2006-New GTO and Chevelle,no Camaro
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
It boils down to this for me... it will be very hard for Chevy to "win-back" many of those who stray from the Camaro now, due to the changing ways of business, the market, the hobby, the committment from corporate levels, and just the fact that many are turning bitter. They feel "betrayed", whether justified or not.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 201
Originally posted by bulldoguav
GM's deal with the unions and St. Therese was contingent on them producing an automobile there, and it was tied to the
<snip>
Trust me guys, the 2006 GTO's stablemate (if there is one) will not be Camaro. The deal GM had with the union specifies Camaro specifically.
Think 2008 guys....I promise.
GM's deal with the unions and St. Therese was contingent on them producing an automobile there, and it was tied to the
<snip>
Trust me guys, the 2006 GTO's stablemate (if there is one) will not be Camaro. The deal GM had with the union specifies Camaro specifically.
Think 2008 guys....I promise.
I'm not waiting till 2008. If I get another sports car, it'll be the Mustang. This is BS.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 143
From: Marietta, GA
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
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.
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.
Second off, the rest of what I quoted is exactly why GM couldn't sell more than 100k combined over the span of the F4. You can't go all out performance and expect to sell in mass quanities. Show many any vehicle that has been mass produced (over 100k units a year consistently) and has the performance level near what the Z28, T/A et al have had?
1998 Production stats for V8 RWD models:
1998 Corvette ~31k
1998 Mustang (GT and Cobra) -8654 Cobras, 45813 GTs
1998 Camaro (All LS1s) 17663
1998 Firebird (All LS1s) 15584
None of these are mass produced V8 vehicles. However, Ford was able to support a V8 option, because it sold over 99k V6 Coupes ALONE! When the total production run of Camaros and Firebirds don't even equal up to the V6 Coupe Mustang, you have to see the writing on the wall.
To get our Camaro back, the V6 version is going to have to step up in terms of demand, or the F-bod is going to have to go the way of the Corvette, T-bird, etc and become a niche car (under 20-30k units a year). I'd actually rather see the Camaro/Firebird become a niche car and keep demand for it high, instead of seeing 2000 cars still on a few dealer lots. Unless GM can capture some of those V6 Coupe sales from Ford, I don't see how the General makes a Camaro that sells 100k units a year. It's just not going to happen.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Gotta chime in here.
Being perhaps one of the few people here that was actually a teenager in the 1970s, let me say that the criticism of the Mustang II is completely dumb, and here's why:
First of all, we are talking about the 1970s! Outside of Trans Ams & Chevy Monza Spyders, Mustang was the only truly exciting car out there!!
Some of you think of Mustang IIs as these rust buckets, but don't realize that by the time most of you saw these cars they were 10, 15, or 20 years old or older. rustproofing in the 70s was limited to "Ziebart" (you oldtimers remember them?). There were plenty of ratted out Camaros from that time. And Firebirds. And Impalas. And...
It's easy to sit here spoiled after seeing the 4th gen Camaro establish a reputation for being a rocket over the past 10 years, but as was pointed out, Mustang still sold over 385,000 cars in 1974, and continued to sell well it's entire production run. As for long term running, sports & pony cars have a nortoriously short lifespan. If the 4th gen hadn't been a relative rocket, and the 3rd gen and "fox" Mustangs didn't have constant performance upgrades, I suspect they wouldn't lasted as long as they did either.
The Mustang II was Ford's move to take Mustang back to the basics after the rather large 71 version. It was also THE Mustang that kept the car alive. Mustang would surely have joined Javelin, Barracuda, Challenger, AND almost Camaro (which came within a coat of paint of extinction!). Pony cars at the time were as popular as anthrax in the marketplace. Mustang reinvented itself, and if it wasn't for Mustang II and Pontiac's Trans Ams, the only sporty cars we'd be driving today would likely be Cavaliers and Focus.
In 1974, the Pinto chassis ([I]Ford's ONLY small RWD chassis) was only 4 years old when Mustang II debuted, while the previous year's Mustang's chassis dated back 13 years! How old was the 4th gen's chassis? 20 years old, with influences going back 32 years! Just for a comparison, the CTS chassis is on it's 3rd year right now. Short of putting Mustang on a Torino chassis, The Pinto/Maverick chassis was perfectly logical, new, and worked very well for it's day.
It's easy to look back today at the Mustang II (especially if you weren't around, and remember only the 5.0s of the 2nd half of the 80s) and look at the II as a mistake, and a heap. But cars represent the times they were made. 1974-1981 Camaros were basically choked up junk as well. Z28 went away after the 1974 model year, and came back just months before the 1978 model year. Outside of them, Camaros were oversized AND underpowered.... and Mustang IIs handled a bit better!
