2009 Camaro?

I'm not sure if there is a reason or not, but all of the boards for new Camaro Discussion have it listed as a 2010 Camaro - isn't it going to be a 2009?

I heard a commercial for the Camaro today and it got me to thinking.

It is a 2010 model year arriving in 2009, a few months before the typical time that the 2010 car will come out. Also see Question #8 here:
http://www.camaroz28.com/articles/big3interview/index.shtml

Where did you hear a commercial for it?

It should also be pointed out that as a 2010 model there is basically no chance that the car will go on sale before January 1st 2009. Some other websites and people at dealerships etc are reporting that they think it will be out early in a more traditional September or October release. This cannot be the case because of the "one January 1st per model year rule". I think a lot of the confusion about the 2009 vs 2010 ( including my own) came about because initially they said a 1st quarter 2009 release and people thought they were sandbagging and would release it early. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..

It is a 2010 model year arriving in 2009, a few months before the typical time that the 2010 car will come out. Also see Question #8 here:
http://www.camaroz28.com/articles/big3interview/index.shtml

Where did you hear a commercial for it?
So when it comes out it will be considered a 2010 Camaro? The commercial was for some kind of contest where you can win, what they said, a 2009 Camaro.

I think a lot of the confusion about the 2009 vs 2010 ( including my own) came about because initially they said a 1st quarter 2009 release and people thought they were sandbagging and would release it early. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..
IMO, it's hard to wrap my head around the fact that a car being built in 2008 is a 2010 model?! :confused: :irk:

So I guess the 2010 Camaro is going to have a ~21 month run, eh? :shrug: :rolleyes: (~October '08 - June 2010) Man, there are going to be A LOT of 1st-year 5th-gens out there! :think:

IMO, it should have been released as a mid-year 2009 as the early reports were indicating (a couple years ago, even THIS WEBSITE ;) had the forum entitled "2009 Camaro discussion", as did a couple other Camaro sites as well). The 1970 Camaro was a mid-model-year car (due to a strike at the time) ... I think GM should have gone with that again.

But for the record, it was GM who OFFICIALLY announced the Camaro as being introduced as a 2010, and it was only "internet rumor/speculation" that it was going to be released as a 2009 (and again, those reports have been quashed for nearly ~2 years already).

Correct, but GM does this for a few reasons.
1) Longer production run
2) they didnt want a short 3-4 month production run of 09's
3) They get to sell a 2010 Camaro when everyone else is selling old 2009 Mustangs and Challengers.

You're absolutely right, Al, but the fact remains, there are going to be nearly TWO production years' worth of 2010 Camaros on the market!! :eek: I sure hope that has a positive effect on the price ;) (and by positive, I don't mean increased! :p)

...(in other words, a large supply for a large demand)...

So when it comes out it will be considered a 2010 Camaro? The commercial was for some kind of contest where you can win, what they said, a 2009 Camaro.

Doesn't surprise me. Even some of the media outlets are still referring to it as a 2009.

But for the record, it was GM who OFFICIALLY announced the Camaro as being introduced as a 2010, and it was only "internet rumor/speculation" that it was going to be released as a 2009 (and again, those reports have been quashed for nearly ~2 years already).

Yep, we all thought it was a 2009. The people who knew it wouldn't be couldn't say anything.

Nifty little story...I don't think I told this one before.

When I was in the middle of producing the 1st CamaroZ28.Com Die-Cast car exactly at this this time last tear, I submitted the package artwork for approval. All of the CamroZ28.Com Die-Cast Cars are fully licensed by GM and have to go through an approval process before final production starts. The back of the package included the following text:

This limited-edition cutom die-cast collectible was produced to celebrate CamaroZ28.Com's decade of service and the upcoming 2009 Chevrolet Camaro.

You can sorta of see it here:
http://www.cz28store.com/images/uploads/backsample.jpg

At the last minute, I got word that the "2009" portion did not pass approval by GM licensing with no real reason given. I started to speculate why, but I didn't know for sure. I had to make this post, some of you might remember it...

