Article...2008 Camaro: Dead on Arrival?
06-13-2007, 07:50 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 388
This ad would get the point across:
"You can get 27MPG feeling like a mindless douchebag sheep, (guy driving a toyota)
or you can get 27MPG feeling like a bat outta hell....with 300+hp (guy driving a pony car)
...yeah...we thought so...."
The new Ford Mustang/Chevy Camaro/Dodge Challenger
(really that campaign would work for either of the pony cars)
"You can get 27MPG feeling like a mindless douchebag sheep, (guy driving a toyota)
or you can get 27MPG feeling like a bat outta hell....with 300+hp (guy driving a pony car)
...yeah...we thought so...."
The new Ford Mustang/Chevy Camaro/Dodge Challenger
(really that campaign would work for either of the pony cars)
06-13-2007, 07:55 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Confederate States of America
Posts: 1,049
I really think this is a great idea - a strong, direct ad campaign to start the production run - and maybe even a little before. I get ~20mpg average with city and highway driving in my '99 TA WS6 and NO ONE believes me when I say it - no one! The only way to break that stigma is to make sure as many people know it's wrong as possible.
06-13-2007, 09:35 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 311
Most people dont understand that its all about the gearing.
The Tremec's in the LS1 F-body's have 2 overdrives, and people dont get that when you are only turning 1200-1500 rpm on the freeway that you just arent going to burn as much fuel. Not to mention, in an engine with that kind of power and torque curve, it doesnt have to work as hard to keep the car at speed.
I routinley get 26-28 mpg on the freeway AND I HAVE A CAM, Headers, etc!!!.
Its a mind set that needs to be eliminated.
The Tremec's in the LS1 F-body's have 2 overdrives, and people dont get that when you are only turning 1200-1500 rpm on the freeway that you just arent going to burn as much fuel. Not to mention, in an engine with that kind of power and torque curve, it doesnt have to work as hard to keep the car at speed.
I routinley get 26-28 mpg on the freeway AND I HAVE A CAM, Headers, etc!!!.
Its a mind set that needs to be eliminated.
06-13-2007, 09:48 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 311
I wrote a letter to the editor of the site explaining my complete and utter disgust for this writers opinionated lies. And his non-factual ignorant observations.
I will update when he writes me back, I tore this writer up though. It was good.
I will update when he writes me back, I tore this writer up though. It was good.
06-13-2007, 11:26 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 287
Clyde
06-13-2007, 11:37 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 315
Most people dont understand that its all about the gearing.
The Tremec's in the LS1 F-body's have 2 overdrives, and people dont get that when you are only turning 1200-1500 rpm on the freeway that you just arent going to burn as much fuel. Not to mention, in an engine with that kind of power and torque curve, it doesnt have to work as hard to keep the car at speed.
I routinley get 26-28 mpg on the freeway AND I HAVE A CAM, Headers, etc!!!.
Its a mind set that needs to be eliminated.
The Tremec's in the LS1 F-body's have 2 overdrives, and people dont get that when you are only turning 1200-1500 rpm on the freeway that you just arent going to burn as much fuel. Not to mention, in an engine with that kind of power and torque curve, it doesnt have to work as hard to keep the car at speed.
I routinley get 26-28 mpg on the freeway AND I HAVE A CAM, Headers, etc!!!.
Its a mind set that needs to be eliminated.
Exactly why my 6 speed, 3.08 geared, 2900 lb '67 would average about 27 mpg on the highway. Now if only the LS1 had AFM, imagine that combo for gas milage.
06-13-2007, 01:03 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2
If I were buying a bike,...... it would be a Harley. The same reason I'll be buying a Camaro with a V8 when the beast returns in 09. If the Camaro gets discontinued because they can't sell 75K or 80K V6's..... so be it. The whole MPG BS that this guy is preaching is ridiculous. Either you can afford what you want or you can't..... it's as simple as that. I'll be driving a legend that puts a smile on my face every time I turn the key & nail the power........maybe that idiot should factor that value into the overall equation.
