With all those questions that the board asks of a new car NO ONE on that board sat back, looked at the Aztek's design and said, "gee that just doesn't look attractive to me at all"? I understand the logistics of market research and trusting people who do the research and pen the car based on that but when do the people who have the "final" say rely on common sense?

 

That's why it's important to have someone like Bob Lutz, or another "car guy or gal" in the position between the studion & the board, and not someone from a detergent company or from a company that makes contact lenses. The boards only purpose is the business side of it. Styling & engineering are handled elsewhere.

 

I don't even consider the new GTO a Pontiac. If it wasn't for GM importing it from another country, Pontiac would have nothing.
The only reason GM is still promanent in motorsports is from what they did in the past. But ford is very close from taking that away.

 

All about the money.............Really?

If so, how do you explain this scenario? You have a 7 year old model that sells over 70,000 vehicles a year. Now it does this despite a lack of any real investment or updates, no advertising or marketing to speak of, and no improvements to obvious short comings. This vehicle is the second best seller in its market segment and has had a loyal and enthusiastic following for 35 years. You literally have potential customers begging for a new version of this car. But, you (the strategy board) decide to kill this car with "no replacement planned for the near or moderate future".

Now at the same time, this strategy board approves a program that spends over 300 million dollars to develope a redundant, retro, 50s looking pickup truck that is only predicted to sell 10,000 vehicles in its best year. This is done despite a complete lack of market potential, no real competition, its another freaking truck, and no-one is asking for it.

I find this amusing considering all we hear is "the F-cars were killed due to low sales", " there is no market for these cars", " people only want trucks and Suvs" ......etc........BS.......etc..........BS.......BS .

The sad thing is, this is only one of the programs that GM is spending millions of dollars on that are predicted to sell less volume than 7 year old F-cars.

It's all about the money, my ***!

 

The costs of St. Therese had a lot to do with it too, I'm sure.

St. Therese was being waaaay underutilized, and it costs money to keep a large plant running, even if production is low.

I'm not saying it is right, I strongly feel that a 5th gen Camaro AND Firebird should have been ready to go for 03, but there are a lot of 'money things' other than comparing volume to volume numbers on certain models...

 

Of course it's NOT only about money. There is far more to that story than you can possibly realize. Think of your physics class. The greatest amount of energy expended on a moving object is getting that object moving, and bringing that object to a stop. Believe me when I say there are far more than a few reasons the F-body was pulled, and there is a really good reason why no one is talking about it now (yes that's me of all people saying this).

However, to answer the obvious with the obvious, there currently isn't anything to build the Camaro on. The Holden cars will be reengineered by 2005, and forget about using Cadillac's chassis for a new Camaro.

In this area, you may not believe this comming from me, but trust RP on this one.

BTW: Define "near to moderate future".

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]Of course it's NOT only about money. There is far more to that story than you can possibly realize./QUOTE]

I totally agree with you on this one. That was really the point I was trying to make. There has to be more to it than just sales volume and market potential.

Guionm, my frustration on this topic was not directed at you. I am just getting sick and tired of representatives from GM stating that lack of sales or lack of a market is what killed these cars. When GM is spending millions on on multiple programs that are predicted to sell less volulme, have less "Halo" or "excitement" potential and are not in the same league for "gotta have it" as a new Camaro or Firebird would be. I am even more tired of all the automotive journalists that just takes this excuse as gospel, without even questioning it, or without even researching it. The fact is GM is contradicting itself everytime they talk about the F-cars and none of the automotive reporters every challanges them on any of this.

Someday maybe someone will let the rest of us in on what is
really going on here.

All I know is that as a life long GM customer and a stockholder I am getting pretty freaking sick of the B.S.

 

All I know is that as a life long GM customer and a stockholder I am getting pretty freaking sick of the B.S.<----- me too

 

I forgot to comment on this topic in my last post. So here it goes.

I Think this is a perfect example of how GM contradicts itself. Lets take a look at the Solstice. All year GM has been willing to openly discuss their desire to bring this car into production. This is a small, two seat, sporty car. Which by its nature makes it a low volume vehicle. I am guessing about 30,000 to 40,000 vehicles a year maximum. There also is not a suitable RWD platform currently available to build this car on either. Now, rumor has it that this program has been given the "green light". So why is it that this platform issue is such a huge road block for a new Camaro, but no problem for the Solstice program?

I would also like to know why Sigma is no longer an option. I have it from a very good source that at one time there was a legitimate plan for a Sigma based Camaro. And remember, It wasn't all that long ago that RP stated on this board "to think Sigma". So what happened? I mean if Ford can build a Mustang of off a Lincoln platform, why can't GM build a Camaro off of a Cadillac platform?

 

I'd like to know why Sigma is no longer an option too. It was always supposed to be a GM "global" RWD platform...developed to be flexible enough to be used by multiple divisions for various products. Chevy, Pontiac,Buick, Holden and Saab were mentioned as recipients. The theory being that if you spread the development costs of the Sigma components sets over numerous models you could get economies of scale.

Then.....almost overnight and quite suddenly...it became far too expensive and prestigeous to be used by a lowly Camaro.

It must be those gold plated control arms.............

 

An F5 on '03 might have been a "gotta have it" for a few thousand enthusiest. No one goes to bed thiking about buying a new Malibu or Impala. But when it comes crunch time, people decide to get a new car, for some reason or other, reality sets in and thats what they come home with. An Impala, Malibu, Caviler, Venture and so on.

They're affordable.
All are prectical to ANY extent short of picup truck needs.
Not to bold (menaing, ya cant really call 'em *** ugly. but you can look at one every day without it getting old. Conservative. The perfect medium to get a wider range of attention. )

Why do Toyota, Honda,and Nissan chop up their body pannels every 3 years. Because every design had that edge styling that got old quick. Chevy gets good with their styling lasting several years, making more money in returm.

"Gotta have it!" loses to "Will buy it..." almost every time.

Not every human being has a 'pair' like we F-Body gurus do.

 

If this is true, and it very well may be... I would think it is part of GM desire to make Cadillac something different and unique again, and while I think it is a shame that a potential platform for Camaro may be missed, I have to say I see their position.

They are putting a lot of effort into Cadillac right now, and I think they are doing a great job with it... but if Cadillac platforms start showing up under Chevy's, Pontiac, Buicks, and more.... well, then what makes them so special again?

 

I can see your point but why can't Cadillac still be special even if they share sigma? No one outside of the enthusiast realm knows or even cares which cars share which platforms. C'mon Cadillac it could be our little secret!

 

Hard to agrue with you on that point...

Perhaps GM really does simply want to elevate Cadillac to BMW/Mercedes status...

Or perhaps they finally learned from the Cimmaron (though that was the other direction...Cadillac took a Chevy et all platform...)

 

Much of Sigma is just "black metal". I'm not convinced it needs to be a Caddy exclusive for Cadillac's status to be elevated.

I'm sure Cadillac still uses the same fuses, fasteners, switches, electricals, etc., etc. as the rest of GM.