IZ28

Still too much. If that car only had competition. I know, I know....

Evil Turbo SS

I have to disagree. We are not spoiled. Cars have just evolved. The crossfire for example has 215 Hp. Soon we will have entry level civivs that make close to that. Almost every sedan I can think of makes that much power or more. In comparison to the cars in the crossfires price range It is slow. Again cars have evolved, it's like saying Afganastan really isnt a poor 3rd world nation were just spoiled. 7000 yers ago that was the high life. We have progressed and so have cars. The bar is just set much higher than it was in the 50s 60s and 70s.

guionM

I completely understand what you're saying, and my tendancy is to agree with you. But as you pointed out, those cars you are comparing are featherweight FWD sedans. Also, of all cars on the market, there is no way you can say F-bodies have "evolved". Just the same, all things are still relative.

Is a car that goes 140 mph considered fast? Speeds like that existed only on a couple of American cars in the 60s & 70s, & on just a few cars in the 80s. Is 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds considered quick? all but a few muscle cars of the 60s could not beat that time. Once the early 70s passed, it wasn't until the Corvettes & injected Mustang coupes of 1987 and onward that cars started dipping below that time hurdle again.

140mph and 0-60 in 6.5 seconds most certainly is not slow by any standards, regardless as to what type of cars are doing it today. That's like someone who flies F16s saing Z06 Corvettes are slow. Compared to a jet fighter, a Z06 is slow. But as a car, it's still one of the fastest on the planet. Compared to a LS1 Camaro, a Crossfire is slow, but in the overall world of American automobiles, it definately isn't.

Things can always go backwards (think 1970s). 0-60 in Crossfire's 7 seconds isn't exactly blazing, and I'm not saying it is. But Crossfire's quick enough to run with a same priced CTS V6. As for a Honda, it will outrun the Honda Civic Si, while base Hondas are no where close. Still, how many people are actually buying the Crossfire to go drag racing? The engine is right out of the even more costly, well selling Mercedes SLK, so I'm betting it's buyers aren't exactly a group of Hot Rodders.

Just the same, when you look at how quick cars have gotten, and what we pay for them, we've had basically a fire sale the past 10 years, compared to other times in performance history. Z28's base price had risen just about $4,000 in it's last 10 years, yet the average new car price has gone up at least $10,000 over the same time. At the same time, it got faster. Ditto Mustang.

With that, we have gotten spoiled in that we've been able to purchase a few of the quickest, fastest cars on the planet, and ever made in US automotive history. Yet, we are paying less for them than what people pay for a Honda EX V6 sedan, let alone mid grade minivans or Pontiacs.

That having been said, there's no doubt we're spoiled. Don't worry, I'm including myself in this.

WERM

I still don't know why they have to be so much more expensive. A pushrod V8 is less expensive than a DOHC V6. They don't have any financial problems putting them in $17,000 pickup trucks.

I've also been told that IRS only adds $200-300 to a RWD car.

guionM

My cynical, kneejerk, reactionary answer to that would be so they can squeeze SUV-like profits out of them, but that probally wouldn't be completely fair of me.

One company is making a pretty big investment in RWD, and for what's going into it, I can see a price jump. Another is taking a rather ingenious, low cost approach, but they also view 35 grand as affordable. Yet a 3rd seems to be combining it's programs on 2 continents, and though it's way too early to tell, seems the really good stuff will be up there as well. Again, mid-30s is viewed as affordable.

So I guess the true answer is that we have been willing to pay for them! Camaro SSs are little more than an overpriced cosmetic package, but it's the only Camaro to see sales increases it's last 3 years (almost a 100% increase each of those final 3 years! ).

I need to reinterate, I'm talking about V8 powered, RWD. The top version of the Solstice seems likely to be very, very quick & under $30 grand, and I'm pretty sure there will be other RWD cars from the former big 3 that will also run hot and be relatively cheap.


Trivia time:
As I mentioned, the Camaro SS was the only Camaro to see sales increases the final 3 years. In case you want to see what kind of increases I'm talking about:
2000: 3,353
2001: 6,332
2002: 11,191

Incase you want to see how it SSs stack up with Mustang Cobra since 1996:
SS//Cobra
1996: 2,410//10,005
1997: 3,638//10,049
1998: 3,025//8,654
1999: 4,829//8,095
2000: 3,353//(not in production)
2001: 6,332//7,251
2002: 11,191// 100 (exported to Australia only)
2003: (no more)//6,500 (projected)

Jason E

All I know is, when you consider a new Mustang GT can do what it can do for around 25k loaded, thats a solid deal. An F body with similar equipment for a grand more was a VERY solid deal. Ignoring inflation, with the average price of a new car going for 25-27k today, in today's dollars I EXPECT an F5 to go for that...no more. F bod V8s have always been running about the average price (or a little less) than new cars.

