More Ford performance on the way? [Archive] - CamaroZ28.Com Message Board

jrp4uc

09-10-2002, 11:27 PM

SVT is out to defend the performance vehicle niche they initiated. This time they're upping the ante with a better performing SVT Focus, possibly the rumored four-wheel-drive, 300-hp Cosworth variant. If true, looks like Ford isn't worried about stepping on the toes of their top-dog Mustang; this would easily outperform all but the S/C Cobra. Even if horsepower comes in around the 200-250 level, a car weighing 500lbs less than the Mustang will put up some nice numbers. Another notch on the affordable-performance belt of Ford...

Oh yeah, we're getting a $35,000+ limited run (marked up) GTO, $40,000+ CTSv, and a $70,000+ XLR. I bet our mighty FWD S/C V6 Impala will even top $30,000. Has GM completely forgot the little guy?

Photos and story (http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=&content_code=09445937)

[This message has been edited by jrp4uc (edited September 10, 2002).]

RiceEating5.0

09-11-2002, 12:14 AM

wow. That thing would rock. The lancer evo and wrx STI are coming to our shores. Both would be packing somewhere in the high 200's. So it'd make sense if ford was trying to position it's focus to stay competitive.

So we have, will, or "might" be seeing these within the next couple of years. Some are already out as 03 models. Others as 04/05.

*300hp Mercury marauder
*330+hp S/c mercury marauder
*400-440hp S/c cobra
*500hp GT-40
*320-340hp 4.6L N/A Mustang Mach 1
*400hp N/A 5.0L Lincoln Ls
*400 N/A Mustang dubbed the "BOSS"
*possible return of the cougar as a mustang twin with a v8 to boot
*current 170hp Svt focus and now a possible 300hp turbo version
*A Harley Edition F-150 crew cab with the lightnings S/c 5.4L.
*Hopefuly in bumb in power for the Lightning as well.

I'm liking the new ford. It's about time they got serious about performance.

[This message has been edited by RiceEating5.0 (edited September 11, 2002).]

ProudPony

09-11-2002, 07:46 AM

Well, what can I say...

I like the little car, and I'm sure it will be a great sales booster for SVT - hopefully grabbing some performance rice buyers from Honda and Toyota.

But on the other hand, I feel like I am watching potential sales of Mustangs dwindle down yet a few more notches. You know the Focus will have better insurance rates, be cheaper out the door, be more economical (it should be anyways), and easier to live with in congested areas (parking, etc).

I just can't help being a little nervous seeing all these smaller econo-rockets coming into production. The beautiful light emitted by the True American Ponycars may indeed be growing dimmer by the day. With Camaro/Firebird not around to keep Mustang on-line anymore, and previous ponycar owners now in WRX's, Neons, Focus', and more enthusiasts looking at them every day... :sighs, rolls eyes, shrugs:

RiceEating5.0

09-11-2002, 12:50 PM

ProudPony, i think the number one contributor to the mustangs marketing/sales success is the name and the pony badge. The mustang name has always stirred up excitement and interest. The excitement was recently upped with the introduction of such exciting models as the Bullit, Mach 1, 03 cobra, Cobra R, and what ever special edition mustang ford has planned. Saleen, roush, KB, Steeda, Shinoda BOSS, etc...all do their part. Ford should keep on doing what they've been doing cause the mustang brand has been a large success thus far. Not bad considering it's been around for 38 years.

There' s a reason why the mustang sold over 200,000+, and 170,000 units the last 2 year. Sure, it's main competitor the f-bod's combined were struggling to meet 70k. But 200,000+ units is excellent at this day and age of rice rockets. That proves that the pony car isn't dead and that there's still a market. The mustang is still a great bargain even with the introdiction and increasing popularity of hopped up 4 bangers. You can walk out with a nicely equipped 5spd mustang v6 coupe for as little as 15grand. A Gt which comes with nice standard equipment for around 22k. A 320-340hp Mach 1 for aorund 27k. And now the fully loaded Cobra coupe with exotic car like power, acceleration, and potential for under 35g's.
This focus would/will be very sweet, but there are people out there that buy the mustang for what it is. I personally wouldn't have the mustang any other way (maybe with a little more power). People who are in the market for a pony car will buy a pony car. Other's considering a sporty sport compact will go for the focus.

Having said that, i don't see it competing head to head with the mustang or stealing it's sales. I see it more like it competing head to head with other sport compacts such as the WRX Sti, Lancer Evo, Neon SRT-4, etc...

Just my 0.02 cents.

guionM

09-11-2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by jrp4uc:
...looks like Ford isn't worried about stepping on the toes of their top-dog Mustang; this would easily outperform all but the S/C Cobra. 

Don't forget that the Lightning has been out for a few years, and it ran with, or maybe even quicker, than Cobra till now.

Originally posted by jrp4uc:
...Oh yeah, we're getting a $35,000+ limited run (marked up) GTO, $40,000+ CTSv, and a $70,000+ XLR. I bet our mighty FWD S/C V6 Impala will even top $30,000. Has GM completely forgot the little guy?

Photos and story (http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=&content_code=09445937)

[This message has been edited by jrp4uc (edited September 10, 2002).]

Shouldn't count dealer markups. Limited edition Firebirds & Anniversary Camaros went for $45,000 around here, though GM priced them lower. The very 1st SN95s here in San Diego were going for $25-30,000... in 1994! I'd be willing to bet that when the next Camaro comes out, some dealers are going to slap big fat markups. Just simply find one who's more reasonable. At $35,000, GTO is competitive with the S/C Cobra.

But give GM a little time. Things started happening there just over a year ago, and they are comming out with alot of temporary measures till the good stuff can come out. Supercharged GrandAm, Supercharged Impala SS, Grand Prix's power jump to 280 (despite GM Powertrains reservations), and not quite finally, GTO.

I know it's lame to say this because it doesn't hep us today, but 2-3 years from now, we'll have an entirely different view of GM.

