A message to GM from a young buyer, join me if you want.
10-24-2002, 03:27 AM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chantilly, VA, USA
Posts: 28
This is getting a bit off topic if you ask me....
Some people may think I am just whining. But I had serious dreams and hopes.. That SS I was planning on ordering was also going to be my kids car, I was going to keep and after my kid (which I don't have yet FYI) turns either 18 or 21 I will give it to him. GM destroyed all these wonderfull dreams I had....
Some people may think I am just whining. But I had serious dreams and hopes.. That SS I was planning on ordering was also going to be my kids car, I was going to keep and after my kid (which I don't have yet FYI) turns either 18 or 21 I will give it to him. GM destroyed all these wonderfull dreams I had....
10-24-2002, 08:00 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
WishIhadaZ, I don't think your whinning I just think your upset as you should be. This is a unfathomable position that we as Camaro owners or potential owners are in. Our car is gone! Its really plain and simple we now have to buy a used model if we want to drive a Camaro. Its a shame. I understand your reasons for being upset. All I asked if you would considder a new Camaro that is true to its roots and you answered yes. Thats all I wanted to know.
The fact is as Z28Wilson and others hace hinted at the only people actually buying f-bodies in 2000, 01, 02 are enthusiasts. After all over 50% of 2002 Camaro's were LS1 cars and there were more SS's than Z28's! SO no I believe that enthusiasts will like we have before buy Camaro's if they do return. So far the F-body sales have slumped because it seems only the enthusiasts are buying new ones. That's why the average age is 46. (thanks, RiceEating5.0) The problem is like some people pointed out insurance is high and maybe the hiatus will calm that down a bit. Who knows, but if a V6 Mustang is more to insure than a Mustang GT than anythings possible right.
A new Camaro will need to keep the enthusiasts interest as well as get some sales from Ford/Mustang converts and attack the rice scene. Chevy has to market the car in ways thay gets them on rental fleets and in the hands of female drivers and young drivers whom can't afford a V8 model. How about a turbo 4-banger EcoTech base model Camaro to appeal to the ricers?? Then a traditional V6 or inline 6 like from the TrailBalzer? Interesting isn't it.
One more point,
guionM, I just wanted to point out that yes the new Mustang GT is fast and powerful it's most certanly not faster than all V8 Camaro's before the LS1. 0-60 times are nice 5.8 or 5.4 secs but the 1/4 mile is much more than a 0-60 test. My car is said to hit 60 mph in like 5.3 sec. Ha! Even with my unmodded stock time in sig. I got to 60 in less than 5 sec. Being a avid drag racer, with many many days at the track over the last few years. I can tell you from personal experience that new 260 hp Mustang GT's from 99-03 are nice running anywhare from 13.8-14.5 at 98-101 mph in stock trim. They run a lot like stock LT1 F-body's and in many cases are a tick slower. My 97 was a dog and it ran 14.0 @ 100 in stock trim. Many friend wer ein the 13.7's to 13.9's with 6-speeds. That being said I've seen plenty of 1st gen Camaro's put down similar numbers in restored condition. I think the new GT is potent but most certainly not faster than ALL V8 Camaro's made from 1967-1997! Because If I've seen it happen otherwise a few times its happening a lot! That was quite a blanket statement!
The fact is as Z28Wilson and others hace hinted at the only people actually buying f-bodies in 2000, 01, 02 are enthusiasts. After all over 50% of 2002 Camaro's were LS1 cars and there were more SS's than Z28's! SO no I believe that enthusiasts will like we have before buy Camaro's if they do return. So far the F-body sales have slumped because it seems only the enthusiasts are buying new ones. That's why the average age is 46. (thanks, RiceEating5.0) The problem is like some people pointed out insurance is high and maybe the hiatus will calm that down a bit. Who knows, but if a V6 Mustang is more to insure than a Mustang GT than anythings possible right.
