Are the Camaro enthusiasts dooming the Camaro name?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Are the Camaro enthusiasts dooming the Camaro name?
I'm fully aware that this thread will probally release a bit of a firestorm, but I'm I still want to throw it out to see how everyone else feels (plus it's Friday and my work's done for the week 
).
I feel that the guys behind Camaro at times did more harm to Camaro than good. This is not to say that they are not comitted to the brand, and every bit an enthusiast as most everyone else here, but the most destructive people tend to be the most well meaning.
The Camaro's history in tied to Mustang's since the start. As part of the pony car market, it offered many options to personalize their car, all the way through to the early 90s. With the exceptions of most all of the 1980s, and a year or 2 prior, top Camaros have been quicker than top Mustangs, but Camaro real strength is that it appealed to a broad spectrum of car buyers. Everyone from women to 30 somethings looking for a commuter car with style, to performance enthusiasts with aftermarket catalogues, to older guys wanting something cooler than a Corvette (See 1972 Z28 and 1972 Corvette)
Even when Camaro's reputation stumbled just prior to the 3rd gens (Mustang had gone through 3 restylings while the Camaro was the dinosaur in the marketplace) it still had more going for it than just performance. Though I drive a 4th gen, and really like the car, I feel that the 4th gen Camaro was the most mistake laden program of all Camaro series both in execution and the mindset of those involved.
The roots I feel started in the late 80s when someone got the misguided idea of making low grade Camaros look exactly like the top drawer Z28s. Sure owner surveys said this, but who wouldn't want an Impala to look like a Cadillac? This was partially resolved when the IROC was retired and the Z28 with it's large rear wing returned, but Camaro went down the same trail with a vengence when the 4th gen came out!
Another area 4th gen failed miserably is that there was no mid-level Camaro. It was if the Camaro team at GM said "Take our top model, or else be satisfied with the entry level one... we don't have time for you". On this site, whenever the mention of a mid level Camaro came up, there seems to be near unanimous agreement here, yet this idea is constantly shot down because of "cost".
Another area I feel the 4th gen came up short was in design. I like the sunken headlight design of the pre '98s, most everyone here likes the muscular body (it is a Z28 site, right?). But it was a continuation of the 3rd gen design the way the 1969 was a continuation of the 67 & 68 body style. Sure the 4th gen had numerous improvements, but design wise, it was the previous Camaro after a few trips to the gym. The last minute addition of the large, heavy, engine access depriving windshield didn't help matters either.
Finally, I don't know what happened to the Camaro's team's sense of competition. Perhaps it's the result of spending years under the old GM management philosophy. Whatever the reason, the excitement there seemed to be centered around such things as anniversary wheels and an SS model that not only is mistaken as as high performance edition equal with ledendary editions of the past, but also highlighted how weak the actual "in house" Camaro team turned out in the end, though I admit I don't believe it was purely their fault.
Sure, Camaro Z28 was quicker than the Mustang GT, but that was more the result of Ford's now-discarded mentality of just getting by regarding Mustang's performance. Team Mustang was chomping at the bit for higher performing Mustangs since the 94's came out. The 2003 supercharged Cobra's exact purpose was to completely blast Camaro SS out of the water at a near identical price.
The big difference between Mustang Reps & Camaro reps seems to be the Camaro reps listen exclusively to enthusiasts (which is great for us). But the Mustang guys seem to listen to a wide spectrum of people, and it's reflected in the broad based support they have. Bring this up to certain people, and it's dismissed with " it's great if you like women's cars", which sounds pretty pathetic when you realize more men actual buy Mustangs than Camaros and Firebirds combined by close to a 2 to 1 margin(get a clue guys
), and that 1st & 2nd gen Camaros (along with Mustangs) attracted a fairly high percentage of women buyers for their time, and were very successful.
Though it's great to focus on us enthusiasts, but realize there's a bigger market of potential Camaro buyers. Women are now buying nearly half the cars in the US, G35 coupe sales (at least here in California) prove that there is a strong market for "pony type" cars that fall between road rockets and base rentals no one wants. The next Mustang seems to be focused on entering this middle market, which Camaro used to also be a part of.
What needs to change?
1. Deep six the mindset that Camaro means a $30,000 high performance car, and nothing else.
2. Regarding a mid-level Camaro, just do it.
3. If you choose to ignore #2, then at least make the base Camaro something that doesn't feel you just scraped the bottom of the food chain. This doesn't mean loading it up with extra equptment, it means spending time on quality of materials. If you think there's nothing wrong with the 4th gen's, then you need to spend time inside other maker's cars (if you can't make it to the Infinity dealer, go see what Ford's doing....to their pickup trucks!)
4. Allow buyers to either order options individually (with option groups as a discount), or allow popular options (ie:t-tops or...sunroofs) to be ordered individually. If doing this costs an extra $500 per vehicle, so what?! Add it on the base price.
5. Realize that creating a new rim design isn't a big deal on this side of the fence while your competitor has at least 6.
6. Adopt a "take no prisoners" mindset regarding the rest of the lineup. Women buyers aren't the death kneel, unless you are content to continue with the 4th gen's production numbers. But for each two you win over, you will also likely win over 3 1/2 men, which is about right for this segment.
In all fairness to the guys who were attached to the 4th gen, GM was no fan of the f-body after the mid 90s. If it wasn't for the packaging differences between the LT1 & LS1, we probally would have seen the same exterior till the very end. If it wasn't for the efforts of the Camaro guys, we would have had a weaker engine in 2000 than we ended up with. And yes, they probally did have to pull teeth to get any anniversary Camaro, let alone the tape and wheel job we got.
But they also seem to look at Camaro as strictly a performance car, with all else being nothing more than an afterthought. Some people here share that view of so what if we sell only a thousand per month, just make it powerful. To me that's the same as quitting, and whimping out, not to mention destroying the brand. Camaro has survived 3 major recessions, 2 major energy crisis, massive insurance jumps, 2 wars, 2 major changes in emission standards, and CAFE:
Newsflash: If Camaro was only a performance car, it would have been dead many times over by now.