ProudPony

09-11-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0:
ProudPony, i think the number one contributor to the mustangs marketing/sales success is the name and the pony badge. The mustang name has always stirred up excitement and interest. The excitement was recently upped with the introduction of such exciting models as the Bullit, Mach 1, 03 cobra, Cobra R, and what ever special edition mustang ford has planned. Saleen, roush, KB, Steeda, Shinoda BOSS, etc...all do their part. Ford should keep on doing what they've been doing cause the mustang brand has been a large success thus far. Not bad considering it's been around for 38 years.

There' s a reason why the mustang sold over 200,000+, and 170,000 units the last 2 year. Sure, it's main competitor the f-bod's combined were struggling to meet 70k. But 200,000+ units is excellent at this day and age of rice rockets. That proves that the pony car isn't dead and that there's still a market. The mustang is still a great bargain even with the introdiction and increasing popularity of hopped up 4 bangers. You can walk out with a nicely equipped 5spd mustang v6 coupe for as little as 15grand. A Gt which comes with nice standard equipment for around 22k. A 320-340hp Mach 1 for aorund 27k. And now the fully loaded Cobra coupe with exotic car like power, acceleration, and potential for under 35g's.
This focus would/will be very sweet, but there are people out there that buy the mustang for what it is. I personally wouldn't have the mustang any other way (maybe with a little more power). People who are in the market for a pony car will buy a pony car. Other's considering a sporty sport compact will go for the focus.

Having said that, i don't see it competing head to head with the mustang or stealing it's sales. I see it more like it competing head to head with other sport compacts such as the WRX Sti, Lancer Evo, Neon SRT-4, etc...

Just my 0.02 cents.

RiceEating5.0,
Hey I'm totally with you on the Mustang - loyal buyers... heaven knows I'm one of those myself. I agree that a buyer that knows the car and wants it will buy it regardless. http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

My point was aimed at John Doe, who has @$15-20k and wants a car. He is @18 yrs old, doesn't know much about Camaros or Mustangs or musclecars at all (computer geek guy maybe?). He doesn't care if he buys a Toyota or a BMW, he just wants to look good, go fast, and not spend much money.

Today, John Doe would likely be forced to look at Camaro or Mustang due to his "need for speed" and low budget, but not for sure and certainly not much longer with all these rice-rockets coming out. My sentiment is that if this guy can get a 280hp Focus with go-fast goodies like brakes, suspension, etc. for a similar price of a 260hp GT - he's gonna buy it. Never mind the economy, insurance, and other associated costs. And I can't blame him either. The point is that becomes a "lost sale" for the Mustang.

I appologize for sounding like I was counting out the Mustang in the previous post - that's not what I meant. I think it is positioned very well to continue on for a long time, and I doubt that Ford will let it die anytime soon. It has a HUGE and loyal following - but people get old and desires change. Mustang needs to keep attracting new buyers too. If it has to someday be converted into a turboed FWD "Focus replacement" to be attractive to new buyers and make itself profitable, I won't like it. http://web.camaross.com/bb/frown.gif

Ergo the comments about needing the f-cars back to have a direct competitor and design target for the Mustang. It just emphasizes the importance that clubs and collectors STAY INVOLVED and ACTIVE in keeping the car to it's heritage from this point forward.
In hind sight, I think that if Camaro/Firebird owners had been heard and payed attention to, the 4th gen would have had it's makeover years ago, and a healthy-selling f-car would still be on the lots today. That's just my .02 though. We just can't let that happen to the Mustang.

Coining a new term here... "Rice Rocket Erosion"
In context... "Mustang sales may suffer from "Rice Rocket Erosion" over the next five years as cheaper cars come onto the scene that are capable of outperforming it and for less money." http://web.camaross.com/bb/frown.gif

Peace. http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif

RiceEating5.0

09-12-2002, 01:46 PM

I agree with you. As the options increase, so does the competition. The sales #'s wouldn't be as lopsided, unless 1 brand is that much better. For instance; a car like a new Hemi charger would definitely have somewhat of an affect on mustang sales. The addition of a new 5th gen would too. The upcomig supra, Rx8, etc... all will too. Ahhh, too many good performance cars. We haven't seen anything like this in a long time.

As for insurance/economy, will it really be that much cheaper or ecnomical? it is a "Turbocharged" 4 banger geared/marketed as a performance car. I look at turbo eclipses and they don't seem that much cheaper. I don't know if the initial power levels have anything to do with your premiums but at 280hp, the car is fast. Faster=more of a risk to the insurance company. Another factor is age. Average age of people that buy sport compacts is relatively young/low. So i still think that a car like this would be far from cheap to insure. As for the economy part, i don't know. 280+ hp doesn't always equal economical, especially if you have a heavy foot http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif. This Focus like all the other low displacement engines might be geared lower and it "might" rely on Rpm's for a good chunk of it power. For instance, the lighter s2k with the 240hp 2.0 gets about 21 city mpg and about the same mpg as a GT/Cobra on the highway. The s2k is lighter and less powerful. With the addition of an AWD system, you'd be looking at close to 3,000lbs for this focus (same weight as Lancer Evo). So again, i don't see it as it being that much more economical then a GT mustang. Especially after some performance driving. Of course, your average buyer might not realize that till he/she actually buys and owns the car first hand. They might just assume that since it's a 4 vs 8, that the 8 would automatically be much less ecnomical. This car is far from the econo sport compacts we're so used to seeing. It's a very legit performance car.

This thing will be a strip/track terror. The Svt focus handles very well. With the stock suspension and a few bolt ons, i have a feeling it'd run circles around a stock 03 Cobra. Like you said, this could have an affect on GT sales. Factor in such things as better build quality, interior design, and the little things that make a car more livable and it just might sway potential buyers.

Any guesses on the price? mid 20's sound about right to you guys? i assume since it's main competitors will be in the high 20's and even low 30's range (WRX STi - Lancer EVO)

ProudPony

09-12-2002, 11:13 PM

RiceEating5.0,
We are on the same track now. http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif

I agree with your last post. Granted, the more mundane buyer wont likely even know about the SVT Focus (and only certain dealers are SVT certified sellers too) and won't even see them on the lot, therefore the buyer of the SVT Focus will likely "drive" the car a little more agressively. There goes best mileage, economy, etc - and there goes the insurace rates.

