Why did GM stop making the camaros and firebirds?

Hello boys and girls, I am writing another paper. This one is asking why did GM discontinue the camaro and firebird. Any information as to where I can find facts would be helpful. Any info that you give me is helpful. Any opinions you might want to express about the subject, such as this was a mistake, will be helpful. Anything is helpful as long as it pertains to the ending of the camaro or firebird. thx.

It's a combination of things. Marketing and contractual problems with the plant. Don't be surprised to see the come back right in time to compete with the new mustang.

i doubt you'll be able to use this in your paper, but i think the answer is simple: economics. GM wasn't making enough money on the f-bodies. if they were making money hand over fist on these things, they'd still be doing it.

as far as the specific economic factors behind this, maybe someone has a link to an article somewhere that goes in-depth on this matter.

just remember, GM is a company, not our buddy. and they make decisions just like any other company: how does it effect the bottom line??

Originally posted by camaro322hp
i doubt you'll be able to use this in your paper, but i think the answer is simple: economics. GM wasn't making enough money on the f-bodies. if they were making money hand over fist on these things, they'd still be doing it.

as far as the specific economic factors behind this, maybe someone has a link to an article somewhere that goes in-depth on this matter.

just remember, GM is a company, not our buddy. and they make decisions just like any other company: how does it effect the bottom line??
and just to add to what he was sayin. I think the reason that they cant sell any is because of the insane insurance costs that come with it. So its hard for any teen to get a z28/ta. So they turn to V6stangs.

MONEY.plant was designed to make 250k vehicles and only 70-80k were being sold a year.so it wasnt smart to keep making them there and probably not a good decision unfortunately to move it to a smaller plant.i really dont see why it didnt share space with the C5 since i read that there was space in that bowling green plant.maybe someone knows?


there might be other reasons or theories but sales was why and i really dont think more advertising wouldve saved it.there are many misconceptions about these cars that didnt help things also.

What I wouldn't give to write a paper like that. :cool:

I just finished writing a 15 page paper outling EVERY facet of the rubber and tire industry, and I was thinking to myself how I wish I could write about cars instead, oh well.

Price and cost of ownership basically killed these cars.

- Option-for-option, a Mustang is about $1,500 cheaper than a Camaro
- Big power = big insurance costs
- most people don't like the seating position

Also, think of how practical it would be to drive a Ferrari everyday and then a Grand Prix. Well, the Mustang is closer to the GP and the Camaro is closer to the Ferrari, so people view it as more of a performance car and see the Mustang as more of a sporty car for having fun in. That's why most people who buy V6 (and V8 in lesser numbers) Mustangs are girls.

Thx for the info guys....I posted a similar message once before that was a lot more of an in depth discussion, but these posts are also very helpful thx again.

Also I also want some opinions on wha everyone thinks about it. I know that GM had to do what they had to do, but any opinions?

My opinions: If they make a 5th gen. there should be more models. There should be something between the 200 and 305hp range to get some of the Mustang GT market. I really really really......... like the cockpit feeling of the Camaro. The doors on Camaros are pretty big making it hard to get in and out. The seats are something like two inches lower then a mustangs which also makes it harder to get in and out. No trunk, basically the Camaro has to be more practical if it's going to sell. There's a huge market that wants something pretty fast. Grand Prix GTP owners for example realize there are cars faster then them but still like having a little extra punch.

F-bodies weren't practical enough, slightly smaller doors and a third engine option are what I think would make the f-body sell again.

I think the big reason was that in 2003 the government required big changes in safety features. The original 4th gen was probably designed in 90-91, without these safety features designed into it. whereas the Mustang was redisigned in the mid nineties, and took these government changes due in 2003 into account when designing it.

if fbodies were selling making minor safety changes wouldnt have stopped GM from producing them.since sales were low im sure that was another reason to not bring it back.

ls1 fbodys were offered in the low 20s comparable to GTs and they still didnt sell.they were the best musclecar ever made for the cost and it still didnt save them.this is a fact because you give me a car of any era with that kind of performance,braking,handling,gas mileage,emissions ect.there is none.

getting in an out and comfort though i dont think its that bad was always a complaint going back at least to 3rd gens and they sold well.musclecars in general arent in demand and havent been for awhile now.


if a 5th gen. is made i have no problem with refinement as long as its still a musclecar.

