1. Challenger's LX based chassis was already on the assembly line and the streets for over a year (Zeta isn't in production in the US and won't be for a couple more years, therefore the chassis the new Camaro is based on won't be).

2. The design had been under development for some time before it hit the auto show circuit (GM pulled the design off the computer and heavily revised it less than 10 months before the Camaro was shown. Chrysler's been developing an LX based RWD performance coupe since at least 2004).

3. Till the past 8-10 months, Chrysler was the only US maker turning a profit, and Chrysler has always had more ***** taking chances with new designs and models than GM or Ford (we're talking about a company that put a V-frigging-10 eight-liter engine in a sports car, created a factory made hotrod: the Prowler, created the then-shocking cab-forward LX cars, created the 40s-panel-truck-lookalike PT Cruiser, created the Kenworth lookalike Ram trucks, defied all logic and wisdom in bringing back RWD V8 powered big cars, the 1st US maker to create their own turbocharged ricer beater, and has a history of bringing new cars to market is the time it used to take GM to have a preliminary meeting on a vehicle's feasibility before they sent it to someone else to study).

.....I knew there was a reason I originally bought stock with those guys.

 

So is it the R&D or the tooling (or both?) that's pushing out the Camaro launch?

I'm not trying to come off as an *** here or anything, just curious.

 

There's nothing "pushing out" the Camaro launch, Chuck.

When you get down to the brass tacks of it, it's just that GM showed the public the Camaro when it was farther away from being production ready than the Challenger was when it was shown (about a 1 year or so difference).

Camaro is going from concept and a chassis that doesn't exist here to production in a mere 2 1/2 to 3 years. That's actually a bit on the quick side.

 

Got it, thanks Guion.

I'd be really neat to see a wing-to-wing process map of the high level tasks that go into making a car at GM.

Maybe it'd be even cooler to see the process map from 2000 vs. the process map from 2007.

 

392 Hemi, Tremec T56 6060. I can't wait!

 

There's going to be a book on development of the 5th gen Camaro, and I know Scott is working on something as well.

 

I'd rather not say in public, but he is a long-time member and GTO owner. He doesn't work for DC but one of their suppliers. His track record is pretty good (said a long time ago there would be no AWD Caliber SRT, when the spy photos came out, and had tons of details about the Jeep GC SRT shortly before it was out), and, knowing what his employer does for DaimlerChrysler, I'll believe his timeline over Guy's speculation. I guess we'll see who's right next year.

 

The biggest problem in getting the Camaro here is not only getting the chassis ready, it's getting Oshawa ready to build them. This is why Monte Carlo dies in June and Grand Prix in November... gonna be a lot of construction/temporary walls inside the plant while C-Flex assembly equipment is installed.

More info on C-Flex here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...16/ai_96081963
http://www.automationworld.com/view-702

 

Also, the Challenger was almost production ready when it was first shown in the auto show circuit last year. I remember a former engineer on allpar say that from the looks of the photos that all the car needed to be produced was a little tweaking for production and it could do down the line.

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't actually want his real name (I don't want to get him in trouble!), I'm wondering about his screen name -- I spend a lot of time on Allpar's News and Rumors board, which is a big (probably the biggest) nexus for Mopar rumors and insider leaks. I'm just wondering if he's someone I know from that forum.

Alternatively, do you have a link to that thread?

Thanks.

 

Yep, Bob was very skeptical of the whole "handbuilt from carbon fiber" story that DCX PR was pushing.

 

I should have made that point better. I said the chassis it's built on isn't made here yet, and should have went farther.

 

GM should have never left the party in the first place, nutless wonders...

 

Think about this...

In order to keep the Camaro, they would have been forced to make it so sales would improve. This would make making it more marketable...and that would entail the possibility of it changing from being less like a Camaro and being more like...a Cavalier.

Blaming GM makes less sense than blaming the people who just didn't buy a Camaro/Firebird.

But that is another much older thread entirely...

 

This story supports the April '08 date Charlie posted.

http://globeinvestor.com/servlet/sto...LER06/GIStory/