I was just informed that there was an interesting issue regarding the CamaroZ28.Com Custom Die-Cast car that everyone (including myself) has been waiting for. Evidently, there was a slight and unexpected issue with some of the verbage on the cardboard inserts inside the packaging and a tweak or two to the artwork needed to be made per GM's licensing division request. It was very minor, but when it comes to GM's licensing division, they are pretty firm on things. It really is not a big deal but believe me, I am just about as bummed about this as you guys might be, I am dying for these cars to arrive! Fortunately, it shouldn't add too terrible of a delay. Making the necessary changes are going to push the cars back a couple of weeks or so. Nothing really major, but I wanted to let everyone know anyway.

If you were lucky enough to get your hands on one of the 1st series cars, look closely at the back. The "2009" text had to be changed to something to the effect of "next generation Chevrolet Camaro". I made a "phone call" to a "friend", and I explained what happened. It turns out, I was right in my speculation as the answer I got was "When did we say it would be a 2009?" The next day, I changed the forum titles from 2009 to 2010 which I believe I was the first to do so. I just couldn't explain why at that point. :)

Correct, but GM does this for a few reasons.
3) They get to sell a 2010 Camaro when everyone else is selling old 2009 Mustangs.

When's Job1 for the 2010 mustang again?

Huh ;). Too bad you couldn't have gotten word that 2009 was incorrect, and in fact, it was going to be a 2008 Camaro!!! :p :D

[/puts down crack pipe and climbs down from cloud 9 :(] ;)

Correct, but GM does this for a few reasons.
1) Longer production run
2) they didnt want a short 3-4 month production run of 09's
3) They get to sell a 2010 Camaro when everyone else is selling old 2009 Mustangs and Challengers.

CAFE was in the mix too. :)

The 1970 Camaro was a mid-model-year car (due to a strike at the time) ....

Actually, it was delayed mainly due to a problem with the rear quarter panel stamping (which for the time was pretty complex).

They had a tendancy to crack and split when stamped. Fisher Body had to order new dies.

GM's strike started in September 1970, and lasted 69 days.

The 1970 Camaro was introduced in February 1970.

I don't think time warps were involved with Camaro's production delays.

It's a mistake that's repeated just about everywhere. GM helped it along itself when they first claimed it was labor issues that delayed the 2nd gen Camaro. Although they abandoned that position, as you probably know, old tales die hard.

Here's a bit more detail:


"The delay of introduction of the '70 Camaro was not purposeful, nor was it related to labor problems; it was late because the quarter panel draw dies failed during final die tryout and had to be rebuilt from scratch. Fisher Body had lots of troubles drawing the 1970 quarter panels without wrinkles and splits. They attempted to correct the problems by modifying the draw dies during final tryout but the problems got worse instead of better. Fisher finally had to redesign/rebuild the draw dies, which delayed the launch by 4-5 months. Chevrolet decided to extend the 1969 model, which created a wild scramble, as this meant extending part supplier contracts for the '69 (suppliers had already committed their facilities to other business), finding alternate capacity for '69 parts, etc. The PR department attempted to spin the delay in a different direction for public consumption as GM never publicly admitted any internal problems or failures, especially within Fisher Body, its biggest manufacturing Division, with the biggest tooling budget. But the delay of the 1970 Camaro was a black eye for Fisher Body Die Engineering, as it was the first production launch delay that was ever laid at their feet."

http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#ModelYear

I posted a whole story on this some time ago if you have time to do a search here on it (I'm kind of pressed right now).

Ok, thank you for the history lesson ;) (I'm not trying to be facetious ... that's actually quite interesting ... obviously I was completely unaware of the facts, as I'm sure many people probably are?! :confused: ).

BUT, that doesn't take away from the fact that a mid-year release was still labelled under THAT model year, NOT the next model year!! :p

Having a short introduction year would:

A) Make them more rare, and therefore more of a collector's item down the road (vs. ~21 months' supply, making them a dime-a-dozen, instead of rare)

B) Allow for a quicker move into a new model year, which would give them the opportunity to introduce "new stuff" with the car that will otherwise have to wait until mid 2010 (ie: new engine / sub-model :shrug:, or just updates to their option groups, something along those lines).

