5th Gen Theories
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 189
From: Austin, TX
5th Gen Theories
Ok, heres my take on the 5th gen. As inept as GM is, I don't think their dumb enough to drop the Camaro line for good.
Here are some things to take into account:
-The car is on hiatus, they never said it was canceled.
-The f-body was more of a victim of GM wanting to close the St. Therese plant than the other way around
-Bob Lutz and Co. want to ramp up the quality of GMs vehicles overall before they build a new F-bod, cause they realize another F-bod thats quality is still 1970's level, than you can kiss it goodbye for good
-First and foremost, they wanna see what their main competition is gonna be like, they are waiting for the new Mustang, examine its flaws and strengths, and build the Camaro accordingly.
The Camaro will be back, but probly not soon. The new Mustang won't be out till '04, and GM is gonna look at it long and hard, because they don't wanna screw this up.
However, sadly, I do believe the Firebird is done, at least for the forseable future.
Here are some things to take into account:
-The car is on hiatus, they never said it was canceled.
-The f-body was more of a victim of GM wanting to close the St. Therese plant than the other way around
-Bob Lutz and Co. want to ramp up the quality of GMs vehicles overall before they build a new F-bod, cause they realize another F-bod thats quality is still 1970's level, than you can kiss it goodbye for good
-First and foremost, they wanna see what their main competition is gonna be like, they are waiting for the new Mustang, examine its flaws and strengths, and build the Camaro accordingly.
The Camaro will be back, but probly not soon. The new Mustang won't be out till '04, and GM is gonna look at it long and hard, because they don't wanna screw this up.
However, sadly, I do believe the Firebird is done, at least for the forseable future.
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 545
From: Fort Erie, Ont.
The more I think about the 'demise' of the Camaro, the more I realize that GM would be quite foolish to not bring it back. I also agree that the Camaro was simply at the wrong place (St. Therese) at the wrong time.
Another thought to ponder: If the new Mustang bombs, then that may seal the deal on the death of the Camaro. I think the Camaro needs Mustang. And maybe vice-versa (sp).
Good points.
Jeff
Another thought to ponder: If the new Mustang bombs, then that may seal the deal on the death of the Camaro. I think the Camaro needs Mustang. And maybe vice-versa (sp).
Good points.
Jeff
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Time for a reality check here.
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
Last edited by guionM; Dec 3, 2002 at 02:43 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 189
From: Austin, TX
Originally posted by guionM
Time for a reality check here.
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
Time for a reality check here.
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
Get real dude.
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 545
From: Fort Erie, Ont.
Originally posted by guionM
Time for a reality check here.
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
Time for a reality check here.
Is the pony car market so important and so profitable and so high volume that GM needs to take their offering off the market to "examine" the competition's flaws? Come on now, get real.
Camaro is dead because GM chose to kill it.....period. Camaro's sales were dismal, GM did not see fit to keep it fresh the way it's competitor kept it's version fresh, and the plant Camaro was made at was on the chopping block.
GM makes more money off Monte Carlos than they made on Camaros. And let's not even start talking about comparing sedans (let alone SUVs) to what f-bodies were selling. GM's first and foremost goal as a business, to put it bluntly, is to make money using as little resources as possible. Did GM go overboard with this in regards to Camaro? You better believe it! That's why it isn't here today. Fortunately, neither are some of the guys who created that situation.
On the flip side, we have the ultimate car guy, Bob Lutz, who has complete say over what does or doesn't get made. Every division has to make a case to Mr Lutz to get a car produced, and Mr Lutz with the budget he's given makes it happen by giving his OK. Camaro is NOT at the top of his list either. It's on his radar, but as he himself has said, other cars have higher priority. Explainations get no simpler than that.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
It's great to have enthusiasm about something, and I love Camaros as much as the next guy here, but let's not loose touch here, OK?
However, Mustang still sells extremely well. If GM can't find a way to make money the same way, then maybe they ought to advertise it a little better, or improve quality slightly or something.
There is obviously some market there, but for GM to just bail out of it like they have, it's sort of like saying they'd like their cake and to eat some of it.
Meh...I guess that's why I'm here and not there.
Jeff
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,026
From: Japan
Originally posted by guionM
Time for a reality check here.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
Time for a reality check here.
It's pretty pathetic to think that the Camaro was so important in the multi billion dollar business of GM, that product czar Bob Lutz wanted to make sure quality of everything else was upgraded before the high & mighty, godsent, holy, all powerful Camaro returned to us mere mortals.
Maybe they want to up the overall quality of things before they go putting them together again to make another pony car.
I think irocdreamer is closer to the truth than you want to believe.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by 95 Z-28 LT1
The Camaro as we have know it has historicaly used quite a few parts that were borrowed from GM's parts bin. Steering columns, rear end, engine, tranny, lots of underhood parts.
Maybe they want to up the overall quality of things before they go putting them together again to make another pony car.
I think irocdreamer is closer to the truth than you want to believe.
The Camaro as we have know it has historicaly used quite a few parts that were borrowed from GM's parts bin. Steering columns, rear end, engine, tranny, lots of underhood parts.
Maybe they want to up the overall quality of things before they go putting them together again to make another pony car.
I think irocdreamer is closer to the truth than you want to believe.
Seems we are talking about the same situation. One view is that: 'all things are done for Camaro', and the other is: 'important things done before Camaro'. Which sounds more credible?
Originally posted by irocdreamer
You must have misunderstood what I said. What i meant was Lutz is going to upgrade the quality of the current generation of cars before it goes and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a brand new car. The the 4th gen went throught is cycle. 10 years. Long enough. Thats another reason why it was put on hold. And I knwo its a business, you think GM doesn't want a car that can take a peice of the Mustangs 200,000+ cars a year pie?