06-14-2007, 12:39 PM
#42
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
14 in the city? Stock?
Either you're the worst leadfoot ever, or something's wrong with your car. I have a pretty heavy foot, and I average 18mpg around town. I can see your car being a little worse (16-17), but 14 is pushing it.
Either you're the worst leadfoot ever, or something's wrong with your car. I have a pretty heavy foot, and I average 18mpg around town. I can see your car being a little worse (16-17), but 14 is pushing it.
06-14-2007, 02:54 PM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I just sent those fellows a little note:
Dear Editor,
Your article was brought up in a link at one of the sites I visit every morning when I get up. So I clicked on and read your article. Then I read it again. Not because it was so early my comprehension wasn't up to speed yet, but because I have rarely in my years of writing for the military and occasional articles and columns both online and in print read anything that is so far off the mark as your article by Eric Peters (2008 Camaro: Dead on Arrival?).
Usually, when someone writes an automotive article, they know a thing or 2 about automobiles, or at least about the subject of which they write about. It's pretty obvious that the composer of this article has zero of the latter, and very very little of the former. Yet, this doesn't prevent him from coming up with all types of fantasies and fabrications to promote his opinion. I'd expect more from a journalist.
It starts off when he calls the yet-to-be-produced, fuel-economy-numbers-nowhere-near-being-set, 2009 Camaro a gas pig. Maybe he has a "Back to the Future" type of time device that enables him to propel himself to December 2008 and get the fuel economy figures the car's going to have, but I do seriously doubt it. If he were to take the view that the past is an indication of future potential, he would have dialed back to the last 2002 Camaro, and picked up fuel economy numbers from that model, but because it didn't play into his fantasy (or make good print to whoever he's trying to appeal to) he didn't. He'd find that "double digit gas pig" got 28 mpg on the highway and 18 in the city in it's most fuel hungry version? That's with an automatic.
To bring this into the perspective that Eric Peters lacks in all this, consider that the last, 2002, 350 horsepower V8 and automatic transmission Camaro's 18/28 epa MPG rating:
* is better than an 4 cylinder AWD Subaru Impreza AWD with automatic (19 city, 25 highway)
* gets identical city and better freeway mileage than a V6 Mitsubishi Galant (at almost 100 less horsepower).
*exactly MATCHES the EPA fuel economy of the Hyundai Azera V6 ( which has 150 less horsepower)
*exactly MATCHES the EPA numbers of the Mitsubishi Eclipse's most powerful V6 (again, while producing far more power).
* MATCHES the Infiniti G35 coupe's city rating, and gets better fuel economy on the freeway (18/25).. again, while producing far more horsepower.
The Ferrari 430 Mr Peters wants in his driveway gets 12 MPG in the City, and 17 on the highway. And that brings up my next point. Cars like the Camaro and Mustang traditionally sell without relation to fuel prices.
Eric Peters came up with some mythical car that has a "20-something" gallon fuel tank (Can he even name one car in modern times with a tank that big?!) that would cost $70 per week to fill. Current Mustangs and most all Camaros ran in the 15-16 gallon range. My $3 per gallon math puts that at around $45 to $50 per week.
In addition to the disturbing lack of elementary research and an obvious deficit of basic math skills, he has no real knowledge of the automotive market. If he did, then he would realize that the 21-35 year old age bracket is NOT the group who traditionally buy the top level, V8 powered muscle cars.
Median age of the Camaro Z28 buyer was about 40. The average age of the Ford Mustang Cobra buyer was well into his 40s. Quite a bit higher than the average age of Mustang buyers (median age..... 37 years old).
For the record, Chevrolet Cobalt's median age is 26.
Buyers of Camaros and Mustangs tend to be established into or well on their way in their career. Those young buyers who do buy these type of cars overwhelmingly purchase the base V6 version. Those who buy the top line, high performance V8s today (as was always the case, since the 1960s) tend to be more well off and a bit older. These are people with money and are willing to spend on something exciting after driving "responsible" vehicles. Insurance has always discouraged younger and reckless people from owning NEW muscle cars.
