I find myself asking this question...
06-04-2006, 03:47 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Re: I find myself asking this question...
People complain all the time on here about the 4th gen's lack of useability, but the 3rd gen was easily just as impractical, and it rode a lot harsher, so I am hard pressed to buy that as a reason to the 4th gen's demise.
06-04-2006, 03:58 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by RussStang
People complain all the time on here about the 4th gen's lack of useability, but the 3rd gen was easily just as impractical, and it rode a lot harsher, so I am hard pressed to buy that as a reason to the 4th gen's demise.
06-04-2006, 05:27 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Re: I find myself asking this question...
I never thought it was that tough to work on my car. It looks a little daunting, the way the engine does go under the windshield, but it is really not that hard. I don't really think there is much more in the way of labor cost for a 4th gen. Besides, ease of hands on maintenence seldom seems to be a factor in our society today for most people. A lot of people never even look under there hood, let alone do any work on there own car.
06-04-2006, 05:40 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by RussStang
I never thought it was that tough to work on my car. It looks a little daunting, the way the engine does go under the windshield, but it is really not that hard. I don't really think there is much more in the way of labor cost for a 4th gen. Besides, ease of hands on maintenence seldom seems to be a factor in our society today for most people. A lot of people never even look under there hood, let alone do any work on there own car.
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 06-04-2006 at 05:42 PM.
06-04-2006, 06:31 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 279
Re: I find myself asking this question...
I think some of you guys saying, I'de buy a firebird--but never a camaro..etc dont realize thats part of why firebird isnt coming back. They put that stupid GM symbol on all the new cars so people could realize no matter what devision, its still GM. To many people are saying, if i cant get a pontiac, then i'll by foreign...or if i cant get a chevy then i'll by foreign...
To many years of being spoiled with chevy with the volume model, pontiac with porformance, buick with luxury, and cutlass thrown in their too...same car, just some different skin, badges, and options.
Everyone got spoiled and said i only by olds, or i only by buick..etc
Its all GM.
When GM had a hold on the market it might of been ok, but with market share shrinking, it isnt going to work anymore.
To many years of being spoiled with chevy with the volume model, pontiac with porformance, buick with luxury, and cutlass thrown in their too...same car, just some different skin, badges, and options.
Everyone got spoiled and said i only by olds, or i only by buick..etc
Its all GM.
When GM had a hold on the market it might of been ok, but with market share shrinking, it isnt going to work anymore.
06-04-2006, 07:12 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Van Nuys, Ca.
Posts: 284
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by guionM
There's going to be alot of rabid Firebird fans that's going to scream "foul", but their points aren't going to hold up.
The biggest reason is like Joe mentioned: Product overlap.
Product overlap is fine where there's a massive market for something. GMC and Chevrolet trucks is a perfect example. The market for trucks and SUVs is so large that GM can offer a specialized line (even though it's almost all just marketing) instead of making a single line cover everything.
But when a market for something is small, unless there is a big enough payoff in association, it makes no sense to do something that in effect will make you compete against yourself. You have to design both vehicles, which cost money (even if it's just sheetmetal and interior pieces). Then there's the advertising and marketing, whose cost is simply staggering. then there's the money spent on support (dealer education and parts & service).
Product overlap is fine where there's a massive market for something. GMC and Chevrolet trucks is a perfect example. The market for trucks and SUVs is so large that GM can offer a specialized line (even though it's almost all just marketing) instead of making a single line cover everything.
But when a market for something is small, unless there is a big enough payoff in association, it makes no sense to do something that in effect will make you compete against yourself. You have to design both vehicles, which cost money (even if it's just sheetmetal and interior pieces). Then there's the advertising and marketing, whose cost is simply staggering. then there's the money spent on support (dealer education and parts & service).
The reason GM has other divisions is to reach the 85% of car buyers who WILL NOT BUY A CHEVY because they don't identify with the brand. People are as different as snowflakes, and one brand cannot appeal to a majority of people. Sorry, but that's human nature. Why doen't Starbucks only sell one type of coffee? 
