guionM

Just had another discussion with another industry rep today, and a few points were hit on that I think will explain alot to some here.

Alot of this will probally tick a few of you off, however it's all fact & seems to be common knowledge in the auto industry.

I mentioned in the other RWD thread that performance cars are headed solidly into the $30K catagory. All 3 automakers pretty much are in lockstep in this. I pointed out that the reason this seems so much to us is because we have become spoiled, which is still true. I'll try to expand more on this, based on what we talked about today, and what has been hit on by the other makers as well.

First of all, targeting cars to the young buyer is not seen as low risk. The common thread through all is that the young buyer isn't as dependable as older buyers. By older buyers, I mean mid 20s (at the youngest) and up. One example brought up (in another conversation) was the Toyota Celica. It's not the most stable or solid selling car, but Toyota can make them because it's drivetrain (FWD) and most all components are from low cost volume production cars. something RWD today simply is not.

Young buyers also tend to be more fickled than older buyers(again, mid 20-something and older). What's "in" this year may not be "in" next year. The automaker's way of working around that is the Neon SRT-10, and the supercharged versions of the Ion & Cavalier replacement. Existing high volume, low priced cars, with minimum investment (at least it's more than tapes & decals).

This was one of the major problems (without confirming production ) with the business case for both the Solstice and the Razor. Both by their very price & market target are headed to the most unstable, unpredictable part of the car market. In times of recession, this is the 1st market to be pinched (youth performance) often due to this group having the least stable employment security of all age groups.

The second area is the actual cost of bringing a RWD performance car to market. Common question here: "Why not simply take a CTS and make a Camaro out of it?" Simple answer is because you don't want it to be a CTS. While Holden seems to have found a way to take a Commodore sedan & turn it into a coupe, it turns out that was a pretty ingenious action by Holden, since the rest of the Big 3 find it necessary to design a whole new body.

The new Mustang is also nothing short of a minor miracle in industry circles. Ford took what was a fairly costly chassis, and made it low cost enough to likely be sold for only slightly more than the current Mustang. Like Holden, they found a way to make a coupe on the cheap.

Anyone here who want's a RWD, IRS, V8 2 door coupe for under $30,000, hate to tell you this, but it simply can't be done. The reason why CTS & LS can be done for the price is because there's enough profit on the higher end versions to make it affordable. The G35 seems to fall into that catagory as well as being made in the volumes to make it profitable. Making a Camaro, a Charger, or anything else on that structure is a much bigger problem. And there's another item that makes the bad news worse...Volume!

The deal breaker, and the thing that makes the GTO, and the Mustang unique is that the volume of the coupe market simply won't support engineering a whole new body for low volume vehicles. This is one of the key things that's been a thorn in the side of the guys & gals pushing a Camaro. Sure, you can raid the parts bin for suspension parts, wiring & brake parts, and engine & drivetrain components. But you still have to engineer an entirely new body, and engineer it to incorperate these part bin components. In short, unless a coupe is a 2 door version of a sedan, it's going to essentially be an entirely new car. Therefore, it's going to be expensive to do, and it needs VOLUME or at least a guaranteed long lifespan to make up it's costs.

It's now safe to say that when Camaro does come back, it won't be a CTS or a VE. It will be it's own car chassis, unless it's a skinned version of the Buick Bengal. There is the hangup, so it seems.

It takes about 24 months (at the fastest) from the word go (after all the legwork, planning, engineering, and everything else has been done 1st) to get from approval to production. The key things a approval board is going to look at is the Size & Reality of the market, the cost & difficulty to produce, and a whole host of other issues. Ford made the almost diasterous step of the LS Mustang which would have made the line either unprofitable, expensive, or have a lifespan nearly equal to the Fox based cars of the past almost 25 years.

redzed

I wholeheartedly agree. A sub $25K V8 F-Body was only possible because many drivetrain components were shared with higher volume light trucks. The LS-1 was feasable because the developement costs were largely writen off against the Gen. III truck engines. The C5 Corvette, let along the LS-1 F4, couldn't have happened as stand-alone products.

The situation was far different in 1982 when the F3 premiered. The B, C and G-bodies were high volume RWD passenger cars, and the economies of scale for a RWD sports coupe were far more attractive. Today, you have to look towards the half-ton pickup and SUV lines to find similar sales volumes.

0toinsanein5.4sec

I dont know, maybe i just misread something, but why wouldnt it be possible to do that again? use a downgraded C6 engine, drivetrain parts from the new colorado, etc.