Camaro is dead today because of weak support by GM. If our Camaro people focus on just the performance version again, without ensuring a midlevel or at least a comfortable base model, if Camaro becomes a prepackaged, high content, option package only car, the next time we have a major recession, revised emissions, higher fuel economy standards, or another war that drags the economy, we'll be whining and complaining about how once again GM let us down & killed a historic name, when it was really the uncompromising enthusiasts.
Inside & outside GM.
).I feel that the guys behind Camaro at times did more harm to Camaro than good. This is not to say that they are not comitted to the brand, and every bit an enthusiast as most everyone else here, but the most destructive people tend to be the most well meaning.
The Camaro's history in tied to Mustang's since the start. As part of the pony car market, it offered many options to personalize their car, all the way through to the early 90s. With the exceptions of most all of the 1980s, and a year or 2 prior, top Camaros have been quicker than top Mustangs, but Camaro real strength is that it appealed to a broad spectrum of car buyers. Everyone from women to 30 somethings looking for a commuter car with style, to performance enthusiasts with aftermarket catalogues, to older guys wanting something cooler than a Corvette (See 1972 Z28 and 1972 Corvette)
Even when Camaro's reputation stumbled just prior to the 3rd gens (Mustang had gone through 3 restylings while the Camaro was the dinosaur in the marketplace) it still had more going for it than just performance. Though I drive a 4th gen, and really like the car, I feel that the 4th gen Camaro was the most mistake laden program of all Camaro series both in execution and the mindset of those involved.
The roots I feel started in the late 80s when someone got the misguided idea of making low grade Camaros look exactly like the top drawer Z28s. Sure owner surveys said this, but who wouldn't want an Impala to look like a Cadillac? This was partially resolved when the IROC was retired and the Z28 with it's large rear wing returned, but Camaro went down the same trail with a vengence when the 4th gen came out!
Another area 4th gen failed miserably is that there was no mid-level Camaro. It was if the Camaro team at GM said "Take our top model, or else be satisfied with the entry level one... we don't have time for you". On this site, whenever the mention of a mid level Camaro came up, there seems to be near unanimous agreement here, yet this idea is constantly shot down because of "cost".
Another area I feel the 4th gen came up short was in design. I like the sunken headlight design of the pre '98s, most everyone here likes the muscular body (it is a Z28 site, right?). But it was a continuation of the 3rd gen design the way the 1969 was a continuation of the 67 & 68 body style. Sure the 4th gen had numerous improvements, but design wise, it was the previous Camaro after a few trips to the gym. The last minute addition of the large, heavy, engine access depriving windshield didn't help matters either.
Finally, I don't know what happened to the Camaro's team's sense of competition. Perhaps it's the result of spending years under the old GM management philosophy. Whatever the reason, the excitement there seemed to be centered around such things as anniversary wheels and an SS model that not only is mistaken as as high performance edition equal with ledendary editions of the past, but also highlighted how weak the actual "in house" Camaro team turned out in the end, though I admit I don't believe it was purely their fault.
Sure, Camaro Z28 was quicker than the Mustang GT, but that was more the result of Ford's now-discarded mentality of just getting by regarding Mustang's performance. Team Mustang was chomping at the bit for higher performing Mustangs since the 94's came out. The 2003 supercharged Cobra's exact purpose was to completely blast Camaro SS out of the water at a near identical price.
The big difference between Mustang Reps & Camaro reps seems to be the Camaro reps listen exclusively to enthusiasts (which is great for us). But the Mustang guys seem to listen to a wide spectrum of people, and it's reflected in the broad based support they have. Bring this up to certain people, and it's dismissed with " it's great if you like women's cars", which sounds pretty pathetic when you realize more men actual buy Mustangs than Camaros and Firebirds combined by close to a 2 to 1 margin(get a clue guys
), and that 1st & 2nd gen Camaros (along with Mustangs) attracted a fairly high percentage of women buyers for their time, and were very successful. Though it's great to focus on us enthusiasts, but realize there's a bigger market of potential Camaro buyers. Women are now buying nearly half the cars in the US, G35 coupe sales (at least here in California) prove that there is a strong market for "pony type" cars that fall between road rockets and base rentals no one wants. The next Mustang seems to be focused on entering this middle market, which Camaro used to also be a part of.
What needs to change?
1. Deep six the mindset that Camaro means a $30,000 high performance car, and nothing else.
2. Regarding a mid-level Camaro, just do it.
3. If you choose to ignore #2, then at least make the base Camaro something that doesn't feel you just scraped the bottom of the food chain. This doesn't mean loading it up with extra equptment, it means spending time on quality of materials. If you think there's nothing wrong with the 4th gen's, then you need to spend time inside other maker's cars (if you can't make it to the Infinity dealer, go see what Ford's doing....to their pickup trucks!)
4. Allow buyers to either order options individually (with option groups as a discount), or allow popular options (ie:t-tops or...sunroofs) to be ordered individually. If doing this costs an extra $500 per vehicle, so what?! Add it on the base price.
5. Realize that creating a new rim design isn't a big deal on this side of the fence while your competitor has at least 6.
6. Adopt a "take no prisoners" mindset regarding the rest of the lineup. Women buyers aren't the death kneel, unless you are content to continue with the 4th gen's production numbers. But for each two you win over, you will also likely win over 3 1/2 men, which is about right for this segment.
In all fairness to the guys who were attached to the 4th gen, GM was no fan of the f-body after the mid 90s. If it wasn't for the packaging differences between the LT1 & LS1, we probally would have seen the same exterior till the very end. If it wasn't for the efforts of the Camaro guys, we would have had a weaker engine in 2000 than we ended up with. And yes, they probally did have to pull teeth to get any anniversary Camaro, let alone the tape and wheel job we got.
But they also seem to look at Camaro as strictly a performance car, with all else being nothing more than an afterthought. Some people here share that view of so what if we sell only a thousand per month, just make it powerful. To me that's the same as quitting, and whimping out, not to mention destroying the brand. Camaro has survived 3 major recessions, 2 major energy crisis, massive insurance jumps, 2 wars, 2 major changes in emission standards, and CAFE:
Newsflash: If Camaro was only a performance car, it would have been dead many times over by now.
