OK...one last post on this issue and then that's it for me.............

It is very easy to criticize decisions when you have nothing personal to lose. (Monday morning quarterback syndrome....)

There were a lot of very good reasons to have the V6 and the Z28 look alike when that decision was made in 1993......it was called sales success......based on the California Camaro of the late 80s....and in fact, when we changed the Z28 for 1991 and 1992 with new ground effects and rear spoiler, the percentage to total Camaro sales did not jump.......so it might be assumed that changing the Z28 appearance from the base model made no real difference.

Now...I'm here to tell you that if you were running "Camaro incorporated" in 1993...the evidence was pretty strong to do what we did............and if you were sitting behind Jim Perkins or Harry Turner's desk at the time, I think you would have done the same thing. (and if you didn't, I'd question your judgement)

As to someone's remark about the 4th gen being a failure....

Here's an interesting tidbit..........with a question first: What generation was the most successful in terms of total production? Answer: 2nd gen........ Now...for the tidbit.

The 1st Gen Camaros captured .5% of the total passenger car market in the years it was offered. The Second gen captured .3% of the total passenger car market....note the drop.....the Third Gen Camaro captured -- once again -- .5% of the total passenger car market........and the 4th gen? back down to .3%.........where the second gen was.....note that these percentages are POINT Three and POINT 5 percent.........(see how small the market is for Sport Coupes?)

In looking at total production, it APPEARS that the 4th gen could be misconstrued to be a miserable failure..........but when looking at the total market.......it wasn't. You see, it's pretty hard to compare 2002 to 1991........the market was different...hey, the world was different...........the total passenger car market is wayyyyyyy down due to Americans' appetites for trucks, vans, SUVS and crossover vehicles.

so....knock yourselves out on this one.............I gotta go do autoshows for a spell..........................

 

I agree the move was made with the right intentions... it would have been hard to see the way it was kind of taken in reverse from the way it was intended...

And, really, the SS came along to 'fix' things, in the opposite direction of what happened with the 3rd genners, in a way.

Onylyproblem was it added a hefty price to the Z28.

Anyone have a reference of what the Camaro base price jumped from 1987 (last base car without ground effects) to 1988 (first year the base model had standard ground effects) as a reference?

 

Still they overdid it. The only difference between a V6 and Z28 visuallly should not have just been the emblems and the wierd black roof only on some. No distinction. Lousy business decisions once again.

 

Yup. I had a 94Z, and the 98+ fish face look didn't do it for me. That and the fact that to get a Z28 I had to accept ugly undersize 16" wheels and a plain looking car with a flat hood. Wasn't nice enough to convince me to spend another 24K. It didn't even look as good as the old car. If it looked badass? I would have been far more likely to purchase and probably would have bit. And no, I couldn't afford the $uper $port.

For the same money, I got a limited production Mustang that IMHO looks badass and performs at least as well as my old car.

 

Don't you guys pay attention to details?!?

You know that Gm made a huge difference in the look of the car when they put that "bulge" under that groove on the doors/rear 1/4 panels for the v6 model in 93-97.

Then you completly over look the fact that when they engineered the frame, they new people would be able to tell a v8 from the v6 from the dents that form over the gas door. Geez you guys can't you remember anything about these cars?

 