I'll say this though, if that new 280hp rascal comes around for anything near $20-grand... they are gonna sell like $1-dollar hot dogs at a NASCAR race! There may even be one in my driveway... to keep the miles off the others, you know. http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

BigDarknFast

09-13-2002, 12:27 AM

quote from RiceEating 5.0: As for insurance/economy, will it really be that much cheaper or ecnomical? it is a "Turbocharged" 4 banger geared/marketed as a performance car. I look at turbo eclipses and they don't seem that much cheaper. I don't know if the initial power levels have anything to do with your premiums but at 280hp, the car is fast. Faster=more of a risk to the insurance company. Another factor is age. Average age of people that buy sport compacts is relatively young/low. So i still think that a car like this would be far from cheap to insure. As for the economy part, i don't know. 280+ hp doesn't always equal economical, especially if you have a heavy foot . This Focus like all the other low displacement engines might be geared lower and it "might" rely on Rpm's for a good chunk of it power. For instance, the lighter s2k with the 240hp 2.0 gets about 21 city mpg and about the same mpg as a GT/Cobra on the highway. The s2k is lighter and less powerful. With the addition of an AWD system, you'd be looking at close to 3,000lbs for this focus (same weight as Lancer Evo). So again, i don't see it as it being that much more economical then a GT mustang. Especially after some performance driving. Of course, your average buyer might not realize that till he/she actually buys and owns the car first hand. They might just assume that since it's a 4 vs 8, that the 8 would automatically be much less ecnomical. This car is far from the econo sport compacts we're so used to seeing. It's a very legit performance car.

THANK YOU for introducing some sorely-needed reality into this thread. There's no 'free lunch' in high-performance cars. No cheap, easy, low-insurance way to put 250-300 hp to the ground in a new car driven by hormone-laden young men. Insurance rates are driven partly by replacement cost, but HEAVILY by driver behavior and claims. And cars like this will have a lot of claims, just like today's muscle cars do. AWD - you bet your sweet bippy it drags along an inevitable weight penalty. All the truly FAST cars in the world are RWD. MPG will be underwhelming too. Welcome to Planet Earth. I will applaud Ford *if* such a vehicle happens, it will be cool to see. But let's keep it real.

------------------
Sunset Orange Met. 2002 Trans Am, DF Lid, FRA, K&N (http://www.mwshowgo67.com/sunsetTransAm/index.htm) | DFGreen 98 GTP, Insulated SLP K&N, !U!Res, 3.5 Pulley, transcooler (http://www.mwshowgo67.com/GTPrix/index.htm)
| Brilliant Red Metallic 1990 IROC-Z Camaro, K&N, Camaro SS takeoff muffler (http://www.mwshowgo67.com/red90iroc/index.htm) | NBM 99 Formula, SOLD in Aug. 02. (http://www.mwshowgo67.com/formula99/index.htm)

BigDarknFast

09-13-2002, 12:39 AM

Oh yeah, we're getting a $35,000+ limited run (marked up) GTO, $40,000+ CTSv, and a $70,000+ XLR. I bet our mighty FWD S/C V6 Impala will even top $30,000. Has GM completely forgot the little guy?

Your basis for these projected prices is very questionable, but believe whatever you prefer http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif

Why all this talk about the V6 Impala SS? I thought it's going to have a 4.8 V8? Also you conveniently omitted the 2004 GTP with 280 hp (granted it's FWD), the regular CTS and the performance parts coming from GM for the Grand Am and Sunfire/Cav. But go ahead, have another swig of GM-Haterade...

jrp4uc

09-13-2002, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
Your basis for these projected prices is very questionable, but believe whatever you prefer http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif

Why all this talk about the V6 Impala SS? I thought it's going to have a 4.8 V8? Also you conveniently omitted the 2004 GTP with 280 hp (granted it's FWD), the regular CTS and the performance parts coming from GM for the Grand Am and Sunfire/Cav. But go ahead, have another swig of GM-Haterade...

Give me a break, I'm just presenting the facts. Where are those price estimates off base? FWD GTPs and Impalas? Auto trans only? Come on. Who's the one doing the reaching here. The only add-on parts I've seen for the Cavalier/Sunfire are appearance packages and the CTS is still a $30k in the least. If you're saying you'd rather have that torque-steer-laden, FWD automatic GTP over an AWD manual ANYTHING with 200+ hp turbo you are sadly in the minority. GM-Haterade? How about taking off the GM rose-colored-glasses and looking at what's infront of you.

[This message has been edited by jrp4uc (edited September 13, 2002).]

IZ28

09-13-2002, 06:18 AM

There will always be a market for musclecars and sportscars. Thats just the way it is.

------------------
Camaro/Chevrolet crazy F-Body lunatic. http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by IZ28 (edited September 13, 2002).]

Z28Marcus

09-13-2002, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by IZ28:
There will always be a market for musclecars and sportscars. Thats just the way it is.



I hope you're right!! http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

BigDarknFast

09-14-2002, 07:51 AM

I'm very sorry... I owe you all an APOLOGY...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I misspelled "Haterade"... Should be "Hatorade"!!! http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

Give me a break, I'm just presenting the facts. Where are those price estimates off base?

How about the GTO price you quoted. The exact price has not even been announced yet, how can you call your number a fact? All that HAS been said officially was when Bob Kraut announced it would be "between $30k and $35k". Perhaps that means it will start at $30k? Is there ANY way to factually refute that at this point? I doubt it. Mustang fans are quick to point out how easy it is to avoid being scalped on a 2003 Cobra purchase... how will the GTO be any different?

If you choose to believe a GTP cannot be a real street performer, you're in for a shock sooner or later when you encounter one with the right parts http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif Ignorance is bliss, until you get SMOKED!

CTS pricing... STARTS at $29,350 and GM is offering their heavy discounts on the CTS too now... bringing the starting price WAY under this ridiculous and arbitrary $30k mark people seem so obsessed with lately.

Can't get hi-po parts for the Sunfire? WRONG.

http://www.modified.com/culture/articles/?13-130002.html

GM is offering a supercharger kit and enhanced internals for the 2.4L Ecotec. And judging from GM's rich performance history, that's just the beginning http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

jrp4uc

09-14-2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
How about the GTO price you quoted. The exact price has not even been announced yet, how can you call your number a fact? All that HAS been said officially was when Bob Kraut announced it would be "between $30k and $35k". Perhaps that means it will start at $30k?