Not an LS1 tech post.

Actually, I am going to move it to the 5th gen forum. Technically, it is not a 5th gen question, but there are a lot of people there that can provide a lot of insight to this since they rehash it about once a week. :):)

Do some research...search the 5th gen board. You can get a good idea, but it'll be difficult to come up with a lot of sources to prove some of the reasons beyond doubt.

Just thought I would pop in and say GM made money on every 3rd and 4th gen they made. The basic chasis design was paid for in about 85 with the third gen and the 4th gens paid for themselves after about 95. Don't say the car didn't make money it DID. The replacement wasn't worked on at all and the car was supposed to be canned in 98. The ONLY reason it lived till 02 was thanks to guys like Scott Settlemire and Rick Wagoner, true car nuts who knew how important Camaro and Firebird are to us.

Points to reconsider:

1. GM was still making a profit on every f-body made, so money isn't an issue.

2. For the million-and first-time:
THE F-BODY WASN'T OVERPRICED, IT WASN'T DOOMED BY INSURENCE COSTS, AND....please get this embeded into the old noggin.... Z28s & T/As WERE NEVER, NEVER, EVER TARGETED TO TEENS!!!!
If someone couldn't afford a base $23,000 Z28, why be a irritating whiner, and say it was too expensive when I see plenty of young people driving cars that cost alot more! Nothing grates my nerves more! :rolleyes: :no:

3. And Finally, lowering the power rating would not affect sales or it's competition to the Mustang GT.

"Gee... let's see. The Mustang has an upright stance, it's easier to get in & out of, it has a ton of books magazines, and loads of aftermarket support, Camaro & Firebird hasn't had a re-design in 10 years, while Mustang was changed twice! Duh.... that means F-bodies failed because they were too powerful! Let's put in a weaker engine!" :lol: You work for Ford, don't you??

Again, give it a rest. Insurence isn't rated by horsepower, it's rated by claims. It's been gone over before. I can come up with at least 2 companies where Mustang GTs cost more to insure than Z28s.

The top 10 reasons why F-bodies died (pretty much in order):

10. The Ford Mustang. It's sales exploded after it's 1999 redesign, yet the overall market collaspsed to the point Mustang ended up with about half the market (this includes all the imports as well as the F-bod).

9. The sudden drop in sales in the sport coupe market around 98 (the f-bodies remained the 2nd best selling sport coupes in the US...just shows you how bad things were).

8. SUVs & the profit machines they became. GM stopped spending money on cars & diverted it to trucks.

7. No advertizing.

6. The F-body had a serious shortage of friends in high places.

5. The only way of pulling out of a highly restrictive contract at Ste. Therese, was if f-body sales dropped. Best way to start that happening? Stop advertizing it.

4. The idea of using the Monaro as the basis for a new Camaro was vetoed, as was basing Camaro on a FWD chassis.

3. Safety standards that would have mandated major changes in the roofline which would have required alot of money, which GM didn't want to invest in a chassis developed 20 years prior.

2. No replacement chassis available to base a new one on.

1. No redesign for 10 years!

Just to add to gunionM's comments. Basicly those are the reasons and factors but the cause was in 1996-1997 When the issue came up to replace the current F-body with a new model the GM strategy board decided not to do so and thus made the 98-02 F-bodies a lame duck. GM decided after the LS1 and front end style change not to invest any more cash into the line and thus dooming it in the sales area and the engineering and design side. It was like pulling teeth with a string and door handle to get some cash just to have an 35th anniversay SS and Collectors Edition Trans Am WS6 in 2002. Blame Don Hackworth or Bob Smith but the board acted as a group to kill the F-body.