A new Camaro will need to keep the enthusiasts interest as well as get some sales from Ford/Mustang converts and attack the rice scene. Chevy has to market the car in ways thay gets them on rental fleets and in the hands of female drivers and young drivers whom can't afford a V8 model. How about a turbo 4-banger EcoTech base model Camaro to appeal to the ricers?? Then a traditional V6 or inline 6 like from the TrailBalzer? Interesting isn't it.
One more point,
guionM, I just wanted to point out that yes the new Mustang GT is fast and powerful it's most certanly not faster than all V8 Camaro's before the LS1. 0-60 times are nice 5.8 or 5.4 secs but the 1/4 mile is much more than a 0-60 test. My car is said to hit 60 mph in like 5.3 sec. Ha! Even with my unmodded stock time in sig. I got to 60 in less than 5 sec. Being a avid drag racer, with many many days at the track over the last few years. I can tell you from personal experience that new 260 hp Mustang GT's from 99-03 are nice running anywhare from 13.8-14.5 at 98-101 mph in stock trim. They run a lot like stock LT1 F-body's and in many cases are a tick slower. My 97 was a dog and it ran 14.0 @ 100 in stock trim. Many friend wer ein the 13.7's to 13.9's with 6-speeds. That being said I've seen plenty of 1st gen Camaro's put down similar numbers in restored condition. I think the new GT is potent but most certainly not faster than ALL V8 Camaro's made from 1967-1997! Because If I've seen it happen otherwise a few times its happening a lot! That was quite a blanket statement!
10-24-2002, 10:53 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Just reading 'til now...
I have been reading this thread for a couple days now, and didn't really want to pipe in beacuse most of my thoughts have already been covered.
However, I recalled an editorial that I read about this same issue (BRAND LOYALTY) a while back (@ 1 year ago now). Well, I found it. I thought that since this guy is a car-mag editor, he would have some level of credibility in this issue... read for yourselves.
You are LINKED.
Please note, the views related in this article DO NOT necessarily represent the views of the author of this post!!! (But they are d@mn close.) I have a few issues with regard to cornering ability and how chassis stiffness (lack thereof) causes rattles, but aside from the little quirks... this guys story is getting more and more popular. I hear ones like this all the time, just not always from mag-editors/journalists.
Peace.
PS - if this don't get a response out of WERM, I don't know what will!!
(youdaman WERM!)
However, I recalled an editorial that I read about this same issue (BRAND LOYALTY) a while back (@ 1 year ago now). Well, I found it. I thought that since this guy is a car-mag editor, he would have some level of credibility in this issue... read for yourselves.
You are LINKED.
Please note, the views related in this article DO NOT necessarily represent the views of the author of this post!!! (But they are d@mn close.) I have a few issues with regard to cornering ability and how chassis stiffness (lack thereof) causes rattles, but aside from the little quirks... this guys story is getting more and more popular. I hear ones like this all the time, just not always from mag-editors/journalists.
Peace.
PS - if this don't get a response out of WERM, I don't know what will!!
(youdaman WERM!)
10-24-2002, 11:53 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,123
Originally posted by jg95z28
I stopped reading after I read the part where the author confesses to being "a Chrysler man".
He's obviously insane and should be kept away from small children and farm animals.
I stopped reading after I read the part where the author confesses to being "a Chrysler man".
He's obviously insane and should be kept away from small children and farm animals.
10-24-2002, 12:02 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
I don't know, the guy makes some of the same old arguments that just aren't logical to me...the 4.6 is technologically advanced compared to the "50's pushrod LS1"...yawn. More horsepower and better fuel economy is a real bi*ch I know. I liked the part where he said "slap a supercharger on the 4.6 and you'll be ahead of F-bodies" or whatever..haha that certainly sounds familiar around here doesn't it. Oh well, I hope he enjoys his Mustang....
Oh well, I hope he enjoys his Mustang....