Camaro is dead today because of weak support by GM. If our Camaro people focus on just the performance version again, without ensuring a midlevel or at least a comfortable base model, if Camaro becomes a prepackaged, high content, option package only car, the next time we have a major recession, revised emissions, higher fuel economy standards, or another war that drags the economy, we'll be whining and complaining about how once again GM let us down & killed a historic name, when it was really the uncompromising enthusiasts.
Inside & outside GM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Wow. GuionM, agree with basically everything in that post. Excellent points my friend.
I can't really add anything because I think you covered it all very effectively.
This needs to be stickied right now!!!!
I can't really add anything because I think you covered it all very effectively.
This needs to be stickied right now!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
You've got so much to respond to guion.
Generally speaking, I find that current Camaro enthusiasts fall into two camps.
CAMP #1) The last Camaro was darned near perfect. Sure there may be afew niggles to complain about, but generally no big complaints.
CAMP #2) The Camaro needs wholesale change. Agressive looks, RWD and V8 must stay....but everything else must change. It's size, proportions, model line up, quality, focus, etc., etc.
Personally, I fall into camp number two. And I have a feeling that most in camp #1 would happily accept the Camaro that camp #2 wants. Camp #2 will not accept camp #1's concept of Camaro.
For the next Camaro to succeed, LOTS of people need to get excited about it. Even girls. That doesn't mean it needs to be a Grand Am "secretary special"..... it means it needs to be a well done car.
It needs a beautiful and high quality interior. It needs gorgeous sheet metal. It needs to be a smooth rattle free car wich is a joy to drive and live with, EVEN ON BASE MODELS.
The disenfranchised Z/28 enthusiasts need to be addressed effectively and respectfully. (And not merely by saying "drop" the issue and accept what we give you).
Some sort of mid-level option must exist, if we're going to see some kind of significant dent into Mustang territory.
Other than horsepower.....Camaro has literally been frozen in it's evolutionary tracks for two decades. There is so much work that needs to be done.....so many changes that need to occur, that it is a truly a staggering undertaking.
But it is an undertaking that must be completed successfully.
Generally speaking, I find that current Camaro enthusiasts fall into two camps.
CAMP #1) The last Camaro was darned near perfect. Sure there may be afew niggles to complain about, but generally no big complaints.
CAMP #2) The Camaro needs wholesale change. Agressive looks, RWD and V8 must stay....but everything else must change. It's size, proportions, model line up, quality, focus, etc., etc.
Personally, I fall into camp number two. And I have a feeling that most in camp #1 would happily accept the Camaro that camp #2 wants. Camp #2 will not accept camp #1's concept of Camaro.
For the next Camaro to succeed, LOTS of people need to get excited about it. Even girls. That doesn't mean it needs to be a Grand Am "secretary special"..... it means it needs to be a well done car.
It needs a beautiful and high quality interior. It needs gorgeous sheet metal. It needs to be a smooth rattle free car wich is a joy to drive and live with, EVEN ON BASE MODELS.
The disenfranchised Z/28 enthusiasts need to be addressed effectively and respectfully. (And not merely by saying "drop" the issue and accept what we give you).
Some sort of mid-level option must exist, if we're going to see some kind of significant dent into Mustang territory.
Other than horsepower.....Camaro has literally been frozen in it's evolutionary tracks for two decades. There is so much work that needs to be done.....so many changes that need to occur, that it is a truly a staggering undertaking.
But it is an undertaking that must be completed successfully.
Last edited by Z284ever; Aug 22, 2003 at 10:03 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
I look at the 4th Gen's problems from thusly:
1) Build quality was probably the best Camaro ever had. That said, it fell well short of the build quality of other 'common' cars. For example, my 2002 Monte Carlo SS simply destroys my 1999 Camaro Z28 as far as quality of materials and assembly.
2) Marketing. Deny it if you want, but there was little marketing support for this car. You want to sell it? (And there is reason to believe they didn't) Advertise it, and tell people you still make it. Show the unique things about the car...
3) Updates. Where were they? In this segment, you MUST have styling updates over the life of the car. There were precios few, and as it was said, if it weren't for the dimensions of the LS1 vs the LT1 engine, we may not have even gotten that one.
4) Solid Axle is antiquated. Yes, it may be superior for hard core drag enthusiasts, but that is a very very small percentage of real-world buyers. Step into the new century, and give the car IRS. The ride quality of a solid axle is a joke compared to a quality IRS, and believe it or not... these cars get driven on real roads, with real pot holes, and other obsticles.
5) Differentiate the looks of the base car from the high end cars. SS did that, but it was added mid-life to try to correct a problem that was thought to be the right move because of the success of the late 3rd Gen RS. (I'm not going to get into the name game here again).
5b) - That being said, Firebird did do #5 somewhat well...
6) Mid-model / Entry Level V8. It needs to happen. I, personally would go for the top of the line... but you can not deny the success and drawing power of the 3rd Gen's low-cost 305TBI V8... and I do think the simple fact that it was a V8 mattered.
7) The fact that the new car had to be 'grafted' onto the 3rd gen floor pans was a problem from day 1. If you were going ot go through the trouble of re-doing most everything else on the car... why handcuff yourself from the get-go?
8) Dealer Support. It was a joke. They knew nothing about the car, and most were way understocked, and had a poor variety of colors, options and models. Want a 6-speed? Good luck. Better get ready to wait 8 weeks for the order to go through. Want a color other than Red, Black or Pewter? Same story.
Out of all that, the only thing I think you could argue to fault GM for 'listening to only the enthusiasts' would be the solid axle... and I would bet a good chunk of money that the two major reasons the solid axle stuck around was A) It was primarily a carry over from the 3rd Gen, and B) it was cheaper.
1) Build quality was probably the best Camaro ever had. That said, it fell well short of the build quality of other 'common' cars. For example, my 2002 Monte Carlo SS simply destroys my 1999 Camaro Z28 as far as quality of materials and assembly.
2) Marketing. Deny it if you want, but there was little marketing support for this car. You want to sell it? (And there is reason to believe they didn't) Advertise it, and tell people you still make it. Show the unique things about the car...