C) Prevent the 2010 Camaro from becoming "stale" in the market (this pretty much relates to A) & B) ).

D) Keep consistant with past practise.

BUT, it's too late to change that decision, now isn't it? ;)

Actually, it was delayed mainly due to a problem with the rear quarter panel stamping (which for the time was pretty complex).

They had a tendancy to crack and split when stamped. Fisher Body had to order new dies.

GM's strike started in September 1970, and lasted 69 days.

The 1970 Camaro was introduced in February 1970.

I don't think time warps were involved with Camaro's production delays.

It's a mistake that's repeated just about everywhere. GM helped it along itself when they first claimed it was labor issues that delayed the 2nd gen Camaro. Although they abandoned that position, as you probably know, old tales die hard.

Here's a bit more detail:




I posted a whole story on this some time ago if you have time to do a search here on it (I'm kind of pressed right now).

Awesome info! I always thought it was because of the strike. I also knew that they extended the '69 model year a bit but never put the two together.

Ok, thank you for the history lesson ;) (I'm not trying to be facetious ... that's actually quite interesting ... obviously I was completely unaware of the facts, as I'm sure many people probably are?! :confused: ).

BUT, that doesn't take away from the fact that a mid-year release was still labelled under THAT model year, NOT the next model year!! :p

Having a short introduction year would:

A) Make them more rare, and therefore more of a collector's item down the road (vs. ~21 months' supply, making them a dime-a-dozen, instead of rare)

B) Allow for a quicker move into a new model year, which would give them the opportunity to introduce "new stuff" with the car that will otherwise have to wait until mid 2010 (ie: new engine / sub-model :shrug:, or just updates to their option groups, something along those lines).

C) Prevent the 2010 Camaro from becoming "stale" in the market (this pretty much relates to A) & B) ).

D) Keep consistant with past practise.

BUT, it's too late to change that decision, now isn't it? ;)

In reply to "A) Make them more rare": I don't see where the long model run for the '69 models hurt their value at all, if anything the '69s are the most wanted of the first gen. Camaros. Now that may be due more to the slightly more evolved body style, but certainly the numbers produced have not hurt their value at all.
Clyde

Some good thoughts there Petey, but let me play devil's advocate for a minute... :devil: ;)

A) Make them more rare, and therefore more of a collector's item down the road (vs. ~21 months' supply, making them a dime-a-dozen, instead of rare)

Chevrolet isn't in the business of selling a few rare collector cars, they want to sell MANY cars. Taking a guess here, but selling only a few in the model year could jack up the product line yearly budget and make them more expensive, and they would sell less as a result. So the dime a dozen become a buck a few.

B) Allow for a quicker move into a new model year, which would give them the opportunity to introduce "new stuff" with the car that will otherwise have to wait until mid 2010 (ie: new engine / sub-model :shrug:, or just updates to their option groups, something along those lines).

Wanna know what helped beat the crap out of recent Pontiac GTO sales? The fact that everyone knew it would get a better engine the next year. No one wanted to buy the car when they knew it would be quite a bit better in just a few months. Granted, the Camaro may face that same scenario, but the difference is that the GTO had ONE model and the Camaro has many to appeal to a range of buyers. Those who wanted a GTO just waited, and sales tanked.

C) Prevent the 2010 Camaro from becoming "stale" in the market (this pretty much relates to A) & B) ).

I don't think that will be a big issue. There are always mid-cycle enhancements.

D) Keep consistant with past practise.

I think everyone wants to get away from some of the past practices. ;)

BUT, it's too late to change that decision, now isn't it? ;)

Yeah, pretty much. As I said, good points.

One point that I don't believe has been mentioned is that of how the car might depreciate under these circumstances...
Theoretically, someone can buy a new Camaro when it is released to the public in early '09 and drive the thing for almost 2 years as a current-year model. That's a sweet little bonus for the retail customer - saving one year'sdepreciation no matter how long it's kept!
This cannot help but keep resale/residual values high on the car, which is a good thing for Chevrolet - especially in terms of the car's image.

