skorpion317

It's 1996. The decision to kill off the F-bodies is being debated. Instead of sales declining in the following years, however, they increase, becoming equal to or slightly less than the Mustang. This trend continues after the 1998 refresh, and discussions on the 5th generation model are taking place. Sales are still keeping pace with the Mustang, reinforcing the decision to go ahead with a 5th generation model after the 2002 model year.

Had this scenario played out, what do you think we would have ended up with in 2003-2004? Keep in mind, the 4th gen F-body would've had to be modified to comply with new crash test regulations in the years after 2002.

Truth be told, I think we would've ended up in more or less the same place as we are today.

I think GM may have decided to use a restyled, lower content V-body (the Monaro/GTO's platform), which would eventually get replaced by Zeta in the 6th generation. We would've basically gotten a "missing link" between the F-body and Zeta. I also think that the arguments that we had here over the 5th gen's weight would've been less heated.

Sixer-Bird

Seems like a logical assesment, but I think sigma would have been a possibility too.

flowmotion

I think if they had been selling well, they would have been replaced long before 2002. Even if was just on a rehashed F-body.

The V-body is an interesting road not taken. If GM had used this for North American production, we would have had a nice range of RWD vehicles throughout the 1990s. Instead we got an awkward rehash of the dinosaur B-bodies that sold poorly.

formula79

GM basically starved the 4th gen away. They decided they wanted the plant closed..so they stopped marketing and spending money on the car..so sales would drop and they could jusify killing it. Would not have mattered if it sold well because the GM of those times would have just spent the money on new SUV's rather than replacing the F-body.

Z28x

4th gen did sell well. Even in its 10th year on the market it sold 42,098 Camaros and 30,690 Firebirds.

That is 72,788 cars!!! How can anyone say it didn't sell well when it is pulling those kind of sales number in its 10th year

It is too bad they didn't give us a 2003 Sigma Camaro instead of making low volume performance vehicles like the SSR and Solstice.

Darth Xed

We basically lost an entire generation of the car... 2003-2009.



But, I agree, with the retro trend, I think we would have ended up in a similar spot today.

CLEAN

F5 in 2003, and in typical fbody fashion, F6 in about 2015.

notgetleft

Are you using the inflated 2002 sales numbers from the extended run for that? IIRC, 2001 sales were almost half of 2002, 2000 not much better.

Z28x

ok, then lets look add the shorter 2001 model year and take the average

29,000 + 42,000/2 = 35,500 just for the Camaro.

Firebird was 31,800 in 2000 and 21,000 in 2001

El Duce

We would have gotten an LS1 powered car that would have been even more plain looking. GM was never ahead of the curve when it came to innovative designs during the 90s. They simply followed the pack. At that time, it was Chrysler who was producing the retro look. The PT Cruiser had already hit the market in 2000, with the 300 only a few years behind. GM always did well with their engines, but was hardly groundbreaking in the design department.

guionM

You're kidding, right?

In 2002, during a 15 month model year, yes, there were 42,000 Camaros and 30,700 Firebirds sold....

.... but there were 142,404 Ford Mustangs sold.... with 3 less production months!

Mustang outsold BOTH cars combined by over 2 to 1, Camaro by over 3 to 1, and Firebird by nearly 5 to 1.


In 2002, 24,805 Camaros had LS1 engines. 20,769 Firebirds had LS1s.

Yet, that same year, GM sold 35,767 Corvettes, soundly trouncing both.

More perspective?

Ford sold 52,738 Mustang GTs alone that year.

Add in another 9652 Mach1s, and there were 62,398 V8 powered Mustangs sold in 2002.



Again... the F-bodies had a 14 month run (May 2001 to August 28th, 2002) to Mustang's July to June run.

If you want to claim that is a fair match, then that mean's 2001's numbers are a fair match:

Mustang sold 218,525 cars.
Camaro sold 29,009.



Demographics?

Overall 52% of Mustang buyers are male, so 74,050 Mustangs were sold to men.

Overall, about 58% of Camaro buyers are men, so 24,416 Camaros went to men.



70% of Z28/SS buyers are men......... that is 24,805 male V8 Camaro buyers.

61% of Mustang GT buyers are men (32,170) and roughly 90% of Mach 1 buyers were men (8,687)...giving 40,857 V8 Mustangs to men.


There were 83,443 V6 Mustangs made in 2002. 44% went to men (36,715) far more than bought Camaro V8s.


In 1994, both the Camaro and Mustang sold at near parity. Mustang sold 123,198 versus Camaro's 119,934. After that year, Mustang pulled away while Camaro sank.

In 1998 (Camaro's restyling and addition of the LS1) Camaro sales plunged from 95K to 77K (roughly a 20% drop).... Mustang's rose from 100K to 171K (a solid 71% jump).

Bottom line is that not only did 4th gen Camaro sales suck after 1994, they were utterly in the toilet after the 1998 model year, trounced even by Chevrolet's own low production Corvette in V8 sales.



For Calendar Year sales, in 2001 (last full year of production) there were 35,453 Camaros sold.

Same year, Chevrolet sold 72,569 Monte Carlos.

If nothing else puts into perspective how poorly the Camaro was selling, that alone should.

OutsiderIROC-Z

Pretty much...