If you choose to believe a GTP cannot be a real street performer, you're in for a shock sooner or later when you encounter one with the right parts http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif Ignorance is bliss, until you get SMOKED!

You should apologize for missing the point. http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif GM has no real performance cars that are affordable (READ LOW $20Ks). I think that was pretty clearly stated. Even at $30k, the GTO is not at that same level of affordability. Just the facts? The 4.8L Impala SS you countered with is hardly factual. The J-body? Good for GM, they're offering a S/C. I had one of those for years as an economical commuter car and I don't see myself stepping back into one as a "performance car." Slapping a S/C on a piece of crap doesn't automatically turn it into a great car. Don't get me wrong in all this. I'm glad GM is making steps in the right direction and I think they'll have big things at the next NAIAS. However, there hasn't been anything "officially" announced that can be considered a real affordable performance offering.

BTW, it's been my WRX smoking the GTPs so far, though I hardly go around street racing much anymore. Handling would be no contest regardless of his pulley mods. But I always like that argument..."you better watch, one of these days"...'Cause when he (or even someone in an F-body) runs into a Fiero with a V8 conversion, you're REALLY gonna be SMOKED.

------------------
-JERRY-
'02 Impreza WRX
'88 Fiero Formula
Formerly owned: '93 Firebird Formula

BigDarknFast

09-14-2002, 02:45 PM

WERM

09-14-2002, 04:14 PM

jrp4uc - I don't think I missed the point... GM has nothing like the Neon SRT4 for example. I think they realize that and are now in the process of fixing the gap. One of the quick answers already out is the Ecotec S/C kit. The Cav/Sunfire are hardly "pieces of c***" - in fact they are a good selling car (albeit low profit) for GM.

They are not nice cars. They do not excel in any way compared to others except for the rock bottom price. In fact, you could buy several alternatives for the same price with a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty and a platform designed post 1982.

Can you explain to a GM shareholder (BTW I am not one) why GM should concentrate more on low-profit small cars instead of high-profit SUV's and mid-priced performance cars? Remember - the goal of a corporation is to make PROFIT.

Because when young people have a product they can afford and be excited about, they will come back later to buy SUV's, and other $$$ cars. It's very important for the low end cars to be GOOD. If they aren't, your company has lost a potential LIFELONG revenue stream. "Shareholder Value" is what executives use as an excuse to pump up the value of stock for a couple of quarters so they can sell their stocks and leave the company in shambles 3 years later with a million dollar check (Jack Nasser anyone?). Plus, other companies make money on small cars.

Hmmm... WRX. You mean the one which stickers at $26,400 well-equipped with an A4? The one with no leather or HUD? That's not far away from $30k either you know. I added an A4 since some of us live in families whose wife will NOT tolerate a clutch in any of the family's cars.

Sounds like you need a new wife. http://web.camaross.com/bb/tongue.gif http://web.camaross.com/bb/tongue.gif http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

The WRX is quick alright... to 60. I've seen them in action... they do good from a light but their top end is massively underwhelming. Then there's the styling, IMHO seriously in need of a quick restyle.

Believe it or not, it's on the way.

On styling... I thought last year's Sunfire really did not look that good. But GM responded and the 2003 is much better - again just my opinion. What's new with the WRX styling? Nothing. Same old mistake. More power is coming.... but it WILL cost more. What do you suppose the price will be on the quicker WRX coming soon? I'll bet it will be flirting with the dreaded $30k.

That cost will probably depend largely on what the more powerful Mitsubishi EVO stickers for. These two cars will probably be the Camaro/Mustang equivilant for gen Y. http://web.camaross.com/bb/frown.gif

------------------
Never trust anyone with lots of plants.

2001 Mustang Bullitt GT (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/thill294318MI/welcome2.htm)
2000 Jetta M5
1988 C1500 A3

ronssito

09-14-2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by guionM:

I know it's lame to say this because it doesn't hep us today, but 2-3 years from now, we'll have an entirely different view of GM. 

True, but it's TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for GM to abandon the V8 RWD Ponycar. I don't give a damn about future products. The future is TODAY!!!
The General CANNOT afford to piss off loyal enthusiast customers like myself.

Resentment is a VERY POWERFUL motivator and even if a nice 5th gen does appear in a few years, I may not buy one just to piss GM off like they're pissing me off now!

------------------
One day at a time
1-16-92

jrp4uc

09-14-2002, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
Hmmm... WRX. You mean the one which stickers at $26,400 well-equipped with an A4? The one with no leather or HUD? That's not far away from $30k either you know. I added an A4 since some of us live in families whose wife will NOT tolerate a clutch in any of the family's cars. The WRX is quick alright... to 60. I've seen them in action... they do good from a light but their top end is massively underwhelming. Then there's the styling, IMHO seriously in need of a quick restyle.

I respect anything that's powerful... it just bugs me when people act like "gee - FWD - can't possibly be fast". 

WERM already addressed the other points, including a restyle coming for the WRX in a year or two (personally, I don't mind its styling now)--but then again, most other manufacturers do freshen up their products every 3 years or so.

Low 14s doesn't sound like a car with a "massively underwhelming" top end, I can reassure that is not the case. I could also go on all day quoting reviews and listing all of the awards this car has won after one year of production and never find a shot taken at it for its "weak" top end...but were not going to change each other's minds anyways. BTW, I paid $17250 for my used 5 spd WRX--with only 700 miles and a factory warranty. I don't think I could have even gotten a new Cavalier Z24 or LS Sport for that price (of which I have driven and couldn't stand the TORQUE STEER...can't imagine it with a S/C).

I don't discredit a car just because its FWD. For some, torque steer and understeer can be major turn-offs (some FWD cars exhibiting more than others of course). I think there are more on here that discredit a car because it's Japanese. Either way, I wouldn't trade my car for a GTP, Grand Am, Monte Carlo, Impala, or Cavalier/Sunfire (unimpressive restylings for both this year)--especially if I had to sacrifice a manual transmission. ~I can't believe that is the listing of GM "performance cars" in this class!~ Now, a RWD pony car or sports car with an appropriate transmission (and price tag) might get my attention.

