About the 40hp advantage - I agree 100%. We are both enthusiasts that want all we can get, so the more hp the merrier... at least for you and me. And as an engineer, I am always wanting the manufacturers to deliver "better", be it handling, power, ride, or whatever. So you guys don't read me wrong thinking I want power levels to stagnate - that's not it at all. I just think there's more to a car (and should be recognized as such) than "horsepower".

But again, everyone seems to see the tree in front of them, not the forrest. The HP is just a part of the whole picture here. In addressing your comment, the F4 body itself was VERY MUCH modified to make it sleek, aerodynamic, and great-handling. IMO, some of these characteristics that made the car such a great performer also contributed to it's slower sales because it just wasn't as easy to drive/live with on a daily basis for grocery-getting or kid-hauling.

Your statement above re: "The F-cars did not die because they outperformed the Mustang." is absolutely true, but you have to admit that the F-cars were DEFINITELY designed more with performance in mind and that these compromises affected sales to the "non-enthusiastic" buyer. The engines and 0-60 times probably had little if anything to do with it. But the raked windshield, aerodynamic overhangs, reclined seating, and 4" ground clearance - all things that helped the car outperform the Mustang - definitely did.

When the Mustang was faster than the F-car (marginally at that) back in the '80's, it wasn't giving up daily liveability issues to achieve that speed. It was still a very upright seating, good visibility, easily modded and maintained car - as was the F3, at least more so than the LSx version F4's.


Right on the money. Not only were there price and salary issues, but the utilization of the plant was way below break-even as I recall. It is definitely a well-known fact that the car was singled out to be killed due to political reasons we may never fully understand - and it was decided years before it happened, so the car was neglected terribly by GM. My comment above was not intended to mean that "performance was the single cause of it's demise", not by any stretch of the imagination. But one has to beleive that sales would have been a little better (despite the neglect) if the cars were more liveable in daily use for the average mom/dad with one kid and a job.

 

 

No question sales would have been better if they were more ergonomic and useful.

But, even in their last year, well after advertising had been pulled, they sold a combined 70,000 units. YOu could say that's 35,000 units per car but with SO MUCH similarity its not the same as building two different cars.....the cost structure was probably quite a bit more like selling 70K of 1 car.

For example,that was more than Monte Carlo sales that year...quite a bit more IIRC.

In their heyday, the 4th gens sold over 150K combined units for about 3 years in a row. One can argue that was not during the height of the SUV craze, but still, we can assume that in the last years if ads had not been yanked in order to purposefully kill the car we may have seen 90-110K units/year combined for a platform that was still no more "livable" than when it was selling well.

 

Here's my tired old take.

The Camaro is boxed in by the vette. Meaning it get's a 400-something HP LS2 max. Not even close to the '06 Cobra. As far as Ford being glad that there was no '03 LS6 Camaro. Who are we kidding? They would have paid money to have an '03 Camaro LS6 to stomp in all the big car rags.

The GTO with LS2 same story. Not even close.

So the question is will the GTO get an LS7? Sure. Why not? Pontiac can easily have a $50K+ showroom car without stepping on anybody's toes.

I hope they do it and fix that trunk problem along the way and step up the styling.

 

Now back to the thread topic... P L E A S E.

I still would rather see a great basic platform that can be tuned to the owner's desire, with some limited ed's to fill niche markets, rather than see another entire body design slanted too far towards top-end performance at the sacrifice of daily comfort and usefullness.

I'd say the same about Mustang if it were the one under scrutiny. In fact, if the Cobra (or other Mustang version) were going to cause the basic Mustang to suffer in ANY WAY to allow the Cobra to remain "fastest ponycar" from the factory, I'd say let the Cobra take a back seat.

Volume, basic everyday comfort and ease of use are paramount to a car's success these days, and I feel they should get first dibs when dealing with American Legends like Camaro and Mustang. If the carmaker wants a unique low-volume rocket, do it with another body and name that can be killed when the interest dies.

 

Oh I agree with you on future direction, I'd rather see a car that tries to be a bit more of all-things to all-people than to have an all out HP assault weapon that is doomed to failure because of (perceived?) impracticality.

However, your logic has one flaw.....YOu assume that GM can't pull off a car that is both a hot no-compromises performer AND practical to a degree.

These goals are not one or the other, they exist on a spectrum...its just a matter of where you set the dial to.

 

Have the actual numbers for the 2006 Cobra been released?

 

Perceived impracticality is right. Seriously, 3rd's might have been a little more practical than 4th's, but it's not like 4th's are setup like some kind of exotic. The windshield might be too raked but come on. People really need to get off of that. The hatch alone makes it an easier car to carry more stuff in if people would just take 2 seconds to fold down the seats. And there's really not much more room in a M*stang back seat than a Camaro, if any.

 

I know I'm asking for it, and I'll probably regret it, but I have to ask....how?

 

1st) - The F-body didn't die because it had too much HP, remember with both the Camaro and the Mustang, V6 makes up the bulk of the sales.

2nd) - In its last year, after many years of no advertising and almost no upgrades, the F-body still out sold every coupe on the market except the Mustang, It even sold better than the Nissan Titan is doing now and a large number of car that are currently on the road.

3rd) - Yes the lightning did have more HP than the Camaro SS but even though it was the fastest vehical at Ford, it was still slower than the Camaro SS and WS6. I was originally comparing cars vs. cars. (excluding the Vette)

Power to weight...... the Camaro has a 200lbs.+ advantage on the Cobra so even after adding a supercharger the Cobra would have still been behind the equally powered LS6 Camaro. Adding a supercharger and still not being able to beat the Camaro in the 1/4mi., that would have been very embarrassing for Ford.

yes, ZL1 phase 1 is quicker, not only because of the it is lighter, but also due to the 4.11 gears.

 

True Z28x.

Too much windshield rake, slightly less room in the front, seat not over the converter thing as much, can't see the hood, etc. Their actual seating position feels lower to me, but that could be just me. The only way 3rd's are more compromised than 4th's is that they're lower overall. (4th's are also bigger and heavier but I don't think that's a compromise, sorta)

 

Well when I think of "practicality" neither the 3rd or 4th Gen really comes to mind...practicality is measured in storage/hauling capacity, number of passengers, gas milage, repair/maintanence costs, things of that nature. *If* the 4th Gen lacks that extra inch or two of leg room in the back seat it really doesn't matter too much does it?...and windsheild rake is not a matter of "practicality" as it is maybe "ergonomics"....but whatever. Continue on.....

 

Let's also not forget everyone's favorite........engine in the dash.

Did 4th's ever come with an optional rear-axle like 3rd's had with the 9-bolt? (usually with G92) I just wanna know.

 

Could practicality also come from the lack of headache inducing squeaks and rattles inherent in a 3rd gen?

 

You mean the ones that also show up in 4th Gen's, 2nd Gen's, 1st Gen's, and M*stang's too?! (and many other cars) Not every example of the cars listed do that stuff, but some do. I've been in 3rd's and 4th's without any at all. I've also been in a 1st Gen and current Gen M*stang that definetly did have them. They can be stopped in them all IMO, people just have to track them down, add SFC's, etc.