Boss Mustang: It's coming.
05-16-2010, 06:23 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
What mistakes?
Here's one point I think people are forgetting; there are no mistakes on the 5th gen.
Room for improvement? Yes.
Mistakes? No.
I think some people forget that GM is a business; not a "let's make the autocross and CZ28 crowd happy" organization. Along with delivering a great performance car, they have to keep R&D costs down, which may mean utilizing an architecture that is less than ideal for pony car performance. They may not have the money to spend on a lightweight architecture solely for the Camaro. So they have to make trade-offs in terms of weight, R&D costs and other factors.
So GM made some trade-offs with the 5th gen. They are improving the interior for future models I hear. Great! Shouldn't be too difficult, expect for tooling costs for new molds and things like that.
But the weight issue; that's harder to fix. When you're talking about a 200-300 lb weight reduction from a car, you're getting into the territory of an architecture change; and that's a HUGE cost. It's such a huge cost that it probably doesn't make sense to change it.
I hope GM has the resources to make a lightweight 6th gen. I really do. But if they don't, they'll have to make trade-offs again.
And my final point is; if GM's 5th gen trade-offs were so bad, that it's weight is so terrible to the average consumer, and the interior is so awful, then why on earth has the 5th gen out-sold the Mustang for over a year now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36180212/ns/business-autos/
Looks like GM's decisions worked this time. Instead of having a tunnel-vision focus on weight and sportiness like the CZ28 crew would have them do, they looked at the big picture instead and now are reaping the rewards of that.
Here's one point I think people are forgetting; there are no mistakes on the 5th gen.
Room for improvement? Yes.
Mistakes? No.
I think some people forget that GM is a business; not a "let's make the autocross and CZ28 crowd happy" organization. Along with delivering a great performance car, they have to keep R&D costs down, which may mean utilizing an architecture that is less than ideal for pony car performance. They may not have the money to spend on a lightweight architecture solely for the Camaro. So they have to make trade-offs in terms of weight, R&D costs and other factors.
So GM made some trade-offs with the 5th gen. They are improving the interior for future models I hear. Great! Shouldn't be too difficult, expect for tooling costs for new molds and things like that.
But the weight issue; that's harder to fix. When you're talking about a 200-300 lb weight reduction from a car, you're getting into the territory of an architecture change; and that's a HUGE cost. It's such a huge cost that it probably doesn't make sense to change it.
I hope GM has the resources to make a lightweight 6th gen. I really do. But if they don't, they'll have to make trade-offs again.
And my final point is; if GM's 5th gen trade-offs were so bad, that it's weight is so terrible to the average consumer, and the interior is so awful, then why on earth has the 5th gen out-sold the Mustang for over a year now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36180212/ns/business-autos/
Looks like GM's decisions worked this time. Instead of having a tunnel-vision focus on weight and sportiness like the CZ28 crew would have them do, they looked at the big picture instead and now are reaping the rewards of that.
One thing I do want to add in relation to the weight argument and the 6G... if people here are saying the 6G will weigh some 300 lbs less... then if they are referring to the 4 cylinder version that could be introduced as a base model, it really is a tongue-in-cheek way of achieving a weight reduction. In this context, that's no model wide weight reduction so the V8 version won't be any lighter.
Just thinking out aloud.
05-16-2010, 07:24 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
What mistakes?
Here's one point I think people are forgetting; there are no mistakes on the 5th gen.
Room for improvement? Yes.
Mistakes? No.
I think some people forget that GM is a business; not a "let's make the autocross and CZ28 crowd happy" organization. Along with delivering a great performance car, they have to keep R&D costs down, which may mean utilizing an architecture that is less than ideal for pony car performance. They may not have the money to spend on a lightweight architecture solely for the Camaro. So they have to make trade-offs in terms of weight, R&D costs and other factors.
So GM made some trade-offs with the 5th gen. They are improving the interior for future models I hear. Great! Shouldn't be too difficult, expect for tooling costs for new molds and things like that.