BigDarknFast

09-14-2002, 10:14 PM

They are not nice cars.

Your opinion, while valid as anyone else's, cannot reverse the fact that GM sells many thousands of units of these per year. The fact is, they are making a lot of people happy... and soon they will be making performance car buyers happy too.

It's very important for the low end cars to be GOOD. If they aren't, your company has lost a potential LIFELONG revenue stream.

It's important for ALL a company's offerings to be good. I refuse to believe they somehow become brainwashed by a brand and will never buy different again. In fact, how do you suppose GM is increasing market share this year? It's thru CONQUEST sales, getting buyers to trade in another brand. Brand loyalty isn't what it used to be... buyers have plenty of data streams for finding the best product - the Internet is a prime example.

Sounds like you need a new wife.

If you knew her, chances are you'd happily give up a M6 tranny. I'm at a point in my life where I realize there are more important things than having a car "with just the right options" http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif

Besides, I believe clutching owners are on a collision course with time and technology... namely the "manumatic" or paddle-shifting trans. Self-shifting fellas in LS1's are already at the mercy of an A4 LS1 with a stall convertor, due to superior shifting consistency of an A4. IMHO it's just a matter of time until a higher stall becomes a factory option on performance cars like the A4 GTO.

As for the WRX restyle, sure I'm aware, I read a while ago someone has stepped in to help hapless Subaru style it right. We shall see. Meantime, the Cav/Sunfire are ALREADY restyled, the new GTP is coming in just a few months with 280 HP stock, and *some kind of* quicker Impala is on the way too. We shall see about those too, huh.

These two cars will probably be the Camaro/Mustang equivilant for gen Y.

I'm sorry, I know it sounds self-centered, but I simply don't care much about the wants and needs of our misguided youth. Want a car with a mile-tall wing, dying-insect exhaust note, torque-free engine, wacky clear taillights and *literally* overblown ground effects? Fine. Go for it. I'm more interested in what's available UPSCALE anyway. I'd like my GTO in red, please.

Low 14s doesn't sound like a car with a "massively underwhelming" top end, I can reassure that is not the case.

The way the WRX achieves this is simple - it's all done at the starting line. They launch great. But up over 70 or so, they succomb to their inherent limits of primitive aero, AWD gears and weight.

jrp4uc - it's great the WRX is winning awards, great you got a sweet deal. Deals can be had on "mediocre" Cav/Sunfires too can they not? All I know is standard, objective data, found in the form of list and base prices for example. And according to edmunds.com, the base invoice for a GTP is $23,8xx and the same for the A4 WRX is $22,8xx. IMHO for just $1k more you get a lot more car.

As for WRX STi and Mitsu Evo VII pricing, all I can post is the latest rumors - having both between $30k and $34k. If you think that's inexpensive, email me, I have some amazing land to sell you.

[This message has been edited by BigDarknFast (edited September 14, 2002).]

WERM

09-15-2002, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
Your opinion, while valid as anyone else's, cannot reverse the fact that GM sells many thousands of units of these per year. The fact is, they are making a lot of people happy... and soon they will be making performance car buyers happy too.

They sell thousands of them every year because:
They are Cheap - many of the base components are ancient and the tooling has long since been paid for. GM sells as many as they can to fleets, or anyone else they can to up their CAFE ratings.

They hardly excel compared to their competition in any way other than price. McDonalds sells a lot of burgers because they are cheaper, not because they are better burgers.

It's important for ALL a company's offerings to be good. I refuse to believe they somehow become brainwashed by a brand and will never buy different again. In fact, how do you suppose GM is increasing market share this year? It's thru CONQUEST sales, getting buyers to trade in another brand. Brand loyalty isn't what it used to be... buyers have plenty of data streams for finding the best product - the Internet is a prime example.

Who said anything about brainwashing? I'll give you an example - My first new car (actually the wife's) was a 2000 VW. As an engineer who works in this industry - the car continues to impress me with its well thought out design and details. If the car holds up well, we most likely will buy another. If not, we won't. If I had great luck with the car and liked their offerings when it came time to buy another - I would go there first. Sure, someone else could win me over - but if I had a great experience it's that much harder for them. This isn't what I'd call brainwashing and it isn't that unusual.

BTW, aren't most of those 'conquest' sales coming from Ford and DaimlerChrysler - Not the Japanese and Koreans that are the biggest long term threat?

Besides, I believe clutching owners are on a collision course with time and technology... namely the "manumatic" or paddle-shifting trans. Self-shifting fellas in LS1's are already at the mercy of an A4 LS1 with a stall convertor, due to superior shifting consistency of an A4. IMHO it's just a matter of time until a higher stall becomes a factory option on performance cars like the A4 GTO.

A lot of people will be using them for a long time and getting enjoyment and driving pleasure that simply cannot be had with the uninvolvement of an automatic trans. The rest of the 'advanced' world will wonder why and have no idea what they are missing. (Kinda like sailboats) Eventually, new manual tranmission cars will disappear - and it will be a sad day for driving enthusiasts everywhere when they do.

[This message has been edited by WERM (edited September 15, 2002).]

BigDarknFast

09-15-2002, 12:53 AM

WERM - you know, our family went to McDonalds (or "old McDonalds" as my youngest calls it) today for lunch. I had some chiken nuggets... they were $1, and they were quite good! Pls clue me in, what's wrong with that?

This smelly-old-dog argument about selling to fleets, as if it is somehow irrelevant as a real sale... Rental agencies make rational decisions too, why would they buy "c***" as it was so eloquently described above? Why would renting customers rent "c***"? Why would auction companies buy the used "c***" after rental companies are done with them? I'll tell you why - it's about VALUE.

My first new car was a 1983 Citation X11. For the 11 years I owned and drove it, I was impressed by its handling, the rack and pinion steering, the torquey V6 (for its day). It wasn't the most reliable car although it wasn't terrible either. It was a pretty good sporty FWD coupe. In fact it was winning showroom stock road course races when it came out. But eventually I wanted to move up, and eventually I got an LS1. I could have bought a Mustang... there was certainly no incredible relibility history to keep me in a GM car... I just did not like the looks of the Mustang and the LS1 had more power and speed, even with an A4. So here I am. It's good you/your wife like the VW. I'm not a VW fan but whatever toots your horn. Perhaps you can then understand how I am excited about my TA, with its modern electronics, T-tops, classic muscle car styling, and the like.