Not that I'm expecting any decision-maker at GM to comprehend, but the bottom line is VARIETY, VISUAL APPEAL, and FUNCTIONALITY. I'm not a Ford fan, but the writing is on the wall and they know how to build a car without 35 pounds of flowcharts as to how to approve it or disapprove it based on 35 million factors. You offer more variety, you capture more markets. You offer a clean gometrical design and you move lots of units. You offer a USABLE interior, and it will be used and liked. The 4th gen did not succeed in any of those highly critical areas. We shouldn't have to look for a roof color or a tire width or a dual muffler vs a single one to be able to distinguish the models, for crying out loud. I shouldn't have to strain myself to reach the front windshield past 3 acres of bubble-shaped useless dashpad. I can picture a Barrett-Jackson auction 50 years from now "OK this is a 2000 Camaro featuring the pissed-off-fish-out-of-water front fascia and the upgraded minivan flower-wheels. now let's see.. what model is this? Hmm.. care to look for some logos, Jennings? Well, they all had the same wheels, they all had the same front and rear clips, thery all had the same steroid interiors.. for the life of me I can't determine what this is". That is utterly pathetic. Not to criticize RP or any other enthusiast on here because none of us are at fault, but the people who made desicions as to the 4th gen's nauseating cynicism-evoking designs and lack of variety, and then the group of people who approved it for production.. those two groups have done a GREAT dis-service to us and to GM heritage. I would say that to their face if I had the opportunity. I've seen the Calif. Camaro and it is NOT the same, not even close. The differences are subtle but VAST, very VAST. Somewhere inbetween, things went horribly wrong. The production car had no forward-looking design or proportions that could've been possibly been continued into a next-gen, which is why it was killed away. I don't need to read any convoluted insider political propaganda as to why it was discontinued because my gut already has told me the answer. I knew the answer in 1993 when I first saw the 4th gen. I was like "oh my God, thsi is a disaster! what is this, a cruel joke?" It's ugly, counter-productive, counter-intuitive, bloated, and not varied enough between models. Ever-increasing HP ratings can only do so much for a fatally flawed car. Not to mention the reversal of roles between SS and Z/28 which was totally uncalled for. Shame on some bigwig GM executives for all of the above. The people who design the cars should do so BY HAND, not with AutoCAD's or whatever. The people who approve the cars should be enthusiasts of that market of car who would be TARGETED as typical potential buyers of THAT PARTICULAR car. Now I can foresee someone stepping on here and telling me that Ive got it all wrong, GM is a big ship that cannot be steered back on course so fast, I have no udnerstanding of the industry etc. It's not my job to have an understanding of the industry. It's GM's job to have an udnerstanding of its end-users. The 4th gen pisses me off every time I think about it. Survival of the fittest. Evolve or die. We saw what the 4th gen did. Now we see where GM is headed with their car agenda, i.e. not truck/SUV, unless they change dramatically RIGHT NOW, meaning in 3 - 4 years max.

 

WOW again!! I agree with a kizz post completly!!

 

And we all know what happens to ships that can't be steered fast enough...*cough*iceburg*cough*

I agree with your post. GM makes it seem like brain surgery to make a car that enthusiasts - and other customers - want. Honestly, I don't think it's that hard. As varied as everyone's opinion is here - I see many striking similarities in what we want Camaro to be.

However, they often seem different from what GM thinks we should think Camaro should be...

 

I think those of us who've been car nuts for many years--almost 30 now for me--can agree that the cars that are best-loved by enthusiasts are cars built by car guys with a strong design sense and an iron will, not by focus groups, commitees, or non-car people. We all know the Ferrari Daytona, the Alfa 33, the Duesenberg SJ, the Porsche 911, the GT40, and so forth, could never have been created by committee.

Hopefully an enthusiast with the guns to make it happen is thinking hard about the 5th gen now.

 

I agree. They better get this attitude they've had for a few years of "we know what you want and you don't" out of the picture and FAST. (I think things will change for the better in a while in GM though) Look at F**d, they are now making cars for the people/enthusiast and they aren't even as well off as GM financially. They might not be the best cars, but giving the people what they want and doing things right will pay off in time.

It builds customer base and creates enthusiasm for the company.

 

So what are all these cars that Ford makes for the enthusiest...........the only one that I see applies, is the 03' Cobra.

 

That may be because the '91,'92 Z/28 cosmetic revisions, weren't seen by prospective buyers as visual improvements at the time.

 

For example, look at how many different choices for the M*****g there is and are gonna be in a few years. All the SVT cars, their "Impala SS," and just the fact that they pay attention to the customer. Not to mention they still make a car that GM just left like a bunch of idiots and controlled, the B-Body market.

 

SVT Focus - For enthusiasts on a budget.
Mustang GT/Mach1/Bullitt/Cobra/2005 Mustang
SVT Lightning - Fastest truck on the market
Supercharged Harley F150
Marauder - Slow, but will get faster. The Roomy performance car
Ford GT

 

Yeah, they looked a little over the top and not as nice as the 82-90's, the interior redesign was lousy, (90 included) and the IROC-Z was missed. Still, they sold pretty good.