WERM

I have a hard time believing that GM can't produce a mid-high 20's (loaded) PUSHROD V8 sport coupe while at the same time companies such as Subaru can produce a Turbocharged, IRS'd, AWD sedan for $24,000.... or Infiniti can produce a LUXURY RWD sport coupe starting at $29,000. Christ, even 3 Series BMW's start at $28,000. I won't even list all the other sub $30K entry level RWD luxury coupes and sedans.

But GM can't give us an affordable, low content (not stipped) RWD sports coupe that would share a chassis with other cars and have most of it's powertrain development and tooling paid for by the 40,000 Corvettes and the million or so trucks and suv's they sell a year? Or all the other parts bin GM standard issue components?

They can't do it for less money than others do LUXURY cars?? I don't buy it.

newby

That's kind of what I was wondering...

Is it possible that the fact the big 3 are going towards more expensive sports coupes is another sign they're loosing touch with car buyers? Seriously, if the base price can't compete within a few grand of the 350Z, Evolution VIII, WRX, 05 Mustang, etc. base price, something is seriously wrong.

Chuck!

Two questions come to mind

First, why is a reskinned Bengal possible, but not a reskinned VE, say GTO? I dont imagine the VE will be much larger than the current V platform, right? The current GTO is the perfect Fbody size, well at least from this enthuiast. I'd think if anything GM would learn more in this favor because of the sheer volume that will be produced on the VE platform.

On the flipside of that coin, I can see GM putting it on the Solstice platform to stabilize that platform. Honestly I think the whole line will flop aside from the Solstice since they're all ugly (imo) but the Solstice seems to have the most steam. If younger kids are their target audience they'll miss that terribly with all 3 of that variation. They dont have the appeal of the other roadsters such as the S2000, they just dont look agressive.

Second question is if Ford can move the Mustang cost so down stream, why cant GM? Ill give you Holden doing stuff for cheaper since they cut though the red tape eaiser probably due to their location and basic independence from GMNA.

Sixer-Bird

The Bengal/Solstice/Sky platform is probably the only route to the cheapest possible Camaro. I could see a Camaro of this type coming in at a base of somewhere south of $27k.

guionM

To clear up something that's begining to take shape here.

The problem isn't in using an existing engine or transmission, or suspension component to create a new 2 door coupe. The issue is engineering a all new body structure for a car that isn't selling in volumes.

The Monaro/GTO's big deal is that Holden took a Commodore body structure and created a coupe in a way that was profitable in ridiculously low quanities. With the Mustang, Ford had to start deleting much of the more costly items with cheaper versions to attempt to make back some cash (the SN95 used the existing Fox structure).

CTS, LS, and Chrysler's new LX will be sold in quanities to make them feasible. Also, they'll be sold at prices that will make them profitable. The final item to seal their future is that 4 door sedans are the most solid most secure area of the car market.

Now, take a potential Camaro or Charger. The performance coupe market is the most demanding as far as restylings. If you don't invest money in redesigns, sales will plunge for the latest from the competitors. Also, there's the unpleasant truth that coupes aren't selling in large quanities. Making a case to engineer a structure (even though the floor & underhood stampings could be carried over) for a car that may not exceed a few thousand units per month, sells for 30 grand, and profitable enough to be worthwhile is more than a little difficult.

As a result, the GTO will be selling around the low to mid $30s, a Dodge charger (if done ) will also not be a cheap, and the Mustang Mach1 and Cobras (and likely a much more expensive Mustang GT) will end up paying for all those V6s Mustang buyers grab.

So in my long winded sort of way, it's engineering a chassis & body structure that's going to take the bulk of the engineering money, not the engine, etc. On a high volume or pricey sedan, it's much easier than low production coupes.

GM's performance chassis (what the Solstice/Bengal chassis is known as) is, as Pacer X refered to about 3 or 4 months ago, quickly turning into the best chance of seeing a new Camaro by 2007.

centric

So everyone is prepared to abandon the youth market to Honda Elements and Toyota Scions . . . preparing the buyers for what? Buying larger and larger SUVs for the rest of their lives?

Sad.

How many young people could GM convert to true enthusiasts, true evangelists, with an affordable high-performance car? How many of these would become buyers for life?

This is the vision. This is what they're missing.

hotrodtodd74

Holden to Export Variety of Cars, Design Plans to U.S.

By Alan Harman

WardsAuto.com, Apr 15 2003

CANBERRA – General Motors Corp. subsidiary Holden Ltd. is expected to announce within weeks a new sales agreement with the U.S.


Print-friendly format E-mail this information





CANBERRA – General Motors Corp. subsidiary Holden Ltd. is expected to announce within weeks a new sales agreement with the U.S.