For those that want to know, Don Hackworth was senior vice president (as opposed to Bob Lutz who's a vice chairman) who ran North America car group, and as I understand was a key blocker against incorperating Holden's RWD cars into the US line up. I believe he's retired now.

But, who is Bob Smith?? :confused:

Originally posted by guionM
For those that want to know, Don Hackworth was senior vice president (as opposed to Bob Lutz who's a vice chairman) who ran North America car group, and as I understand was a key blocker against incorperating Holden's RWD cars into the US line up. I believe he's retired now.

But, who is Bob Smith?? :confused:

Can we have Don's address and telephone # so that he can be harassed until the day he dies???:D

The guy who caught that ball at the Cubs game is getting hell; this guy deserves a beheading!:mad:

krillanaross if I were you, I'd pretty much base my paper completely off what GuionM posted. This guy is an encyclopedia of Current and past Camaro info and a cars god in general. Everything he posted is true and fact. Be careful on what you read though because a lot of people out there and media have no clue about the real demise of the Camaro. A lot of politics involved. Research a lot here in the 5th Gen board. There is a huge amount of true quality info. Good luck on your paper.

Originally posted by guionM
For those that want to know, Don Hackworth was senior vice president (as opposed to Bob Lutz who's a vice chairman) who ran North America car group, and as I understand was a key blocker against incorperating Holden's RWD cars into the US line up. I believe he's retired now.

But, who is Bob Smith?? :confused:

Jack Smith CEO, we called him good ol' Bob when I was at GM. I forget people here don't know the nicknames. He wasn't really against the F-body but not really for it either. Again at that level politics and profits are more important. You could group Ron Zarella into that group too but really when he got to GM the work had been finished. He just helped to push the car out the door and make things difficult on its anniversary.
Give credit to RP and his team for their dental work in getting the F-bodies a proper send off. They deserve a degree in dental hygine for their tooth pulling and a drilling budgets.

Originally posted by ULTIMTEORANGESS
if fbodies were selling making minor safety changes wouldnt have stopped GM from producing them.since sales were low im sure that was another reason to not bring it back.

ls1 fbodys were offered in the low 20s comparable to GTs and they still didnt sell.they were the best musclecar ever made for the cost and it still didnt save them.this is a fact because you give me a car of any era with that kind of performance,braking,handling,gas mileage,emissions ect.there is none.

getting in an out and comfort though i dont think its that bad was always a complaint going back at least to 3rd gens and they sold well.musclecars in general arent in demand and havent been for awhile now.


if a 5th gen. is made i have no problem with refinement as long as its still a musclecar.

No such thing as minor saftety changes. The changes would have cost them a lot.

if the car was selling up to expectations they wouldve updated the car.all models have to be upgraded at one time.they have to meet emissions,gas mileage,safety ect.the car wasnt profitable enough in GMs opinion to keep around and thats why it isnt.theres all kinds of speculations but the bottom line is money.

Don't forget that GM also offered a whole bunch of Coupes.....while Ford had four coupes available (Mustang, Cougar, ZX2 and Focus) Chevy had four (Camaro, Corvette, Monte, and Cavalier...plus cousin Firebird, Grand Am, Grand Prix, then Alero, Saturn.........GM outsold Ford by 3 to 1 in the coupe market in 2001........the problem in some respects was the number of choices........buyer behavoir reports showed that over half of Mustang buyers would not have considered Camaro/Firebird as their second choice.......rather, they would have chosen a Grand Am or a Cavalier Z24.........

One other note........the Camaro and Firebird did NOT always make money........and that's one of the biggest reasons for the cars going on (I'm not allowed to say the H word..........)

Originally posted by Red Planet
[B buyer behavoir reports showed that over half of Mustang buyers would not have considered Camaro/Firebird as their second choice.......rather, they would have chosen a Grand Am or a Cavalier Z24.........

