I agree. People arent taking inflation into acount. For example, the average sticker price of a loaded 2002 Z28 was probably around $26,500 on dealer lots across the nation. I dont have my window sticker with me, but my '95 Z28 stickered for $21,500 optioned with everything but leather.

These days the Civic Si stickers at 20k. The RSX is at $24,000. If you guys really think a car liek the GTO would reasonalby sticker around $25,000 are fooling yourselves. The only cars that are rwd performance coupes in this mid 20s price range are teh 350Z and the Mustang. The 350Z starts at around $26k but once you start adding options it tops out in the mind 30s. The Mustang on the other hand just doesnt compare to the GTO at all besides the fact that theyre both RWD and V8. The GTO is much more refined.

A car like the GTO with a mid $30k sticker price is totally justified in my opinion.

 

ProudPony--My only point in that retort was that an available $33,000 Camaro didn't pose any more problems than a $38,000 or $35,000 or whatever-priced Mustang. Our friend WERM seemed to have forgotten that the Cobra is quite an expensive piece as well.

 

No I didn't.

For as long as I can remember, you could pick up a Camaro for close to the price of your average car. Right now, I think that is around $23-24K. Given that, I think a $24-28K Camaro is entirely reasonable, but a $30K+ Camaro is not. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed the value equation was out of whack. They did discontinue the car, after all (Yes, I know there were lots of reasons, but this was one of them, IMHO).

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 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. (literally!! )

 

To account for fluxuations in the inflation rates, lets assume that on average the inflation rate yearly was 4%. I think it was 3% two years ago. Not sure. Let's assume in 1993 when the 4th gen was introduced, that it cost $20000 fully loaded. Its base price that year was $17,000. Each year do the recursion and add in the 4% increase.

1993- $20,000
1994- $20,800
1995- $21,632
1996- $22,497
1997- $23,397
1998- $24,333
1999- $25,306
2000- $26,319
2001- $27,371
2002- $28,466

So getting a fulyl equipped 2002 Z28 through inflation should nearly cost $29,000! That's almost on target with the prices they were at the end of the run. If you add in a $3,000 SS option on the 1997-2002 cars, the cost of a fulyl equipped coupe SS would cost $31,500! That's almost the cost it was at the end of the run! The SS's that cost $35,000 were the convertibles. That is PRETTY MUCH correct. I think many of you guys need to consider inflation in your rants about prices. a $35,000 GTO is perfectly priced. In relative dollars, its only priced slightly more expensive than the 1993 Z28. A $40,000 Corvette coupe is too cheap too.

 

I some how feel that the car shouldnt go up in price due to inflation. Doesnt the proft margin get wider with each year of production. While adjusting for inflation is all fine and dandy The average salary has not adjusted its self at that same 4% rate. So, the Camaro went from a very affordable car to a within reach and a sacrafice to the average car buyer in the same amount of time. The price of cars is just plain silly.

 

Most all cars are produced at a loss the first year or 2 on the market (ground up new designs, more).

Also to take into consideration, a car like the Mustang was relatively cheap to produce when it was sharing parts with high volume cars like the Fairmont & LTD, or expensive cars like the old Mark VII, because things are cheaper in high volume or when costs can be passed off to an expensive model. Today, on a relative basis, it costs more to make that same Mustang because many parts are no longer in quanities of 700,000+. This also means that the fewer numbers of a vehicle line produced, the more expensive it tends to get to produce it.


Another thing to consider: If a new vehicle's price stay's flat or decreases in price each year it's made, the resale value of that car will tank badly.

 

Just a side note that came to mind. If we are projecting the 5th gen to price out around $30 grand how is it going to compete with the Mustang? Chevy has always stayed competitive with Ford in this area of pricing, however with what I see here that doesn’t look so possible. The Camaro needs to continue to out perform the Mustang as well as beat its price if its going to succeed. Chevy cant plan that Fords '05 Stang will cost more just because its new. Look at the C5. It improved drastically from the C4 without jacking the price way up. I cant see the new Mustang doing the same thing. The Camaro should not push more than 30 grand. GM needs to figure a way to build this car without making it ridiculously too expensive for what it is and should be. An affordable mid level RWD V-8 fun sports car!

 

i wish they would do that.

 

I actually like that. It looks kinda interesting, a mix of old school, and new stuff. I htink that would be nice if they did that...

 

Take away the stripes, and I'd imagine that's what the SLP GTO or the '05 GTO would look like.

 

That looks really good. It gives the front end some other features to look at. They should have just done this to begin with and some of the negative criticisims wouldn't have been there.

 

Design looks good, but I would pass on the color scheme and decals. I doubt GM would want their top Pontiac/"BMW competitor" to give off that image.

 

I though we had near zero inlfation most of the 90s???

 

2-5%, depending on the year, or between $400 to $1000 initiated in the 1st year (1991), incrementally componded every year for 10 years.

IE: Say you start with a $20,000 car in 1993 (say, a Z28). With a 2% inflation rate, starting in 1994, you'll have a $400 increase the 1st year, and additional $408 increase the 2nd year, and additional $416.16 the 3rd year, and so forth.

In short, just 3 years of 2% inflation (an extremely low rate), a $20,000 car will cost $21,224. Over a 10 year period, that same car will easily cost over $33,000.

If that same car sells for a price lower than that (which represents the inflation rate), then the price of that car has DEFLATED, and has actually dropped in price.

Now you see why I say performance car prices have in real terms dropped the past decade, and we've been getting Z28s at firesale prices since the mid 90s.

This also clearly puts the GTO and base Cobra prices right in the relative price range where Z28s were just over a decade ago.

 

So a car continues to go up in price, even as it becomes cheaper and cheaper to make it? I have a hard time believing that in 10 years the materials for said car wouldn't have gotten cheaper, and production methods more effective.

Shouldn't that help keep the cost of a car down?