But the weight issue; that's harder to fix. When you're talking about a 200-300 lb weight reduction from a car, you're getting into the territory of an architecture change; and that's a HUGE cost. It's such a huge cost that it probably doesn't make sense to change it.
I hope GM has the resources to make a lightweight 6th gen. I really do. But if they don't, they'll have to make trade-offs again.
And my final point is; if GM's 5th gen trade-offs were so bad, that it's weight is so terrible to the average consumer, and the interior is so awful, then why on earth has the 5th gen out-sold the Mustang for over a year now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36180212/ns/business-autos/
Looks like GM's decisions worked this time. Instead of having a tunnel-vision focus on weight and sportiness like the CZ28 crew would have them do, they looked at the big picture instead and now are reaping the rewards of that.
Here's one point I think people are forgetting; there are no mistakes on the 5th gen.
Room for improvement? Yes.
Mistakes? No.
I think some people forget that GM is a business; not a "let's make the autocross and CZ28 crowd happy" organization. Along with delivering a great performance car, they have to keep R&D costs down, which may mean utilizing an architecture that is less than ideal for pony car performance. They may not have the money to spend on a lightweight architecture solely for the Camaro. So they have to make trade-offs in terms of weight, R&D costs and other factors.
So GM made some trade-offs with the 5th gen. They are improving the interior for future models I hear. Great! Shouldn't be too difficult, expect for tooling costs for new molds and things like that.
But the weight issue; that's harder to fix. When you're talking about a 200-300 lb weight reduction from a car, you're getting into the territory of an architecture change; and that's a HUGE cost. It's such a huge cost that it probably doesn't make sense to change it.
I hope GM has the resources to make a lightweight 6th gen. I really do. But if they don't, they'll have to make trade-offs again.
And my final point is; if GM's 5th gen trade-offs were so bad, that it's weight is so terrible to the average consumer, and the interior is so awful, then why on earth has the 5th gen out-sold the Mustang for over a year now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36180212/ns/business-autos/
Looks like GM's decisions worked this time. Instead of having a tunnel-vision focus on weight and sportiness like the CZ28 crew would have them do, they looked at the big picture instead and now are reaping the rewards of that.
Mistake 2: Making the 4th gen harder to live with than its direct competition and not noticing the sales success of the competing Mustang.
Mistake 3: Not utilizing existing hardware (VE or Sigma), even if it meant a compromised vehicle, and keeping a model out of production for 7 years.
Mistake 4: Not sweating the details on the Camaro's interior and not paying attention to the reaction of the public about the concept's interior.
If you take out Mistake 1 and 2 then #3 might not have had to happened. Number 4 is honestly beyond my comprehension. You have a concept that's exterior is going over like Pac-Man in the 70s and have an at best luke warm reception of the interior. Why not take some of the upgrades being applied across the product line and put that into your new, hot, highly anticipated pony car? Heck I am sure that someone could have pieced together a great looking interior using the GMT900s parts or just simply using Holden's existing design and the interior get a better reception.
And you are right GM is a business. And it's sole goal is to make money and taking a product off the market for 7 years because of poor decision making is inexcusable. Not using an existing architecture because of infighting (Caddy's sole use of Sigma) and 'not from here attitude' is inexcusable.
I am not saying the Camaro should be a Ferrari beater, I am not advocating a pure race car. I am saying that if we ignore or forgive the poor decisions of the past then we are doomed to repeat them.
Mistakes: Yes, Compromises: Yes, Room for improvement: Yes
05-16-2010, 07:41 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Not even, Ford stretched the same unibody chassis that had under-pinned the 67-70 Mustangs so they could fit the 429 in the car. The Torino wheel base was 117" for the Coupe as opposed to the 109" Wheel base on the 71-73 Mustang. They shared alot of parts though, so I could see where the confusion is (control arms and rear ends being the most obvious).
Last edited by bossco; 05-16-2010 at 07:49 PM.