I've made this argument a million times...

How many cheap V8s did GM sell when they had them? When you could get a base RS or Bird with a 305, how many did they sell? Cheap V8, my friends...thats the answer to more sales. When you can get a strippo GT 5 speed for about 22,500 MSRP these days, and the cheapest V8 F bod was at least a grand more with NONE of the power options the GT has standard, you can see some of the problem.

Its all about the cheap V8. If we don't have it, many of us won't buy it...we have always HAD the cheap 8...shouldn't have to change now

guionM

Actually the IROCS & Z28s of the 80s were a pretty pricey as well, hence the popularity of all those RSs with V6s and baseline 305s.

Also, as I mentioned above (I edited it the same time you posted) it's the expensive SSs that people seemed to want to spring for, while the base Z28s barely moved at all.

30thZ286speed

In the late 80s loaded IROCs went for 16k - 17k range. But you could get a stripped down 5.0L Mustang LX coupe for around 12k - 13k.

Evil Turbo SS

guionM, WHat do you know of the solstice? Will there be a N/a and a supercharged version. What motor do you think they will use. My guess is a Atlus I4 since it is a RWD motor. Could we possibly see that Turbo I5 from the bel air concept? Or mave a v6. If we get a less than 8cyl motor in a sports car it better be a power added motor. The cost of building a doch v6 is just silly unless you can turn up the boost.

guionM

1. I know a bit about Solstice, but there are at least 2 people here that know way more than I could even pretend to know.

2. Ecotec motors will be used, right out of the Ion & next Cavalier.

3. Solstice is pretty much going to be a 4 cylinder only. There's likely to be a supercharged version, again just like the j-car replacements.

Evil Turbo SS

It just doesnt seem to make any sence. The ecotec is a FWD motor. Why go to the trouble to make that work when they already hve a larger displacement RWD cyl. Who would know a bit more about the Solstice. Will the RWD Monte replacement come with V8 motors as a option. I cant see them selling a monte for over 30 grand. So we stil might see a V8 RWD coupe for a little less than 30K

newby

Well, hopefully the F5 will stay competitively priced compared to the new mustang.
If the new mustang comes out with a 300+hp model V8 for under $30,000 (since they're claiming GT pricing will stay the same, adjusting for inflation I can see that happening), the F5 should have something other than the V6 in that price range as well, or I think GM will have a hard time attracting new customers.

Or GM better have a damn good reason for someone to chose a 320+hp (hopefully 350+hp) $35,000 F5 over a sub-$30,000 320+HP 05 Mustang.

I'd hate to see the F5 approach or surpass cobra price territory unless it fully had the ***** to compete performance wise. But, if you go by the 03 Cobra, that will be getting awfully close to corvette performance range.


Sounds like it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

guionM

Engines really have little to do with FWD or RWD designation. It's just a matter of having the structure to mount it. The OHV V6 in most all GM's FWD cars was in RWDs 1st, so it's a non-issue.

Solstice is going to be a relatively low priced, light weight sports car, so it doesn't need a V8 or V6. That's not it's purpose. But it would be a mistake to assume it will be a slow car.

As for the question on a V8 Monte Carlo, I'll assume you never saw this story :

Evil Turbo SS

So, we will see a GM RWD V8 car for under 30 grand when the V8 Monte Carlo comes to us in late 95 as an 06 model. So, we know of 2 RWD V8 cars that will be less than 30 grand by the year 2006. Mustang and Monte. Will the Monte saty about the same overall size? My guess is the monte will be the sister car to the 06 GTO.

ProudPony

I could go on about this topic for days. But I won't!

I would like to serve as Devil's advocate for a moment and point out a few things to serve as "literary beef jerky", as in "chew on these for a while". Mind you, I too am in a similar boat and agree with most of what guionM and a few others have said, in that I am somewhat spoiled to the performance levels we have today - RELATIVE to what we had 20 years ago, I just want to offer another perspective or two...