Excitement of driving a manual - I'm sure they will be around for many years too... but I'm an engineer too and I'm always interested most in what's the best. What's the fastest? What's the safest? What's the most convenient for the operator? As time goes by, the manual trans will be doomed in all those categories. And the manual trans will go away, like the manual choke did. Performance fans will toss it when auto's and manumatics start consistently tromping manuals on not just strips, but also road courses, with no need for regular clutch replacement hassles and with equal or lower life cycle cost. Why should a driver be distracted with pumping a clutch?

Z284ever

09-15-2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:

Why should a driver be distracted with pumping a clutch?

WHY???? Enganging the clutch, rowing the shifter, matching revs......this is actually fun for some people!

Rather than a distraction...I find it to be an involving, intrinsic, engaging way to have fun while driving.

BTW....you had a Citation too. I had an '80 Club Coupe with a V6 and 4-speed....worse car I have ever owned.

jrp4uc

09-15-2002, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
Excitement of driving a manual - I'm sure they will be around for many years too... but I'm an engineer too and I'm always interested most in what's the best. What's the fastest? What's the safest? What's the most convenient for the operator? As time goes by, the manual trans will be doomed in all those categories. And the manual trans will go away, like the manual choke did. Performance fans will toss it when auto's and manumatics start consistently tromping manuals on not just strips, but also road courses, with no need for regular clutch replacement hassles and with equal or lower life cycle cost. Why should a driver be distracted with pumping a clutch?

There is more to driving a manual transmission than dragstrip launches. Infact, my car has not found its way to a dragstrip or road course, and I still prefer to be doing the shifting myself. Most people enjoy the greater interaction and sense of control over their car. This is not a fad to be lost to the weekend warriors' trends at the 'strip. Especially for a car boasting performance, why wouldn't you want to be more involved? Safer driving? Now that can certainly be disputed. The technology will continue to improve, but with cars of this nature I believe purists will not be willing to compromise. I don't think you'll see slushboxes in Lamborghinis and Vipers anytime soon--and even the Ferrari and Porsche F1-shifting OPTIONS will remain OPTIONS for this reason.

BTW, wouldn't it be funny if you're new red GTO were only offered as a manual?

Originally posted by BigDarknFast:
The way the WRX achieves this is simple - it's all done at the starting line. They launch great. But up over 70 or so, they succomb to their inherent limits of primitive aero, AWD gears and weight.?

And my LT1 Formula ran about the same numbers: 0-60 ~6.0 and Qtr ~14.2. Getting off the line about the same, is it also massively underwhelmed up top? This is all a moot point regardless. I rarely run my car from 0-100+ on my commute to work and school through the week. http://web.camaross.com/bb/rolleyes.gif That's what's so great--its a fun drive even when NOT pushed all the way to the limits. GTP: 23,8xx for a sunroof, leather seats, and 500lbs of extra weight--WRX: 22,8xx for newer styling, a membership in SCCA, exceptionally comfortable seats the keep you in one spot, better power/weight ratio, the option to shift yourself, better acceleration, the practicality of AWD and infinitely better handling. If you're a performance enthusiast, which would you rather have? Sunroof and leather? What's the point if the car isn't as much fun to get in and drive to begin with.

------------------
-JERRY-
'02 Impreza WRX
'88 Fiero Formula
Formerly owned: '93 Firebird Formula

[This message has been edited by jrp4uc (edited September 15, 2002).]

WERM

09-15-2002, 01:33 PM

my TA, with its ...classic muscle car styling...

It's only classic muscle car styling if this (http://www.1966batmobile.com/Ontheroad.jpg) is a classic Muscle Car.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.:D :D :D

WERM

09-15-2002, 02:04 PM

you know, our family went to McDonalds (or "old McDonalds" as my youngest calls it) today for lunch. I had some chiken nuggets... they were $1, and they were quite good! Pls clue me in, what's wrong with that?

Mcdonalds is losing market share to other fast food restaurants offering tastier food (for most people) than other restaurants for about the same price. Their earnings are also down.

This smelly-old-dog argument about selling to fleets, as if it is somehow irrelevant as a real sale... Rental agencies make rational decisions too, why would they buy "c***" as it was so eloquently described above? Why would renting customers rent "c***"? Why would auction companies buy the used "c***" after rental companies are done with them? I'll tell you why - it's about VALUE.

The value equation is different when you are a fleet owner or rental company. You want the cheapest car that will get the job done for 50,000 miles. Other companies buy them used because they have no resale and are even cheaper. Yes, cavalier does deliver on that front.

My first new car was a 1983 Citation X11. For the 11 years I owned and drove it, I was impressed by its handling, the rack and pinion steering, the torquey V6 (for its day). It wasn't the most reliable car although it wasn't terrible either. It was a pretty good sporty FWD coupe. In fact it was winning showroom stock road course races when it came out. But eventually I wanted to move up, and eventually I got an LS1. I could have bought a Mustang... there was certainly no incredible relibility history to keep me in a GM car... I just did not like the looks of the Mustang and the LS1 had more power and speed, even with an A4.

This does not dispute my original statement. If the LS1 were no faster than the Mustang - and maybe even if the mustang was faster you'd probably be MUCH more willing (or wanting) to jump to the competition than if your Citation was the best car you'd ever owned. But the extra power was the 'hook' that kept you despite your experience with the Citation. Without that...

Excitement of driving a manual - I'm sure they will be around for many years too... but I'm an engineer too and I'm always interested most in what's the best. What's the fastest? What's the safest? What's the most convenient for the operator? As time goes by, the manual trans will be doomed in all those categories. And the manual trans will go away, like the manual choke did. Performance fans will toss it when auto's and manumatics start consistently tromping manuals on not just strips, but also road courses, with no need for regular clutch replacement hassles and with equal or lower life cycle cost. Why should a driver be distracted with pumping a clutch?