Same subject (Eric Peters' lack of basic knowledge of the automotive market and his make-it-up-as-he-goes writing method) different areas:
1. If there's going to be a Gas Guzzler fine on "20-something MPG" cars, he's not only the only one aware of it, but it's going to slap most every car currently on sale with the same. For the record, the new standards are going to be phased in over at least a decade. We're in 2007 today. It would start to take effect in about 2010. It would be in full effect in 2020.
2. Cars with what he calls "Car clown" trunk and "Show only rear seats" happens to sell about 55% of it's cars (when powered by a V6) to women under the Mustang banner. But don't take Mustang's 12.3 cubic feet of luggage space's word for it. How about other cars with even higher percentages of women buyers.... that so happen to fit into Eric's vision of higher mileage cars he seems to be advocating:
* Honda Accord Hybrid: 12.9 cu. ft.
* Toyota Yaris: 12.9 cubic feet
* Toyota Corolla (which at 26/35 mpg is probably the biggest thing currently made that will meet proposed fuel standards of 2020 as is) 13.6 cubic feet of luggage space.
* The New Nissan Altima coupe has just 7.4 cubic feet of trunk space.
* If you want something more practical, the bigger Altima sedan has 13 (10 if you go for the Hybrid).
*Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder (the car with the highest percentage of female buyers in the US) 7 cu/ft of trunk space.
The Infinity G35 (closest thing anyone has to Us muscle cars) has a trunk capacity of 7 cubic feet.
3. Holden of Australia was contacted to produce up to 18,000 GTO's per year over a 3 year period. GM averaged just under 14,000 annually. GM's estimates on annual sales of a no-option, high end, fully loaded GT was well into dream-land. However, when compared to the similarly high end 12,000 Ford Mustang Cobras and Mach 1s, and the equally expensive and high end WS6 Trans Ams of the Firebird which sold around 14,000, the GTO's numbers were in the ballpark of where it should have been. Extraordinary dealer markups early on that made the cars sit in showrooms the 1st 9-10 months and the general criticism of the car's bland looks no doubt cost it sales. But when compared to other similar cars, it did extremely well. Even compared to GM's projected sales, it still was in the ballpark.
4. The coupe market is run on style and is very fickle. Cars in that market need restyling more often than sedans. The current Mustang about to start it's 4th model year (2008) production within a month. Just about every Saturn sitting in it's showroom (and a whole lot of Toyotas) have been new or refreshed since the 2005 Mustang came out. Mustang is still by far the best selling sports coupe on the planet. Last I saw, Dodge Charger sales were up.. a lot... this year over last.
5. Toyota sold 106,971 Prius last year... and lost substantial money on every one they sold made up in far higher sales of lower mileage vehicles (Toyota sold over 488,000 Camarys and 945,000 trucks). If anything, Prius was good advertising.
By comparison, The Ford Motor Company moved over 166,000 Mustangs... and made substantial money on each one they sold.
Chrysler sold nearly 144,000 300s, 114,000 Chargers, and 40,000 Dodge Magnums. Depending on where you get your numbers, between 45 and 55% of the total sales of these models have Chrysler's Hemi V8. Even Eric Peter's bad math and fuzzy logic can figure out what's selling more in the marketplace: A Chrysler Hemi or a Toyota Prius.... and Chrysler's making enough money off of them, it's essentially carrying the company.
Mr Peters obviously has a personal agenda and bias against V8 powered, so-called muscle cars. That's perfectly fine and completely acceptable. I have a personal bias against large SUVs and I see drivers of Toyota Priuses as people who are more interested making a statement than doing something concrete (a Toyota Yaris is far more earth friendly than the Prius, but that's a whole article in itself). The large & diverse automotive market has something for every taste and need, and with that comes vehicles people don't particularly favor. Problem is that people can usually come up with factual points to support their position, especially if it's in print. Even editorials bring up facts to support an idea or position, regardless as to how obscure it is or questionable the source. At least someone did some type of homework. It obviously wasn't done in this case.
