2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 11:03 AM
  #31  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by DrewSG
Video blog? Where at?

I wonder if this goal means that the Camaro does indeed have it's own chassis?
Its going to be on a global chassis....Zeta....I really dont think that 165k # is just Camaro....think buick and pontiac
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 11:09 AM
  #32  
SNEAKY NEIL's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

There is no way the Camaro can sell this many units. There is simply too much competition in this already-too-small segement now.

Let's hope that the 165k figure is not what just the Camaro has to sell to be profitable and to make a case to be produced.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 11:12 AM
  #33  
RhinoSS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 133
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by 1996z28m6
lol those v8 prices couldnt be done with the ls1 what makes u think it could be done with a new car and an ls2?
I picked up my '02 SS off the showroom floor with $24k including sales tax. I had them order it in for me, and I was there on the day of delivery.

I've seen many people pick up brand new Z/28's for $21 to $22. Don't say it can't be done. I did it.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 11:14 AM
  #34  
RhinoSS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 133
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by stars1010
Its going to be on a global chassis....Zeta....I really dont think that 165k # is just Camaro....think buick and pontiac
Do you think they really have any plans for a fully independant RWD vehicle?
I just can't see Buick producing something like that... but I sure hope they prove me wrong.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 01:38 PM
  #35  
Snowhite97SS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 15
From: Orlando Florida
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Here is the copy of the Yahoo article where the 165K number came from

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - news) on Monday showed off a Chevrolet Camaro prototype inspired by the 1969 version of the legendary muscle car to try to rev up demand for its return.

ADVERTISEMENT

Chevrolet had been widely expected to unveil the Camaro concept car at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, a day after DaimlerChrysler's (DCXGn.DE) (NYSECX - news) U.S. division rolled out a version of the rival Dodge Challenger.

Many expect Chrysler and Chevrolet to put the Challenger and Camaro into production, given Ford Motor Co.'s (NYSE:F - news) success with its redesigned version of the original 1960s muscle car, the Mustang.

Executives at GM, the world's largest automaker, cited fans' intense interest surrounding the seven-month development effort behind the 400-horsepower concept car as an indication of potential demand from buyers.

But they said the company, which has been losing money and market share to rivals, had not yet decided whether to begin making the new Camaro. That production decision would hinge in part on the excitement generated by the new design, Bob Lutz, vice chairman of products, told reporters.

GM estimated 100,000 fans watched the Detroit unveiling via Webcast. It invited another 250 enthusiasts to watch in person. "It's like a cult out there," Lutz said of the Camaro fan base.

Restored, first-generation Camaros can fetch between $35,000 and $200,000, said Ed Welburn, vice president of global design for GM, whose own 1969 Camaro provided the launch pad for the rear-wheel drive concept design.

Lutz said GM could make the new Camaro profitably if it could sell between 150,000 and 160,000 of the cars each year.

A former Ford and Chrysler executive who came to GM four years ago, Lutz said U.S. automakers needed to roll out models with better fuel-efficiency and hybrid engines while still offering performance cars like the Camaro.

"It's two markets," Lutz said. "The whole country is schizophrenic."

As an example of the split in consumer thinking, Lutz said some Hollywood celebrities own both a Lamborghini Gallardo luxury sports car and a Toyota (7203.T) Prius hybrid.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 01:43 PM
  #36  
turbo96z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,255
From: new jersey
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by Snowhite97SS
Lutz said GM could make the new Camaro profitably if it could sell between 150,000 and 160,000 of the cars each year.

if you've seen the walk around video, he says between 100K and 150K. and i'd take a video of him saying it over a yahoo article.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 01:53 PM
  #37  
CLEAN's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,574
From: Arlington, Texas
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

I read that in my paper today, but I haven't seen his actual quote. I've GOT to think that is a mis-print by whoever wrote that.
Old Jan 10, 2006 | 05:26 PM
  #38  
4EverCamaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 49
From: Akron, Ohio
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Here are some earlier production figures by year:
1967 220,917
1968 235,151
1969* 243,095
1970.5 124,889
1971 114,643
1972 68,656 (strike 172 days)
1973 96,756
1974 151,008
1975 145,789
1976 182,981
1977 218,854
1978 272,633
*Includes 1970 carryover of 1969 design.

