1st, love this site. have been lurking for a little while. The posts that I read provide so much info/entertainment and get me through the day at work.

Also, I know the way this board works...if I post something that has already been posted (regardless how long ago) I will be roasted like a bird on T-Giving. Im posting at my own risk.

Im just going to keep this very short..

OK, so here goes.....

Does anyone else feel or think that GM purposely killed the F-Body, knowing that they would be brining it back in 5 or so years just to create a buzz around its return and so that it would sell more than the 4th Gen's did?

Flame on!!!!

 

Obviously. That's probably not what they did it for, but they know it is (generally) how it goes.

4th Gens weren't selling very well, and rather throw money at it to keep producing the same thing for a few more years, while throwing money to develop a new one (which would have to be.. basically from scratch), they just decided.. you know, let's just terminate this for now, and we'll work on a concept and hopefully come back stronger than ever with enticed interest in people in our new car.


And other things, too. But that's probably a good reason they decided to take it off the grill.

 

NO, Do you think Chevy would stop selling the Silverado for 5 years to create "buzz" and try to out sell the F-150? would that be good business? NO!!! GM lost on avg. 100,000 sales a year by not having a 5th gen. They also lost a lot of F-body owners to the new Mustang so when the Camaro does come back it might not have as stong a following as it one did.

Bottom line is we are still waiting on a RWD platform.

 

Reasons for the F-body demise:

1. Lack of suitable shared (i.e. low cost) platform for a next generation replacement
2. Expensive to operate production facility that GM couldn't get out of due to the CAW contract unless they stopped making the Camaro all together.
3. Lackluster sales, particularly of V6 models. We can argue some of this was self imposed via elimination of improvements and advertising, perhaps so the case to kill the car would be easier. However, either way sales were off the mark and were down significatnly from bothe the F-body heyday and from the 4th gen peak.

GM would not spot Ford 5 years of Coupe dominance just to create buzz for the next car. I'd say the pause in production has been a bit too pregnant for that to really be as effective as maybe a 1-year absence would have been.

 

I agree with your points.. but 4-5 yrs (or whatever) versus 1 year gets more people into the car. It's more of a "can they produce something as glorious as before?", "can it compete, now?", and "how will the new camaro perform and function" rather than a "they're taking a year off to revamp the camaro"

sure, they lost sales.. but all they would have had was the same camaro, just slightly faster and slightly newer... I'm not sure it would have been worth it (keeping in mind your other points)

I'm not sure the Camaro competing DIRECTLY with the mustang would have been good... Mustang is a name EVERYONE knows... not as many people know what a camaro is...if the camaro would have failed at launch due to the mustang overshadowing it.. it would have NOT been good. "Hey guys.. you know.. we... we're still here, too... mustang isn't the only choice" says the camaro.

why not a "you've been running the show here long enough.. DIE!" - New Camaro


:P

 

As was said above though 4-5 years is 4-5 years worth of lost sales. 75,000-100,000 units per year....you're out 400,000 cars at about $30,000 each so you've lost $12 billion.

Is "buzz" for the new model worth $12 billion in gross sales?

I think its pretty obvious GM would not purposefully create a 5 year gap solely for buzz. There are other reasons which have necessitated the gap.

 

The stuff Chris96WS6 posted about has alot to do it... and alot to do with why there wasnt a 5th gen out already

The platform was actually axed in the mid 90s... and production continued longer than was orginially targeted. There were sufficient sales to keep Ste Therese running. Let's face it... there wasnt a huge allocation of money put into the fourth gens when they were introduced. Why do you think we still have the third gen floorpans? The Bosch traction control system was used on the C4s, airbags were never updated, etc, etc. To cut costs

Final blow was due to new US crash standards that went into effect Sept, 2002. No FCars could be built after that date, since they did not meet those standards.

 

Agreed.

David

 

We'd like to think GM was smart enough to have a master plan, but all the evidence points toward sheer business decision failure.

- GM honestly didn't think there was a market for an rwd performance coupe. There are scores of official GM quotes regarding this point.
- GM was making BIG money on SUVs...that's where they thought the market was going to stay. Gas was cheap. Tons of official GM literature on this as well.
- As mentioned above, lack of a shared platform.
- Union contracts which prevented the Camaro/Firebird from being produced anywhere other than the Canadian plant. Literature has just started to come out on this over the past year or so.