Get real dude.
You must have misunderstood what I said. What i meant was Lutz is going to upgrade the quality of the current generation of cars before it goes and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a brand new car. The the 4th gen went throught is cycle. 10 years. Long enough. Thats another reason why it was put on hold. And I knwo its a business, you think GM doesn't want a car that can take a peice of the Mustangs 200,000+ cars a year pie?
Get real dude.
So to bluntly say this, Camaro was not put on hold. It was killed off. Buick's new Regal was put on hold. The new C6 was put on hold. Cadillac's new STS was put on hold. With Camaro, there was nothing to put on hold.
I suspect this qualifies me as getting real.......dude.
Last edited by guionM; Dec 3, 2002 at 04:09 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 189
From: Austin, TX
Originally posted by guionM
Or maybe that GM want's to get it's bread & butter and higher profit cars done before they start putting together a low volume car from the parts bin?
Seems we are talking about the same situation. One view is that: 'all things are done for Camaro', and the other is: 'important things done before Camaro'. Which sounds more credible?
Mustang's sales are running at 180,000 per year. Without Camaro, it may break into the 200K territory (f-body sales barely broke 30,000 it's final year). But the point is moot because if GM wanted to get a piece of that, we would not only be able to buy a 2003 Camaro, GM would have spent the money to keep Camaro (and Firebird by association) fresh & competitive, which they did not. Also, if GM wanted a piece of that market, it wouldn't have decided in 1998 to kill off the F-body completely. If Ron Zarella was still in charge, and Bob Lutz did not come aboard, do you honestly believe GM would even consider bringing Camaro back, as is now possible?
So to bluntly say this, Camaro was not put on hold. It was killed off. Buick's new Regal was put on hold. The new C6 was put on hold. Cadillac's new STS was put on hold. With Camaro, there was nothing to put on hold.
I suspect this qualifies me as getting real.......dude.
Or maybe that GM want's to get it's bread & butter and higher profit cars done before they start putting together a low volume car from the parts bin?
Seems we are talking about the same situation. One view is that: 'all things are done for Camaro', and the other is: 'important things done before Camaro'. Which sounds more credible?
Mustang's sales are running at 180,000 per year. Without Camaro, it may break into the 200K territory (f-body sales barely broke 30,000 it's final year). But the point is moot because if GM wanted to get a piece of that, we would not only be able to buy a 2003 Camaro, GM would have spent the money to keep Camaro (and Firebird by association) fresh & competitive, which they did not. Also, if GM wanted a piece of that market, it wouldn't have decided in 1998 to kill off the F-body completely. If Ron Zarella was still in charge, and Bob Lutz did not come aboard, do you honestly believe GM would even consider bringing Camaro back, as is now possible?
So to bluntly say this, Camaro was not put on hold. It was killed off. Buick's new Regal was put on hold. The new C6 was put on hold. Cadillac's new STS was put on hold. With Camaro, there was nothing to put on hold.
I suspect this qualifies me as getting real.......dude.
all knowing automotive God, I will never state my opionion again, because in your Godly eyes its wrong
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by irocdreamer
SORRRRYYYYY Here, I will bow down to you all knowing automotive God, I will never state my opionion again, because in your Godly eyes its wrong
SORRRRYYYYY Here, I will bow down to you
all knowing automotive God, I will never state my opionion again, because in your Godly eyes its wrong
Last edited by guionM; Dec 3, 2002 at 04:34 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,610
From: Cincinnati, OH
I was once in denial about the fbody not being dead, too. Reality hit though, and the longer it takes the economy to turn around the longer it's going to take to turn GM around which I'd imagine is more of a priority than a new fbody.
Maybe after the family car market is secure, the C6, GTO, and all the other hi-po GM cars out there have come to market can we start talking about a new Camaro. GM has to turn Saturn around, figure Buick out, kill off Oldsmobile once and for all, revamp Pontiac, and finish the Caddy push. Chevy is low on a long list.
Read All Corvettes are Red. The current economy parallels the early 90s one pretty well and that underlines how hard it was for team Corvette to get a C5 approved, GM's flagship car.
But hopefully Im wrong! Im gonna be in the new car market in a few years a nice new Fbody would make me pretty damn happy.
Maybe after the family car market is secure, the C6, GTO, and all the other hi-po GM cars out there have come to market can we start talking about a new Camaro. GM has to turn Saturn around, figure Buick out, kill off Oldsmobile once and for all, revamp Pontiac, and finish the Caddy push. Chevy is low on a long list.
Read All Corvettes are Red. The current economy parallels the early 90s one pretty well and that underlines how hard it was for team Corvette to get a C5 approved, GM's flagship car.
But hopefully Im wrong! Im gonna be in the new car market in a few years a nice new Fbody would make me pretty damn happy.
Last edited by Chuck!; Dec 3, 2002 at 06:49 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,724
From: Hebron, KY
Originally posted by Chuck!
The current economy parallels the current one pretty well...
The current economy parallels the current one pretty well...
I think we'll see a turbo/sc Cavalier, Solstice, and more power in the Monte Carlo and/or its successor before a new Camaro ever arrives on lots again.
That's probably the car to watch for: the replacement Monte Carlo. That'll be the closest known thing to an affordable "performance" coupe. The new rwd Impala/MC are scheduled to arrive in what, 2006/7? I can't remember if it'll still be based off Impala for sure. With closing in on the 40th anniversary, that seems like the only best case scenario I can come up with. Otherwise, it's just not in the game plan for the time being.
