Nailed it!

 

I'm thinking that you guys may be reading alittle too much in the questions....

 

Well there was the SHOgun... just say'n

 

I think the reason some of the other badges mean more is that they were more than mere badges and looks.
And I see GM improving on this all the time, BUT, there's more to do..
Stuff like :
1) Substantially more power
2) Performance wheel/tire combo
3) Performance Tuned Suspension
4) manual or manumatic trans,
5) Exhaust appearance and sound!!!
6)appearance: Race style bucket seats, gauges, pedals, steering wheel, floor mats, spoiler, body molding etc, etc,..
That's a change for the better!

 

This here is a great point. The purpose of the SS sub-brand is to sell lots of cars across a crossectional swath of the product portfolio.

If you focus a performance product too narrowly, you'll get afew thousand rabid enthusiasts who'll move heaven and earth to get one, but few others will buy.

If you don't focus it enough or focus it less, the hardcore enthusiast will reject it like a red headed step child, but those simply looking for a performance "image" will buy it in much larger numbers.

 

There is both an art and science to poll questions. It's pretty well known that the way a question is worded often determines the response.

 

Well, I haven't voted, and the reasons given above are exactly why. Because of the additional context you added, none of them fit me.

 

Not really...

"Does Chevy need to rethink it's SS sub-brand?"
That is an unbiased question.

Choice 1: "No way, everyone thinks it's awesome."
Totally biased. It is sarcastic and suggests that a person selecting this choice is a knuckle-dragging buffoon. (It is the choice I selected btw.)

A less biased option may have been, "No. It is still a viable known brand with historical significance."

Choice 2: "Time for a more relevant performance marketing strategy."
Logical choice although slightly biased because of the term "more relevant". A less biased term like "new" could have been inserted.

I would've been curious to see the results if less biased choices had been used. However now that would be irrelevant because the poll has already been polluted.

 

VW stuck a 12 cylinder with 650hp into a Golf. An Aveo with 290hp (GMPP Stage 1 kit of course) by comparison should be easy.

 

Okay, but they didn't sell it, and I'm guessing they didn't relocate the engine.

 

Okay, got it Jeff. Although I still think an interesting discussion on this topic is still possible.

 

Yes, they did relocate the engine to what would have been the backseat and hatch area.

 

Trunk opening isn't anywhere in the ballpark as the issue about not having a back seat.

Getting into a 5th gen and a Corvette simply is not the same. Trust me. The Chevy dealer at Serramonte had both in the showroom not to long ago. I sat in them both.

As far as the back seat b eing useless, admittedly the Mustang's is better. But it's still usable. I actually have people riding with me (in the back seat) pretty regularly. Plus, even though my daughter is now 6 and doesn't need a car seat, she rides in the back because it's the safest.

Corvette is nice and all, but even if I was single, unless the Vette was my 2nd car there's no way on earth I'd pass up a Camaro for one.

Camaros (and Mustangs) aren't perfect. But there is no question whatsoever about both being more practical and a far better all purpose performance vehicle that can be useful everyday.

Just went back and looked at the questions myself.

I'm sure you didn't intend it to sound slanted, but the guys do have a point.

Good points.

Another issue that I remember John Coletti once mentioning was that SVT was focused on not just creating new vehicles, but also making those same vehicles hold their value better and therefore creating additional intrest for potential new SVT buyers in the future. A older or used Lightning or Cobra that held their value well above what traditional models held instantly made future SVTs more in demand.

He also explained that they did that by putting together actual real hardware on a vehicle to reach a standard of performance of SVT (he once made it a point to compare it to the paint and stripes of a competitor ) keeping production much lower than demand, and sell it at a price where people could afford it while at the same time SVT could make a few dollars on it without resorting to borderline overcharging.

I don't see the "SS" name ever doing that. The GM Performance Division operated under a whole different program. GM management approved a car, and it went to GMPD for development. The same GMPD that made the Nurbringing scorching CTSv made the relatively ho-hum Impala SS and the Lacross Super that was barely more than a paint & trim package.

Ford felt cars like the Mach1 & Bullitt Mustangs, Mercury Marauder, and the Taurus SHOs were beneath what SVT should be doing, and handled them through regular development channels through Ford Performance.

GM needs to bring back GMPD, and base it on SVT instead of looking at it as simply part of a normal development like Ford's Performance.

 

I remember Coletti made a comment once on consumers in the performance segment. I can't remember his exact quote, but essentially he said that in the performance segment, only 20-30% of the buyers actually wanted the performance, (ie., to live with and pay for it), the rest were only looking for the image of performance. I found that interesting. Of course, you'd want all 100% of those people to spend money on your products. SVT's in general were made in limited numbers, and the enthusiasts ,(that is those people who DID want the performance), spent the money to buy them.

And as you said, this is the different approach which SS has taken in comparison. Sure, some serious SS's have hit the street, Cobalt SS and HHR SS being two of them - but generally Chevy has aimed the SS cars and trucks at the 70-80% who are simply looking for the "image " of performance. Easy to buy, easy to own, alittle performance, alittle sizzle - and more volume.

But if Chevy wants to continue to use the SS sub-brand to move higher volumes, it also needs an SVT equivalent which focuses on and caters to the real hardcore enthusiasts. On cars like the Camaro for example, that's easy. SS stands for mainstream, higher volume performance. Z/28 stands for more focused, limited volume performance.

The rest of the line-up is tougher. SVT, Fiesta, Focus and Fusion are on the way. All three will be relatively pricey, limited production, and very focused. What marketing tool can Chevy use to compete with them?

 

SVT Fusion