10-24-2002, 12:21 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Thanks...
Guys, thanks for not associating ME with this guy's POV, just because I posted it. I agree with you guys on issues like more HP with better MPG, etc. Like I pointed out, I have questions with cornering abilities... and so on.
My point in posting this was not no "expose facts", but to "demonstrate buyers' thinking". If this guy is an automotive journalist who makes his living driving and writing about cars - and he went for a Muskrat - just IMAGINE what the average uneducated buyer is gonna do. He does cover issues like the lack of marketing for f-cars in his column too, as has been discussed in this forum many times. Remember - the column is a year old too.
It was just a kindof "DEMO" for the mindset that GM is carving into the heads of young buyers and how they are disappointing lots of older mature buyers (avg buying age of camaro 46 - hint-hint
)
My .02 --> LOYALTY - It is easier to keep it, than to lose it and have to earn it back.
My point in posting this was not no "expose facts", but to "demonstrate buyers' thinking". If this guy is an automotive journalist who makes his living driving and writing about cars - and he went for a Muskrat - just IMAGINE what the average uneducated buyer is gonna do. He does cover issues like the lack of marketing for f-cars in his column too, as has been discussed in this forum many times. Remember - the column is a year old too.
It was just a kindof "DEMO" for the mindset that GM is carving into the heads of young buyers and how they are disappointing lots of older mature buyers (avg buying age of camaro 46 - hint-hint
)My .02 --> LOYALTY - It is easier to keep it, than to lose it and have to earn it back.
10-24-2002, 12:31 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,123
Hey ProudPony this is not a flame in anyway. I'm just curious for an explanation. But did you really consider buying a Camaro with a sig like this?
"19 Mustangs, 2 Explorers, 2 Broncos, '75 F-150 460, 96 SuperDuty Powerstroke."
And you’re a Chrysler man? I’m confused…..
"19 Mustangs, 2 Explorers, 2 Broncos, '75 F-150 460, 96 SuperDuty Powerstroke."
And you’re a Chrysler man? I’m confused…..
10-24-2002, 12:57 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
No the guy who wrote the article is the "Chrysler Man". However, that does bring up a good point. ProudPony you're obviously a blue oval loyalist, so what are you doing on website dedicated to F-bodies?
Not intended as bash because you do have some valid points.
However, to your last point, the author of the article cannot be looked upon as "the norm" when it comes to ethusiast buying habits. He confesses to being a Chrysler man. Right there you have to discount his opinions because he is not a "Camaro enthusiast".
I seriously doubt a "true" Camaro man would ever consider a Mustang. While I'm sure there are former Camaro owners who now drive Mustangs; however, I question whether they were true Camaro purists in the first place.
I myself wouldn't even buy a Firebird/Trans Am. Why some may ask, when for the last two generations they have been essentially the same car, and when there has been a performance difference the Pontiac has usually come out on top?
Simple... its not a Camaro.
Not intended as bash because you do have some valid points.
However, to your last point, the author of the article cannot be looked upon as "the norm" when it comes to ethusiast buying habits. He confesses to being a Chrysler man. Right there you have to discount his opinions because he is not a "Camaro enthusiast".
I seriously doubt a "true" Camaro man would ever consider a Mustang. While I'm sure there are former Camaro owners who now drive Mustangs; however, I question whether they were true Camaro purists in the first place.
I myself wouldn't even buy a Firebird/Trans Am. Why some may ask, when for the last two generations they have been essentially the same car, and when there has been a performance difference the Pontiac has usually come out on top?
Simple... its not a Camaro.
10-24-2002, 02:15 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by jg95z28
I seriously doubt a "true" Camaro man would ever consider a Mustang. While I'm sure there are former Camaro owners who now drive Mustangs; however, I question whether they were true Camaro purists in the first place.
I seriously doubt a "true" Camaro man would ever consider a Mustang. While I'm sure there are former Camaro owners who now drive Mustangs; however, I question whether they were true Camaro purists in the first place.
