Pony,
I would not agree here at all with your thoughts. A friendly different idea.....

Lets look closer over the years....

Mustang
1. Mainstream passenger car that is a key part of Ford's line up.
2. Volume is key
3. Everyday coupe with good style.
4. Ford's main convertable
5. Ford's main performance car, filled by GT and up.

Camaro
1. 4 person GT coupe
2. Style and performance are its goals, high performance from Z28
3. One of several performance cars offered by GM (not of late however) but the typically best under the Vette.

While the Mustang and Camaro cross paths in the performance arena, thats about it. The Camaro was never asked to be a key piece in the passenger car lineup. It took the sport coupe slot.

GM has used a wide range of cars to fill the Mustang's slot as a passenger car (read sporty coupe); lets list a few...
1. Grand Ams / Aleros
2. Grand Prix coupes and the Monte Carlo
3. Berettas (sp?)
4. Older novas
5. Monzas

To me, I dont see the Mustang formula as what the Camaro needs....cause it wouldnt be a Camaro then (Pre-70 cars excluded). I'd actually say that GM needs a bowtie coupe in between the Colbalt and the New f-car. THAT car would be the Mustang cross-shopper/sales battle...the Mach1s and the Z28s can go at it on the track.

 

Wow, really interesting (and true) post. Although I don't know if you could really exclude 1st Gens. Were they not wider, longer, lower, (cowl too?) more raked, and smoother cars than the M*stang?

In what you say a Nova SS would actually be Chevy's real F*rd competitor, but I think the idea was to go against the M*stang with an even more performance designed car instead of just a regular sporty coupe. They made a "sports coupe" instead. Kind of a "real" performance car by design, not a regular car with some performance added.

 

What about Falcon, Pinto, Probe, Cougar, Capri, ZX2 and T-Bird coupes?

 

The Auburn differential was an option on the V8 cars.

 

Ah OK, I thought I recalled something like that. Was there much of a difference?

 

Which brings up my biggest concern about the new 05 Mustang...

Has anybody looked at the room between the front of the back seat and the back of the front seat?

At BEST, I've seen no more than 6" so far in any of the cars I 've had in front of me. Not good IMO

Camaros and Mustangs both have always sacrificed those in the rear, but at least make it tolerable back there for a quick run out to lunch or to a local store. 5th gen Camaro could throw a leg-up on the Mustang in this area if done properly - no doubt.

 

Your position is respectfully accepted!
Opinions are subjective - nice job of stating yours with meaning and support.

On my side of the fence, I see the Camaro purely as Mustang's stablemate. They have been aimed at each other since the Camaro's inception in 1967. That's a 35-year kinship that survived many a threat and outlived all other ponycars. I don't see how we can stand here now and say - "One formula doesn't apply to the other."

To millions of people, Camaro and Mustang go together like hot dogs and fries, or steak and potato. The formulas are not only there, they are now etched in stone... 2-door, sporty, low-cost, basic no-frills cars, with optional V8's and elevated performance. That epitomizes Camaro and Mustang.

The only difference in the two is the way they have been managed by their companies. Through the years, Mustang has been more economical and passive on average - at least IMO. It offered more I6, I4, and V6 engines than Camaro, and sold more sub-V8 units too. In '74, there wasn't even a V8 offered. So it has "averaged" a less-performing position overall, but it has offered some real super-performing versions along the way. Camaro on the other hand has always offered a more aggressive package on average - even the base cars, imo. During many years, the Camaro didn't offer anything BUT V8's, right? And even the 6's were fairly stout - especially the 3.8 F4-versions. So where was the basic bean-counting transportation buyer going to go?

I maintain Ford took one on the chin in the '80's by going with their unique plan to offer a good basic V8, and encourage the buyer to mod. Ford didn't want to offer the Mustang as the king of the hill in stock trim, but give you the means to get there if it meant that much to you. It was a hard pill of humility to swallow for Ford's loyal crowd, who wanted to say "Mustang is fastest!", but the taste of the pill was enough to spur many to do just what Ford wanted... buy aftermarket parts. The result is a car on the lot for a low price that attracts many more buyers, a car that has a HUGE aftermarket that allows endless performance, personalization, and uniqueness, and a cult-like following. So taking one on the chin ultimately led to the car's vibrant health today - a good trade looking back on it.