Holden Monaro (Pontiac GTO) is only first of many products planned from Australia to the U.S.
Following the deal to ship its Monaro brand to the U.S. starting in September, the new deal is expected to include sales of other Holden-designed cars, as well as Melbourne-developed car designs to be built as U.S. models in U.S. car plants. (see related story: GM, Holden Discuss More Product Sharing)

The move would see a GM division install a version of the Commodore platform in the U.S.

"We will not only be making the design for this and developing the vehicles for building in the U.S. but we would also export vehicles into the U.S. from Australia," Peter Hanenberger, Holden CEO, says in media reports.

"What we are looking for is a balanced approach, where not only do we make designs for the U.S., but build and export cars into the U.S. That's what we are working on right now to secure a future business along with, or after, the Monaro. It could be a short- or long-wheel-based (vehicle), or sports car or (SUV). We are looking for a certain volume; these are niche models."

Meantime, Holden's engine exports are climbing as GM Daewoo Auto and Technology Ltd. raises its order from 350 engines per day to 700.

"We will have our engine plant running at 700 a day from about July/August, which brings us pretty close to capacity,” Hanenberger tells local media. “I think this volume will be stable over the next three years."

Chuck!

guion, where does the big price increase come from a reskinned GTO vs a reskinned Bengal? Thats what Im hung on.

holeshot

If Ford can figure out how to build an entirely new Mustang and keep it remotely affordable, then there is no excuse why GM can't follow suit.

I totaly expect the the price of a new Camaro to increase. The average price of all cars continues to increase. Its the nature of the business. As long as it only raises by a proportion amount compared to the average car price.

I thought the VE architecture was supposed to be the "global", more economical chassis that was to be a cheaper version of Sigma and suitable for mainstream RWD applications? There is no reason why this chassis can't support a GTO, Camaro and what ever else comes along. If it can't then why develope it?

Take a close look at CTS. This car was developed with a business case to sell 30,000 a year. They sold just under 40,000 last year. The last time I checked, that is considered low volume. This car is the cheapest Cadillac and starts in the low 30s, so the profit margin is not all that high. I am sorry but a new Camaro will sell at least twice as many per year as a CTS. That will make up the difference and then some.

Solstice: Low volume, small, two-seat, convertible, sports car. By its nature is a low volume car (less than 30,000 per year). This car will have to be priced low because of the current competition in this segment. There goes the profit margin. This car is in one of the most fickle market segments out there. On paper, a new Camaro has a way better bussness case than the Solstice.

All of this, and the solstice not only gets the new body and structure but also gets the new Chassis as well. Something does not add up here.

Apparenly what it really takes is Bob Lutz to be pushing for it. It seemed to work in this case.

holeshot

If Ford can figure out how to build an entirely new Mustang and keep it remotely affordable, then there is no excuse why GM can't follow suit.

I totaly expect the the price of a new Camaro to increase. The average price of all cars continues to increase. Its the nature of the business. As long as it only raises by a proportion amount compared to the average car price.

I thought the VE architecture was supposed to be the "global", more economical chassis that was to be a cheaper version of Sigma and suitable for mainstream RWD applications? There is no reason why this chassis can't support a GTO, Camaro and what ever else comes along. If it can't then why develope it?

Take a close look at CTS. This car was developed with a business case to sell 30,000 a year. They sold just under 40,000 last year. The last time I checked, that is considered low volume. This car is the cheapest Cadillac and starts in the low 30s, so the profit margin is not all that high. I am sorry but a new Camaro will sell at least twice as many per year as a CTS. That will make up the difference and then some.

Solstice: Low volume, small, two-seat, convertible, sports car. By its nature is a low volume car (less than 30,000 per year). This car will have to be priced low because of the current competition in this segment. There goes the profit margin. This car is in one of the most fickle market segments out there. On paper, a new Camaro has a way better bussness case than the Solstice.

All of this, and the solstice not only gets the new body and structure but also gets the new Chassis as well. Something does not add up here.

Apparenly what it really takes is Bob Lutz to be pushing for it. It seemed to work in this case.

Z28Wilson

While Ford has found a way to keep the next generation Mustang affordable, it comes at a substantial "cost" to the enthusiast IMO. When you start removing the goodies for strut front/live axle rear suspension it's going to get much more affordable. Will we accept another SLA front/live axle rear in the next Camaro? I was under the impression that for Camaro to finally be taken seriously people here require an IRS setup. Perhaps Mustang will be taken seriously by default, sadly a luxury the Camaro line has never enjoyed.