The difference is that wasn't what was stated

It wasn't really. The regular SS and WS6 exhaust were identical, even the same tips although you could get the Dual Dual as an option on the SS.

I think the raised airbox and hoodscoop location on the WS6 may have been better than what you got with the SS, but I don't think the WS6 was any faster than the Formula or Trans Am than the SS was over the Z28.

 

I know for a fact that the WS6 is faster. I currently own a 99 Trans Am, I was considering trading it in on a 2000 WS6 Convertible. I took it for a test drive and was like DAY-UM! It made my Stock Trans Am seem slow (which was NOT the case). So instead of trading up to the WS6, I converted my Trans Am to a WS6 Clone (except for the suspension stuff). And with the hood, airbox, SLP MAF sensor, and exhaust, my TA is now pretty darned quick. (clocked 0-60 in 4.8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKbHlBQAwYI
check it for yourself if you don't believe me. And that is with the stock rear and 4speed auto. But driving that STOCK WS6 Convertible (heavier) really opened my eyes.

p.s. another reason I didn't trade was because the LS1 in the WS6 I drove was knocking hard when you first cranked it up. Mine in my 99 doesn't do that. But I've since learned that that really is common and not a problem with the LS1.

 

None were "faster" per se...

The SS/Firehawk had a bit of an edge with the SLP exhaust... and a bit more in 2002 with the SLP airbox/Donalson filter.

The WS6 airbox was taller because the hood sat so high. No performance increases due to that.

All of this got washed out by production tolerances between LS1s that Ste Catherine's cranked out. Some just ran better than others.

 

Very possible as it is true not everyone wants a lot of power.

 

We can assume as this is what Chevy has always been about. You have always paid just a little more for a Chevy but in turn you always got a better car vs a Ford. This also has been why Chevy has for many years had better resale.

Besides since the Camaro is a newer car I would expect the platform to be a better one just because of time and Chevy having the advantage to meet or beat what Ford introed a few years ago. Most newer platforms and models always step ahead of the rivals. If Chevy fails to improve upon what Ford is offering I would be ashamed. I do not expect to be ashamed of anything.

Either way Scott made it clear many times what the target price points were and we know what the Mustange price points are.

I was conservitive on my prices and for anyone who buys a Mustang new under $25K they are not getting much and when it come time to sell they will get little in return. Many just don't understand what the average cost of cars are today and it keeps going up.

Most people want most of the options avaialble so many Mustangs are stickering over $25K.

The bottom line is Chevy does not have to be cheaper just close. A $5K higher price is a problem but not a $1500.00 price differance.

 

Wanna bet?

 

I personally saw a stock, red, SS run 12.80's with DR's...they made him wear a helmet on his second pass.

 

So if the Camaro is not at a priced cheaper [Not close not the same] than the Mustang you claim it will fail? Hmmm....

 

I'm not agreeing with the statement that it will fail, (God I hope not) but the 4th gens were priced higher than Mustangs and THEY failed. Just saying.

 

Let me see, which post did I use the word fail or anything of the sort? Reviewing.....reviewing - I never said that! What I do believe (and you can quote this post in a few years) is that if the car is more expensive than the Mustang, it will produce less sales than the Mustang. Please don't use the first two years for data as it will be a bit scewed due to all us enthusiasts.

 

How will you prove this?

 

 

But was the sales difference between 4th Gens and Mustangs so large because of price, or because for many people who just wanted a "sporty" car, the 4th Gen. was more compromise than they wanted to make?

Some of it may well have been price, but I think the fact that the Mustang was more "practical" played a part as well.

I wouldn't say that the 4th Gen. "failed," I thought it was still profitable at the time they shut it down, it just ran its course and GM had no replacement in the pipeline.

I think Mustang may still outsell Camaro in 2010, but Camaro doesn't necessarily have to sell more to be a success. As long as it's a good car and profitable, that's what matters.

 

Good points. I always wondered why the uglier, slower mustang outsold the better, handsomer, faster Camaros and Firebirds. There's no accounting for tastes.
But I would be willing to bet that the Camaro will sell more units in its first year than the Mustang. At least for that first year. Regardless of price difference. (assuming of course the Camaro is even close to the Mustang MSRP)

 

The problem with the Mustang is that you pay $27K for a car with a $17K interior.

I can see the logic with having a higher base price, but more standard features. As long as its competitive in that mid-20K range, that matters more than a low-low base price designed to swing in Civic customers.