I'd expect more from a writer who has stated he is a longtime Pontiac fanatic and muscle car fan.
v/r
Guy McCoy
Your article was brought up in a link at one of the sites I visit every morning when I get up. So I clicked on and read your article. Then I read it again. Not because it was so early my comprehension wasn't up to speed yet, but because I have rarely in my years of writing for the military and occasional articles and columns both online and in print read anything that is so far off the mark as your article by Eric Peters (2008 Camaro: Dead on Arrival?).
Usually, when someone writes an automotive article, they know a thing or 2 about automobiles, or at least about the subject of which they write about. It's pretty obvious that the composer of this article has zero of the latter, and very very little of the former. Yet, this doesn't prevent him from coming up with all types of fantasies and fabrications to promote his opinion. I'd expect more from a journalist.
It starts off when he calls the yet-to-be-produced, fuel-economy-numbers-nowhere-near-being-set, 2009 Camaro a gas pig. Maybe he has a "Back to the Future" type of time device that enables him to propel himself to December 2008 and get the fuel economy figures the car's going to have, but I do seriously doubt it. If he were to take the view that the past is an indication of future potential, he would have dialed back to the last 2002 Camaro, and picked up fuel economy numbers from that model, but because it didn't play into his fantasy (or make good print to whoever he's trying to appeal to) he didn't. He'd find that "double digit gas pig" got 28 mpg on the highway and 18 in the city in it's most fuel hungry version? That's with an automatic.
To bring this into the perspective that Eric Peters lacks in all this, consider that the last, 2002, 350 horsepower V8 and automatic transmission Camaro's 18/28 epa MPG rating:
* is better than an 4 cylinder AWD Subaru Impreza AWD with automatic (19 city, 25 highway)
* gets identical city and better freeway mileage than a V6 Mitsubishi Galant (at almost 100 less horsepower).
*exactly MATCHES the EPA fuel economy of the Hyundai Azera V6 ( which has 150 less horsepower)
*exactly MATCHES the EPA numbers of the Mitsubishi Eclipse's most powerful V6 (again, while producing far more power).
* MATCHES the Infiniti G35 coupe's city rating, and gets better fuel economy on the freeway (18/25).. again, while producing far more horsepower.
The Ferrari 430 Mr Peters wants in his driveway gets 12 MPG in the City, and 17 on the highway. And that brings up my next point. Cars like the Camaro and Mustang traditionally sell without relation to fuel prices.
Eric Peters came up with some mythical car that has a "20-something" gallon fuel tank (Can he even name one car in modern times with a tank that big?!) that would cost $70 per week to fill. Current Mustangs and most all Camaros ran in the 15-16 gallon range. My $3 per gallon math puts that at around $45 to $50 per week.
In addition to the disturbing lack of elementary research and an obvious deficit of basic math skills, he has no real knowledge of the automotive market. If he did, then he would realize that the 21-35 year old age bracket is NOT the group who traditionally buy the top level, V8 powered muscle cars.
Median age of the Camaro Z28 buyer was about 40. The average age of the Ford Mustang Cobra buyer was well into his 40s. Quite a bit higher than the average age of Mustang buyers (median age..... 37 years old).
For the record, Chevrolet Cobalt's median age is 26.
Buyers of Camaros and Mustangs tend to be established into or well on their way in their career. Those young buyers who do buy these type of cars overwhelmingly purchase the base V6 version. Those who buy the top line, high performance V8s today (as was always the case, since the 1960s) tend to be more well off and a bit older. These are people with money and are willing to spend on something exciting after driving "responsible" vehicles. Insurance has always discouraged younger and reckless people from owning NEW muscle cars.
