Honestly i really am. I have know that GM will have a world class car (or two) for enthusiasts like us coming out of Chevrolet around 2007 or 2008 and I have complete faith that one of them will be named the Camaro and it will be everything we have hoped and dreamed for the past couple years. But put this to the side for the moment.

Not to beat a dead horse anymore, but looking back at the hiatus, i still can not find a single ligitimate reason for killing our cars. From a business aspect I cant see any gains and I can only see losses in this decision. Unless the f-body was losing money in 2002, which i cant see considering that all the development costs were most likely paid off by then, then there is no reason for killing it what so ever. if it makes some money, it is better than none, plain and simple. Especially if they arent going to use the plant for anything else that would make more money, then i can understand but that is not the case. If someone can give me a reason why they stopped production like they did with no aparent plans of making a new one, i would very much appreciate it. And i dont want to hear low sales or anything like that because there was a reason for that: zero advertising, why? becaus.e they wanted to kill it, why? I wish I knew.

Now something else i just can not comprehend. And that is why it takes the General to take so long to make decisions. Honestly, I know they are a huge company. But guess what? Excluding their network brands, GMNA has one more automotive company than Ford. thats right one. and that is including Oldsombile. Yet somehow this seems to make the world of difference between Ford and GM. What i dont understand is how GM can argue about whether or not to build a car that got unbelieveably good reception from the public just to decide to make it. Case in point: the Solstice. They lost 2 years of potential customers doing that and some of the excitement that everyone had when it first showed up. I love the car, and wouldnt really mind driving it every day even though it is an I4 and I long for V8 power. But right now, a couple years after seeing it i just kinda of look at it as just another car because im somewhat used to it. and it still isnt out yet. Like Guy said in another thread, Ford has already put the GT on the streets all over the world. Now why cant GM do this? They are a big company, that means more people, which means more brain power, which should mean they should be able to do things more quickly and efficiently. I know GM's designers and engineers can make world class cars and we are seeing them left and right now a days but their bureaucratic system, i feel, is holding them down and they are robbing GM of potential sales. Quite frankly all products a company make are somewhat of a gamble. you can do all the product research you want, make a product that seems to be what everyone would want and it still be a failure (Aztek) and then you can have some that do amazingly well like the CTS and Colorado.

I have been a life long GM fanatic and since the third grade I have dreamed of being president of Chevrolet. But, man, sometimes it gets so frustrating at times listening to why GM cant do things when they are more than able to do them and also when i hear comments from GM like the depressing comment Jim Campbell just said. I would have rather had him not say anything than say we dont need a car that is a true competitor for the Mustang, and the car we all want because if people want a car like the Mustang GT a monte and a cobalt aint gonna cut it so theyll get the Mustang GT.

 

Good post and I think most of us share your feelings. I think the concensus is GM wanted to dump the plant where the f-bods were made. That plant had exclusive rights by contract to be the only place where the Camaro and Firebird could be made. It seems to me that terms of that contract are now no longer in force (plant is gone), so there must be a reason GM still does not utter the "C" word.

 

Feel better now that you've got that off your chest?

Sadly I have to agree with much of what you said.

Next May when it's time to replace our off lease Envoy will be the first time in our 25 year new car history, every one of them a GM, that GM will have nothing more than our GM card earnings working in their favour. Based on the vehicles we find interesting so far that will very probably not be enough.

 

Except for this statement .......I agree completely.

 

Well $hit, why should we have faith if the people in the know dont have it either....

 

My understanding is that the old 4th gen F-bodies not only did not meet 2003 model crash standards, there was no way they could have been modified to do so. As there was no replacement platform under development, the only choice was to put the Camaro on hiatus, or as in the case of the Firebird, kill it altogether.
GM is far larger than Ford. That said, GM has a much bigger bureaucratic chain of command that must be followed just to get something approved for development. The Mustang's saving grace is that Bill Ford absolutely loves the Mustang and everything about it. If the Camaro had someone at GM with Bill Ford's pull, it would get done. While there are Camaro enthusiasts at GM (like our beloved Red planet), they don't have the kind of juice Bill Ford has at Ford. Thus, they're just as frustrated as we are, and probably more so.
As much as I want a new Camaro, I have to admit the new Mustang is intriguing. On the way to work today I passed a car carrier with a bunch of new Fords loaded on its way to some local dealer. One of them was a Legend Lime 2005 Mustang GT. One quick glance was enough to get me to reconsider my next new car purchase options. While I adore the Cobalt SS, a FWD 4-banger, just won't cut it. Monte Carlo doesn't fit me either; and I can't afford the only two cars in Chevrolet's stable I do want, the SSR and the C6 Corvette. No unless there's some new information out of GM in the next six to twelve months, I may be jumping ship.

 

From what I was told from people in the know, so to speak, was the decision to kill the F-Body was made way back in '95. Contracts and crash safety were also a consideration.

GM in their infinite wisdom thought the sport coupe was a dying breed and the focus was going to be trucks and SUV's. Many coupes had already died or close to it when the decision was made. Supra, 300Z, RX7 to name a few. Even the 'Vette was almost pulled back then.

Anyway, they are caught with their pants down and are playing catch up.

 

0toinsanein5.4sec, believe it or not, there were a whole mess of reasons the F-body died. It's actually a minor miracle it continued as long as it did, and a credit to the people behind the scenes that it did.

As for why the hiatus, quite simply, it was a matter of finding the right chassis for another F-body. GM actually DID try to find alternatives.

I'm not going to beat this dead horse again, but from a business standpoint, just knowing the things I know (let alone the things that people like Fbodfather and some of the other folks who actually worked for Camaro know), there was no other way things could have ended up without someone doing something irresposible, or creating a Camaro that would be marketedly more expensive than the 4th gen.

jg95z28 touched on the "whys" regarding GM. GM is a huge company that relys on volume to make profits. Ford & Chrysler are far smaller companies, that have fewer people and traditionally can afford to do things differently.

GM traditionally has followed the leader. Corvette followed Thunderbird, Camaro followed Mustang. The GTO Judge was a reaction to the success of the Plymouth Roadrunner. GM 1st came up with the concept of a minivan in the late 70s, but rejected it till Chrysler took the idea and ran with it. Outside of Fiero & the downsized big cars of the 70s, there aren't many examples of GM blazing a trail.

But again, GM hasn't had the brushes with bankruptcy as frequently as Ford & Chrysler has, so it's a trade off.

 

Huh, The vette appeared in '53, the thunderbird in (I think) '55. How do you figure the 'Vette was the follower, I always thought it was the other way around?

otherswise, I humbly agree with you.

 

Corvette came out 1st as a limited edition car with a pretty weak 6 cylinder, and was destined to be killed after a 2 year or so run.

The Thunderbird came out with big V8s, superchargers, and much more pizzaz inside & out. As a result, T-Bird simply overwhelmed Corvette in sales.

I should have been more specific about what I meant about Corvette following Thunderbird.

 

Yeah...if it wasnt for the Tbirds success, the Corvette would have been canned in 55. Thank god for the SBC.

 

I would add to the list the 1964 GTO-first muscle car, the Corvair- very unusual for an American manufacturer to build a rear engine car and maybe even the Grand National-production car with what could be considered a race engine. I would also include the ev1-electric car with aluminum chassis.

 

Am I the only one that sees the 1961 Impala SS 409 as the first muscle car?

 

That is considered the first muscle car.

 

We need a sticky...

TS