3) Updates. Where were they? In this segment, you MUST have styling updates over the life of the car. There were precios few, and as it was said, if it weren't for the dimensions of the LS1 vs the LT1 engine, we may not have even gotten that one.
4) Solid Axle is antiquated. Yes, it may be superior for hard core drag enthusiasts, but that is a very very small percentage of real-world buyers. Step into the new century, and give the car IRS. The ride quality of a solid axle is a joke compared to a quality IRS, and believe it or not... these cars get driven on real roads, with real pot holes, and other obsticles.
5) Differentiate the looks of the base car from the high end cars. SS did that, but it was added mid-life to try to correct a problem that was thought to be the right move because of the success of the late 3rd Gen RS. (I'm not going to get into the name game here again).
5b) - That being said, Firebird did do #5 somewhat well...
6) Mid-model / Entry Level V8. It needs to happen. I, personally would go for the top of the line... but you can not deny the success and drawing power of the 3rd Gen's low-cost 305TBI V8... and I do think the simple fact that it was a V8 mattered.
7) The fact that the new car had to be 'grafted' onto the 3rd gen floor pans was a problem from day 1. If you were going ot go through the trouble of re-doing most everything else on the car... why handcuff yourself from the get-go?
8) Dealer Support. It was a joke. They knew nothing about the car, and most were way understocked, and had a poor variety of colors, options and models. Want a 6-speed? Good luck. Better get ready to wait 8 weeks for the order to go through. Want a color other than Red, Black or Pewter? Same story.
Out of all that, the only thing I think you could argue to fault GM for 'listening to only the enthusiasts' would be the solid axle... and I would bet a good chunk of money that the two major reasons the solid axle stuck around was A) It was primarily a carry over from the 3rd Gen, and B) it was cheaper.
Last edited by Darth Xed; Aug 22, 2003 at 02:39 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
You know something guionM, at first I wasn't following your train of thought, but as I read on, I soon realized that I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you wrote. (Maybe that has more to do with the fact that we're from the same generation.) 
However, I do disagree with one thing... and pretty substancially at that.
Other than the quad-headlamps and grill area, I do not see the 4th gen Camaros as a mere "beefier" version of the 3rd gens. The 4th gen is way more refined and curvatious... much like the second gen Camaros... whereas the 3rd gens are... well... boxy.
The 4th gens took styling cues from the previous three generations.... we already discussed the 3rd gen headlamps, but it also has the curves and overall shape of the 2nd gens, and continued the t-tops brought in during the 70's. Furthermore, the LT1s (93-97) utilized a hood that had recessed lines and faux-vents that served as a stylized modern homage to the 67-69 standard Camaro hood. The 4th gens were imo sexier than the 3rd gens and overall have a more refined shape. (The 3rd gens have that brutish, in-your-face rock-n-roll look to them.)
Sure the next Camaro needs to be tougher and meaner than the last incarnation. However I don't want it to be so brutal and unrefined that it can't be an everyday driver.
That's enough for now... some of us still have work to do.
However, I do disagree with one thing... and pretty substancially at that.
Other than the quad-headlamps and grill area, I do not see the 4th gen Camaros as a mere "beefier" version of the 3rd gens. The 4th gen is way more refined and curvatious... much like the second gen Camaros... whereas the 3rd gens are... well... boxy.
The 4th gens took styling cues from the previous three generations.... we already discussed the 3rd gen headlamps, but it also has the curves and overall shape of the 2nd gens, and continued the t-tops brought in during the 70's. Furthermore, the LT1s (93-97) utilized a hood that had recessed lines and faux-vents that served as a stylized modern homage to the 67-69 standard Camaro hood. The 4th gens were imo sexier than the 3rd gens and overall have a more refined shape. (The 3rd gens have that brutish, in-your-face rock-n-roll look to them.)
Sure the next Camaro needs to be tougher and meaner than the last incarnation. However I don't want it to be so brutal and unrefined that it can't be an everyday driver.
That's enough for now... some of us still have work to do.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Fully agreed.
In order to be successful, the camaro needs to appeal to the masses, and not only the few performance enthusiasts. If executed correctly, you'd end up with a car for men and women, old and young, rich and poor (not **** poor but average), non-performance and performance enthusiasts. The notion that there isn't a market for a car like the camaro is BS. GM has some how alienated the 4th gen from the masses. There was a market, and the 94 to current Mustang proved that.
In order to be successful, the camaro needs to appeal to the masses, and not only the few performance enthusiasts. If executed correctly, you'd end up with a car for men and women, old and young, rich and poor (not **** poor but average), non-performance and performance enthusiasts. The notion that there isn't a market for a car like the camaro is BS. GM has some how alienated the 4th gen from the masses. There was a market, and the 94 to current Mustang proved that.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 87
From: Birmingham, AL
I like everything I have read in this post...
I would like to add my .02
Everyone seems to agree that there needs to be some sort of midrange Camaro, ie; a cheap V8.
I personally think Chevrolet should take a page from Ford's book in this area. When Ford replaced the 5.0 with the 4.6, lots of people got angry, but (give them and few years and) look what they have turned it into... The 03 Cobra rocks.
With the redesign for 05, the V6 will be a DOHC 3.0L and the GT is getting a 3-valve 4.6L with variable valve timing supposedly around 300hp. There will not be a Cobra for 05 but it will return in 06 with a (rumored) supercharged 5.4, like is in the Lightning. Rumors have the 06 Cobra anywhere from 425 - 500hp, supposedly aimed at the upcoming Vette. WOW
So, there you have it... The entry level Mustang will be a DOHC 3.0L, the GT will be the new 3-valve 4.6L, and the Cobra will be a 5.4L.
Also, be sure to look for a special edition, rumored to be a Boss with a 5.4L.
If you want to keep up on your 2005+ Mustang rumors, check out the 2005+ Mustang forum at StangNet.
Later
I would like to add my .02
Everyone seems to agree that there needs to be some sort of midrange Camaro, ie; a cheap V8.
