As a big muscle car fan, you do know that Camaro was never a muscle car? It was a pony car, as was already mentioned in this thread.

 

What argument? The fact of the matter is that his case is not typical of average case. Doesn't take much to understand that. What is also very reasonable to conclude is that just because you do not know of any 18 year old buying their own f-body, does not mean this does /did not happen.

You know what's so interesting? The hippies in the 60's thought that USSR was the country of freedom. I can't help and draw the parallel to how you and this other guy feel that the 60's were the golden age.

 

The day you can make a business case for selling 90,000 - 100,000 Mustang Cobras is the day .... wait.... yeah, it'll be quite the day.

 

Solstice is definitely a great idea, IMO, but you are talking about its price prematurely, as you even allude to in the latter paragraph. Most likely it will cost a little more than orinigally announced, as it is hard to believe all such performance and that much car for 20K or close to it.

 

The Base price of a striped Z28 in 95 was a lot lower than the proposed price of the Solstice. Still in todays terms a sports car at $25k is a good deal. Any more than $25k is not a good idea.

As for selling 100k units. Look at the production numbers of the camaros in the 60s. Sadly the crappy slow was out sold the fast ones but it is doable to sell upwards of 100k GTOs if the price is decent. 18k sales of units is hardly anything to clap about. A move in the right direction but it needs to be planned to go a lot higher in production.

To Z28Wilson: please read the first posts to speak informatively on the subjects being discussed. If your too lazy Ill give you the cliff notes. The BM SS427 was guarented to run 11.5 sec at 120 mph in the 1/4 mi or your $ back. This car cost less than the salary of a O-1 at the time. The Berger, Tom Henry or ZL1 which is the comparble to the BM SS427 is way more than the salary of a O-1 now. The price ratio to muscle then was lower than now.

You think I dont know the Camaro is a ponycar? This was about the GTO the BM Camaro is being used as an example because of its unrefutable documentation on speed, power and price.

The 60s were the golden age of the Muscle car this is a fact. Today is the golden age of the SUV. Just as the 80s was the age of the station wagon and the 90s the minivan. The 70s BTW was the age of pure crap.

Did anyone read my post on the price ratios on salaries to muscle cars? Any big questions or am I not getting through?

 

1fastdog,

I'd be interested in your perspective of what it was like to have a new Z/28 at 18 in 1969.

What did you think of that car....then and now?

How was it percieved by others?

 

Ponykiller,

You've made some good points. I'd agree that cars are generally less affordable today. There are seroiusly a lot of factors to compare... thought this might be interesting. This is consumer price index from Dept of Labor...Prices were from Camaro by Dietzler (I think these are without options).

Base Camaro (1996 dollars)
1967 12,085 (3% inc over 69)
1969 11,700
1972 10,571 (10% dec from 69)
1977 10,649 (9% dec)
1982 13,051 (12% inc)
1987 14,368 (23% inc)
1996 15,000 (28% increase from '69)

Z28 (1996 dollars)
1967 13,768 (1% inc over 69)
1969 13,630
1972 12,075 (11% dec from 69)
1977 13,385 (2% dec)
1982 16,414 (20% inc)
1987 18,267 (34% inc)
1993 19,384 (42% inc)
1996 19,390 (42% increase over 69)
1998 19,698 (44% inc)

Now 44% is a big increase...but when you look at why, and what you get from the produce (performance, quality, amenities, safety) you can begin to see why there is a change.

-Government Regulations (EPA, unleaded gas, safety)
-Consumer Demands (amenities, standard equipment, build quality, durability)

The rules have changed, but cars were more affordable then, overall.

This isn't even taking into account other draws on our wallets like cable, internet, etc. that eat up our disposable income.

I'm happy this thread could be rescued from it's downward death spiral!

 

The Technology argument is a good one. There is only one flaw to the technology being the cause othe the rise in the price of all cars. If we applied the idea that improvments in technology build and performance go hand in hand with price then id be communicating with you over a $20000 computer. My PC though nothing to be proud of is light years ahead of my first 8088. My Trinitron monitor is like science fiction compaired to the RGB monitors I used to think were the cats meow.

My theory on why cars are much more expensive now involves finacing. The ability for an avarage person to finance more money now is a factor. Automotive companies are charging more because people are willing to pay longer and longer at a attainable monthly charge. This has artifically inflated the value of the MSRP of all new cars.