The way i see it. If it's american, has a v8, has atleast a decent look if not good one, and offers a good bang for your buck, it's on my consideration list. That doesn't make me any less of a "true" stang enthusiast then joe shmoe next door with 3 stangs lined up in his garage. Say i would have bought the f-bod, I can still look through a mag or see what others have done with their mustangs and truely appreciate it as well as any other stanger. An enthusiast doesn't have to be a purist.
You're admitting that the only thing dictating your future purchases is that little emblem on the sides regardless of how good/better the competitors product is. Your case is a bit on the extreme side when it comes to brand loyalty. The majority of people may have preferences but it doesn't go to that extent. I'm sure that most of the guys here have or would have considered a mustang but for some reason or another found the f-bod more to their liking and vice versa. Those reasons being based on either performance, looks, build quality, livability, $$$$, etc...
If the next stang is that good/fast, we'll see the number of guys here that jump ship
. I've already seen a guy that has owned close to half a dozen corvettes buy a 2003 Cobra.
10-24-2002, 04:23 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by 99SilverSS
One more point,
guionM, I just wanted to point out that yes the new Mustang GT is fast and powerful it's most certanly not faster than all V8 Camaro's before the LS1. 0-60 times are nice 5.8 or 5.4 secs but the 1/4 mile is much more than a 0-60 test. My car is said to hit 60 mph in like 5.3 sec. Ha! Even with my unmodded stock time in sig. I got to 60 in less than 5 sec. Being a avid drag racer, with many many days at the track over the last few years. I can tell you from personal experience that new 260 hp Mustang GT's from 99-03 are nice running anywhare from 13.8-14.5 at 98-101 mph in stock trim. They run a lot like stock LT1 F-body's and in many cases are a tick slower. My 97 was a dog and it ran 14.0 @ 100 in stock trim. Many friend wer ein the 13.7's to 13.9's with 6-speeds. That being said I've seen plenty of 1st gen Camaro's put down similar numbers in restored condition. I think the new GT is potent but most certainly not faster than ALL V8 Camaro's made from 1967-1997! Because If I've seen it happen otherwise a few times its happening a lot! That was quite a blanket statement!
One more point,
guionM, I just wanted to point out that yes the new Mustang GT is fast and powerful it's most certanly not faster than all V8 Camaro's before the LS1. 0-60 times are nice 5.8 or 5.4 secs but the 1/4 mile is much more than a 0-60 test. My car is said to hit 60 mph in like 5.3 sec. Ha! Even with my unmodded stock time in sig. I got to 60 in less than 5 sec. Being a avid drag racer, with many many days at the track over the last few years. I can tell you from personal experience that new 260 hp Mustang GT's from 99-03 are nice running anywhare from 13.8-14.5 at 98-101 mph in stock trim. They run a lot like stock LT1 F-body's and in many cases are a tick slower. My 97 was a dog and it ran 14.0 @ 100 in stock trim. Many friend wer ein the 13.7's to 13.9's with 6-speeds. That being said I've seen plenty of 1st gen Camaro's put down similar numbers in restored condition. I think the new GT is potent but most certainly not faster than ALL V8 Camaro's made from 1967-1997! Because If I've seen it happen otherwise a few times its happening a lot! That was quite a blanket statement!
Although I said the current Mustang GT is faster than all but LS1Z28s, there is ONE previous Camaro that will outrun the modern GT in the 0-60 & the quarter...the ZL1 Camaro of 1969 (5.2 0-60 & 13.8@105 in the quarter). The SS396 Camaros were very quick off the line (even moreso than Z28s of the day) but by 60mph, the Z28 would match & in the quarter beat the 396 Camaro. By association, SS396 would beat a Mustang GT off the line (assuming the Mustang had a driver that simply didn't stand on the accelerator while taking off), but by 60 & the quarter, the race would be alot closer with the Mustang standing a better that fair chance of winning.