One of the sore spots with the 4th gen's "Team Camaro" was that Pontiac managed to get almost everything they wanted with Firebird, despite Firebird selling in far smaller numbers than Camaro. Firebird had 3 LS1 performance models (Formula, Trans Am, & the Firehawk) to Camaro's 2. 4th gen Firebirds had at least 4 front bumpers, 5 or 6 hoods, 3 rear bumpers, 3 tailights, and more rim choices. Camaro had 2 front bumpers, 4 hoods, 2 tailight designs, & one single rear bumper design it's entire 9 year history whether you bought a '93 V6 Camaro or the last 2002 Camaro SS that rolled off the assembly line. All this stuff Firebird got cost money. Firebird got more therefore it consumed more of the budget set aside for the F-body. Firebird apparently even got their 2002 special edition approved before management considered Camaro's 2002 35th edition.
Maybe the omnipotent Pontiac elders can cure world hunger and lower gas back to 10 cents a gallon while they're at it. Here's a clue folks. Firebird's position above Camaro and its lower volume allowed GM to take product risks with it that if succesful, trickled down to the Camaro. Steering wheel radia controls, 12 disc changers, 17" wheels, and SLP conversions are just a few things that debuted in the Firebird and were made available to Chevy once their viability was proven. BTW, the Firebird sold over 50% of the Camaro's volume in the 4th gen, and often approached 2/3. Hardly a paltry sum for a more expensive car with a MUCH smaller dealer network...
1st, that Saturn is getting the Sky. Since the Solstice is low production and the Sky is low production, then GM should make a Firebird even though there's a Camaro. However, the issue with both the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice is to get an image car that's going to be used as 4 wheeled advertising. The Viper, Ford GT, Corvette, Crossfire & the former Prowler were all used as divisional advertising. Although all broke even or made a small profit, all were done more to call attention to Dodge, Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Plymouth than they were to make a profit.
On the other hand, cars like the Camaro would never see the light of day unless proven they would be substantially profitable. Where Camaro and Mustang differ from Solstice, Sky, Viper, GT, Prowler, Crossfire, and Corvette is that these will be the 1st new cars for alot of people, and people buy these cars to have fun. These cars (Mustang and Camaro) not only introduce people to the brand, but are used to create new customers based on their experience with these cars. A young Camaro owner might trade in for an Impala when they get a family. Things like that don't happen with Ford GTs.
On the other hand, cars like the Camaro would never see the light of day unless proven they would be substantially profitable. Where Camaro and Mustang differ from Solstice, Sky, Viper, GT, Prowler, Crossfire, and Corvette is that these will be the 1st new cars for alot of people, and people buy these cars to have fun. These cars (Mustang and Camaro) not only introduce people to the brand, but are used to create new customers based on their experience with these cars. A young Camaro owner might trade in for an Impala when they get a family. Things like that don't happen with Ford GTs.
Listen, they Solstice/Sky arguement is simple. People thought the roadster market was tapped out and there was no room for GM to enter it with one, let alone 2 cars that would "compete" with each other. Not only have they BOTH been brought to market but they are dominating that market and are sold out. Suddenly, the roadster market is 3 times as big as the "experts" thougt it was. Why, because GM introduced two stunning, compelling "gotta have products. And when you do that, well golly Gee willikers, buyers come out of the woodwork don't they? A Camaro and Firebird done the same way would have the same effect. If Kappa is profitable at 30k with the differentiation they have (as you have posted before) then the Camaro Firebird could only be more profitable at 150k units per year and sharing many more components with their Zeta bretheren, unlike the Kappas. Solstice/Sky certainly prove that GM can do platform sharing right, don't they? Forgive me for answering my own question but yes, yes they do. Trying to dismiss them by grouping them in with cars that are from 2 to 8 times more expensive than them is a joke, and not a funny one.
This brings up the 2nd issue. Firebirds bring in buyers to Pontiac. That may have been an issue back when Pontiac was nipping at Chevrolet's heels in a huge car market dominated by American automakers, and GM owned 50% of the market. GM owns far less than half that market now, and in order for each brand to survive, it must have a distinctive place in General Motors portfolio. Pontiac simply can not be a full line high volume network the way Chevrolet is and the way Pontiac was in the past. Pontiac is going to be more focused. Firebird overlaps Camaro.