I personally think Chevrolet should take a page from Ford's book in this area. When Ford replaced the 5.0 with the 4.6, lots of people got angry, but (give them and few years and) look what they have turned it into... The 03 Cobra rocks.
With the redesign for 05, the V6 will be a DOHC 3.0L and the GT is getting a 3-valve 4.6L with variable valve timing supposedly around 300hp. There will not be a Cobra for 05 but it will return in 06 with a (rumored) supercharged 5.4, like is in the Lightning. Rumors have the 06 Cobra anywhere from 425 - 500hp, supposedly aimed at the upcoming Vette. WOW
So, there you have it... The entry level Mustang will be a DOHC 3.0L, the GT will be the new 3-valve 4.6L, and the Cobra will be a 5.4L.
Also, be sure to look for a special edition, rumored to be a Boss with a 5.4L.
If you want to keep up on your 2005+ Mustang rumors, check out the 2005+ Mustang forum at StangNet.
Later
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
"I feel that the guys behind Camaro at times did more harm to Camaro than good. This is not to say that they are not comitted to the brand, and every bit an enthusiast as most everyone else here, but the most destructive people tend to be the most well meaning."
I disagree with the core premise. The enthusiasts stayed with the car, the rest of the market left it and not because of the performance of the higher end models. They left because the BASE car was no longer appealing. The two are not mutually exclusive. Camaros can do both, but the lower end failed because of lack of a viable product, not because the enthusiasts were begging for more - and got it.
"Everyone from women to 30 somethings looking for a commuter car with style, to performance enthusiasts with aftermarket catalogues, to older guys wanting something cooler than a Corvette (See 1972 Z28 and 1972 Corvette).
Corvette, in EVERY generation, is a more appealing car than Camaro. I'll take a 1972 Corvette over a 1972 Camaro in a heartbeat. Throw in the big-block cars and there is no contest whatsoever.
There are no $1,000,000 Camaros. There ARE $1,000,000 Corvettes.
Camaro is/was a darned good ponycar. Corvette is an icon on the level of Harley-Davidson. Camaro, being a more populist car, has always fallen short of Corvette's impact in that respect. In short, Camaro has never been a "cooler" car than a Corvette, and honestly shouldn't be.
"Though I drive a 4th gen, and really like the car, I feel that the 4th gen Camaro was the most mistake laden program of all Camaro series both in execution and the mindset of those involved."
Hmmmm... judgement call... there were some REALLY BAD 3rd gens. Remember the 4-cylinder cars or the V8's that were out-powered by Sunbird Turbo GT's?
"The roots I feel started in the late 80s when someone got the misguided idea of making low grade Camaros look exactly like the top drawer Z28s."
Through much of the 80's, Z28's were not the top-drawer cars. We can argue whether or not that was a good idea, but the fact remains that the Z28 was playing second fiddle to the IROC's long before the SS showed up.
"Sure owner surveys said this, but who wouldn't want an Impala to look like a Cadillac? This was partially resolved when the IROC was retired and the Z28 with it's large rear wing returned, but Camaro went down the same trail with a vengence when the 4th gen came out!"
I liked the trail. Since I learned to drive in the 80's, Z28 meant "TBI 305 turd". To get the L98 you had to step up to an IROC.
Now that I can buy a 3rd gen as a toy, I won't consider anything short of an L98 IROC or a TTA. Z28's aren't even on my radar screen - unless I wanted a cheap car to cut up and turn into a full-blown drag car. If that ever does happen, the boat-anchor 305 won't survive past the first weekend.
"Another area 4th gen failed miserably is that there was no mid-level Camaro. It was if the Camaro team at GM said "Take our top model, or else be satisfied with the entry level one... we don't have time for you"."
I disagree. The top model by 1997 was the SS, which was considerably more expensive than the base car, no matter what options you put on the base car. A stripped Z28 and a loaded V6 car could get darned close in price.
$800 separates a loaded V6 Mustang and a stripped GT nowadays. $800 over 60 months is $13.33/month @ 0%.
"On this site, whenever the mention of a mid level Camaro came up, there seems to be near unanimous agreement here, yet this idea is constantly shot down because of "cost"."
I think it's a bad idea if it artificially drives up the price of the top-level car. Complexity will do this, but the real core of the complexity issues with Camaro were not centered around the SS/Z28/V6 - the real problem was the Firebird.
Firebird became a lodestone around the neck of Camaro because it drove MORE complexity into lower volume than Mustang had at a higher volume. Count the number of wheels between both of them, and you get a real mess (two SS wheels - 5 spoke and 10 spoke, base Z28, base wheel, then base Firebird, the Trans Am wheels, and then the ASC WS6 wheels - I count at least seven if memory serves...).
Oldsmobile got killed dead for this very same reason - the Oldsmobile on a given platform (like H or W car) drove complexity into the platform that it could not justify monetarily.
I'll buy off on the idea of a mid-level motor, as long as the Firebird stays either dead or is no longer on the same platform AND if the separation between the base car and the top car is large enough monetarily and performance-wise to justify it.
You'll have a very difficult time convincing me that the money spent on the mid-level powertrain is worth it if the top car doesn't blow everything else away, including the Cobra.
"The last minute addition of the large, heavy, engine access depriving windshield didn't help matters either."
Guion, how many folks in the target market for the base car care about the windshield rake from the point of view of throwing headers on or changing plugs?
Next to none.
Isn't this an enthusiast's issue interfereing with a feature that non-enthusiast's like (the aggressive looks a steep windshield rake can give)?
"Finally, I don't know what happened to the Camaro's team's sense of competition. Perhaps it's the result of spending years under the old GM management philosophy. Whatever the reason, the excitement there seemed to be centered around such things as anniversary wheels and an SS model that not only is mistaken as as high performance edition equal with ledendary editions of the past, but also highlighted how weak the actual "in house" Camaro team turned out in the end, though I admit I don't believe it was purely their fault."
I think the badges and stickers were the only area they were given money for.
I'm trying to understand the middle sentence... is this the typical Z28 vs. SS nonsense?
"1. Deep six the mindset that Camaro means a $30,000 high performance car, and nothing else."