Same subject (Eric Peters' lack of basic knowledge of the automotive market and his make-it-up-as-he-goes writing method) different areas:
1. If there's going to be a Gas Guzzler fine on "20-something MPG" cars, he's not only the only one aware of it, but it's going to slap most every car currently on sale with the same. For the record, the new standards are going to be phased in over at least a decade. We're in 2007 today. It would start to take effect in about 2010. It would be in full effect in 2020.
2. Cars with what he calls "Car clown" trunk and "Show only rear seats" happens to sell about 55% of it's cars (when powered by a V6) to women under the Mustang banner. But don't take Mustang's 12.3 cubic feet of luggage space's word for it. How about other cars with even higher percentages of women buyers.... that so happen to fit into Eric's vision of higher mileage cars he seems to be advocating:
* Honda Accord Hybrid: 12.9 cu. ft.
* Toyota Yaris: 12.9 cubic feet
* Toyota Corolla (which at 26/35 mpg is probably the biggest thing currently made that will meet proposed fuel standards of 2020 as is) 13.6 cubic feet of luggage space.
* The New Nissan Altima coupe has just 7.4 cubic feet of trunk space.
* If you want something more practical, the bigger Altima sedan has 13 (10 if you go for the Hybrid).
*Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder (the car with the highest percentage of female buyers in the US) 7 cu/ft of trunk space.
The Infinity G35 (closest thing anyone has to Us muscle cars) has a trunk capacity of 7 cubic feet.
3. Holden of Australia was contacted to produce up to 18,000 GTO's per year over a 3 year period. GM averaged just under 14,000 annually. GM's estimates on annual sales of a no-option, high end, fully loaded GT was well into dream-land. However, when compared to the similarly high end 12,000 Ford Mustang Cobras and Mach 1s, and the equally expensive and high end WS6 Trans Ams of the Firebird which sold around 14,000, the GTO's numbers were in the ballpark of where it should have been. Extraordinary dealer markups early on that made the cars sit in showrooms the 1st 9-10 months and the general criticism of the car's bland looks no doubt cost it sales. But when compared to other similar cars, it did extremely well. Even compared to GM's projected sales, it still was in the ballpark.
4. The coupe market is run on style and is very fickle. Cars in that market need restyling more often than sedans. The current Mustang about to start it's 4th model year (2008) production within a month. Just about every Saturn sitting in it's showroom (and a whole lot of Toyotas) have been new or refreshed since the 2005 Mustang came out. Mustang is still by far the best selling sports coupe on the planet. Last I saw, Dodge Charger sales were up.. a lot... this year over last.
5. Toyota sold 106,971 Prius last year... and lost substantial money on every one they sold made up in far higher sales of lower mileage vehicles (Toyota sold over 488,000 Camarys and 945,000 trucks). If anything, Prius was good advertising.
By comparison, The Ford Motor Company moved over 166,000 Mustangs... and made substantial money on each one they sold.
Chrysler sold nearly 144,000 300s, 114,000 Chargers, and 40,000 Dodge Magnums. Depending on where you get your numbers, between 45 and 55% of the total sales of these models have Chrysler's Hemi V8. Even Eric Peter's bad math and fuzzy logic can figure out what's selling more in the marketplace: A Chrysler Hemi or a Toyota Prius.... and Chrysler's making enough money off of them, it's essentially carrying the company.
Mr Peters obviously has a personal agenda and bias against V8 powered, so-called muscle cars. That's perfectly fine and completely acceptable. I have a personal bias against large SUVs and I see drivers of Toyota Priuses as people who are more interested making a statement than doing something concrete (a Toyota Yaris is far more earth friendly than the Prius, but that's a whole article in itself). The large & diverse automotive market has something for every taste and need, and with that comes vehicles people don't particularly favor. Problem is that people can usually come up with factual points to support their position, especially if it's in print. Even editorials bring up facts to support an idea or position, regardless as to how obscure it is or questionable the source. At least someone did some type of homework. It obviously wasn't done in this case.
I'd expect more from a writer who has stated he is a longtime Pontiac fanatic and muscle car fan.
v/r
Guy McCoy