Best regardSS,

Elie

Releasing a short '09 model run would have gotten the "I'll never buy the first model year of a new design" people into their cars a little quicker.

Good points both ways, guys!! :thumb:

See, we could debate this all day!!! :D Heck, I haven't heard a Z28 vs. SS debate in awhile, can we go over that again while we're here?! :p :lol:

I wonder how quickly we'll start to find out about "real-world" problems with the car that are inherent in brand new model releases? :think: Will GM work to correct them immediately, and thus, there may be "early-build" 2010 Camaros, vs. "late-build" 2010 Camaros, where the "early builds" will be ones to avoid?? :confused: :shrug: I could see it happening.

VS.

A short production run of "2009's" ... let's say there are some problems that get identified, and fixed quickly (for the "2010's"). Ok, so the 2009's may carry the bad rap, but obviously there will still be the option for recalls/updates to correct those issues, while there may be more "perceived" confidence in the "second model year"? :shrug:

(although even in the long 1st-year model, they can develop fixes to any problems encountered, then it'll just be that tiered system, of early-build vs. late-builds, and/or people being up-to-date on whether the factory recall/"updates" were performed or not).

WRT:
Chevrolet isn't in the business of selling a few rare collector cars, they want to sell MANY cars. Taking a guess here, but selling only a few in the model year could jack up the product line yearly budget and make them more expensive, and they would sell less as a result. So the dime a dozen become a buck a few.
GM would still be building and selling just as many CAMAROs. The only difference would be, there would be very few "2009's", vs. a whole whack of 2010's. This is only a "labelling" issue (a difference on paper, not in actual application or production). From the buyer/collector/enthusiasts' perspective, that would make them more "rare". It wouldn't change anything about GM's final sales numbers, and actually, it could create for a higher initial demand, based on those people who care about the "rare" factor, and it may also lead to higher profits, based on demand and dealers jacking the price for '09s! (not that I support over-inflation of the MSRP, but you know that would occur ;)).

But on the flip side, if the 2010 Camaro is on the market for a long(er) time, and as long as production is in the ~100k+ range, then there SHOULDN'T be ANY sort of "lack of supply" issues, so hopefully price gouging will be at a minimum, and it should be "easy" to get a first-year Camaro, in the first year? ;)

I wonder how quickly we'll start to find out about "real-world" problems with the car that are inherent in brand new model releases? :think: Will GM work to correct them immediately, and thus, there may be "early-build" 2010 Camaros, vs. "late-build" 2010 Camaros, where the "early builds" will be ones to avoid?? :confused: :shrug: I could see it happening.



From what I've seen, GM & Chevrolet are very acutely aware of what is riding on this car. I do not believe that the importance has been at all underestimated.
After talking to many of the people over the last year who are involved in bringing this car to market, I'm totally convinced that one of GM's major goals with this car is to get it right - the 1st time. This attitude has been there since day 1 and it comes across almost an obsession.
I have no doubt that everything that is humanly possible will be done to achieve this goal - and there are some mighty capable people taking a lot of pride in what they are doing who are involved here... I have a lot of confidence that they will find a way to bring a very trouble-free car to the market right off the bat.:thumb:

Best regardSS,

Elie

I sure hope you're right, Elie ;).

I have a friend who is probably one of THE most ABUSIVE people to cars you have ever met. He's the kind of person who will blow up 3 transmissions in one year because of stupid things like "accelerating" before the tranny is actually in gear?! :irk: He's the guy with last week's dinner spilt all over the floor of the car. He's not a "small" lad either, so he'll definitely give the seats and arm-rests a run for their money :D.

I hope that GM knows "that guy", and gives them a Camaro to use and abuse for awhile, to find the weaknesses in the car that the average person would never expose. Like the inside door handles on the late 2nd-gens ..... are there ANY that ever survived the life of the car without ripping out at the front?! :confused: :rolleyes:

Petty things like that are what I "hope" are avoided. (not that I'm expecting things like that to be a problem in the first place ... just saying ;)). However, I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir, and I believe you when you say "GM KNOWS they have to get it right the first time" :cool:.

