#1 reason why F-car died.
09-01-2002, 01:33 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA, Kern
Posts: 151
Well, as for how safe Camaro's are; I've been in 2 wrecks in 2 different Camaro's, and 1 was really bad[Hit a Brick wall, head-on], I walked away from both without a scratch. [But minor neckpain]
Check this out, it's a link I found talking about the safety numbers on Z28's throught the years....
http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/u...007.htm#safety
------------------
Check out my new pics @
My Webpage - http://www.z28only.com
Email - 94z28jbw@team.camaroz28.com
1994 Z28 - Black w/ T-tops, 17x9.5 rims, M6
Mods to date:Underdrive Pulleys, Hotchkis Rear Suspension Package, 17 in. BBS Moda Rims, Wings-West Rear Spoiler, Momo Shifter w/ Hurst Short-Throw, Hypertech Power Programing, Bosch Platinum Spark Plugs, 3 in. Flowmaster Exhaust, K&N FIPK Cold-Air Intake, C.A.G.S., Red Grantinelli MAF, Throttle-Body Air Foil.
Check this out, it's a link I found talking about the safety numbers on Z28's throught the years....
http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/u...007.htm#safety
------------------
Check out my new pics @
My Webpage - http://www.z28only.com
Email - 94z28jbw@team.camaroz28.com
1994 Z28 - Black w/ T-tops, 17x9.5 rims, M6
Mods to date:Underdrive Pulleys, Hotchkis Rear Suspension Package, 17 in. BBS Moda Rims, Wings-West Rear Spoiler, Momo Shifter w/ Hurst Short-Throw, Hypertech Power Programing, Bosch Platinum Spark Plugs, 3 in. Flowmaster Exhaust, K&N FIPK Cold-Air Intake, C.A.G.S., Red Grantinelli MAF, Throttle-Body Air Foil.
09-01-2002, 09:49 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 210
I will guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that advertising had nothing to do with GM's decision. One can easily find MANY cars with a better ad budget than f-body and whose sales are less. The converse is true as well.
Crash ratings -- get real. F-body already exceeds the minimums over the next few years. GM wouldn't stop selling f-body until the crash rating minimums were higher than the f-body's rating if the reason were roadworthiness.
Let's look at the third most popular reason promulgated -- execs at GM are either "stupid" or they aren't "car guys". That truly is the voice of ignorance talking. The management at GM is not stupid. Sit down with one and talk to them about ANY subject. You will find they are among society's brighter people. Additionally, it matters not if they are "car guys". The bottom line is the bottom line and if f-body in its current form would meet profitability goals (ROI, margin rate, etc.) over the next several years, it would be here -- plain and simple.
Therefore, if the most popular three reasons do not apply to the current "hiatus" of the f-body, logic tells us that either GM made an irrational decision or that there are other factors afoot. I'll put my money on the "other factors" scenario.
When the real reason(s) are revealed at some point in time, most here will sit back and say, "Oh, I see why now." The reason(s) have to do with some ill-fated decisions made by GM execs -- not those currently in power, but those farther back than you might think.
Given the same set of circumstances and the same LEGAL responsibility to abide by the stockholder's best interest, 99.9% of the people here would have put the f-body on "hiatus". The other 0.1% of the people think with their heart and not their brain and, as such, would be considered "poor managers".
Just my thoughts....
------------------
2000 SS #1547
President,
Cadre Computer Resources, Inc.
www.ccr.com
Crash ratings -- get real. F-body already exceeds the minimums over the next few years. GM wouldn't stop selling f-body until the crash rating minimums were higher than the f-body's rating if the reason were roadworthiness.
Let's look at the third most popular reason promulgated -- execs at GM are either "stupid" or they aren't "car guys". That truly is the voice of ignorance talking. The management at GM is not stupid. Sit down with one and talk to them about ANY subject. You will find they are among society's brighter people. Additionally, it matters not if they are "car guys". The bottom line is the bottom line and if f-body in its current form would meet profitability goals (ROI, margin rate, etc.) over the next several years, it would be here -- plain and simple.
Therefore, if the most popular three reasons do not apply to the current "hiatus" of the f-body, logic tells us that either GM made an irrational decision or that there are other factors afoot. I'll put my money on the "other factors" scenario.
When the real reason(s) are revealed at some point in time, most here will sit back and say, "Oh, I see why now." The reason(s) have to do with some ill-fated decisions made by GM execs -- not those currently in power, but those farther back than you might think.
Given the same set of circumstances and the same LEGAL responsibility to abide by the stockholder's best interest, 99.9% of the people here would have put the f-body on "hiatus". The other 0.1% of the people think with their heart and not their brain and, as such, would be considered "poor managers".
Just my thoughts....