05-16-2010, 08:30 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
I think got off track with my last post so let me amend it with some of the mistakes made directly with the 5th gen.
Mistake 1: Choosing a plant with HUGE production capacity but not allocating product to said facility/not building a large enough supply network for said extra product. This drives up the production costs for each Camaro built, decreasing the return on the product.
Mistake 2: Not listening to the outcry over the interior on the 5th gen concept.
Mistake 3: Using a chassis with a production system that couldn't be used without modifying the chassis OR the production system (incompatible AUS vs NA production methods). Cost the company money that could have been better spent elsewhere (interior or weight reduction or both)
At this point in my post will be blasted by many because, lets face it, the car is selling well NOW. Lets also remember the Camaro has been off the market for 7 years!
Ford's Mustang sold almost a million units (935,545) in Camaro's absence! The breakdown is 2003: 151,328. 2004: 145,369. 2005: 160,412. 2006: 165,762. 2007: 157,487. 2008: 108,767. 2009: 46,420.
You can't tell me there isn't pent up demand for Camaro that is driving the sales (particularly the high end V8 cars that are making up the majority of production) right now. The 2nd and 3rd production years will tell just how well the public responds to the vehicle.
Mistake 1: Choosing a plant with HUGE production capacity but not allocating product to said facility/not building a large enough supply network for said extra product. This drives up the production costs for each Camaro built, decreasing the return on the product.
Mistake 2: Not listening to the outcry over the interior on the 5th gen concept.
Mistake 3: Using a chassis with a production system that couldn't be used without modifying the chassis OR the production system (incompatible AUS vs NA production methods). Cost the company money that could have been better spent elsewhere (interior or weight reduction or both)
At this point in my post will be blasted by many because, lets face it, the car is selling well NOW. Lets also remember the Camaro has been off the market for 7 years!
Ford's Mustang sold almost a million units (935,545) in Camaro's absence! The breakdown is 2003: 151,328. 2004: 145,369. 2005: 160,412. 2006: 165,762. 2007: 157,487. 2008: 108,767. 2009: 46,420.
You can't tell me there isn't pent up demand for Camaro that is driving the sales (particularly the high end V8 cars that are making up the majority of production) right now. The 2nd and 3rd production years will tell just how well the public responds to the vehicle.
05-17-2010, 01:54 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Not even, Ford stretched the same unibody chassis that had under-pinned the 67-70 Mustangs so they could fit the 429 in the car. The Torino wheel base was 117" for the Coupe as opposed to the 109" Wheel base on the 71-73 Mustang. They shared alot of parts though, so I could see where the confusion is (control arms and rear ends being the most obvious).
05-17-2010, 06:24 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: City of Champions, MA, USA
Posts: 1,214
Cool, way to go Ford.
-450-470 hp
-Weight reduction.
-Emphasis on handling and braking.
-Priced between GT and GT500.
Why can't GM do this. We don't need a supercharged behemoth Z28. The Z28 needs to be a tossable fun to drive car, not a flippin 600HP ocean liner on wheels. I hope GM does the right thing.
-450-470 hp
-Weight reduction.
-Emphasis on handling and braking.
-Priced between GT and GT500.
Why can't GM do this. We don't need a supercharged behemoth Z28. The Z28 needs to be a tossable fun to drive car, not a flippin 600HP ocean liner on wheels. I hope GM does the right thing.
I agree, of course. I just can't see how this gen car would respond directly to a Boss Mustang. I don't know if GM will end up substantially revising the LSA Z/28 already developed and waiting on the shelf - but from what I've heard, "tossable" is definitely something you shouldn't expect from it (and I'm being diplomatic 
).
Maybe the Boss Mustang will inspire a 6th gen Z/28.
).Maybe the Boss Mustang will inspire a 6th gen Z/28.
Yup. Most cars get their reputations from faux marketing BS. Very few cars earn their reputations the hard way - from the unforgiving crucible of organized road racing and the brutal battle to win championships. Boss and Z/28 are REAL legends for good reason.
