Good post Branden!

 

Branden, not wanting to start a flame war on this issue but, geez.

In 1974
Mustang Production = 385,993
Camaro Production = 151,008

Sounds like Ford gave 400k people what they
wanted , doesn't it?

all Mustang II production = 1,107,718
all Camaro production = 971,226

So the Mustang was still giving people what they wanted - even in a lame package by my own admission in an earlier post. Ford ran-off the musclecar guy with the M-II - no doubt - and if you look at the steady increase in F-bod purchases while the M-II was falling, you can see where they went! That was my point earlier. And it took Ford another decade to earn the average musclecar buyer back, IMO.

I think the same basic principle is goint to apply to the Camaro's return, but with different issues... like the one Z284ever pointed out for example. Admittedly, it's JMO - not fact. And BTW, the rest of your post DOES make sense - about the politics, etc... I have to agree with you there.

 

You know Branden, it's not my job to defend Ford...so I'm not quite sure where you are going with this.

What my job is, is, to make sure GM keeps the Camaro on the straight and narrow...and from that perspective, you have given us a recipe for Camaro disaster.

If I gather what you are saying correctly, you are implying that any old piece of crap with the Camaro emblem on it...will generate excitement and be a sales success. And also...had it not been for the 4th gens political situation.....the 4th gen would be putting the hurt on Mustang sales right now.


Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.........

I see things differently. I think Camaro is a great mark with great lineage......THAT DESERVES A GREAT CAR!!!!!!


Any old thing won't do for me.....I have high aspirations for Camaro...and I wish you did too.

 

I don't think he was suggesting GM actually put together any old thing and call it Camaro, his point was that any half-way decent product with the name will generate buzz. Now, lets just hope it is far more than half-way decent.

Let me just add to ProudPony's comments by saying it is perhaps PRECISELY because Mustang has strayed from its original forumla that it has been successful for so long. The Mustang has gone from sporty coupe to full out muscle car to Pinto clone to fastback street hero to practical fun car and next to full out retro-inspired dream car (for those who dream of owning a classic Mustang).

Camaro has pretty much been the same for all these years, and although it was selling a resonably competent number even in the end and doing it mildly profitably, its nowhere near the heyday of the late '70s. Vehicles need to evolve with the habits and preferences of the motoring public. Not saying Camaro should be anything but rear drive and V8 but a touch of practicality would go a long way.

The secret is creating a car that can be appealing to a wide range of buyers without being too watered down in the important areas (I think most F-body owners would argue the mustang did become too watered down in terms of performance in order to become more practical).

 

...and my grandmother's 4-cyl MustangII was such a wonderful performance car. How can you begin to compare Mustangs and Camaro buyers from that era when the 4-cyl MustangII basically served the needs of Pinto owners who needed a little more room?

 

But that is what the public wanted - save for a few die-hard race car purists.

Ford wants to offer a somehat safe, cheap, relatively high-performing car with as little cost as possible... it absolves them of liability suits when a kid hits a bridge abutment running 150mph, makes insurance rates more tolerable for the whole model, and keeps their manufactuing platforms simpler than having oodles of varied assemblies. Ford also ENCOURAGES the aftermatket for those gearheads who want more than the factory wants to deliver. FRPP, Motorsports, and even outside aftermarket companies are supported by Ford to give that special purist the parts he needs to make his car go as fast as he wants... voiding warranties and raising emissions problems and potential insurance suits too, but that's the owners problem then.

The "watered-down" car is exactly what Ford has wanted and delivered for those reasons and more. Until recent years, the factory basic car was the entry point for elevated performance, and Ford HAS designed the car to accomodate the weekend warrior, garage mechanic, and bolt-on do it yourselfer. This has also been a large contributor to the cars success in the "performance crowd", as opposed to it's success with the "girls" and such.

The recent level of performance avalable from SVT (NOT the fatory itself!!!) and other aftermarket tuners is just unbeleivable to me. It seems to be catering to the guy who wants more than the factory performer (the GT), but doesn't want to turn his own bolts. Hey, whatever works?!

I think that is the big difference between how Ford has managed the Mustang performance and GM has done with the Camaro...
Ford didn't really care if the Factory Mustang was slower than the factory Camaro... it actually helped Ford financially and sales-wise to leave it slower. But Ford was helping the purists and racers get what they needed to do the job on the strip and tracks - thereby keeping their buyers who wanted the extra performance happy. GM on the otherhand just outright offered the higher performance - stright from the factory, but didn't support aftermarket via designing the car to be easily worked-on/modified or making them "blower-friendly" for example.

But the pure power/speed didn't appeal to enough buyers to keep it alive, and the loss of "practicality" to acheive the elevated performance turned-off the casual driver. So I think the watering-down part actually helped the Mustang instead of hurting it - at least from the factory and sales POVs.

 

I think we are saying more or less the same thing. I totally agree that watered down was what the buyers wanted, which was kind of my whole point.

The only glaring thing I'd really like to take issue with is the insurance thing. It is a 100% myth that Mustang insurance is cheaper than Camaro insurance. There's been an article in GMHTP as well as discussion ad-nausieum here that totally debunks that. However, there is a perception that this is the truth and it probably did hurt sales. The 4th gen had a 5 star crash rating, BTW.

