georgejetson

Y'know, I wonder how many Camaros they really need to sell to keep it going, given that Oshawa is supposedly being converted to a flex plant building a range of models. The flex thing is a HUGE deal, one that isn't appreciated by GM enthusiasts the way it should be, IMO.

We have this discussion a lot at Allpar about Challenger and the Brampton plant, which is also a flex plant -- the idea being that Challenger won't need to sell a ton of units to break even because it's being built on a flex line (translation: tooling costs are amortized over a bunch of models) and its architecture is shared with high-volume high-profit models (300, Charger, etc) that are being built on the same line. And further, that another advantage of a flex plant is that you can substitute in new models and discontinue old ones without huge costs -- there is much speculation that Magnum is going to die and be "replaced" in the factory's mix by Challenger and a RWD Chrysler coupe, for example -- the management goal being to keep the plant working three shifts building product they can sell with no incentives.

So I ask: if Oshawa is cranking out a few hundred thousand Impalas and GPs and Buicks or whatever a year, how many Camaros do they REALLY need to have in the mix to break even?

I bet that number isn't anywhere near 100k. I bet it's more like 25k.

Dest98

LOL it doesn't sound like a rant, it is a rant. Thanks for reminding me why I generally don't join these discussions, and try to stick with specific questions for the tech forums. Noone can discuss anything or respectfully disagree, here or elsewhere, it's all about preaching the gospel & pissing on anyone who doesn't parrot your opinions verbatim.

Sure Corvette costs twice as much. It also doesn't sit on the Zeta platform that will be shared with a half-dozen other models, and is not built in a shared plant alongside other models like Camaro will (the Caddy XLR barely counts as another model).

[EDIT] Hey guion, is this guy all wet too? He articulates what I was thinking much better, and more importantly may give you somebody new to browbeat:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=51

The point was that, in general, budgets and resource allocation will hopefully be such that this car doesn't have to sell a gajillion units to turn a profit. I remember the Mustang concept from a few years back and it was sensational, but man did it make me sick to see how much Ford homogenized & watered it down for production. Sure, I am a minority & I am not the "average" buyer but my hope is that GM can build a car that's somewhat more accomodating to the enthusiast and also still makes money even if sales come up short of the Mustang. The way you talk the car is an abject failure if it's not the class leader in sales, regardless of how many go out the door.

I'n not giving sworn testimony before Congress, I'm speaking off the cuff and in generalities. I wasn't aware that we weren't allowed to talk about what we'd like to see in this car even if it's not totally practical or feasible. If I'm wrong or unrealistic that still doesn't mean you have to pick my every statement apart. Or if you do, don't give some lame apology afterwards for sounding "like" a rant after you've called people stupid & asinine.

Geez, this was just a discussion about which of the cars we thought looked better/meaner & why. In spite of all the inside info you bring to the board it would be nice if you didn't feel the need to **** all over any views that don't match your own sensibilities 110%.

That's my rant and I'm not a bit sorry for it sounding like one. The pulpit is all yours, Padre, and I hope it will settle your blood pressure a bit knowing that you have one less stupid, asinine, unwashed ignoramus to chase out of the discussion.

guionM

Don't be a drama queen. You wrote this, & this was what I responded to:

"So instead of building a Camaro, GM should try to "build a better Mustang" than Ford? No need to answer that one."

I answered you not with opinion, but with facts. GM created Camaro as a better Mustang. Both in 1967, and the new 5th gen.

I also responded to this you wrote:

"GM serves a small market segment with the Corvette and seems to be able to make a few dollars doing it. They should be able to do the same with Camaro, with a market that's bigger than the Vette's but admittedly a bit less than the Mustang. If they can't then they shoudn't be building the car."

I answered that by pointing out whay Corvette is a poor example for comparison. I pointed out why. I also pulled out production figures to counter the prospect of the discussion moving towards a "Camaro doesn't need to compete with Mustang, Corvette does fine..." position I suspected you'd drift to.


Again, that's not what you indicated or said. Perhaps there was a miscommunication there, and if so I appologize. I will also appologize for singleing you out. You most certainly aren't the only one who has that view as you can see:

Bottom line is if you actually are a Camaro fan, you of course want to see the car succeed. For the car to succeed, it has to sell in great numbers. If you don't give a flying hoot whether or not the Camaro sells in great numbers, it's not going to succeed. If you don't care about the Camaro succeeding, you need to do a serious soul check on your support of the Camaro.

That's not opinion..... that's fact: Low sales=No Camaro.

I want Camaro to succeed and be around another 40 years or until these types of cars are outlawed. I came over from driving Mustangs and Fords for over a decade to Camaros, and I grasp this. You'd never heard talk like this at a Mustang site if things were reversed.



It's the other way around. The concept followed the actual designing of the car. Auto show concepts (when previewing new models) tend to be stylized versions of cars already designed.


I'm assuming by being "more accomodating to the enthusiast" you are talking aftermarket friendly, since the last Camaro catered almost exclusively to the enthusiast at the expense of everyone else. If so, I agree 100%!

Re-read what I said. I said compete. Look at the sales figures of the final years of the 4th gen. You doubt the Camaro will be a failure if it sells at that level again? If Camaro manages to sell at the 75-100K mark, then it's in the game being that Mustang is currently selling 160-170K, and no doubt Camaro will win a portion of those sales.

Again, I can't believe how much of a defetist attitude and can't do mentality has dominated some Camaro fans. The 4th gen sold poorly the final half dozen years, and automatically, no one thinks Camaro can compete with Mustang in sales.

Newsflash: Sales figures are the measurement of a cars success. It doesn't have to sell a "jazillion" and it doesn't have to be number 1, but it has to be a credible player in the sales game. Again, that is a fact.

Injecting my opinion here, Camaro should aim to outsell Mustang. Any moron can make a car faster than the competition. It takes an great organization selling a great car in order to actually take on the competition.

3 generations of Camaro took on the Mustang and.... Now... listen to this part very carefully, you need to understand this.........

Camaro outsold Mustang multiple years!
http://members.aol.com/speedbbb/must...sales-data.htm

(I posted a link because there's obviously plenty of people who don't believe or remember that)



I gave my appology. You're only stupid and assinine if you think sales figures don't matter. You acknowledged that sales matter, right?

Yes, it was a discussion about what cars looked meaner.

You made a post implying GM wasn't making a better Mustang & and used a $45K car as a basis for how the Camaro should be marketed. I answered you. Again, if there was a misunderstanding or I used a hammer to swat a fly (which I tend to do), I apologize.

No need to wash. I just dumped a tub of cold water on ya already.

merlinsteele

I agree; and this brings the question to me: Will we see a drop down in sexiness from the Camaro concept to the production, as there was in the Mustang? I sure hope the Camaro doesn't get watered down...

irvbulldogs72

You see the door on the left; up the lamp? That is photoshopped to look wider. Yes, the Camaro is still aggressive, but not that aggressive.

fredmr39

Challenger IMHO.....the rest are actually pony cars. Actually, isn't the Challenger a pony car as well? Either way, if one were to be muscle -- Challenger wins easily. The Camaro looks like it can do too much more that just go in a straight line!

I did not read the entire thread...I imagine muscle/pony conversation has been discussed as it is everytime someone misuses the word

fredmr39

Is the Challenger a muscle car (I was actually just wondering this in my post right above this)?? I was never sure...always thought it was but when the concept came out, I didn't know whether to categorize it with the Camaro and Mustang...

That pic of the Mustang on the first page is the worst I have ever seen.....wow

EDIT: alright answered my own question...
http://www.dodge.com/dodge_life/news...r_concept.html