I sure hope you're right, Elie ;).

I have a friend who is probably one of THE most ABUSIVE people to cars you have ever met. He's the kind of person who will blow up 3 transmissions in one year because of stupid things like "accelerating" before the tranny is actually in gear?! :irk: He's the guy with last week's dinner spilt all over the floor of the car. He's not a "small" lad either, so he'll definitely give the seats and arm-rests a run for their money :D.

I hope that GM knows "that guy", and gives them a Camaro to use and abuse for awhile, to find the weaknesses in the car that the average person would never expose. Like the inside door handles on the late 2nd-gens ..... are there ANY that ever survived the life of the car without ripping out at the front?! :confused: :rolleyes:

Petty things like that are what I "hope" are avoided. (not that I'm expecting things like that to be a problem in the first place ... just saying ;)). However, I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir, and I believe you when you say "GM KNOWS they have to get it right the first time" :cool:.

This sounds like my sister. There is only so much GM can do for these people.
She has tore out transmissions built by Ford, GM, and Honda if memory serves me correctly. She can wear out a set of brakes quicker than anybody I know.
Its nearly unreal how hard she is on a vehicle and doesnt even hot rod them but just drives in a manner that is just hard as heck on every single part. She has never learned because her husband makes so much money that he does not get upset with her for tearing out a transmission for no good reason because its not a big deal for him to pay to replace it. I guess the hell he would catch for complaining may be much worse.

There are some people that can tear up a anvil with a light bulb and there is not much any company can do about those folks.

When's Job1 for the 2010 mustang again?

january 30 2009..give or take

january 30 2009..give or take

That date marks the end of production of the 2009 models, not the production of the 2010 model year.

Add 30 to 60 days.

I wonder how quickly we'll start to find out about "real-world" problems with the car that are inherent in brand new model releases? :think: Will GM work to correct them immediately, and thus, there may be "early-build" 2010 Camaros, vs. "late-build" 2010 Camaros, where the "early builds" will be ones to avoid?? :confused: :shrug: I could see it happening.


From what I've seen, GM & Chevrolet are very acutely aware of what is riding on this car. I do not believe that the importance has been at all underestimated.
After talking to many of the people over the last year who are involved in bringing this car to market, I'm totally convinced that one of GM's major goals with this car is to get it right - the 1st time. This attitude has been there since day 1 and it comes across almost an obsession.
I have no doubt that everything that is humanly possible will be done to achieve this goal - and there are some mighty capable people taking a lot of pride in what they are doing who are involved here... I have a lot of confidence that they will find a way to bring a very trouble-free car to the market right off the bat.:thumb:

Best regardSS,

Elie

I have high confidence that the car will be trouble free from the start. There will always be a crowd that won't buy the first year because of quality concerns, real or otherwise. To that crowd I don't think it will matter how much is changed between "early build" 2010s and "late build" 2010s. That is a pretty small crowd though and I don't really believe it should have affected GMs descision. I was just throwing out a talking point.:)

That date marks the end of production of the 2009 models, not the production of the 2010 model year.

Add 30 to 60 days.

That was my point.
It's not exactly a 6 month gap between the '10 Camaro and '10 Mustang

Wanna know what helped beat the crap out of recent Pontiac GTO sales? The fact that everyone knew it would get a better engine the next year. No one wanted to buy the car when they knew it would be quite a bit better in just a few months. Granted, the Camaro may face that same scenario, but the difference is that the GTO had ONE model and the Camaro has many to appeal to a range of buyers. Those who wanted a GTO just waited, and sales
So you think the majority of the GTO buyers did significant research on the car before buying it?

So you think the majority of the GTO buyers did significant research on the car before buying it?

I don't know about the majority, but I remember it being a significant issue at one point with GTO owners or potential owners. Word got around fast. Those guys are pretty tightly knit, and I think it is safe to assume that most get on the Internet at least a bit. When the info got out there, it sure didn't help the sales of the cars already on the lots. The ridiculous dealer markups probably hurt more, though, now that I think about it.