I do think that all of this is a major problem. Look at how the Automotive industry had to give financing breaks to cunsumers when the economy was not looking good after 9/11. 0% intrest? How can they make money at 0%? They obviously are charging way more than then the cost to produce. The cost of production has gone way down considering what it was in 1968. With the rise of the Japanisestyle of machine and automated production we should have seen a decrese in MSRP of cars. Instead of a decrese in price due to cheaper production costs we have seen steady increase in price.

It would be very interesting to see a car manufacture make and sell cars like most computer manufactures.

 

That's absolutely hilarious. So you're making the assumption that O-1 salaries have been rising PERFECTLY with inflation over the past 40 years? It hasn't. Your base assumption here is false. Why don't you go use the consumer price index index instead, then create an argument?

 

The price index is posted above.

 

I just got a laugh.

Ponykillr, you made reference to an O-1's salary.
First of all, a 2nd LT is the bottom rung of the officer corp.
Second, no one stays a butter bar for long (hopefully)
Plus you seem to either forget or not know that a military members base salary is set up as they live on base with free room and board. Yep, there is something call BAH (basic allowance for housing) Here is the allowance for around where I live
RANK: O-1
ZIP CODE: 98444
MHA: WA311 - TACOMA, WA
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE:
WITH DEPENDENTS: $ 965
WITHOUT DEPENDENTS: $ 731

OK so a SINGLE O-1 gets an extra $731 to pay for an apartment, house, whatever. Oh, that's tax free, on top of their wages. Then there is BAS (food allowance) and any specialty pay (flight pay, hazardous duty, whatever) they might get.


Besides, I've never noticed that the military's pay scale being average for the country. $26K a year makes you right around poverty level in most places.

 

Why is this still going on, Ponykillr is the same guy who said this earlier in the thread.

 

It doesn't work that way.

At 0% companies are not making money. It's hedging your losses. Shut down a production line AND THE LABOR SITS AT HOME AND GETS PAID. Shut down production and suppliers of parts and subsystems go under, when the economy turns around you are holding the bag looking for new suppliers. The big incentives and low interest rates are calculated to keep from losing more money by being idle and hopefully spend your competitiors out of development cash as they either compete or lose market share.

Had GM not gone the incentive route the economy would have been in serious shape, IMHO.

You are neglecting to realize how much differently cars are equipped and the durability parameters for vehicles is much higher than the past. Marketing costs are much higher than the past, employee salaries are much higher than the past. Safety requirements are way higher than the past and it take more than a carb and distributer to meet CAFE and emissions. Disc brakes all around was a hard to find option on muscle cars, for that matter decent brakes were hard to come by on muscle cars. People won't tolerate and the government won't put up with cars that require tuning every 8k miles. Pensions and health care are priced into every car. Don't forget to include money to defend lawsuits... yes it is a very different society than the '60's and some folks will sue over anything...

You computer analogy is interesting at face value but, appliances are not equivalent to automobiles, by and large. Check where they are generally made and look at the labor costs... let's not discuss what the timeframes for the technology being obsolete in computers are.

Let's consider televisions, as there's an appliance we are all familiar with. See many repair shops for TV's anymore? Not like it used to be when there was financial sense in getting one fixed, now they get tossed. Still, try putting together a home theater system with a 42 inch Plasma widescreen and some surround sound goodies... the "hotrod" kind of components, not the all in a box special from best buy... "better" is almost always expensive in context of the times.

 

I liked the car a great deal. Marina blue with white stripes and white interior, cowl hood.

With headers 7000 rpms was dandy and 7500 was there is you needed it. It wasn't my first car, but it was one I wanted a lot at the time. I was more into a car's handling and performance and the Z/28 was pretty good for the time. The 302 is a wonderful smallblock. You did have to keep after the valve lashing as it was a solid lifter car.

Z/28's had a mystique among car guys back then if street racing was in your blood there was always someone wanting to race against a Z/28... There were a few on the road so it wasn't a big deal to see another one on the street.

The last Z28 I owned was a 1995. It was a lightyears ahead better car. Not a lightyears better experience. The '69 was more raw and in your face. My last Z/28 was a much better driver's car.

I like the Z06 I have now. Kind of a cake and eat it too deal.

 

Again, PLEASE go back and read the ad you posted. It is proof of nothing other than distorted marketing speak. There is no mention of quarter mile times. "120 MPH in 11.5 seconds" tells me almost nothing. It can be interpreted in many different ways. Why in this "guarantee" did they not include the words "in the quarter mile"? Find me something that states this guaranteed time and trap speed in the quarter mile and you've proven yourself correct. The equally powerful (remember the gross vs. net HP thing), lighter, and more aerodynamic 2003 Corvette Z06 with better tires and suspension doesn't run 11.5's. Think about it.