I find myself asking this question...
06-12-2006, 09:54 AM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
Well not to be a smart *** but I can buy a brand new nose cone for my car for about $300.
I'd like to see a new Firebird one day as well. But for me, Firebird died in most respects, after 1981. I really have no desire to see a Firebird come back as a "Camaro with the Pontiac styling package."
06-12-2006, 11:33 AM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Z284ever
I hope that you're not implying that a Firebird could be properly differentiated from a Camaro for 300 bucks per car.
I'd like to see a new Firebird one day as well. But for me, Firebird died in most respects, after 1981. I really have no desire to see a Firebird come back as a "Camaro with the Pontiac styling package."
I'd like to see a new Firebird one day as well. But for me, Firebird died in most respects, after 1981. I really have no desire to see a Firebird come back as a "Camaro with the Pontiac styling package."
But if it were going to be a Camaro derivative, it would need to be different enough, or limited enough, or pricey enough to be unique from Camaro and make money. That is starting to sound like GTO though.
I think the best hope for the Firebird name is then either some insane explosion in the coupe market that would make a Camaro clone sellable, or a Firebird that is somewhat reinvented along the lines of a Silvia, sized somewhere from the 240SX to the Sn95s, (or between Solstice and Camaro) and maybe with a more 'hi-tech' image than the Camaro.
06-12-2006, 12:23 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 210
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Let's make the following assumptions:
1) GM is incorrect re: their conclusions about the size of the market.
2) There exists a sizable number of people who will buy a non-GM car if there is no Firebird.
3) A 5th gen Camaro can be made into a 5th gen Firebird with body panels and upgraded interior trim.
IF those assumptions are true, and BTW, I don't believe they are, then there exists an opportunity for an enterprising company to go to GM and work a deal to "build" Firebirds from Camaros -- much in the same way that SLP turned Z/28's into a better car; i.e., a Camaro SS.
Of course, there is risk in such a venture -- for the 3rd party company -- not GM. That also means that the "builder" of the Firebird would get a very nice return on investment -- again assuming the assumptions are true since there is significant return on risk according to capitalistic theory.
If I believed the assumptions to the nth degree and I felt very strongly about the Firebird, then I would approach GM with such a proposal. I might have to "partner" with another third party that already has the facilities, labor, and network to pull off this kind of venture.
My question is, "Why don't the people who believe fervently that there is a market for a Firebird AND a Camaro do so?" The answer may be found in the fact that people tend to be more emotional when posting on the Internet than they are in real life.
1) GM is incorrect re: their conclusions about the size of the market.
2) There exists a sizable number of people who will buy a non-GM car if there is no Firebird.
3) A 5th gen Camaro can be made into a 5th gen Firebird with body panels and upgraded interior trim.
IF those assumptions are true, and BTW, I don't believe they are, then there exists an opportunity for an enterprising company to go to GM and work a deal to "build" Firebirds from Camaros -- much in the same way that SLP turned Z/28's into a better car; i.e., a Camaro SS.
Of course, there is risk in such a venture -- for the 3rd party company -- not GM. That also means that the "builder" of the Firebird would get a very nice return on investment -- again assuming the assumptions are true since there is significant return on risk according to capitalistic theory.
If I believed the assumptions to the nth degree and I felt very strongly about the Firebird, then I would approach GM with such a proposal. I might have to "partner" with another third party that already has the facilities, labor, and network to pull off this kind of venture.
My question is, "Why don't the people who believe fervently that there is a market for a Firebird AND a Camaro do so?" The answer may be found in the fact that people tend to be more emotional when posting on the Internet than they are in real life.
06-12-2006, 02:25 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Why is it so hard to understand, that the money is not there, to pitch to a market that really isnt there? Part of Camaro's job as a flagship car is to shed some much needed positive light on GM. If the only thing that differentiates a Firebird is the nose, then its going to be seen as even cheap. You think people complain about reskins now? This wouldnt even be a reskin. I think it would be a very negative light on GM. The very opposite of what the Firebird car is intended to do. Im sure there are going to be after market conversions that wont have the same expectations as there would be with GM where a different nose and maybe tail would be perfectly acceptable. Also with Firebird not there to canabilize Camaro sales, that allows for more Camaro variations wich hopefully will make Camaro appear more upscale and attractive. Of course thats part of the idea to begin with.