Regarding the old cars - the GTOs, Mach 1s, Z/28s, Gran Sports, all of these old performance cars - would be slaughtered in performance and efficiency by todays performers. I don't think I've heard anyone say otherwise. BUT, in their era, those cars were MUCH faster than the average car, not a little, or marginally, but A LOT. The performance cars offered better suspensions and powertrains than the "common car" sibling - and yes, you paid a little more for it. TODAY, the gap has closed between "common car" and performance car. When I can get a 24v-DOHC Taurus for less $ than a GT, yet turn only .5 less in the 0-60?!?!
I don't discredit the GT, I applaud the Taurus. The base V6 Stang is only marginally behind the V8 in HP, and honestly stands a shot at outhandling the GT due to weight bias if driven correctly. Pit a Boss 302 Mustang against a base '69 with a 200ci - I6 and 3spd... Pit a '78 King Cobra with 5.0, comp suspension and 4spd against the base Mustang 2.3 I4 and 3 spd... You get my drift.

If you want to talk brute power and torque, I'll put up the old N/A big blocks against ANYTHING available today. Does anybody really think the 427 SOHC motor put out 375 horses? Funny how professional drag racers aren't looking for HO-V6 or I4 blocks like they are 454 and 460 blocks to build from, huh? A Formula 1 turbo 4 may make 800 hp just like a 514ci mountain motor, but the I4T WON'T get you down the 1/4 nearly as well. Likewise, the 514 won't do hairpins or chicanes at 200mph either. It depends on the purpose meant for the design, and those purposes were somewhat different back then. I'll also state that with equal levels of enhancements, we (the shadetree mechanics) can often get MORE out of old engines and drivetrains (especially per $) than the new stuff. New stuff is getting very electronically and mechanically complex, making it harder for the common guy to tinker with (and afford ). As for simplicity - anyone care to pit the Paxton-blown 289 found in some '66 Shelby GT-350s against the blown 281 from a '96 Saleen on a dyno? Remeber, the K-code 289 was 271 bhp (or a little more ) while still N/A, and the Paxton was factory available, so that makes them both "stock" trim. GRANTED, there are exceptions, and the overall performance now far exceeds what was available then, but it is just logical progression - not a miracle of some kind.

Regarding the pricing - this is a blanket statement ---> We are all getting HOSED. The cost of your car is not all in it's manufacture, it is in the benefits, retirement, insurance, OSHA-compliance, Union dues, and a dozen other debts that leach blood from the core product in the form of "indirect added costs". If any of us knew what it REALLY cost to make the physical car (in materials, fab, paint, tooling, etc) compared to the sale price, we'd be ready to shoot someone. I don't think it is fair to base a cost comparison between todays cars and the cars of the sixties, and only consider inflation against a fixed (timeless) performance level. Technology has brought cheaper manufacturing methods, better materials that cost less, more efficient and cleaner engines, etc. These costs benefits affect both the cost to manufacture, as well as the cost to operate the vehicle. My point is, that technology has permitted much more efficient means to manufacture the car, actually reducing the pure material costs that were predominant in the equation during the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I would expect the actual material processing costs to go down as better methods develop. After all, that's the driving force behind implementing said technologies, and systems are scrutinized for ROI and ROC before they are typically approved by management. I'd have to do a lot of looking, but I'd be willing to take an open bet that the actual cost involved in manufacture of a car today is LESS than ever before, after inflationary adjustments. But the no-value-added costs mentioned before have skyrocketed. Reference the recent news articles about GM and Fords pension problems.

If we're gonna look at what makes cars "cost" what they do today, let's look at the whole picture. I am not impressed with the current cost of a new automobile, any of them. When Ford is clearing an average of over $12k on every Explorer sold... YES, someone's being gouged. What GM is doing with the Tahoes, Subs, and H2s is no different. I don't care if the profit is going to pay benefits or the CEO's bonus, it's not going into the material in the car itself, or it's fabrication. A 20% margin is very gracious when doing service/contract work on a job, but these companies are seeing 50-60% margins or better on some of these SUV and truck lines. Just imagine what the market would do if Ford started selling the Explorer for $8995 ($7k mfg. cost plus 20% margin), or GM sold the Tahoe for $9499 ($7600 mfg. cost plus 20% margin). Would ANY dealer ANYWHERE sell a car? Especially for $35K?!?!
NO. So it is in their best interest to keep the SUV prices at the highly profitable state (all the market will bear) and just keep offering cars at lower margins (even losing money on some models) to balance the market.

Anyone with marketing intelligence realizes this is a goofy world in which we live, and some things are just better not discussed. But this new car/old car - performance - value conversation could consume a man's entire career, not just a post or two in a thread.