Sorry for the rant (didn't plan this to be nearly this long!), but I felt that someone who was actually around in those days needed to chime in here.
At any rate, the Monza Spyder was way way better.
Being perhaps one of the few people here that was actually a teenager in the 1970s, let me say that the criticism of the Mustang II is completely dumb, and here's why:
First of all, we are talking about the 1970s! Outside of Trans Ams & Chevy Monza Spyders, Mustang was the only truly exciting car out there!!
Some of you think of Mustang IIs as these rust buckets, but don't realize that by the time most of you saw these cars they were 10, 15, or 20 years old or older. rustproofing in the 70s was limited to "Ziebart" (you oldtimers remember them?). There were plenty of ratted out Camaros from that time. And Firebirds. And Impalas. And...
It's easy to sit here spoiled after seeing the 4th gen Camaro establish a reputation for being a rocket over the past 10 years, but as was pointed out, Mustang still sold over 385,000 cars in 1974, and continued to sell well it's entire production run. As for long term running, sports & pony cars have a nortoriously short lifespan. If the 4th gen hadn't been a relative rocket, and the 3rd gen and "fox" Mustangs didn't have constant performance upgrades, I suspect they wouldn't lasted as long as they did either.
The Mustang II was Ford's move to take Mustang back to the basics after the rather large 71 version. It was also THE Mustang that kept the car alive. Mustang would surely have joined Javelin, Barracuda, Challenger, AND almost Camaro (which came within a coat of paint of extinction!). Pony cars at the time were as popular as anthrax in the marketplace. Mustang reinvented itself, and if it wasn't for Mustang II and Pontiac's Trans Ams, the only sporty cars we'd be driving today would likely be Cavaliers and Focus.
In 1974, the Pinto chassis ([I]Ford's ONLY small RWD chassis) was only 4 years old when Mustang II debuted, while the previous year's Mustang's chassis dated back 13 years! How old was the 4th gen's chassis? 20 years old, with influences going back 32 years! Just for a comparison, the CTS chassis is on it's 3rd year right now. Short of putting Mustang on a Torino chassis, The Pinto/Maverick chassis was perfectly logical, new, and worked very well for it's day.
It's easy to look back today at the Mustang II (especially if you weren't around, and remember only the 5.0s of the 2nd half of the 80s) and look at the II as a mistake, and a heap. But cars represent the times they were made. 1974-1981 Camaros were basically choked up junk as well. Z28 went away after the 1974 model year, and came back just months before the 1978 model year. Outside of them, Camaros were oversized AND underpowered.... and Mustang IIs handled a bit better!
Sorry for the rant (didn't plan this to be nearly this long!), but I felt that someone who was actually around in those days needed to chime in here.
At any rate, the Monza Spyder was way way better.
Last edited by guionM; Jan 24, 2003 at 08:05 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 681
From: Houston, TX USA
Originally posted by WERM
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
guionM... sorry but I was around then, began driving in 1975, learned to drive in my Mom's Maverick, and Mustang II's have always been ghey IMHO. Being in the 70's was no excuse. Civics sold a lot in those years too, *yawn*. Big sales numbers don't impress me much.
And speaking of late-70's Camaros. Say what you want, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. But those were not junk cars IMHO. I recall being in college then, and the few rich students who had a new one were the eptiome of 'cool'. I still remember watching one go by on campus one day, dark blue metallic with a gold interior, and thinking "someday... I WILL own a Camaro!" I never got that feeling when a Mustang II motored by.
And speaking of late-70's Camaros. Say what you want, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. But those were not junk cars IMHO. I recall being in college then, and the few rich students who had a new one were the eptiome of 'cool'. I still remember watching one go by on campus one day, dark blue metallic with a gold interior, and thinking "someday... I WILL own a Camaro!" I never got that feeling when a Mustang II motored by.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 143
From: Marietta, GA
Basically I just did a search for '1998 XXX production numbers' on yahoo, and got a couple of sites. The Camaro #s are directly from this website.
Corvette:
http://www.c5registry.com/production/p98t.htm
Mustang:
http://www.ventifrap.com/cobra/prod.html
Camaro:
https://www.camaroz28.com/articles/9...rs/index.shtml
Firebird:
http://www.theformulasource.com/build/98numbers.shtml
These aren't from the horses mouth, so to speak (except for the C5 Registry), but have no reason to doubt these numbers.