Allow me to re-phrase...
'Make the base car appealing in it's own right.'
"2. Regarding a mid-level Camaro, just do it."
If the business case makes sense. If not, don't waste the money.
"4. Allow buyers to either order options individually (with option groups as a discount), or allow popular options (ie:t-tops or...sunroofs) to be ordered individually. If doing this costs an extra $500 per vehicle, so what?! Add it on the base price."
We've been over complexity. Count the number of options on a Mustang sometime once you nail down which powertrain you're getting. Not counting colors, the number is FIVE after you pick a package (there are three packages - base, deluxe, premium).
"5. Realize that creating a new rim design isn't a big deal on this side of the fence while your competitor has at least 6."
Eliminating the Firebird will help this issue.
"Camaro is dead today because of weak support by GM. If our Camaro people focus on just the performance version again, without ensuring a midlevel or at least a comfortable base model, if Camaro becomes a prepackaged, high content, option package only car, the next time we have a major recession, revised emissions, higher fuel economy standards, or another war that drags the economy, we'll be whining and complaining about how once again GM let us down & killed a historic name, when it was really the uncompromising enthusiasts."
Again, I disagree. At the end, the only people buying the car were the enthusiasts. The base car simply couldn't cut it.
It wasn't due to enthusiasts taking the car away from the prospective base customer, it was the base car not offering what it needed to offer. Zero investment will do that to you.
9 years without a major revision, ZERO advertising, and bad press will do that too. The only advertising Camaro got at the end was an SS blowing away 3/4's of the field in a "brother vs. brother" shootout, or hammering another Mustang in a comparo.
I disagree with the core premise. The enthusiasts stayed with the car, the rest of the market left it and not because of the performance of the higher end models. They left because the BASE car was no longer appealing. The two are not mutually exclusive. Camaros can do both, but the lower end failed because of lack of a viable product, not because the enthusiasts were begging for more - and got it.
"Everyone from women to 30 somethings looking for a commuter car with style, to performance enthusiasts with aftermarket catalogues, to older guys wanting something cooler than a Corvette (See 1972 Z28 and 1972 Corvette).
Corvette, in EVERY generation, is a more appealing car than Camaro. I'll take a 1972 Corvette over a 1972 Camaro in a heartbeat. Throw in the big-block cars and there is no contest whatsoever.
There are no $1,000,000 Camaros. There ARE $1,000,000 Corvettes.
Camaro is/was a darned good ponycar. Corvette is an icon on the level of Harley-Davidson. Camaro, being a more populist car, has always fallen short of Corvette's impact in that respect. In short, Camaro has never been a "cooler" car than a Corvette, and honestly shouldn't be.
"Though I drive a 4th gen, and really like the car, I feel that the 4th gen Camaro was the most mistake laden program of all Camaro series both in execution and the mindset of those involved."
Hmmmm... judgement call... there were some REALLY BAD 3rd gens. Remember the 4-cylinder cars or the V8's that were out-powered by Sunbird Turbo GT's?
"The roots I feel started in the late 80s when someone got the misguided idea of making low grade Camaros look exactly like the top drawer Z28s."
Through much of the 80's, Z28's were not the top-drawer cars. We can argue whether or not that was a good idea, but the fact remains that the Z28 was playing second fiddle to the IROC's long before the SS showed up.
"Sure owner surveys said this, but who wouldn't want an Impala to look like a Cadillac? This was partially resolved when the IROC was retired and the Z28 with it's large rear wing returned, but Camaro went down the same trail with a vengence when the 4th gen came out!"
I liked the trail. Since I learned to drive in the 80's, Z28 meant "TBI 305 turd". To get the L98 you had to step up to an IROC.
Now that I can buy a 3rd gen as a toy, I won't consider anything short of an L98 IROC or a TTA. Z28's aren't even on my radar screen - unless I wanted a cheap car to cut up and turn into a full-blown drag car. If that ever does happen, the boat-anchor 305 won't survive past the first weekend.
"Another area 4th gen failed miserably is that there was no mid-level Camaro. It was if the Camaro team at GM said "Take our top model, or else be satisfied with the entry level one... we don't have time for you"."
I disagree. The top model by 1997 was the SS, which was considerably more expensive than the base car, no matter what options you put on the base car. A stripped Z28 and a loaded V6 car could get darned close in price.
$800 separates a loaded V6 Mustang and a stripped GT nowadays. $800 over 60 months is $13.33/month @ 0%.
"On this site, whenever the mention of a mid level Camaro came up, there seems to be near unanimous agreement here, yet this idea is constantly shot down because of "cost"."
I think it's a bad idea if it artificially drives up the price of the top-level car. Complexity will do this, but the real core of the complexity issues with Camaro were not centered around the SS/Z28/V6 - the real problem was the Firebird.
Firebird became a lodestone around the neck of Camaro because it drove MORE complexity into lower volume than Mustang had at a higher volume. Count the number of wheels between both of them, and you get a real mess (two SS wheels - 5 spoke and 10 spoke, base Z28, base wheel, then base Firebird, the Trans Am wheels, and then the ASC WS6 wheels - I count at least seven if memory serves...).
Oldsmobile got killed dead for this very same reason - the Oldsmobile on a given platform (like H or W car) drove complexity into the platform that it could not justify monetarily.
I'll buy off on the idea of a mid-level motor, as long as the Firebird stays either dead or is no longer on the same platform AND if the separation between the base car and the top car is large enough monetarily and performance-wise to justify it.
You'll have a very difficult time convincing me that the money spent on the mid-level powertrain is worth it if the top car doesn't blow everything else away, including the Cobra.
"The last minute addition of the large, heavy, engine access depriving windshield didn't help matters either."
Guion, how many folks in the target market for the base car care about the windshield rake from the point of view of throwing headers on or changing plugs?
Next to none.
Isn't this an enthusiast's issue interfereing with a feature that non-enthusiast's like (the aggressive looks a steep windshield rake can give)?
