The packaging guys would say "This won't work", to which the team responsible for A would say "we can't move" and the team responsible for B would say "we can't move either". Such an issue would ultimately go unresolved for MONTHS because no one was willing to accept responsiblity for trade-off C that would ultimate hurt one performance metric and help another. They would each say "We'll work on it", and then come back in a week or two or three, and ultimately have another stalemate - perhaps with items in different places, but a stalemate nonetheless.

Obviously a lot of work got done, but there was really no one jumping in making the hard decisions. The managers were awesome managers, but didn't understand development (and that trade-offs are part of the game) and didn't ever really pull the trigger until it was too late.

I can remember there was a HUGE flak about the Mach 1 package - someone left a test car with FINISHED paint and graphics outside the building one morning....I saw it when I walked in and thought, "huh, Mach 1 package looks just like the original - hope they don't have pea soup green metallic....ewwww.".....when I got upstairs the manager was on a witch hunt to find whoever left that car outside. Obviously blowing product plans is a big deal - but it's a retro design - people have seen it before (right down to the font!).....still, it was huge.

As an aside, incrememtal updates didn't do the 'stang team any good either. They wanted to add a functional ram air scoop - which took a LOT of energy and time from the people who should have been working on the intakes of the new car. There I am, talking to the guy smiling inwardly about my functional ram air TA sitting outside in the parking lot But they spent a long time getting that scoop on top of the hood working - and I thought it was hideous! Never mind that the hardest part was getting the scoop to fit an existing package with 99% of its' hardpoints defined. By comparison the intakes on the new car were easier......because under hood real estate was more wide open........but that's a different story.....

CLEAN

I like him!

Caps94ZODG

i'm not reading all the pages so hope Im not stepping on someones toes..

2009 I agree is to far away..but here is my thinking...

The 40th anniversary will be the Camaro in the TF movie..a witnessed celebration instead of a participant..maybee some preproduction cars making the rounds??Kinda like the Frod GT?

The reason for this remember Solstice??? 2 years turned into a little longer..

If the cars projected to be out in 09 and shows up a full 6 months erlier..it will be viewed as a HUGE acomplishment!!

just my thoughts,,

Bob Cosby

Nevermind.

LOL. Uh. Likewise.

I was told that Ford & Chevy were going to merge. Build a Mustaro. Or was it Camarang? Anyway, I believed it, too.

Have a great day.
Bob

PS....its going to end up being 7 years...guess someone knew what they were talking about.

RussStang

Some really interesting information here.

greg_nate

Thank you for your explanation. It is much appreciated, and believe it or not, it actually helps with the anxiety over the 5th gen release.

I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week, and it comes down to this:

- While I am a born and bred GM fanatic, my enthusiasm is almost soley based upon GM products circa 1950-1972ish. I'd purchase any GM vehicle from these years. Period. Today however, even though I am still a GM enthusiast, GM doesn't get my automatic vote of approval. GM has to prove their products to me. There are a few exceptions such as the Corvette, but across the board, GM has lost their credibility with me. I am not a guaranteed GM customer. The days of purchasing a GM simply because its a GM are over.

- The same rules apply to the 5th Gen. It will have to prove itself to me. It will have to succeed on its merits, not its nameplate.

- I was looking at pictures of my 1968 last night, getting all reminiscent and nostalgic over every detail. I found myself remembering what it felt like to sit in the seats, driving it down the road. I can even remeber how it felt on on the road. Did I like it because it was sexy? Yup. Did I like it because it was a great performer? Yup. But overall, it was just a darned good car. The 5th gen seems to have the first too qualities (sexy, performer), but the "darned good car" characteristic remains to be proven.

greg_nate

I think what you're witnessing is not ambivalence toward "Keep The Faith" with regards to the 5th gen, rather ambivalence and doubt over "Keep The Faith" with regards to GM in general. The example you show below is precisely why 99% of us are in doubt about GM's ability to properly execute a good idea. It is hard to "Keep The Faith" in a company that has demonstrated quite well over the past 20 years an utter perfect ability to miscalculate, mismanage, under engineer, overprice, mis-market and become a nearsighted shareholder entity.

Sigh....yes, you are right. Acceptance is the key, but no one ever said acceptance was easy

See above

See above.

Again, see above. This is what scares us about GM.

Why? GM's track record, for starters. They've been promising new direction for the past two decades, and for the past two decades, we've been give the same junk. Don't like the skeptcism? Get over it. Loyal GM fans have been lied to, bamboozled and let down repeatedly for too long. Perception isn't going to change over night, simply because of a single concept that looks hot. Much like you want the doubters to accept a 2009 date and get over it(to which I agree), you'll have to accept mass skepticism based on a proven track record of incompetence. I am a skeptic. Get over it.

I am not so sure of that. While there is most definately a small hard-core contingent of people within GM who understand the importance of this car, I highly doubt that the rank-and-file GM management has a clue as to its significance. The best indicator of a company's future is its past. GM's future therefore is a longshot.

triggerjerk

Best post ever.

Caps94ZODG

well maybee not the best post..have you seen the one about the drunked saiors and the goat????

but seriously..I think that is the best summed up response to what the whole idea of what could happen in 2 years... I like it...and its to the point..
I think GM is turning the ship into the right direction and it might take these next 10 years to get where they should be.. One good quality hit and the stigma of 20 years starts to go away...Think if it this way..

what if the Camaro has a grade "A" recall??? that would be a problem..

Z/28lover

I think 2009 is perfect. Numbe one, i do NOT think the hype will be gone, this is american icon. It's not going to disapear in people heads over night.

But at the same time, they will need to do some strategic marketing when the time comes around, as they did with the solstice. I mean didnt they sell the first 1000 Solstice's in like 7 minutes, all due to the marketing of GM and the mass audience it saw.

I think that they need to get it right the first time, and not build a POS. This is where i can justify the time coming in, if it came out in a month, i wouldnt trust it for spit. And while i have my doubts about it sometimes, i feel that somewhere, somebody at GM is looking out for out little Camaro, and I think it will end up a good car. But they CAN NOT rush the production and mis calculate things with this car, if it comes out and has a massive recall or 10 TSB's then GM is going to have a serious problem with some seriously pissed off owners.

Only time will tell.

danno02SS

I just don't understand why they can't pull a Solstice, 24 mos from approval to dealer. If GM can do that with a clean sheet design they should be able to meet or beat that development cycle given that some work on the Camaro had already been done.