As an engineer I look at it like this:
Whats the most proven, most simple design that will do the job (K.I.S.S.)? What is the most reliable? What is the lowest cost? What is the life cycle cost? What are the benefits associated with it? MPG? MPH? Traction in bad weather? Performance? A well shifted manual delivers on all fronts and will for the forseeable future - even if they are forced into obscurity by cell phone wielding consumers who want their hands free and are willing to pay for it. The only technology that may come close or better to a manual in all of these categories is the still relatively unproven CVT. The 'manumatics' come close in some regards, but are only superior in performance. BTW, many normal (non racing types) people 'frequently' replace their clutches every 100-200K.

As a driving enthusiast - like many other enthusiasts of every imaginable hobby - I want to be MORE involved, not less. Even if it is not the most convenient, or fastest option. The manual delivers here as well.

Chuck!

09-16-2002, 02:03 AM

This was a really long thread with really long replies, so I only cought the jist of most of the posts, but I wanted to say my buddy got a 2002 Grand Am GTP A4 and it supprised the **** out of me. 14.6 bone stock, 14.2 with an air box and a smaller pulley. 13s will come with exhaust and some sticky tires. They're no slouch at all. Too bad we cant convince GM they need an AWD GTP :)

Z284ever

09-16-2002, 02:08 AM

The GTP's are fast alright...with the potential to go much faster with simple mods,....if only they didn't handle like a LeSaber.

Burmite

09-16-2002, 02:17 AM

I wish there was an AWD GTP. The G8 was a great car. Just the 280 hp 3.8 S/C next year would be enough power for it. We got versatrak and a prototype model to use for blue prints...

guionM

09-16-2002, 01:03 PM

Holden uses a weaker version of the GTP's engine as the middle (base in some models) powerplant in the Commodore line & is the base engine in the Monaro.

Maybe a version of it should be in the 5th gen as well.

BigDarknFast

09-16-2002, 05:53 PM

quote from jrp4uc:
There is more to driving a manual transmission than dragstrip launches.
No kidding! Thanks for the tip. I drove a manual Chevy stakebed truck one summer for a warehousing job... *yawn*

Most people enjoy the greater interaction and sense of control over their car.
It continues to be my lonely job to correct your inaccurate statements... the vast majority of passenger vehicles, SUV's and light pickup trucks sold in the US have an A4. Even a large majority of new Corvettes are sold today with A4's. Of course, Corvette buyers - they're not real enthusiasts. I also recall the A4 being on the majority of new Firebirds sold - for example, of the 1998 production totals of approx 32000 (roughly half of which were LS1 variants), only about 6400 were M6.

Especially for a car boasting performance, why wouldn't you want to be more involved? Safer driving?
Umm, YES. Having one less lever to operate allows me to focus more intently on controlling the rest of the car's operation. My first car, a 1970 Chevelle, had a separate switch for the wipers on the dash and a headlight dimmer on the floor... are those fun too? (BTW how does one dim/hi-beam their headlights while clutching on an M4 Chevelle? Answer: YOU DON'T.) In fact it would not surprise me to find accident claims higher for M6 LS1 Z28's than for the A4 version.

I don't think you'll see slushboxes in Lamborghinis and Vipers anytime soon--and even the Ferrari and Porsche F1-shifting OPTIONS will remain OPTIONS for this reason.
Well... what do you mean by "soon"? Europe, that bastion of absurdly and artificially high gas prices, is one of the manual-trans strongholds of the world. Most cars there are manual (if you move to Europe, you'll have the luxury of being correct in your statement above)... but that is changing "soon" (IMHO) according to this study:
http://www.automotive-online.com/data_analysis/details.asp?sectcode=DA&storyid=9826
It says that by 2010, manuals will be only 45% of new vehicles sold in Europe. Even today, I recall reading that Tiptronic (manumatic) Porsche 911 sales are greater than the manual version - sorry do not have a link.

wouldn't it be funny if you're new red GTO were only offered as a manual?
No, it wouldn't be "funny", I just wouldn't buy one. Before I got my 02 TA, I went and looked into the 2003 Cobras. I saw a GT at the dealer... talked to the salesman... but them not offering an A4 on that car was a real show-stopper for our family. Thankfully, GM understands this. (I was also hoping that seeing a GT in person would sway my opinion about the stale, stubby styling of the Mustang... no dice... and the tinny exhaust tips remind me of those available at Wal-Mart).

And my LT1 Formula ran about the same numbers: 0-60 ~6.0 and Qtr ~14.2. Getting off the line about the same, is it also massively underwhelmed up top?
Here's some numbers for a stock manual WRX from Motor Trend: 0-60 in 5.6, 1/4 in 14.2. While there is no certainty about comparing conditions and altitude vs your LT1 numbers, it does show that a WRX doing a 14.2 achieved it with a QUICKER trip to 60. Even objectively speaking, the top speed is lower than an LS1 fbody, 140 vs 155... but it makes sense too that the car will be more sluggish at high speed due to the AWD drivetrain overhead.

This is all a moot point regardless. I rarely run my car from 0-100+ on my commute to work and school through the week.
Speak for yourself. You get your jollies rowing a shifter between urban stoplights... I have my ways too ;)

GTP: 23,8xx for a sunroof, leather seats, and 500lbs of extra weight--WRX: 22,8xx for newer styling, a membership in SCCA, exceptionally comfortable seats the keep you in one spot, better power/weight ratio, the option to shift yourself, better acceleration, the practicality of AWD and infinitely better handling.
Infinitely better handling? Really... then perhaps you can explain how MT got a GTP to whisk thru their slalom at 61.4 MPH but the WRX could only do 61.3? Newer styling... *snicker* I believe the Toyota Echo has newer styling than a GTP too. And it's so obviously better. :D Membership in SCCA - how does that make the WRX a better car? Comfy seats - own one car with leather seats and you will be forever spoiled. Power/weight - if only that were all that mattered for performance... the slalom stats show that clearly it is not. Practicality of AWD... oh don't forget the AWD's ugly baggage too, like the weight, extra maintenance cost, and MPG impact (BTW the WRX gets an astounding 1 or 2 MPG better than an LS1 Fbody having roughly 100 more stock HP).