"Finally, I don't know what happened to the Camaro's team's sense of competition. Perhaps it's the result of spending years under the old GM management philosophy. Whatever the reason, the excitement there seemed to be centered around such things as anniversary wheels and an SS model that not only is mistaken as as high performance edition equal with ledendary editions of the past, but also highlighted how weak the actual "in house" Camaro team turned out in the end, though I admit I don't believe it was purely their fault."
I think the badges and stickers were the only area they were given money for.
I'm trying to understand the middle sentence... is this the typical Z28 vs. SS nonsense?
"1. Deep six the mindset that Camaro means a $30,000 high performance car, and nothing else."
Allow me to re-phrase...
'Make the base car appealing in it's own right.'
"2. Regarding a mid-level Camaro, just do it."
If the business case makes sense. If not, don't waste the money.
"4. Allow buyers to either order options individually (with option groups as a discount), or allow popular options (ie:t-tops or...sunroofs) to be ordered individually. If doing this costs an extra $500 per vehicle, so what?! Add it on the base price."
We've been over complexity. Count the number of options on a Mustang sometime once you nail down which powertrain you're getting. Not counting colors, the number is FIVE after you pick a package (there are three packages - base, deluxe, premium).
"5. Realize that creating a new rim design isn't a big deal on this side of the fence while your competitor has at least 6."
Eliminating the Firebird will help this issue.
"Camaro is dead today because of weak support by GM. If our Camaro people focus on just the performance version again, without ensuring a midlevel or at least a comfortable base model, if Camaro becomes a prepackaged, high content, option package only car, the next time we have a major recession, revised emissions, higher fuel economy standards, or another war that drags the economy, we'll be whining and complaining about how once again GM let us down & killed a historic name, when it was really the uncompromising enthusiasts."
Again, I disagree. At the end, the only people buying the car were the enthusiasts. The base car simply couldn't cut it.
It wasn't due to enthusiasts taking the car away from the prospective base customer, it was the base car not offering what it needed to offer. Zero investment will do that to you.
9 years without a major revision, ZERO advertising, and bad press will do that too. The only advertising Camaro got at the end was an SS blowing away 3/4's of the field in a "brother vs. brother" shootout, or hammering another Mustang in a comparo.
Last edited by PacerX; Aug 22, 2003 at 11:58 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 373
From: Anywhere but here
Originally posted by PacerX
I liked the trail. Since I learned to drive in the 80's, Z28 meant "TBI 305 turd". To get the L98 you had to step up to an IROC.
Now that I can buy a 3rd gen as a toy, I won't consider anything short of an L98 IROC or a TTA. Z28's aren't even on my radar screen - unless I wanted a cheap car to cut up and turn into a full-blown drag car. If that ever does happen, the boat-anchor 305 won't survive past the first weekend.
You'll have a very difficult time convincing me that the money spent on the mid-level powertrain is worth it if the top car doesn't blow everything else away, including the Cobra.
I liked the trail. Since I learned to drive in the 80's, Z28 meant "TBI 305 turd". To get the L98 you had to step up to an IROC.
Now that I can buy a 3rd gen as a toy, I won't consider anything short of an L98 IROC or a TTA. Z28's aren't even on my radar screen - unless I wanted a cheap car to cut up and turn into a full-blown drag car. If that ever does happen, the boat-anchor 305 won't survive past the first weekend.
You'll have a very difficult time convincing me that the money spent on the mid-level powertrain is worth it if the top car doesn't blow everything else away, including the Cobra.
You said the money wouldn't be worth spending unless the top car blew everything else away, but the 4th gen did pretty much that, and it still didn't save the car. There has to be more to the car than just blowing away the Cobra, there has to be an appeal for a broader range of consumers than there was before.
During the third-gen years, weren't there many many many times more cars sold with a 305 than there were with a 350? Wouldn't this suggest that there are people that want a V8 without having to pay for the top of the line car with the biggest and the baddest in it?
If the Camaro comes back it will need to try and capture some of the market share that the Mustang currently holds, and I think a mid-priced mid-powered V8 would go a long way towards acheiving that. If the Mustang can have 3 levels of engines (at least), why can't the FBody?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
I only dislike the mid-level engine idea if it detracts from a great base car and a "king of the hill" top line car. Mustang finally got both (although I think the base car is miserable and the 2003 Cobra was WAAAAAAY late to the party).
Could Camaro do all three? I imagine it could given enough resources - BUT if it ever gets dicey, axe it quick and pour the resources into the other two engines.
BTW - there was a time, if I remember right, where you could get EITHER a 3800 or a 3.4 liter in a 4th gen.
"During the third-gen years, weren't there many many many times more cars sold with a 305 than there were with a 350? Wouldn't this suggest that there are people that want a V8 without having to pay for the top of the line car with the biggest and the baddest in it?"
The L98 wasn't available for most of those years and you couldn't get a stick with it either.
Could Camaro do all three? I imagine it could given enough resources - BUT if it ever gets dicey, axe it quick and pour the resources into the other two engines.
BTW - there was a time, if I remember right, where you could get EITHER a 3800 or a 3.4 liter in a 4th gen.
"During the third-gen years, weren't there many many many times more cars sold with a 305 than there were with a 350? Wouldn't this suggest that there are people that want a V8 without having to pay for the top of the line car with the biggest and the baddest in it?"
The L98 wasn't available for most of those years and you couldn't get a stick with it either.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by PacerX
"I feel that the guys behind Camaro at times did more harm to Camaro than good. This is not to say that they are not comitted to the brand, and every bit an enthusiast as most everyone else here, but the most destructive people tend to be the most well meaning."
I disagree with the core premise. The enthusiasts stayed with the car, the rest of the market left it and not because of the performance of the higher end models. They left because the BASE car was no longer appealing. The two are not mutually exclusive. Camaros can do both, but the lower end failed because of lack of a viable product, not because the enthusiasts were begging for more - and got it.
"I feel that the guys behind Camaro at times did more harm to Camaro than good. This is not to say that they are not comitted to the brand, and every bit an enthusiast as most everyone else here, but the most destructive people tend to be the most well meaning."
I disagree with the core premise. The enthusiasts stayed with the car, the rest of the market left it and not because of the performance of the higher end models. They left because the BASE car was no longer appealing. The two are not mutually exclusive. Camaros can do both, but the lower end failed because of lack of a viable product, not because the enthusiasts were begging for more - and got it.