Looks like Ford remembers that. Sadly, could be that GM has forgotten it.
Looks like Ford remembers that. Sadly, could be that GM has forgotten it.
Really? Seems to me that Ford "gets" what a Boss is. Does GM "get" what a Z/28 is?
BTW, I don't think it's possible to have a thread on a Boss Mustang and not bring the Z/28 into the discussion on a Camaro board. I'd rather you had something to contribute here though, instead of trying to start another flame war.
BTW, I don't think it's possible to have a thread on a Boss Mustang and not bring the Z/28 into the discussion on a Camaro board. I'd rather you had something to contribute here though, instead of trying to start another flame war.
Camaro doesn't need to have a model to compete with EVERY model of the Mustang. It never has in the past and there is no need for it now. Mustang has always had more editions and more trims.
The Z28 has changed so many times over the Camaro's life. Yet for some reason this board is hooked on the '67 definition of what it should be. I don't remember this board up in arms back in the late 90's over the Z28 not being what it was in '67, but for some reason here in 2010 it needs to be the 67 model all over again.
Mistake 1: Promising the Camaro name to a plant that was already WAY under capacity.
Mistake 2: Making the 4th gen harder to live with than its direct competition and not noticing the sales success of the competing Mustang.
Mistake 3: Not utilizing existing hardware (VE or Sigma), even if it meant a compromised vehicle, and keeping a model out of production for 7 years.
Mistake 4: Not sweating the details on the Camaro's interior and not paying attention to the reaction of the public about the concept's interior.
Mistake 2: Making the 4th gen harder to live with than its direct competition and not noticing the sales success of the competing Mustang.
Mistake 3: Not utilizing existing hardware (VE or Sigma), even if it meant a compromised vehicle, and keeping a model out of production for 7 years.
Mistake 4: Not sweating the details on the Camaro's interior and not paying attention to the reaction of the public about the concept's interior.
05-17-2010, 07:21 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Discussion should be kept to the Mustang. I personally know nothing about the new Boss but I have a hard time believing 470 HP out of a production 5.0 at this point - not without some more significant revisions than an exhaust. Besides, combined with weight reduction and handling goodies, that car would make the GT500 completely obsolete at that power level and I don't believe Ford wants to step on the toes of their top car.
05-17-2010, 08:15 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
For a little while anyway, The Boss seems to be an SE in much the same way that the Mach is, it'll probably last for a few years until the next generation Mustang arrives rather than an intermediate model to the Shelby. Fords only two reoccuring SEs seem to be the Bullitt and California Special (if you can consider the CS/GT an SE since its really only a trim package thats been available pretty much every year since the S-197's intr4oduction).
05-17-2010, 08:37 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tallanasty, FL
Posts: 268
For a little while anyway, The Boss seems to be an SE in much the same way that the Mach is, it'll probably last for a few years until the next generation Mustang arrives rather than an intermediate model to the Shelby. Fords only two reoccuring SEs seem to be the Bullitt and California Special (if you can consider the CS/GT an SE since its really only a trim package thats been available pretty much every year since the S-197's intr4oduction).
C/S = RS
An appearance package that makes the car look better...
05-17-2010, 08:46 AM
#43
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
05-17-2010, 08:57 AM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
I remember those threads. 10-20 pages minimum and red hot! At least Chevy got the point on the hierarchy. Kind of pathetic that GM forgot what it should be and had to be reminded. Ford doesn't seem to suffer from that.Discussion should be kept to the Mustang. I personally know nothing about the new Boss but I have a hard time believing 470 HP out of a production 5.0 at this point - not without some more significant revisions than an exhaust. Besides, combined with weight reduction and handling goodies, that car would make the GT500 completely obsolete at that power level and I don't believe Ford wants to step on the toes of their top car.
A SC'd Gen V could be in the next gen CTS-V though.
Last edited by Z284ever; 05-17-2010 at 09:06 AM.