Continued below...
Last edited by Hoodshaker; 06-04-2006 at 07:16 PM.
06-04-2006, 07:13 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Van Nuys, Ca.
Posts: 284
Re: I find myself asking this question...
There are always going to be a minute, very vocal contingent that's going to say things they feel that have no basis in reality or facts. Saying you know people that would never buy a Camaro over Firebird doesn't hide the fact that Firebirds as a whole sold in low numbers that made no business sense whatsoever, selling even less than the dismal numbers turned in by the 4th gen Camaro. Sure, it has it's rabid fans. But even limited production Corvettes outsold V8 Firebirds the final years. V6 Firebirds were about as common Mormons in the Vatican. "Team Camaro" has the stats to prove Firebird is a drain on Camaro in sales and investment. and finally, in order for GM to survive, Pontiac is being positioned as an adult performance division. The Grand Prix is a step up from the Impala, just like the GTO is a step up from the Camaro. It's where you go when you get a little older and have a little more cash to spend.
06-04-2006, 07:17 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36
Re: I find myself asking this question...
06-04-2006, 09:59 PM
#25
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Listen to Guy -- he knows of what he speaks on this subject.
Let me ask you this: If you were running GM -- and you saw what the company lost last year -- and you know that the American market is relatively flat at 16.5 to 17 million units a year-- and you, as a buyer (I'm talking the buying public at large here, not just you -- ) have more and more models coming into the market from more and more manufacturers -- would YOU approve a plan to offer a Camaro and a Firebird? (anyone wanna take a guess at what it would cost to make a Camaro look like a Firebird?)
It is not a case of GM saying 'the hell with all you Firebird enthusiasts' -- rather, it's a case of GM surviving in a more and more competitive marketplace where, by the way, the playing field is not a level playing field in the world market.
As an enthusiast, there's nothing I'd like better than to see a new Firebird -- as a business person -- and someone who would like to retire someday -- I can't see it happening.
One last thought -- forget trying to compare the marketplace from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s to today -- it's apples to oranges.
Now -- that said-- I think Pontiac needs a big honkin' V8 car in their line-up -- and that's all I'm gonna say about that!
Let me ask you this: If you were running GM -- and you saw what the company lost last year -- and you know that the American market is relatively flat at 16.5 to 17 million units a year-- and you, as a buyer (I'm talking the buying public at large here, not just you -- ) have more and more models coming into the market from more and more manufacturers -- would YOU approve a plan to offer a Camaro and a Firebird? (anyone wanna take a guess at what it would cost to make a Camaro look like a Firebird?)
It is not a case of GM saying 'the hell with all you Firebird enthusiasts' -- rather, it's a case of GM surviving in a more and more competitive marketplace where, by the way, the playing field is not a level playing field in the world market.
As an enthusiast, there's nothing I'd like better than to see a new Firebird -- as a business person -- and someone who would like to retire someday -- I can't see it happening.
One last thought -- forget trying to compare the marketplace from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s to today -- it's apples to oranges.
Now -- that said-- I think Pontiac needs a big honkin' V8 car in their line-up -- and that's all I'm gonna say about that!
06-05-2006, 12:57 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Thanks Scott.
I've been through all the "Why not Firebird too" business for quite a few years, and have asked just about everyone at GM about it, have talked to people (who would actually take time to talk about this type of stuff) at DaimlerChrysler about making ponycars for both Chrysler & Dodge divisions, and have talked to people at Ford regarding what it would take to bring Cougar back. They all say basically the same thing and make all the same points.
I'm a Firebird fan from the 70s. Nothing would make me more thrilled than to see a Firebird Trans Am return to the glory it had in the 1970s. But guys, that ain't gonna happen today. Truth is.... and read this very very carefully......NO ONE IS GOING TO CREATE 2 SPORTY COUPES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF MARKET OVERLAP!!!