So GM will say they decided not to design a new Camaro because of cost concerns...yet, they essentially designed an SSR from scratch. The last year Camaro sold around 30,000 units - without any advertising !!! Versus the SSR, which gets advertised like mad, and sofar squeaks out around 2,500 sales per year. My point is, they could have designed a new Camaro if they really wanted to - they just didn't want to. They thought the future was trucks and SUVs.

I believe GM just plain and simply blew it...they weren't watching the market or listening to customers. Nor were they watching the competition. I believe they considered their SUV and truck line as an impenetrable fortress. I believe they thought themselves too big and powerful to EVER fall. I believe the company was run by bean counters rather than auto enthusiasts.

 

I think instead of a $12 Billion dollar loss, its actually more near even if you take into account that parts/materials/shipping/wages...etc that was cut due to the fact that the Quebec plant was closed and the F-Body killed. If they were making so much on selling F-Bodies, they would not have killed it in the first place.


just my .02 cents

 

I sadly agree with you, but was hoping that GM had some "master" plan.

 

You know what is GM's master plan? Cut as much money as possible and hope for the best, and things don't work out, cancel it. The F-body failed because it was essentially the same car it was in 1982. Ford spent money giving the Mustang numerous updates, multiple engine choices, and stuff like that. GM did the exact opposite, and that's why the F-body failed. Not because it wasn't a Mustang clone like some people on here would suggest.

I love my Formula to death, but you can just look around and see why the car didn't sell. The passenger hump, the gaps in panels exposing wires, the overly busy turn signal, the cheap plastic (not that care I it's plastic, it just scratches so damn easily). In all honesty, if there wasn't a SBC under the hood, I'd definitely be driving something else.

I don't believe the heartbeat of America needs to return as a Mustang clone to sell well. You have to spend money to make money, if you build a great car people will buy it. The Mustang is a great car, and that's why it's selling well.
No need to try and mimic it's proportions to get a few more sales. I wonder if the F-body still went on to sell 150K units, if we would ever get a Sigma-derived, or some other premium chasis..

 

If the Camaro were produced in the USA and they shut down production, they would still be paying labour for the UAW workers due to the way their contract is. As far as I know, the CAW doesn't have that stipulation. CAW also doesn't have the huge health care load that UAW does due to the way Canadian health care is payed for (by everybody instead of by business owners)

Reason I think they went down on sales was simple. Price was too high. Look at the 2001 window sticker below.

2001 SS window sticker price

Darn near $50,000 before tax. That's more than double what the price of a new IROC was when they came out 16 years prior. Who in the 19-30 year old range can put down that kind of $$$ for a new one?

 

I like the "roasted like a bird on Thanksgiving!!" That's pretty good!

Welcome to the site, Jbres79!!! Glad you're chiming in!

Honestly....no, that theory is not even close.

The painful closing of a plant.........dropping names with a 35 year heritage.....the list could go on.

There are probably about two dozen reasons the nameplates went on hiatus. But one of them is: Tastes changed. If I were able to come on this site in 1990 and tell everyone that over 50% of the market in 2000 would be trucks, I would have either been laughed off this site or called a liar.

(oh, wait.....that's already happened on more than one occasion! )

Interesting theory, but the costs to pull a stunt like that would be unfathomable.

 

some additional thoughts:

Both Chris and Chris are pretty much right on the money. There WERE other issues as well, but that's a 'Readers Digest' version.

Further...I don't think GM felt that there isn't a market for RWD. It's a matter of funding.

True......SSR...but it was not designed from scratch. It's essentially a Trailblazer Chassis that ASC has done a body for. Not a lot of money invested. Was it the right move? Don't think I'd have approved it-- but that said, hindsight is 20/20.....further......no one asked my opinion! I'm not that far up the chain.

Most employees from Ste. Therese were given full retirement. (the plant was opened in 1965.....it was an aging workforce) The others were offered positions in other GM plants or, at their election, a buy-out. It was not easy to watch it happen, but from a business standpoint (and those of you who know me know that I took this very very hard).......it was the right thing to do at the time. (closing Ste. Therese) (that really does hurt when I type those words)

One thought: because GM is so big in terms of number of Divisions and such, it also bears the biggest brunt when the economy or the industry takes a turn or worse, a down-turn. Think about this: how many companies do you know that have nearly 3 retirees for every employee?

How many companies paid over $750 million dollars last year for people to sit at home?