BigDarknFast

09-16-2002, 05:56 PM

quote from WERM:
Mcdonalds is losing market share...
Gee, I'll mention that to my two sons the next time they want a happy meal and a romp in the McD PlayPlace... "guys, we can't go to McD's anymore... they're earnings are down". :(

You want the cheapest car that will get the job done for 50,000 miles.
Of course no consumer wants a low-cost car to lease for 36k... or do they?

But the extra power was the 'hook' that kept you despite your experience with the Citation.
I don't believe that was my point, nor was it what hooked me. I drove an LT1 too, and considered a used Formula. The LT1 had "enough" power/torque. It was actually a combination of things (styling, new-car warranty, etc) which got me into an LS1. The point was, even though I liked how my X11 performed, hi-performance is not the only parameter in the buying equation for me, nor is sticking with my "favorite" brand. And I tend to believe a lot of performance car buyers are the same way. People buying Camrys like an appliance... yes - many of those are like lemmings and will go back again and again after one good experience.

A well shifted manual delivers on all fronts and will for the forseeable future - even if they are forced into obscurity by cell phone wielding consumers who want their hands free and are willing to pay for it.
You see you inadvertently hit the nail on the head here. So many motorists want to do some other things while driving (BTW I'm not saying I support doing that), there is more demand for automatics. People want to talk... eat... comb their hair... etc while driving, and an auto trans is an enabler. Thus, high demand. Thus, more R&D and enhancement. Thus, more capable performance improvements as time goes by, while meanwhile manuals are inevitably going to fall by the wayside. It's just hte nature of the beast.

As for being more involved... that means different things to different enthusiasts. Personally I like to focus more on the steering, braking and accelerating than on being in the right gear... on defensive driving rather than using engine braking and heel-and-toe finesse. You want to shift and clutch... great. Go right ahead! :)

Classic muscle car styling... LOL! As a matter of fact I do think the Batmobile has a certain muscle car flare (actually many flares)! Don't get me started on styling... the fenders on my TA remind me of a Sting Ray from the 1960's. Ditto the front fender vents. I love its compound curves... the fastback rear glass... and the rear end which appears to have come directly from a Trans Am series race track. It's all good from here! :D

jrp4uc

09-16-2002, 10:06 PM

BigDark and Automatic...

There's a reason cars like the Z06 and Cobra only are available as manual transmissions, and when I speak that "most prefer to do shifting for themselves," I am of course speaking in a perfromance driving sense. Thanks for the SUV/truck references. Oh, and guess what? Not everyone buys a Corvette because they are a real "enthusiast." See, there is thing about image and the car you drive. There are a lot of people who want to own a 'Vette someday, and all the same they don't care if it even leaves their garage. I see a lot of women driving Corvettes too, I don't think they like it because of its worldy sports car performance. But if you're still not convinced, go ahead and start a topic claiming the superiority of automatic transmissions and see how quickly everyone laughs back in your face. It's too bad that experience in your truck years back ruined you for manual transmissions. :( There's a whole lot you're mssing out on.

Lt1 vs. WRX...I've also seen tests where Lt1s do 0-60 in 5.7 and qtr in 14.2 (thus the ~ approx attached to each figure I gave), so so much for your theory. I don't know why you're trying to tell me new information about a car you saw the numbers on in the back of a magazine and I OWN anyways. Leather seats? Been there, done that. I'm living without them. Give me the percentage of cars sold with leather seats, I'm sure a large portion of the driving public is doing ok without them aswell. Comparing LS1 Camaros to my WRX, that's apples to oranges. It's a tribute to the WRX that it's even drawing comparisons. The car has 227hp!! Gas mileage? I get 25/26mpg every tank, which is about 3-4mpg better than I did with my Lt1. Maybe I'd get the mfg claimed 28 if it weren't for my heavy AWD components holding me back. :rolleyes: The handling issue isn't even worth commenting further on.

Your GTP is good for what it is, but it's not the performer my WRX is. But anyone requiring to be pampered with autoshifting and leather seats isn't going to see that anyways. Aren't there professionals who compare such automobiles anyways? :think: Wait, yeah...but I haven't seen the GTP on the 10Best list. Wait, it wasn't Automobile Magazine Car of the Year either. I guess it's not just me that sees the value in this car. And these guys at the magazines are hardly young, gen-y types.

BTW, thanks for also standing alone in successfully missing the point of every comment I've made, including the original topic. Got anymore numbers to show me? :Owned:

WERM

09-16-2002, 10:24 PM

[i]Originally posted by jrp4uc ]

Aren't there professionals who compare such automobiles anyways? :think: Wait, yeah...but I haven't seen the GTP on the 10Best list. Wait, it wasn't Automobile Magazine Car of the Year either. I guess it's not just me that sees the value in this car. And these guys at the magazines are hardly young, gen-y types.

Wait, you forgot to mention the car and driver comparo that ranked it 2 out of 3 vs. 2 other AWD cars costing twice as much- (Audi and BMW) and that it nearly won. :)

Of course... it isn't winning any styling awards. :p

BigDarknFast

09-17-2002, 12:24 AM

jrp4uc -

LOL - "BigDarknAutomatic"! Maybe I should change to that name now that I sold my NBM Formula... seriously... but actually it will need to be BigFastnAutomatic... :D

Well maybe I'm too harsh here... I suppose it's clear there are some things I don't like about certain cars (BTW I do believe the WRX is a good performance value for those seeking AWD). And I suppose I look like a clutch-hater, I'm not really. I've had a few motorcycles and loved the solid feel of a direct driveline connection the clutch gives. I said *yawn* above because it gets monotonous clutching and shifting 1-2-1-2-1-2-... in urban traffic (worse: brake-clutch-1-clutch-brake-etc.) I just think about it in terms of performance... while stock for stock the M6 has a slight advantage in LS1 Fbody's, the addition of a stall converter changes the equation drastically for an A4 (BTW - More LS1 Fbodies are sold with an A4 than an M6). In drag racing at least, the faster you want to go the more you need an automatic. Does John Force have time to shift? I refuse to believe M6 drivers are "more of a true enthusiast" than an A4 driver. And as time goes by, manumatics are going to eat more and more M6 market share. So enjoy it while you can. And wind that little WRX way UP if you have to launch against an LS1 ;)