[/B]

Is it possible people would have chosen the grand am or z 24 because they were closer in size to the Mustang than camaro/fb?

Originally posted by Red Planet
Don't forget that GM also offered a whole bunch of Coupes.....while Ford had four coupes available (Mustang, Cougar, ZX2 and Focus) Chevy had four (Camaro, Corvette, Monte, and Cavalier...plus cousin Firebird, Grand Am, Grand Prix, then Alero, Saturn.........GM outsold Ford by 3 to 1 in the coupe market in 2001........the problem in some respects was the number of choices........buyer behavoir reports showed that over half of Mustang buyers would not have considered Camaro/Firebird as their second choice.......rather, they would have chosen a Grand Am or a Cavalier Z24.........

One other note........the Camaro and Firebird did NOT always make money........and that's one of the biggest reasons for the cars going on (I'm not allowed to say the H word..........)

I wonder if the V8 models were ever close, in terms of sales? I swear I see more often V8 model Fbodys than V6's.

Anyway, I suggest this thread be made a sticky for future referance.

Originally posted by Red Planet
One other note........the Camaro and Firebird did NOT always make money........and that's one of the biggest reasons for the cars going on (I'm not allowed to say the H word..........) Hibernation? :D

Originally posted by Red Planet
I'm not allowed to say the H word..........

:confused: Why not? Wasn't that the word GM used in its official press release?

Originally posted by gtjeff
Is it possible people would have chosen the grand am or z 24 because they were closer in size to the Mustang than camaro/fb?

u see something wrong with mustang owners period.

Originally posted by gtjeff
Is it possible people would have chosen the grand am or z 24 because they were closer in size to the Mustang than camaro/fb?

I don't see how this statement insinuates that there is something wrong with Mustang buyers. :confused:

I agree with gtjeff....I would also add seating position, long dash, long hood that you can't see as reasons they didn't include the Camaro on their list. Overall more intimidating to drive for some people....especially those looking only for a V6. They wanted a sporty stylish coupe. The Camaro has more of a traditional sports car/corvette mindset to it. These are the people for whom performance is not a top priority. If it was they wouldn't be looking at the grand am or Z24.

Originally posted by Demon_Cleaner
I wonder if the V8 models were ever close, in terms of sales? I swear I see more often V8 model Fbodys than V6's.

Anyway, I suggest this thread be made a sticky for future referance.


actually in 02 v8 sales were higher than v6 sales.i dont think thats how its supposed to work.v6 4th gen sales always did seem low.

If I may, let me add a bit of perspective. I have been a Mustang owner for the balance of my "musclecar life", but prior to the LS1 coming around, I had also owned a 74 Firebird and an 85 Z28. Until the LS1 hit the streets, the only other F-body I ever wanted was the 89 TTA (for obvious reasons). The L98 and LT1 cars just didn't do it for me (no offense to those that own them - it is personal preference).

With that in mind, in the summer of 98, we were looking for a car for my wife. The primary cars we looked at were the 98 Cobra and 98 T/A. We drove them on the same day, back to back. If it were up to me (on that day), I would have picked a low-option Formula they had on the lot. However, the wife fell in love with the Cobra (new 98), and we had one by that evening. I wanted to Formula for one reason - the LS1. She didn't like much of anything about the T/A - too big, felt clumsy, hard to see out of (relative to the Mustang), stuff like that.

Curiously enough, after several months, she decided she didn't want the Cobra either (gee dear, its just money). I drove it for a while, but decided to sell it as I wanted - you guessed it - an LS1.

After a few more months of looking, in Aug of 2000, I came upon a black 99 T/A with a T56, WS6 hood, a few bolt-ons, etc, etc and only 8000 miles. Got a good deal on it, and off I went - happy as a lark. At least for a while.