I dont think getting to the point of having a direct Mustang competitor again was easy for GM or us. I am happy that it looks as good as it does and seems to be as solid as it is. Gas is bouncing around $3/gallon here. I think down the road if the market proves demand for it that will be different. Thats my personal opinion.
I dont think getting to the point of having a direct Mustang competitor again was easy for GM or us. I am happy that it looks as good as it does and seems to be as solid as it is. Gas is bouncing around $3/gallon here. I think down the road if the market proves demand for it that will be different. Thats my personal opinion.
06-12-2006, 05:42 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 162
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Whats a 97 TA vs a 98 WS6 visually? Nothing more then a few body panels. But those few body panels make the cars look different enough in the front that people post on this board all the time about how they only like the looks of one over the other. Personally I think the 93-97's are boring, plain cars.
I think a 98+ ws6 is total angry sex. Want to bet I am not alone?
I'm not one of those people(and there's a ton on here) that wants unrealistic things. I won't bitch because it doesn't have AWD or there's no light up skull shifter. I can see the big picture and realize you have to make compromises to make sales, which make your profit, but you can't dilute it down so much no one likes it. Thats what they tried to do to the aztek. They let everyone have an opinion. You could get on GM's website and tell them what you thought it should have. You know what on paper it looks like a good idea, but in reality it failed miserably. However, as much bitching as I do about GM I will not give them crap about at least trying something different with the aztek. They thought outside the box and let the customer have input.
Didn't work but I give them a A for effort.
What can we learn from that though? Customers are idiots, they don't know what they want, they need to be told and thats what advertising is for. Besides that we also learn you can't make everyone happy with every car or you make no one happy.
GM will probably sell 100,000+ camaros the first year(hell even the thunderbird sold in the first year) Then GM will go yay for us we were right.
But maybe those body panels would have gotten them an extra 30,000 sales.
Not much in terms of numbers, but if they are making the same profit on the extra 30,000 that they were on the first 100,000 whats to complain about?
There is one other big area were they would fail though if they tried to do a T/A though and then of course they would blame the T/A idea and not themselves.
Like all car companies they make boring plain no option cars that are cheap to get people to the lots, then if you want a car with the spoiler and power windows so it doesn't look like total *** they charge an arm and leg for it.
Yes they make a ton of money from this.
They did it with the SLP camaros Add $1000 in parts and charge $5000 more.
If they would just add $1000 in parts to make it a T/A and then only add $1000 to the sticker they would sell there 30,000 and still make the X percent profit they are making on the base model, while killing the competition.
I present exhibit C5 Z06. I see more of those then regular C5's.
I would attribute this to the fact you got a whole lot more car for a lot less percentage increase then usual. (Keep in mind for a rich person paying $46,000 for a vette $6000more isn't that much more percentage wise)
Anyway just got to preach to the choir. I only bitch because I care. Tough love and all that.
And end with my favorite line.
"I could be totally wrong about everything, after all I don't run a profitable billion dollar global car company.....
...but then again neither does GM"
I think a 98+ ws6 is total angry sex. Want to bet I am not alone?
I'm not one of those people(and there's a ton on here) that wants unrealistic things. I won't bitch because it doesn't have AWD or there's no light up skull shifter. I can see the big picture and realize you have to make compromises to make sales, which make your profit, but you can't dilute it down so much no one likes it. Thats what they tried to do to the aztek. They let everyone have an opinion. You could get on GM's website and tell them what you thought it should have. You know what on paper it looks like a good idea, but in reality it failed miserably. However, as much bitching as I do about GM I will not give them crap about at least trying something different with the aztek. They thought outside the box and let the customer have input.
Didn't work but I give them a A for effort.
What can we learn from that though? Customers are idiots, they don't know what they want, they need to be told and thats what advertising is for. Besides that we also learn you can't make everyone happy with every car or you make no one happy.
GM will probably sell 100,000+ camaros the first year(hell even the thunderbird sold in the first year) Then GM will go yay for us we were right.
But maybe those body panels would have gotten them an extra 30,000 sales.
Not much in terms of numbers, but if they are making the same profit on the extra 30,000 that they were on the first 100,000 whats to complain about?
