Those lawyers were all driving Lincolns and Cadillacs once upon a time. BMW was nowhere, which is why I bring up BMW. But wait, I also made the point about VW and Audi thriving... What would you put that down to?

I guarantee you that I'm no industry expert. Just sharing my 2c from an observer's perspective (a potential GM customer, if you will). As a GM fan, it's gut wrenching to state the bleeding obvious... but I'm glad that you can see light at the end of the tunnel because all the bad news keeps us GM fans feeling disappointed and dejected.

The light for me is the real prospect that GM can still be saved. However, it feels very much like 'the lights are out and no-one's home' when you read some material from some GM insiders who have a passion for the company, not necessarily some of it's 'captains'.

 

Actually, I have to disagree in a big way.

Again, I am driving a basic beater TODAY. It's a 4-banger, 5 spd, PW, PL, and a CD - THAT'S IT. No 5.0, no sunroof, not T-Tops, no power seats, no nothing. Basic LX interior. El cheapo. About the cheapest Mustang you could get in 1993 (except for deleting the PW and PL's - of which I have a few fox body cars that have manual windows and locks too!).

I have MORE OFFERS for this car than I do for my 91 SSP, my 89 5.0 LX, my 94 LX, my 95 Vert... basically more than any of them. I am hit-up by someone wanting this car at least once/week. My father-in-law wants me to find him one. A guy in our maintenance shop is after one aggressively (cash in-hand), my buddy Tim with the 03 cobra, 93 SSP, and 95 GT is GOING to buy one just like mine - first one we find in good shape. I can go on and on. There IS a market for a cheap ride, and if it is one that could be later upgraded to a 5.0 crate engine or a 4.6 mod-motor, that makes it all the more alluring!

I am convinced from personal encounters, average conversations with strangers at McDonalds and at the auto parts stores, etc that there is a want and a need for simple basic transportation wrapped in a nicely styled package (like a Mustang or Camaro skin).

Look folks, there were power seats and windows in cars in the 1950's, and disc brakes and power steering in cars too... WAY before the Mustang or Camaro were offered for sale. The ponycars were not made or intended to be luxo-barges. The first Power seat offered in a Mustang was in 1992... some 28 years after the car was offered for sale to the public and 38 years after power seats were offered in cars by Ford.
Now how can it be that the stuff was available for so long before it made it's way into the Mustang, but Mustang sold 150-300K units/year without it? Doesn't seem to make the case that these extras are "must-haves" IMO.

FACTOID... "On Feb. 4, 1954, Ford Motor Company announced a new selection of power-assisted features available for the first time to buyers of Ford’s high-volume brand. With optional power steering, brakes, windows and driver’s seat, Ford said it was introducing “to the high-volume field all the driving aids formerly found only on high-priced cars.”

 

is it in mint shape?

 

I do agree as well that in general, part of the problem with people being able to afford new cars is that they come laden with all sorts of crap a lot of us can't afford/don't want.

I want/need PW, PL, keyless, a nice stereo, A/C...and that's about it. All the other stuff I don't really need. Power mirrors, power seats, memory crap, dual zone a/c, sure...its all nice. But I don't NEED it. To be honest, my '91 Camaro manages to have EVERYTHING I NEED, and nothing I don't.

I am shocked how many Wranglers, Compasses and Patriots I continue to sell with crank windows. GM seems to think we all have to have everything in a car. We don't. GM refuses to build the car I want...which is???

A base LS Camaro with an LS3. That base V8 theory I crowed about on here for years? Ain't happening...and its all I want. I'd pay $23-24k for that model right there, right now if they had it. I refuse to spend $7-8k more for an SS, just to get a V8 and a bunch of other stuff I don't want.

GM lost a sale...oh well.

 

One could make a strong argument that the 3.6L DI-V6 fills the void of a base V8 in this gen Camaro. Sure its not an LS3, however if GM were to offer a "base" V8 it most certainly would not be the same engine offered in the SS. Replace the V6 with a base 5.3L V8 with AFM, and I doubt the horsepower numbers would be significantly better, and I'm sure the mpg numbers would be far less.

I honestly think a Camaro LS powered by a turbo Ecotec would sell like crack to the younger generation.

 

but they can build cobalts like that. how many do you think people buy?


don't forget 4th gens came with crank windows and no pwr door locks. how many firebirds did you sell like that? how many camaros were sold like that?



could you even get crank windows on a SN95 mustang? i know the S197s you can't.


as much as a few of us want that kind of car there just isn't a lot of us left.

 

the torque numbers would be a massive improvement and as some have said they want the sound too. a 350hp V8 with the V6 brakes and all that would do wonders.

 

I rather like the idea of the base Camaro having the LS4 available in it. When it was in the SSR I believe it made 325 hp, which is only about 20 more than the DI 3.6. But it also made about 350 lb/ft of tq. which is about 75 more than the V-6 & at a lower rpm to boot. If the 6 spd's & diff's are geared right you should only see about a 2-3 mpg difference & still be able to chirp the tires with a blip of the throttle. Unfortunately, someone will make a case that it wouldn't sell so we'll never see it. Even though the 3rd gen RS sold pretty good with a 5.0 that only made 30 more horses than the base 3.1. You just can't beat that V-8 rumble.

 

I don't want a crank window car. What I want is all that the base car offers, WITH A V8. THAT was something you could get back in the third gen days. Remember, the last year we could get a base V8 was 1992...and it accounted for over 50% of total sales that year!!!!!!!