A restored Camaro isn't an original. Looking up old performance numbers from car mags of the time gives a more realistic idea, since many (likely most?) restored Camaros are likely to have some "upgrades" (modern parts quality compared with 30-35 year old technology, let alone some small non origional "tweaks").
BTW, if you think 14.0 seconds at 100 stock is a dog, you have an extremely warped sense of the definition "dog".
10-24-2002, 05:30 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
Re: Just reading 'til now...
Originally posted by ProudPony
However, I recalled an editorial that I read about this same issue (BRAND LOYALTY) a while back (@ 1 year ago now). Well, I found it. I thought that since this guy is a car-mag editor, he would have some level of credibility in this issue... read for yourselves.
You are LINKED.
Please note, the views related in this article DO NOT necessarily represent the views of the author of this post!!! (But they are d@mn close.) I have a few issues with regard to cornering ability and how chassis stiffness (lack thereof) causes rattles, but aside from the little quirks... this guys story is getting more and more popular. I hear ones like this all the time, just not always from mag-editors/journalists.
However, I recalled an editorial that I read about this same issue (BRAND LOYALTY) a while back (@ 1 year ago now). Well, I found it. I thought that since this guy is a car-mag editor, he would have some level of credibility in this issue... read for yourselves.
You are LINKED.
Please note, the views related in this article DO NOT necessarily represent the views of the author of this post!!! (But they are d@mn close.) I have a few issues with regard to cornering ability and how chassis stiffness (lack thereof) causes rattles, but aside from the little quirks... this guys story is getting more and more popular. I hear ones like this all the time, just not always from mag-editors/journalists.
That guy is lucky that he only see's 50 Mustangs on the way to work.On the otherhand, my Camaro was both the best and worst car I've ever owned.
In regards to Bigdarknfast's comments about people's glasses being half full and half empty - here's my view:
I had a glass. It was HALF FULL. Gm took my glass and insisted I accept a HALF EMPTY paper cup as a replacement.
10-24-2002, 07:13 PM
#45
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Re: Re: Just reading 'til now...
Originally posted by WERM
I agree with a lot of that article. For the most part, my Mustang is better built (no squeaks and rattles - okay, a couple, but only after I took the dash apart), gets better fuel economy around town, is smaller, lighter, easier to park and see out of (for the wife), easier to get out of in a tight space, and feels like a much nimbler handling car (though the ultimate limits of the F-body are higher). I gained all of this in a car that performed equal or better than my LT1 Camaro. Reliability thus far has been bullittproof That guy is lucky that he only see's 50 Mustangs on the way to work.
On the otherhand, my Camaro was both the best and worst car I've ever owned.
In regards to Bigdarknfast's comments about people's glasses being half full and half empty - here's my view:
I had a glass. It was HALF FULL. Gm took my glass and insisted I accept a HALF EMPTY paper cup as a replacement.
I agree with a lot of that article. For the most part, my Mustang is better built (no squeaks and rattles - okay, a couple, but only after I took the dash apart), gets better fuel economy around town, is smaller, lighter, easier to park and see out of (for the wife), easier to get out of in a tight space, and feels like a much nimbler handling car (though the ultimate limits of the F-body are higher). I gained all of this in a car that performed equal or better than my LT1 Camaro. Reliability thus far has been bullittproof
That guy is lucky that he only see's 50 Mustangs on the way to work.On the otherhand, my Camaro was both the best and worst car I've ever owned.
In regards to Bigdarknfast's comments about people's glasses being half full and half empty - here's my view:
I had a glass. It was HALF FULL. Gm took my glass and insisted I accept a HALF EMPTY paper cup as a replacement.
To put a fine point on it, Chevrolet gave me a better car than I ever expected. My glass is OVERFLOWING, and whether or not they ever produce another F-body, I'll be happy with the car I've got.