There is one other big area were they would fail though if they tried to do a T/A though and then of course they would blame the T/A idea and not themselves.
Like all car companies they make boring plain no option cars that are cheap to get people to the lots, then if you want a car with the spoiler and power windows so it doesn't look like total *** they charge an arm and leg for it.
Yes they make a ton of money from this.
They did it with the SLP camaros Add $1000 in parts and charge $5000 more.
If they would just add $1000 in parts to make it a T/A and then only add $1000 to the sticker they would sell there 30,000 and still make the X percent profit they are making on the base model, while killing the competition.
I present exhibit C5 Z06. I see more of those then regular C5's.
I would attribute this to the fact you got a whole lot more car for a lot less percentage increase then usual. (Keep in mind for a rich person paying $46,000 for a vette $6000more isn't that much more percentage wise)
Anyway just got to preach to the choir. I only bitch because I care. Tough love and all that.
And end with my favorite line.
"I could be totally wrong about everything, after all I don't run a profitable billion dollar global car company.....
...but then again neither does GM"
06-12-2006, 05:57 PM
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: oshawa,ontario,canada
Posts: 3,597
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Because GM can sell 30,000 Solstice/Sky but only 20,000 Solstice OR Sky.
06-12-2006, 06:06 PM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: oshawa,ontario,canada
Posts: 3,597
Re: I find myself asking this question...
and for those that say the money is not there awnser this:
explain the solstice/sky?
isn't the 2 seat convertable market smaller than the coupe market?
explain the solstice/sky?
isn't the 2 seat convertable market smaller than the coupe market?
06-12-2006, 06:37 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
and for those that say the money is not there awnser this:
explain the solstice/sky?
isn't the 2 seat convertable market smaller than the coupe market?
explain the solstice/sky?
isn't the 2 seat convertable market smaller than the coupe market?
06-12-2006, 06:43 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Posts: 313
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
because a GTO would be slightly larger than a Camaro -- and have more rear seat room -- meaning a mid-size coupe versus a 'pony car' (gawd, I hate that term!)
Think about it: Historically, the GTO has been an intermediate (now known as mid-size coupe) whereas the Firebird and Camaro were smaller --
Does it make sense to build a Camaro, a Monte Carlo, a Firebird, and a GTO knowing that the coupe market remains around 350,000 units a year? The answer is a resounding 'no.' Yes, I hate to say it -- but you simply cannot rationalize all of those entries which cannibalize each other in the market.
Think about it: Historically, the GTO has been an intermediate (now known as mid-size coupe) whereas the Firebird and Camaro were smaller --
Does it make sense to build a Camaro, a Monte Carlo, a Firebird, and a GTO knowing that the coupe market remains around 350,000 units a year? The answer is a resounding 'no.' Yes, I hate to say it -- but you simply cannot rationalize all of those entries which cannibalize each other in the market.
Also, as a current Trans Am owner and huge Pontiac fan, I love the look of the new Camaro and will consider buying one in a few years depending on what happens with the GTO. Its a bummer Firebird won't return, but I agree they should put the investment in the Camaro as the affordable sports coupe and make the GTO more upscale and spacious for Pontiac. I am excited, 2008 can't get here fast enough.
BTW - I would never consider a Mustang
06-12-2006, 06:51 PM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Do you know the ironic part of this whole discussion?
Back in the day, the guys at Pontiac had a whole different idea of what the Firebird was going to be. It was going to be their halo performance car, closer to Corvette than Camaro or Mustang. Even the Firebird concepts of the day were far away from what Firebird eventually became. (Remember Firebird I - IV?) In fact if you dig up the Firebird's history, the guys working on it where well on their way down a different path, when word came down from on high that they were to scrap their plans and basically graft Pontiac characteristics on a Camaro, swap in a Pontiac powerplant and be done with it. The guys on the inside working on the Firebird were dissappointed to say the least, but they gave in and created a car far below their own expectations.
Flash forward 40+ years and Firebird purists are dissappointed GM isn't going to make the same mistake twice.
Talk about irony.