Now granted, the DI 3.6 is a FAR better engine than that feeble LO3 (I know how feeble...I own one), but hell, its only 20 years newer. And it still doesn't answer the call that a lot of muscle car buyers feel...the sound and torque of 8 cylinders. What would it have REALLY cost GM to make a V8 base car?

I know, I know...if you could get a base V8, people might not be as willing to pony up the extra money on the SS model...which is where GM will make significantly more money. Instead, people like me, because they can't get what they want new, will wait until they're used, and pick up a used SS for what a new base V8 would theoretically cost...and GM gets no money.

Great product plan!!!!

 

I seem to remember this V8-option-in-a-base-car subject being a hot topic way back when... so much so that, if I remember correctly, even Scott was involved in the conversation.

Wonder why it didnt happen other than the 'too many models/options/powetrains" arguement.

FWIW, I agree... a mid-level V8 (and it must be a V8, not a bigger six) would be and still is a fantastic option.

FWIW, my first Camaro was a 1989 RS with the 305 TBI. Rather gutless, and not really a whole lot over the base V6... but.......... I had a V8 in my car!!

That's all that mattered to me at that point.


SIDE NOTE: A V8 in a base car as an option is not me saying I would advocate a stripper Camaro. That is a different subject altogether.

 

I used to think like you guys. Perhaps its my age (experience?) showing up now that I'm in my mid-40s and has made me think differently.

I've always been a "base" V8 guy myself, perhaps more by accident than anything else; these include: my first car ('67 Chevelle/Malibu 283 2-bbl), my first Camaro ('68 RS 327 210hp 2-bbl), my current daily driver ('02 Tahoe 4.8L). In fact both my current '67 Camaros started life as 327 210 2-bbl cars. (The RS maintains the original drivetrain while the blue coupe has a 350 GM crate motor now.) In fact, I'm thinking about picking up a used GM pickup and I am looking for a "base" V8 for the most part.

That said, with the development of the 3.6L DI V6, there really is no sensible business model for a V6 and a small V8 with similar numbers (hp and mpg). First off the demand for a small V8 is most likely limited to enthusiasts who just have to have a V8 over a V6, but don't want all the frills of an SS. While that percentage may be high here and on other enthusiast websites, in the big picture world of volume sales, its a relatively small number. Furthermore even if the fuel efficiency is within 1-2 mpg of the V6, the non-enthusiasts of the world, i.e. the majority, have this preconceived notion that V8 means "gas hog". (Its the sad truth.) We (car enthusiasts) have been trying to educate the masses for decades that just because we drive modified American made V8 cars, does not mean they harm the environment to no avail. That simply is not going to change now. Therefore the uninformed are always going to perceive the V6 as being "greener" even if that isn't necessarily the case.

Now, if GM were to replace the "base" 3.6L V6 with a turbo Ecotec, then one might be able to make the case for small V8 with V6 numbers as an option on LT; however I don't see that happening. Besides a couple misguided years in the mid 1980s, Camaro has always been available with an economy six, and a performance eight; four cylinders just doesn't fit the image. While a mid-level V8 has been available in the past, that hasn't been the case for over 18 years. Today's technological advances give us a V6 that easily out performs any V8 that was available back then. Why fight progress?

 

Here i go again w/ my 81 Malibu.It had the 267(worst v8 ever) but it had the v8 suspension and any v8 from 350-454 would fit.Again a basic car w/ a solid foundation that had many possibilities.I just can,t fiqure that if they built a new Chevelle/similiar that a lot of people wouldn,t want one;i mean they sold thousands of those v8 Chevelles,esp from78-81.And yes, us older crowd are being ignored

 

Blah...it's part of technology progression.

I am sure back in the day people complained about not needing seatbelts, defrosters, fm radios, side view mirrors, disc brakes, abs and so forth. Once something becomes common technology wise..it almosts costs more to make a product work without it.

 

Thanks for chiming in with a unique POV... doing what you do for a living, you are even better qualified than I am to discuss "buying habits". I am only trying to point out some observations and discussions that I have on a more limited basis, yet still find them to be overwhelmingly obvious to me... many people want simple stylish rides.


Ditto myself and a basic "LX" Mustang. I can, and would, drop the cash for one if it were on the lots - just to commute and goof-off in and maybe pas to my kid as a D/D school car in 5-6 years. Then go ahead and get my "toy" later too.
BUT if I am going to have to bust $30k for it, I have decided to wait and buy a GT500 for my mid-life toy instead. I'll spend my cash today restoring another old car as an investment instead. Bottom line is they are only getting one lick from me instead of 2 (or maybe 3) because of their pricing structure.

Gimme a "lightweight stripper V8 car", and I will give you my money.
Plain and simple.

 

my '93?
It's probably an 80% car.
Original paint - fading on the plastic bumper cover. Headlights are maybe 20% milky. Interior is 85% - a coffee/soda stain in the passenger seat that I can not get out 100% was there when I bought it. Had the map pockets redone on the doorpanels 'cause they were torn/ripped from sagging into the door jamb and being slammed-on. Replaced the 14' steelies with used 16" pony rims when the tires on it went slick (cuz I like the pony rims mo better!). 181k miles on the engine, no smoke and strong as ever. Replaced the clutch pack on it 40k miles ago. Tranny shifts great, bushings good, no humming. The car does not leak any fluids of any kind - ever.

In short, I'd say that it's better than the average one on the road from my couple years of TLC since buying it, but it's far from "mint" and not restored in any way. I might try to get a digital uploaded to my homepage this week and post it so you can see for yourself.

I think I know where you are heading, and I agree. People are more interested in well-preserved units for sure - me included. That never hurts. But in this case, it's just a stright, original, unmolested daily beater.