On a side note, does anyone else see the next Cavalier to be proportional size and performance wise to a base Impreza/Lancer? (175-200hp or so, with optional 225hp Z24-or whatever they are going to call the next version)
Corvette:
http://www.c5registry.com/production/p98t.htm
Mustang:
http://www.ventifrap.com/cobra/prod.html
Camaro:
https://www.camaroz28.com/articles/9...rs/index.shtml
Firebird:
http://www.theformulasource.com/build/98numbers.shtml
These aren't from the horses mouth, so to speak (except for the C5 Registry), but have no reason to doubt these numbers.
On a side note, does anyone else see the next Cavalier to be proportional size and performance wise to a base Impreza/Lancer? (175-200hp or so, with optional 225hp Z24-or whatever they are going to call the next version)
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
Originally posted by guionM
[B]Gotta chime in here.
Being perhaps one of the few people here that was actually a teenager in the 1970s, let me say that the criticism of the Mustang II is completely dumb, and here's why:
First of all, we are talking about the 1970s! Outside of Trans Ams & Chevy Monza Spyders, Mustang was the only truly exciting car out there!!
[B]Gotta chime in here.
Being perhaps one of the few people here that was actually a teenager in the 1970s, let me say that the criticism of the Mustang II is completely dumb, and here's why:
First of all, we are talking about the 1970s! Outside of Trans Ams & Chevy Monza Spyders, Mustang was the only truly exciting car out there!!
The mid '70s was a bad time for the entire auto industery trying to deal with the fuel crisis and the federal smog regulations. But Camaro and Firebird remained true to its self even though alot of the power was gone, it still had troquey V8s. and in the early eighties they bounced back dramatically in the final year of the 2nd Gen. cars. Then the 3rd Gen. was released in '82 and logged the best sales that Camaro has seen. All in a time when a sporty V8 car wasn't pracitacal.
I believe the 3rd Gen. cars were part of the down fall of the Camaro. Even though I've always loved IROC-Zs.
What I am getting at is that some of these 3rd Gen. models sold the best, but the cars had so many issues. Like the cars handled good but it felt like riding on a buck board, and all of those rattles and shakes like half of the bolts are missing from the car. And then in the mid to late 80s the cars were tarnished more by the performance gap between its rival the 5.0 GT. Even though with the right options you could get a faster Camaro but most Camaros were slower than the 5.0 GT.
Anyways I believe that those cars just left a bad taste in the mouths of the general car buying public. And after the 4th Gen. cars came out the bad repuatation was still with the car even though everything was improved.
When I first bought my '97Z an older person I work with asked me why did I buy one of those rattle traps for. So he did not know of the improvements that went into the 4th Gen. cars because my car is rattle free, rides very well, and of course is quite fast. Though the 4th Gen. cars aren't perfect they are much better than the 3rd Gen. cars.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by bulldoguav
On a side note, does anyone else see the next Cavalier to be proportional size and performance wise to a base Impreza/Lancer? (175-200hp or so, with optional 225hp Z24-or whatever they are going to call the next version)
On a side note, does anyone else see the next Cavalier to be proportional size and performance wise to a base Impreza/Lancer? (175-200hp or so, with optional 225hp Z24-or whatever they are going to call the next version)
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 143
From: Marietta, GA
Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 143
From: Marietta, GA
Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by bulldoguav
Sorry, had to chime in and let you know the 79 model was the best selling model of the entire F-body line. Don't ask me why, it just was.
Sorry, had to chime in and let you know the 79 model was the best selling model of the entire F-body line. Don't ask me why, it just was.
There were multiple models with many trim levels. You didn't have to only buy a Z/28 to get a nice car.....you could build your own.
V8's with manual trans or auto were available across the board.
And BTW it retained great sales eventhough Ford had just introduced the new Fox bodied Mustang that year.
That was a great formula.....someone should make note of it.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jan 25, 2003 at 12:01 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
Originally posted by bulldoguav
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Slight corrections:1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586 - 261,591
4)1969 - 243,095 - 243,085
5)1968 - 235,151 - 235,147
6)1967 - 220,917 - 220,906
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368 - 189,747
10)1976 - 182,959
The 4th Gen actually sold over 100,000 in 94 and 95 amazingly.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
Originally posted by bulldoguav
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Top 10 selling models of the entire line:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586
4)1969 - 243,095
5)1968 - 235,151
6)1967 - 220,917
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368
10)1976 - 182,959
Note, these are Camaro only numbers, and may not be 100% accurate because I used several sources which contradicted each other on exact numbers.
The only F4 to crack 100k was the 94 model.
Slight corrections:1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586 - 261,591
4)1969 - 243,095 - 243,085
5)1968 - 235,151 - 235,147
6)1967 - 220,917 - 220,906
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368 - 189,747
10)1976 - 182,959
The 4th Gen actually sold over 100,000 in 94 and 95 amazingly.