Back in the day, the guys at Pontiac had a whole different idea of what the Firebird was going to be. It was going to be their halo performance car, closer to Corvette than Camaro or Mustang. Even the Firebird concepts of the day were far away from what Firebird eventually became. (Remember Firebird I - IV?) In fact if you dig up the Firebird's history, the guys working on it where well on their way down a different path, when word came down from on high that they were to scrap their plans and basically graft Pontiac characteristics on a Camaro, swap in a Pontiac powerplant and be done with it. The guys on the inside working on the Firebird were dissappointed to say the least, but they gave in and created a car far below their own expectations.
Flash forward 40+ years and Firebird purists are dissappointed GM isn't going to make the same mistake twice.
Talk about irony.
06-12-2006, 10:50 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
I think the best hope for the Firebird name is then either some insane explosion in the coupe market that would make a Camaro clone sellable, or a Firebird that is somewhat reinvented along the lines of a Silvia, sized somewhere from the 240SX to the Sn95s, (or between Solstice and Camaro) and maybe with a more 'hi-tech' image than the Camaro.
The BIG problem with Firebird is, that it's most vocal supporters want it to be nothing more or less than a tweaked Camaro, with essentially no difference in it's formula, market or niche. That worked in the days when you could sell 100,000 Trans Ams per year (that's Trans Am only
), but it just doesn't work when Camaro and Mustang combined will capture over 80% of the current coupe market.
06-12-2006, 11:12 PM
#72
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Bearcat Steve
Let's make the following assumptions:
1) GM is incorrect re: their conclusions about the size of the market.
2) There exists a sizable number of people who will buy a non-GM car if there is no Firebird.
3) A 5th gen Camaro can be made into a 5th gen Firebird with body panels and upgraded interior trim.
IF those assumptions are true, and BTW, I don't believe they are, then there exists an opportunity for an enterprising company to go to GM and work a deal to "build" Firebirds from Camaros -- much in the same way that SLP turned Z/28's into a better car; i.e., a Camaro SS.
Of course, there is risk in such a venture -- for the 3rd party company -- not GM. That also means that the "builder" of the Firebird would get a very nice return on investment -- again assuming the assumptions are true since there is significant return on risk according to capitalistic theory.
If I believed the assumptions to the nth degree and I felt very strongly about the Firebird, then I would approach GM with such a proposal. I might have to "partner" with another third party that already has the facilities, labor, and network to pull off this kind of venture.
My question is, "Why don't the people who believe fervently that there is a market for a Firebird AND a Camaro do so?" The answer may be found in the fact that people tend to be more emotional when posting on the Internet than they are in real life.
1) GM is incorrect re: their conclusions about the size of the market.
2) There exists a sizable number of people who will buy a non-GM car if there is no Firebird.
3) A 5th gen Camaro can be made into a 5th gen Firebird with body panels and upgraded interior trim.
IF those assumptions are true, and BTW, I don't believe they are, then there exists an opportunity for an enterprising company to go to GM and work a deal to "build" Firebirds from Camaros -- much in the same way that SLP turned Z/28's into a better car; i.e., a Camaro SS.
Of course, there is risk in such a venture -- for the 3rd party company -- not GM. That also means that the "builder" of the Firebird would get a very nice return on investment -- again assuming the assumptions are true since there is significant return on risk according to capitalistic theory.
If I believed the assumptions to the nth degree and I felt very strongly about the Firebird, then I would approach GM with such a proposal. I might have to "partner" with another third party that already has the facilities, labor, and network to pull off this kind of venture.
My question is, "Why don't the people who believe fervently that there is a market for a Firebird AND a Camaro do so?" The answer may be found in the fact that people tend to be more emotional when posting on the Internet than they are in real life.
you know -- you're post is just perfect. (in fact, I may have to leave ONE of my THREE SHARES of GM stock to you in my will)
Great insight!
06-12-2006, 11:22 PM
#73
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
Well not to be a smart *** but I can buy a brand new nose cone for my car for about $300. If I ordered 30,000 then it would probably be a hell of a lot less. T/A's have always cost more then camaro's new, so those that want one may expect to pay $1000 or two more.
I'll tell you right now I've tried and tried to like the new camaro, but I can't get over the front end. The rest is good but I can't stand the front end.
I may be alone, I may not.
I am aware the 4th gen bodys weren't the same, and thats why I am suggesting keeping more of it the same.