You can throw Solstice and Sky around as examples till your arms turn blue, you can quote that friend of a friend who swore off Pontiacs because Firebird isn't coming back, you can take the points I make and disect them till your hearts content, you can swing from the trees and beat your chest till your knuckles bleed, but if any point you came up with had merit, not just GM, but also Ford and Chrysler and an assortment of foreign car makers would have done something similar by now or had something similar in their product plans.
They don't.
There isn't going to be a Camaro based Firebird. The market won't support it, and in today's competitive market and the relative small size and the profit margins needed to produce a volume coupe today, you aren't going to see 2 similar sporty coupes from the same company. GTO is far enough away from Camaro that it's not going to draw the same customers or share the same market. Camaro is going to be a small powerful low cost sport coupe. GTO is going to be a bigger comfortable grand touring coupe. A role Firebird never filled.
If you want a Firebird, your best bet is GM being able to create a different chassis and moving Firebird into a market different from Camaro.
It's great to be passionate about a car, but the car business is a business 1st and foremost. If something doesn't have profit or showroom draw or advertising value, it ain't gonna happen.
Go ahead and rip into all this, but it doesn't change a thing.
It's not GM, it's not Pontiac, it's not anyone turning their backs on anyone.
It's reality. Unfortunately, it also sucks.
I've been through all the "Why not Firebird too" business for quite a few years, and have asked just about everyone at GM about it, have talked to people (who would actually take time to talk about this type of stuff) at DaimlerChrysler about making ponycars for both Chrysler & Dodge divisions, and have talked to people at Ford regarding what it would take to bring Cougar back. They all say basically the same thing and make all the same points.
I'm a Firebird fan from the 70s. Nothing would make me more thrilled than to see a Firebird Trans Am return to the glory it had in the 1970s. But guys, that ain't gonna happen today. Truth is.... and read this very very carefully......NO ONE IS GOING TO CREATE 2 SPORTY COUPES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF MARKET OVERLAP!!!
You can throw Solstice and Sky around as examples till your arms turn blue, you can quote that friend of a friend who swore off Pontiacs because Firebird isn't coming back, you can take the points I make and disect them till your hearts content, you can swing from the trees and beat your chest till your knuckles bleed, but if any point you came up with had merit, not just GM, but also Ford and Chrysler and an assortment of foreign car makers would have done something similar by now or had something similar in their product plans.
They don't.
There isn't going to be a Camaro based Firebird. The market won't support it, and in today's competitive market and the relative small size and the profit margins needed to produce a volume coupe today, you aren't going to see 2 similar sporty coupes from the same company. GTO is far enough away from Camaro that it's not going to draw the same customers or share the same market. Camaro is going to be a small powerful low cost sport coupe. GTO is going to be a bigger comfortable grand touring coupe. A role Firebird never filled.
If you want a Firebird, your best bet is GM being able to create a different chassis and moving Firebird into a market different from Camaro.
It's great to be passionate about a car, but the car business is a business 1st and foremost. If something doesn't have profit or showroom draw or advertising value, it ain't gonna happen.
Go ahead and rip into all this, but it doesn't change a thing.
It's not GM, it's not Pontiac, it's not anyone turning their backs on anyone.
It's reality. Unfortunately, it also sucks.
Last edited by guionM; 06-05-2006 at 01:00 AM.
06-05-2006, 01:44 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by triggerjerk
fbodfather-
So why does a gto built on the camaro platform make more business sense than a firebird?
So why does a gto built on the camaro platform make more business sense than a firebird?
06-05-2006, 03:19 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Far, far away
Posts: 486
Re: I find myself asking this question...
For all the rabid firebird faithful(saying all is a bit ironic considering there aren't that many), just answer a couple question. How many cars like Mustang exist right now? How many will exist in another 5 years? You really think if a car manufacturer thought there was enough room for another model based on a similar existing car platform, and it would be profitable they wouldn't already be doing it? You don't think there would be a stable mate for mustang?
That's all I think needs to be said.
That's all I think needs to be said.
