guionM

So what's worse? Paying people to buy your cars at 0% intrest & other goodies (costing roughly 3 grand per car) or sending a percentage to a rental company you own for a year, collecting roughly $900 per month in rental fees, and then selling them at or marginally below market rates?

Seems that Ford still is making bank on Mustang any way you cut it.

DaxsZ28

I didn't know Ford owns Hertz, I thought Penske did?



Edit:

from hertz.com website

Doug Harden

.....also points to the fact that Ford has very few two door coupes and GM has (had?!) many other choices.....I still for the life of me can't understand why 2 doors are becoming dinosaurs?!?

Personally, with Lutz's love of niche vehicles, I don't see the Camaro becoming a volume car........or needing to be either........the world of automobiles is changing rapidly and by 2007 will look much different than even today.......I don't think a particular car model can or needs to be everything to everyone....i.e. V6, V8, 2 door, 4 door, etc......

A car like the Camaro needs a focus and I believe will be much more like the 350Z....as in two engine choices and two - three trim / performance levels.....allow the Monte Carlo SS / Grand Prix GTP to be the sports sedans and allow the Camaro / Z/28 / SS to be the performance car for the masses.....

IZ28

What you just described was the 4th Gen.

Johnny Hunkins

I agree with Doug. The days of the high-volume specialty car as we used to know it are gone. We'll have to revise our definition of high-volume!

Scott is very emotionally tied to the Camaro. He also regularly had to justify the Camaro's relative sales deficit to indifferent superiors. I completely understand the need for a such rationalization, but Mustang is on top--both in sales and performance.

The underlying difference is Ford's commitment to the Mustang versus GM's commitment to the F-body. You'll remember that when the Mustang was going to be killed in 1990 and replaced with what became the Probe, a letter-writing campaign by Mustang owners stopped the whole thing. Not to be blunt, but the recent outpouring of emotion shown by F-body enthusiasts was far greater, yet it fell on deaf ears.

Ford does a very good job of making a business case for Mustang. They're proud of it and you see it marketed everywhere. GM, by contrast, was ambivalent--even embarrassed--by the F-body. This continues to be the case. As Mark Reuss said in our recent interview concerning the return of Camaro, "We are just not studying it, and we're not working on it."

Doug Harden

.....the performance model 4th gens were profitable, even at low volumes.....even while based on a design that initially required high volumes.......

IZ28

But it wasn't good enough. It isn't the idea of what a Camaro should be.

Mervz

Yes, i agree

Yes Scott is very tied to the car, although i must dissagree with the idea of "indiferent superiors". Many of the people that Scott works with are very much pro Camaro. His boss in particular is an awesome guy who helps Scott in many ways. There is only one person to blame here, and it is Ron Zarrella.

No, it didn't fall on deaf ears. By the time anyone made a stink the end was long decided. And, because of more reasons that you know, GM couldn't just turn around and decide to make a new car for the next model year. Changes in Federal Standards is what killed the 4th gen, and poor planning by Ron Zarrella back in the LATE 98 is what is keeping another car from taking its place. Other factors including labor contracts and the fact that GM wanted out of St Therese (because of its low quality and underuntilization) complicated a return for 04. A stupid comment like that is what stirs the pot.

The Mustang to Ford is what the Corvette is to Chevrolet, EXCEPT that Chevrolet had another sports car too, the Camaro. Simply put, the amount of advertising revenue cannot be compared because Ford has fewer models to advertise. Anyone who was going to buy a Camaro Z28 or SS ALREADY knew what that car was, and therefore advertising monies were not necessary. It would have been a waste of money.

Sorry to be frank, but he's lying to you. Simple as that.

MunchE

That's the great support a GM fan gets? Lies from people inside assuring us that the Camaro is not in the works at all?

What good is that? We get a bunch of "keep the faith, things are gonna be ok!" msgs, and a bunch of "well, there's no Camaro program, and no real work done on the Camaro. The Camaro isn't going to be back for certain." msgs out the other.

If they want us to keep faith in GM so bad, why do they try so hard to convince us that there are no plans for a Camaro.

If this is supposed to be GM's version of a surprise party, then they're going to be in for a rude awakening when people just go somewhere else to have fun instead.

Johnny Hunkins

Mark Reuss goes on record and lies in a national publication, but somehow you know the truth?

If Reuss is lying, I can live with that because we only reported what he said. You, on the other hand, are way out on a skinny limb. Feel free to divulge proof of a Camaro in active development for production, but I'm not really expecting any, especially out of New Hampshire. Nobody enjoys speculating about new Camaros more than me, but until I get proof, I've got to stick to the existing facts.

I used the term "indifferent" to describe Scott's superiors. That would imply they didn't care. In fact, they cared very much--they couldn't get rid of Camaro fast enough. The Camaro team was attached to the Corvette team and the Corvette bosses considered Camaro a drain on Corvette resources. That is a verifiable fact.

Mervz

Reuss and GM are bound by a CAU contract and cannot talk about the future of the Camaro. Please read Doug's comments here
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=55850

You have no reason to report anything else other than what he said. I also don't expect anything else, becuase your just not doing the digging. Your taking the legal speech thats being fed to you and chowing down. The evidence is not only right in your face in this forum, but anyone who has the slightest understanding of the automobile industry can understand it. Look deeper, not on the surface. The little comments by Lutz, then a retraction. Reuss even admited at one point there was camaro work going on, but then he retracted. How can they NOT be studying it, but he once admited they were working on it? C'mon Johnny, your a better journalist than that! And NJ is alot closer to Detroit too...

And yes, i may be from New Hampshire, but as you should know, its not where you are, but who you know. And the people i know entrust me with more information that i can post on this forum. I made friends, not media contacts. Not with people who will just feed me the latest lawyer approved offical comment.

You report ON GM- I work WITH GM.

Also do tell, why, if Camaro was profitable, then why would Corvette care? Because, the facts remain, Camaro was a profitable car. Even at such low volumes. Have you ever read All Corvettes are Red? If Camaro was such a drain, where is the proof? Wouldn't there would be some visible effect on Corvette? Last i checked, Corvette still had the Z06, still had a very profitable car, and still was selling quite well considering the ecconomy. Where's the damage?

Z284ever

And a good thought it is! Brian Nesbitt and others from GM design have already publicly stated that round tail lights will be a future Chevrolet design theme. So, I can see ,and I like the idea, of the "SS"s rear design treatment making it's way into a future Camaro.

Although I might want to hold off final judgement until I see it in the flesh, the front styling would need some heavy revisions to make it Camaro appropriate.

As far as the 4 door SS morphing into a 2 door Camaro....I'm not holding my breathe....it's just toooooooooo darned big! I also have come to believe that it's C5/C4 front/rear suspension has nothing to do with any future Chevy.

IZ28

Corporate stying stinks. They better get out of that thought of all Chevys looking like this and all Pontiacs looking like that or there will be no more nice looking or distinctive cars anymore. They'll see. When people start buying used cars more and more instead of wanting to go to a dealer and look at a whole bunch of the same looking cars with minor differences.

Z284ever

I was just saying that the round tail light theme would make a styling cue for Chevrolet. They don't all need (or should) look alike just because they share that.

IZ28

Yeah, but you know they'll be stupid enough to make every car look the same.