Again I fail to see why GM stamps two different front ends on some SUV's when the soccer moms buying them will never notice the difference. Camaro/Firebird people on the other hand will definitly notice.
There's one other little thing GM doesn't believe in anymore, but DCX certianly does.
"You can't expect to sell every type of car to every type of person, some are just image and will only be bought by a certian niche"
The viper doesn't sell big numbers, not profitiable like the ram, but they keep updating it, because it's a huge image booster.
I guess we'll see down the road who's theory is right.
I know I am preaching to the choir.
I'll tell you right now I've tried and tried to like the new camaro, but I can't get over the front end. The rest is good but I can't stand the front end.
I may be alone, I may not.
I am aware the 4th gen bodys weren't the same, and thats why I am suggesting keeping more of it the same.
Again I fail to see why GM stamps two different front ends on some SUV's when the soccer moms buying them will never notice the difference. Camaro/Firebird people on the other hand will definitly notice.
There's one other little thing GM doesn't believe in anymore, but DCX certianly does.
"You can't expect to sell every type of car to every type of person, some are just image and will only be bought by a certian niche"
The viper doesn't sell big numbers, not profitiable like the ram, but they keep updating it, because it's a huge image booster.
I guess we'll see down the road who's theory is right.
I know I am preaching to the choir.
Aaron -- first let me say that I love your passion. It's gratifying to know that people feel so strongly for some of our brands. And yes, you are preaching to the choir. (to an extent!)
I don't agree with your comment about DCX vs GM and image. First, we continue to update the Corvette and in fact can give the Viper a run for it's money for substantially less money. But also consider this: DCX has three mouths to feed -- four if you count Mercedes. GM has a lot more with Chevy/Pontiac/Buick/GMC/Cadillac/Saturn/Hummer/Saab. That's a lot of dealer bodies to keep in business with new product.
You may be able to buy a nose cone for $300, but it ain't GM and it won't hold up.
Take a wild guess at what the front end of the 98 Camaro cost. (I can't really post it here -- that might be crossing the line.) but it's way more than a Million. WAY more. That's resculping the front fender tools (to accept the new headlamps) a new nose and headlamps, and a new hood. That doesn't include the new interior -- or what it would cost to differentiate the interior between Firebird and Camaro)
Suffice it to say that if there were a true business case, we'd do it. We'd be crazy not to!
NOW----keep one other thing in mind.
The market does change. I'd never say Never --- cause Never is a longgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg time!
06-13-2006, 01:38 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
but how many camaro/firebirds could they sell? i bet combined it would be more than 150k if they can sell 100k camaro's on thier own.
Last edited by guionM; 06-13-2006 at 01:42 AM.
06-13-2006, 01:48 AM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 1,418
Re: I find myself asking this question...
Originally Posted by guionM
This is the same old rehash that's been gone over a thousand times to some degree or another here. But I'm still up with nothing better to do, so what the heck. 
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, compare that to Firebird fans that say they would never consider a Camaro. That sounds exactly like Mustang buyers would say, not someone that looks at General Motors as a single company (which it is). And that's the entire issue in a nutshell. GM is no longer that big, in a market that's that big, or has so much money where it can afford to compete against itself as if it were separate companies.
GM is acting and thinking as a single company. That means a better GM & a Pontiac that survives. This means Firebird (as far as it being a counterpart to Camaro) is dead. But we get a much better Camaro out of it (that money used for design, marketing, and support for 2 cars is instead put to better use in a single car for such things as better materials, more frequent changes, more equptment, etc...).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, compare that to Firebird fans that say they would never consider a Camaro. That sounds exactly like Mustang buyers would say, not someone that looks at General Motors as a single company (which it is). And that's the entire issue in a nutshell. GM is no longer that big, in a market that's that big, or has so much money where it can afford to compete against itself as if it were separate companies.
GM is acting and thinking as a single company. That means a better GM & a Pontiac that survives. This means Firebird (as far as it being a counterpart to Camaro) is dead. But we get a much better Camaro out of it (that money used for design, marketing, and support for 2 cars is instead put to better use in a single car for such things as better materials, more frequent changes, more equptment, etc...).
^^^^^^~~~~~~ genous.... you just said everything ive thought, but could never explain it! hah... makes many great points.
cory