"Though I drive a 4th gen, and really like the car, I feel that the 4th gen Camaro was the most mistake laden program of all Camaro series both in execution and the mindset of those involved."
Hmmmm... judgement call... there were some REALLY BAD 3rd gens. Remember the 4-cylinder cars or the V8's that were out-powered by Sunbird Turbo GT's?
"The roots I feel started in the late 80s when someone got the misguided idea of making low grade Camaros look exactly like the top drawer Z28s."
Through much of the 80's, Z28's were not the top-drawer cars. We can argue whether or not that was a good idea, but the fact remains that the Z28 was playing second fiddle to the IROC's long before the SS showed up.
"Sure owner surveys said this, but who wouldn't want an Impala to look like a Cadillac? This was partially resolved when the IROC was retired and the Z28 with it's large rear wing returned, but Camaro went down the same trail with a vengence when the 4th gen came out!"
I liked the trail. Since I learned to drive in the 80's, Z28 meant "TBI 305 turd". To get the L98 you had to step up to an IROC.
Unless you are refering to the 82-83 CFI (an induction shared with Corvette), no Z/28 ever came with a TBI 305. And after '90, if you wanted an L98, you needed to step up to a Z/28.
I'll buy off on the idea of a mid-level motor, as long as the Firebird stays either dead or is no longer on the same platform AND if the separation between the base car and the top car is large enough monetarily and performance-wise to justify it.
Fair enough.
"2. Regarding a mid-level Camaro, just do it."
If the business case makes sense. If not, don't waste the money.
A business case can only be made if GM plans for the Camaro to approach 50% - 75% of Mustang's projected production.
Last edited by Z284ever; Aug 23, 2003 at 01:12 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,574
From: Arlington, Texas
Wow, this thread pretty much covers it. The feeling most people have seems to match my own concerning what the new car should be. Thats good, it shows that we all have certain common wants that shouldn't be too hard to nail down.
I'm willing to give GM a break on most of the quality, fit, materials problems of the 3rd and 4th gens, simply because we all know what the genesis of the 4th gen really was after the GM80. It had to be done fast, cheap, and easy. They had no choice but to base it greatly on the 3rd gen, and with that, they got stuck w/ alot of inherent packaging and structure problems. But seeing what GM has been able to bring out in the last few years, and knowing whats coming out, I feel that the next gen will be revolutionary from a Camaro point of view. It will blow anything they've had away, simply because the best they've had was, in essesnce, derived from late '70s engineering.
I do have some points I want to stress though.
#1...I support the mid level idea. If it can't, or won't be done, make the base car what the mid level would have been and drop the POS bottom car that nobody wants. Manual windows and locks in the 21st century? Come on. I keep coming back w/ examples from my new toy, the CTS. In that car, you've got your BASE, which I have, and is a great car concerning content, lacking nothing but the sunroof. They have a LUXURY model w/ wood, sunroof, and DVD nav, then the SPORT model w/ the 17's and beefier suspension parts. Now of course you also have CTSv. Point is, in a car w/ the volume of a CTS, they seem to be able to offer a base car, 2 mid levels (that can be combined by the way) and a top dog. I just don't see why Camaro couldn't do this. CTS will have 3 engine options this year, 4 models. It can be done. I'm on the bandwagon for the base car being desireable in its own right, not a necessary evil of the real car, the V8, that everyone REALLY wants. If the base car had any semblance of the quality and style that the base CTS has, the women will be filing in w/ checkbooks in hand.
Also, to dispel the myth that the 5th gen would be compromised by getting away from it's low slung style, check out the performance #'s of CTSv.
#2...The live axle has to go. I know it's cheaper, I know it's lighter, I know it's better for drag cars. I don't care. People will use their Camaros to drive themselves and passengers on crappy roads alot more than they will at the track. Our Regal has IRS for heavens sake! It has to go, it's time.
Everything else has been covered so well, I'll just leave it alone, w/ a congrats to all who composed such well thought out ideas.
I'm willing to give GM a break on most of the quality, fit, materials problems of the 3rd and 4th gens, simply because we all know what the genesis of the 4th gen really was after the GM80. It had to be done fast, cheap, and easy. They had no choice but to base it greatly on the 3rd gen, and with that, they got stuck w/ alot of inherent packaging and structure problems. But seeing what GM has been able to bring out in the last few years, and knowing whats coming out, I feel that the next gen will be revolutionary from a Camaro point of view. It will blow anything they've had away, simply because the best they've had was, in essesnce, derived from late '70s engineering.
I do have some points I want to stress though.
#1...I support the mid level idea. If it can't, or won't be done, make the base car what the mid level would have been and drop the POS bottom car that nobody wants. Manual windows and locks in the 21st century? Come on. I keep coming back w/ examples from my new toy, the CTS. In that car, you've got your BASE, which I have, and is a great car concerning content, lacking nothing but the sunroof. They have a LUXURY model w/ wood, sunroof, and DVD nav, then the SPORT model w/ the 17's and beefier suspension parts. Now of course you also have CTSv. Point is, in a car w/ the volume of a CTS, they seem to be able to offer a base car, 2 mid levels (that can be combined by the way) and a top dog. I just don't see why Camaro couldn't do this. CTS will have 3 engine options this year, 4 models. It can be done. I'm on the bandwagon for the base car being desireable in its own right, not a necessary evil of the real car, the V8, that everyone REALLY wants. If the base car had any semblance of the quality and style that the base CTS has, the women will be filing in w/ checkbooks in hand.
Also, to dispel the myth that the 5th gen would be compromised by getting away from it's low slung style, check out the performance #'s of CTSv.
#2...The live axle has to go. I know it's cheaper, I know it's lighter, I know it's better for drag cars. I don't care. People will use their Camaros to drive themselves and passengers on crappy roads alot more than they will at the track. Our Regal has IRS for heavens sake! It has to go, it's time.
Everything else has been covered so well, I'll just leave it alone, w/ a congrats to all who composed such well thought out ideas.