------------------
2000 SS #1547
President,
Cadre Computer Resources, Inc.
www.ccr.com
09-03-2002, 02:26 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bearcat Steve:
...Let's look at the third most popular reason promulgated -- execs at GM are either "stupid" or they aren't "car guys". That truly is the voice of ignorance talking. The management at GM is not stupid. Sit down with one and talk to them about ANY subject. You will find they are among society's brighter people. Additionally, it matters not if they are "car guys". The bottom line is the bottom line and if f-body in its current form would meet profitability goals (ROI, margin rate, etc.) over the next several years, it would be here -- plain and simple
Therefore, if the most popular three reasons do not apply to the current "hiatus" of the f-body, logic tells us that either GM made an irrational decision or that there are other factors afoot. I'll put my money on the "other factors" scenario.
When the real reason(s) are revealed at some point in time, most here will sit back and say, "Oh, I see why now." The reason(s) have to do with some ill-fated decisions made by GM execs -- not those currently in power, but those farther back than you might think.
Given the same set of circumstances and the same LEGAL responsibility to abide by the stockholder's best interest, 99.9% of the people here would have put the f-body on "hiatus". The other 0.1% of the people think with their heart and not their brain and, as such, would be considered "poor managers".
Just my thoughts....
</font>
...Let's look at the third most popular reason promulgated -- execs at GM are either "stupid" or they aren't "car guys". That truly is the voice of ignorance talking. The management at GM is not stupid. Sit down with one and talk to them about ANY subject. You will find they are among society's brighter people. Additionally, it matters not if they are "car guys". The bottom line is the bottom line and if f-body in its current form would meet profitability goals (ROI, margin rate, etc.) over the next several years, it would be here -- plain and simple
Therefore, if the most popular three reasons do not apply to the current "hiatus" of the f-body, logic tells us that either GM made an irrational decision or that there are other factors afoot. I'll put my money on the "other factors" scenario.
When the real reason(s) are revealed at some point in time, most here will sit back and say, "Oh, I see why now." The reason(s) have to do with some ill-fated decisions made by GM execs -- not those currently in power, but those farther back than you might think.
Given the same set of circumstances and the same LEGAL responsibility to abide by the stockholder's best interest, 99.9% of the people here would have put the f-body on "hiatus". The other 0.1% of the people think with their heart and not their brain and, as such, would be considered "poor managers".
Just my thoughts....
</font>
I think 'they' looked at Camaro of the 1980s and used that as an example as to how they were going to run the 4th gen program. The only difference is that this time around, the competition didn't sit still this time around, and wound up with the gold even though they were only 2nd best.
In retrospect, all cars suffered at GM in the 2nd half of the 90s (Corvette as the exception) as GM focused on trucks and starved car development.
There may turn up good reasons to have pulled the plug on the F-body. But I feel it's dishonest for them to site "poor sales" or "a changing market" when it's competitor is cleaning up, and others will be soon comming to the party.
09-03-2002, 04:13 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Anderson, CA 96007
Posts: 9
I agree that the Camaro meets all the requirements for saving except 1. The engine location and requirements for repairs are a pain in the _ _ _! Has to be a costly car to repair as if we didn't know. By placing the engine where it is gave a great performance boost. Damm, dealers have to drop the whole front clip to get the engine out. Look how long it takes to change plugs and wires. When we do it GM doesn't care how much it cost or how long it takes. I a friend who has been a dealer mechanic for over 20 years agrees. The time given for warranty work ends up costing someone money. My thoughts .... Jeff
[This message has been edited by FryZss (edited September 03, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by FryZss (edited September 03, 2002).]
09-05-2002, 12:16 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cape Coral,FL,US
Posts: 3
I think it had alot to do with that plant and the fact that the car was too big and didnt use space well at all. What really makes me mad is this GTO. Not the car it self but the fact that its a muscule car. It's like they're makeing a bigger back seated firebird or a rear wheel drive Grand Prix whatever you wanna call it... if its a GTO its gotta be the same as a firebird or faster.
ps one more thing... the car isnt even made here... its just not cool.
ps one more thing... the car isnt even made here... its just not cool.
09-05-2002, 10:32 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sasdiggler:
I think it had alot to do with that plant and the fact that the car was too big and didnt use space well at all. What really makes me mad is this GTO. Not the car it self but the fact that its a muscule car. It's like they're makeing a bigger back seated firebird or a rear wheel drive Grand Prix whatever you wanna call it... if its a GTO its gotta be the same as a firebird or faster.
ps one more thing... the car isnt even made here... its just not cool.</font>
I think it had alot to do with that plant and the fact that the car was too big and didnt use space well at all. What really makes me mad is this GTO. Not the car it self but the fact that its a muscule car. It's like they're makeing a bigger back seated firebird or a rear wheel drive Grand Prix whatever you wanna call it... if its a GTO its gotta be the same as a firebird or faster.
ps one more thing... the car isnt even made here... its just not cool.</font>
Think of GTO as a budget BMW 5 series coupe (if BMW still made such a thing), that has the looks (and possibly the performance) of an M series, and you just about got the feel of what GTO is likely to be.
It's not a Firebird. Corvette can be compared to Firebird & is much closer. GTO is more like a slightly bigger, way better built (and waaaaay HELLA FASTER) rear drive GrandAm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
08-17-2015 09:50 AM