The Camaro must have a v6 model as an entry model. Many would fall in love with this car just on looks. They wouldn't care if a briggs & stratton was under the hood. This would enable many more people the opportunity to purchase a Camaro due to the lower cost compared to a SS OR Z28 with the V8 HIGH H.P. Engines.
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 09:12 PM
  #39  
wcp's Avatar
wcp
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

I need to know how many 2002 anniversary SS Convertibles "red with silver stripes" were built with the automatic transmissiom?
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 10:14 PM
  #40  
Chevamaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 78
From: Raleigh, NC
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

A Firebird version might help.
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 11:38 PM
  #41  
5thgen69camaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by 4EverCamaro
Here are some earlier production figures by year:
1967 220,917
1968 235,151
1969* 243,095
1970.5 124,889
1971 114,643
1972 68,656 (strike 172 days)
1973 96,756
1974 151,008
1975 145,789
1976 182,981
1977 218,854
1978 272,633
*Includes 1970 carryover of 1969 design.

The Camaro must have a v6 model as an entry model. Many would fall in love with this car just on looks. They wouldn't care if a briggs & stratton was under the hood. This would enable many more people the opportunity to purchase a Camaro due to the lower cost compared to a SS OR Z28 with the V8 HIGH H.P. Engines.
The demand for the 69 was the reason for that carry over. It was 5-6 mo into 70 year. but look at the 71 split bumper year which is same design as 70 only with 6 mo more production but less sales. The impact standards changed while they were on strike. When they returned to work the cars on the line were scraped. Do you have 72 and 73 production numbers reversed?

Camaro wont be competing with Firebird for the first time so maybe that will mean higher sales. Also what if the car sells globally? I really dont think those numbers include exported camaros...[/

Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; Jan 22, 2006 at 01:08 AM.
Old Jan 21, 2006 | 11:55 PM
  #42  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by Chevamaro
A Firebird version might help.
No it would just take money away from the Camaro development and delay the production date
Old Jan 22, 2006 | 04:55 AM
  #43  
L.A. Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 163
From: Dallas, TX
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by RhinoSS
Do you think they really have any plans for a fully independant RWD vehicle?
I just can't see Buick producing something like that... but I sure hope they prove me wrong.

All three brands need a new age RWD chassis. GM needs something to put the DCX LX platform cars in thier place. Cars like the 300 that have attitude..."Yeah I look different.....@#$% off" kinda attitude. Chevy NEEDS Camaro right now, Buick NEEDS a killer RWD car to get some freakin attention (I like the idea of a Grand National), Pontiac needs a diversified but exciting portfolio of rwd cars, from luxurious GTO, to irresponsibly cool Trans Am, to the big hit Solstice.

If the vehicles on Zeta are stunning, impressive, downright awesome cars, we could see a huge turnaround at GM. Think DCX new cars, really got them back on the up and up.
Old Jan 22, 2006 | 08:17 AM
  #44  
Chevamaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 78
From: Raleigh, NC
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by stars1010
No it would just take money away from the Camaro development and delay the production date
Sure it would take some resources way from the Camaro. But how much longer would it take to develop a Firebird that's cosmetically similar to the Camaro, but easy enough to differentiate... like some of the Photoshopped versions that have been posted on this board?

There's a reason auto manufacturers make "corporate cousins", to maximize sales without all the extra re-tooling that a truly unique model would require. I think it could only help, if not immediately, then in the long run.

Plus, the Firebird name has a high recognition factor... not to mention somewhat of a cult following (though I'm not saying it's as big as the Camaro's).

I'd definitely prefer the Camaro instead, but I think GM may be shooting themseves in the foot by not making a 'bird version.
Old Jan 22, 2006 | 09:22 PM
  #45  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Re: Production numbers needed to be profitable as stated by Lutz

Originally Posted by gol10dr
How do you figure. The last few years of the Fbody, you couldn't buy a v6 Fbody for less than 20K,more like 21-23K
Maybe they weren't stickered below 20K often but you could certainly buy them for less than that.

2000 Firebird (comes with some stuff that is not standard on the Camaro), 6 way power drivers seat, power windows/locks with remote entry, leather wrapped steering wheel/shifter/parking brake, monsoon sound system, automatic transmission, 3.42 rear axle ratio, limited slip rear differential

Paid $17,800.

Last edited by HAZ-Matt; Jan 22, 2006 at 09:25 PM.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.