The car was fast (especially given its weight), didn't rattle like some said they would, was very stable, and except for a few warranty issues that I had taken care of (or at least worked on), it was reliable. The LS1 was (is) a gem of a motor, and the T56 worked great - though I'd prefer more 1st gear. It cruised quietly at speed on the highway and got really good mileage.

All that said, after a few months with it, I was ready to get out of it and go back to a Mustang. Why? Curiously enough, most of my reasons were very simliar to the reasons my wife cited for not buying one in the first place, with a few other things thrown in. Specifically, I didn't care for...

1) The seating position. Too low, too laid back. Contrary to what seems to be the style of many of the newest generation of youngsters, I like to know what is going on around me - thus I like to sit up.

2) The seating position. You fall into the car, and you climb out. In a Mustang, you get in and get out - if that makes sense. Not a big deal to some, but I didn't care for it.

3) Visibility. I've been told that I'm full of it, but after spending considerable time in both cars, the Mustang has better visibility and much less of a "blind spot" over your left shoulder. I'm a pretty cautious driver, and its pretty rare that I pull in front of folks, etc. In the 9 months I had the T/A, I almost hit someone coming up on my left three different times. Yes, I probably should have looked more/better/whatever. However, that had never happened before, and it hasn't happened since. The visibility out the F-body simply is not as good as the Mustang or most other cars.

4) The car felt "big". Even though it would hand a Mustang its butt on a silver platter around a road course or auto-X (given equal drivers...hard to find or measure), driving it around town every day, the T/A simply was not as easy to "pilot". It felt big and clumsy compared to the Mustang. Curiously enough, My 98 Cobra was only about 180 lbs less, and my 99 only about 90 lbs less than my T/A. But what a car feels like means a lot - even if it is not what is actually happening.

5) My particular car had a odor that simply would not go away. I barely remember it now, but the dealer had a TSB on it (delt with moisture in the vent system), performed the work, but still didn't get rid of the smell. It was annoying, and I realize it wasn't an issue on the vast majority of cars - but it was on mine.

6) Racing opportunities. This probably has little bearing for most buyers, but I like to drag race (as in legally). There simply isn't any real support for F-body drag racing outside of local events and the occasional get-together sponsored by one of the many websites (I've helped with a couple of them). In contrast, Mustang drivers have Fun Ford Weekend (FFW) and the National Mustang Racers Association (NMRA) as regular series to compete in - with classes for virtually any Mustang. There is also the annual World Ford Challenge, and numerous local events. This really did have a big influence on my decision - though I recognize it wouldn't influence a great deal of people.

To be perfectly honest, I would have bought a GT after selling the T/A if I had not found my current car. That's a big step-down in power - and I've been a hot-rodder for a long time - but it was worth it to me, based on what I just typed above.

FWIW...I hope a Camaro/Firebird returns, and I hope it is a damn good, affordable car. Competition improves the breed - lack of competition makes the only choice in town go stale.

Originally posted by Red Planet
Don't forget that GM also offered a whole bunch of Coupes.....while Ford had four coupes available (Mustang, Cougar, ZX2 and Focus) Chevy had four (Camaro, Corvette, Monte, and Cavalier...plus cousin Firebird, Grand Am, Grand Prix, then Alero, Saturn.........GM outsold Ford by 3 to 1 in the coupe market in 2001........the problem in some respects was the number of choices........buyer behavoir reports showed that over half of Mustang buyers would not have considered Camaro/Firebird as their second choice.......rather, they would have chosen a Grand Am or a Cavalier Z24.........

One other note........the Camaro and Firebird did NOT always make money........and that's one of the biggest reasons for the cars going on (I'm not allowed to say the H word..........)

..... yea, like he said. :)

bob,you brought a tear to my eye man.:cry: :D

LOL. Ya, I bet. ;)

You know, I should have made brief mention of the things I DID like about the car, including the T-tops (miss the hell out of them), the steering-mounted radio controls, the big OD gear, the fact that it did not rattle and feel like it was going to fall apart, and of course, the engine itself.