Likewise, I think the same business model is alive and thriving today. Just look at the time and money spent modifying cars... from rice to ponycars and even trucks and SUVs. The secret to a successful car is giving it options, and supporting the aftermarket for it. I say Camaro could come right back in with a "Mustang formula" and sell a boat-load well into the future, if executed correctly, with the buyers as active designers, factory-supported aftermarket, and related activities.

So, I respectfully submit to you that in my opinion, the Mustang and Camaro have been stablemates since the Camaro was introduced, and despite having their own unique variations through the years, they should remain so.

If the next "Camaro" is not a competitor to the Mustang at the basic levels, then it shouldn't be called a Camaro IMO. DEFINITELY build the car, but please call it something else. Don't drag the Camaro name out of history and "stick it" on a different car like they did the GTO recently.

Who's to say that the base Camaro can't compete with the base Mustang sales-wise, let the SS compete with the GT, and remove all Camaro nameplates from the top dog version and give it Z/28 badging like the Ford does to the Cobra - kind of it's own "little" low-volume model. Come out with unique designations like SS/RT or SS350 for an occasional limited-edition car to peak interest and go after Mach 1-type cars with.
I think it CAN be done, and I'd d@mn-sure rather see it done by Chevy with a Camaro than by some new "Chevy something", a Dodge Charger (maybe not so bad) or worse yet Nissan with a 350Z, or a G35, or an Eclipse...

 

There is some wisdom in what you state. Performance minded folks exclude the big picture, which is fine. I think if you were to see what folks shop against what would suprise you.

Consider this.

See a Ford domestic line dealer and shop a car you can choose Focus, Mustang, Crown Vic, Thunderbird, Town Car, Sable, Grand Marquis. The Mustang HAS to cover a wide range of tastes to contribute to market share for the parent company.

A visit to a GM domestic line dealer would be Cavalier, Monte Carlo, Impala, Malibu, Corvette, Alero, Sunfire, GrandAM, GTO, Grand Prix, Bonneville, Century, Regal, LaSabre, Park Avenue, CTS, Deville, Seville, XLR.

My understanding is Bill Ford wants SVT to move upmarket. This may well mean "Up"money... at least it usually does. Higher horsepower can bring punitive premiums to customers, especially if the actuarial evidence point to the kind of folks that go for a kind of vehicle are likely to be involved in more claims. Corvettes, for instance, can be cheaper to insure than lesser priced performance cars due to the likelyhood of claims. Insurance issue do figure into car sales. A buyer stretching to make the payment is blown out of the market if the insurance premium makes the purchase unaffordable. Some insurance companies are putting disclaimers into policies now which exclude coverage for "spontaneous" competitive events.... translated to mean "street racing". Most folks know a track incident is an "on your own" deal. Most folks should actually read their policy to know where else they may be "on their own".

Insurance prices were a big issue in the last era of muscle... don't think for a moment that the party can last forever unnoticed when money is involved. Thank goodness that the anti-SUV rhetoric is keeping the heat off high performance. We'll see how long it lasts. Hopefully forever.

We shall see what Ford does when SVT comes back into the Mustang. Where it will be powerwise, and how affordable it might be for wide sales and what demographic it will try to capture.

What is required is the car that delivers more performance, not the highest HP number. Power to weight, not merely power.

 

I'm with you on that Proud.
Certainly, the Camaro and Mustang compete with other cars....other than themselves. But Camaro's competitive center of mass is Mustang. It was, in September 1966...when the first Camaro rolled off the assembly line, and it will be when the next gen car comes too.

 

A V8 powered sport coupe at Chevy should compete with the mid-high performance end of the Mustang, not the lower end. A less compromised car would be the result and one might be able to concentrate on power to weight and handling dynamics.

YTD car sales for GM are @ 609,753. Ford, IOW LM and the rest are @ 367,599 for the same period. Niche vehicles don't have to be everything for everyone deals. Just good business cases.

Perhaps fill the gaps in product that exist. Value priced rear wheel drive V-8 performance between $25K-$35K...

 

I guess you're saying these two are brothers...I am kinda saying they are more like cousins, maybe even 2nd cousins.

A better analogy would be that a Mustang is a swiss army knife, capible of many things. The GM response is(has been) more of a series of more specialized tools vs the all in one.

Also, I find it somewhat ironic that the new mustang seems to be moving toward a more specialized mission...while our new camaro may be more general it it's.

I've owned both BTW and liked both but it is a different flavor for each car......I doubt many share this line of thinking so thanks for listening.