Lets not make the mistake of operating on assumptions that F-body's poor sales were in fact a result of a stale product only. We know for a fact now that GM went out of their way to kill the car off by dropping advertising because of the whole CAW contract issue. With zero advertising (something you cannot say about Mustang), the two sold a combined 70k units/year the last 4 years, more than Monte Carlo despite the Monte's advertising advantage.

I'm not saying that the cars would have continued to sell well, obviously the product was becoming not so much stale but just too niche oriented w/o enough mass appeal.

I think Ford hit on a successful formula when the trotted the Cobra back out. After 1993 they were getting their butt kicked by the F-body and rather than try to match it with the GT they put their hi-po efforts into the Cobra, making the GT into more of a competent, muscular coupe w/o women having to be afraid to drive them. I never want to see Z28 watered down (really ford didn't water it down they just sort of stopped improving the GT) but a lower power V8 "RS" would be a hit and more than a few people have advocated for it here.

Funny though because the current GT is on par with the LT1 cars now but there is no perception of kids dying running 150 in those cars.

Besides, I don't know too many kids who could afford a new F-body. It was a youth car with a middle aged price tag.

Only other thing I would add is that the F-body never lost an practicality, it never had it to begin with. What changed was that a customer's perception of practicality changed. F-body wasn't much of a sacrifice 10-20 yrs ago when EVERYBODY had a Cutlass, Monte Carlo, GP, Regal, etc. etc. etc. Same number of doors, just a smaller back seat. But today, when the standard of practicality is an SUV, its a tougher sale.

 

I think that's the most intelligent post I've seen today. Ford may have not originally wanted to do it that way, but when they found out it would sell cars, they stuck with it. Have you ever seen how much room the engine has in a GT mustang? The engine is almost completely accessible and there is still at least 1/2 foot of space before you get to the radiator. The F-bod was a purpose built machine, to romp on other factory offerings. But once you start getting into the aftermarket, who cares what it comes with from the factory, as long as you can spend a realitively cheap weekend warrior?

But really I think the whole Mustang vs Camaro/Bird issue should be taken to another thread. I'd like to keep this one on target.

 

I'm not sure if I attribute Mustang's success to Ford "watering it down". You sure can't call the'03 Cobra watered down, nor the Mach 1...or even GT for that matter.


Maybe Ford was wise enough to offer something other than, either full strength or placebo dosage only, with nothing in between.

 

Ford sold so many Mustang II's because they were cheap and they were Mustang. Esentially they whored out the Mustang name to sell up option Pintos. This is a classic example immediate sales not being the best thing long term for the brand. The F-body is GM's third most recognizable name...that simple. The car has been an example of affordable performance since it's inception and people rcognize that. I mean Ford took took essentially a 2 door convertable Lincoln LS, slapped on some goofy styling resembling a car from the past and created the car that has maybe generated the most buzz in the last 10 years in the T-bird. And keep in mind the T-bird name has been whored out more than the Mustang's In Road and Track there is a quote by J. Mays that the new Mustang will be succesful because it is true to it's heritage. He said he thinks the current Camaro's died because they weren't true to it's heritage...which is a pure load of crap. The car has stayed in the same image for 32 years.


My point is that anything named Camaro will get every mag editor in Detroit on GM's ***. There is no reason to assume that GM will build a car not fitting of the name or that regresses from the current car.....but to say GM will have to earn back customers with a new Camaro is stupid. It didn't happenw ith the GTO, or the T-bird, or the 350Z, or any name that has come back.

 

Not so stupid if they plan on selling 100,000 units per year.

 

It wasn't that bad of a car compared to most of the other POS 70's cars. Probably this biggest harm it did was provide a low point for every anti-ford person to reference at every opportunity. No one else even remembers what a Mustang II is (except hotrodders, many of which use independant suspensions based on the Mustang II front end).

A Mustang II is closer to the original 1964 mustang in size and styling than a 1973 mustang. Oh, BTW the original mustang was "Whored" off of a Falcon platform. The 1967 was "Whored" off a Fairlane Platform, and the 1979 was "Whored" off of the FOX platform. The 2005 will be "Whored" off of the LS platform.

And for those who think Mustang is some kind of sellout car for the masses - having a big heavy camaro with a cramped interior, floor bumps, low visibility and huge overhangs does not make it more of a performance car, it just makes it big, heavy, cramped and hard to see out of.

But I'm sure they'll fix most of that when they get around to a 5th gen.

 

Thank You.

 

Hooey. First off, Camaro curb weights have remained remarkably stable since about what - 1974? And how many years have they been kicking Mustang's A$$, stock for stock? MORE than a handful of those years. The cat hump was designed to allow lower overall ground clearance. You know, for those curvy places in the road where a low CG helps. Front overhang... ok you are hereby awarded 1/2 of one point. Rear overhang - helps with weight transfer at dragstrip launches. Cramped interior - I think not - instead to me it's a fighter-jet-like cockpit with seats that grip me like a vise and all the controls falling easily into hand, with an aerodynamic windshield and sporty tumble-home angles for reduced high-speed buffeting, and a low greenhouse and seating position to enhance road feel. Don't like the view? You can watch from the rear.

 

Thanks formula79. I agree completely.