Every single point you raised here (except perhaps the last one) I am in complete agreement with you on.

The issue isn't insurence, or price of Z28's performance, it's pretty much anything else. It's parents not wanting to buy their kids a car like this, and as you pointed out, younger drivers are more into flash than true performance, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

The only issue I have is that once in a while, someone uses the Z28's price, or horsepower, or insurence as a scapegoat for it's lack of appeal to youth. You could have priced the Z28 at $20,000 (roughly the price of an SVT Focus and the Turbo SRT-4) and you'd still have assorted whiners comming here, saying it's too expensive for them. As you point out, the issue isn't price and it isn't insurence, it "pizzaz". It's ground effects. It's stereos. It isn't a question of affordable performance.

That's what really irks me whenever someone starts up about the price or insurence costs. If someone wanted affordable performance, it doesn't get any better than $23,000 for a 340hp V8 coupe that runs 160mph kids, and no one is going to give away insurence simply because someone cries like baby.

I'll be the 1st to admit that beyond the doorstop shape of the Camaro, Z28 is a pretty low keyed car. For the same price at the Ford dealer, you get scoops, angles on a body alot less than 10 years old, multiple rim choices, a fancier (though older) interior, at least 4 magazines devoted to your car, an aftermarket big enough to make Honda envious, and a rear seat that doesn't qualify as cruel & unusual punishment.

So money isn't the problem. It's priorities. It's parental influence. It's design. It's image or reputation. If someone had to have a brand new, fully loaded Z28 or Camaro SS, but couldn't afford the insurence and the payments, then simply buy a used one. No shame and no problem.

By the logic of some people here, I should begin whining and bit*hing about the fact I can't afford a CTSv or a Z06.

 

This is also a big point to make...A lot of these kids THINK that their 14K new Civic IS fast! I see kids all over the place being little stop light warriors with their brand new sport-compact cars. If they get beat by a new Camaro, oh then it must be modded to hell in order to beat their FWD scream'n 150 HP econo-box's! I don't think there is any cure for that other than personally setting them down in a brand new Camaro and letting them find out what a fast stock car is all about. Practical or not, thats probably the only way to rid them of this brain washing they've taken from The Fast and The Furious, and all their peers preaching the same thing.

I hate my generation...

 

They know thier cars aren't fast...they tell themselves because it's what they have....its what kids do.

 

You can't say insurance has NOTHING to do w/ the younger generation not buying these cars in mass #'s like the Mustang. Its a mix between that and a lot of other things that you mentioned. You buy what you can afford, and the V8 Camaro just wasn't that affordable anymore to the younger crowd when insurance came into the equation.

 

I disagree with the insurance part, especially those of you who are quoting prices for Mustang V6 and V8 or Camaro V6 and V8 prices being the same. Either you have the wrong insurance company, or insurance works very differently in your area than it does in Illinois. The difference between a V6 94 Camaro and my Z28 when I bought it in 99 was over $400 (the V6 5 spd was only $650 every 6 months). That's an $800 difference every year. I could only imagine the difference between a brand new 99 Z28 and a 99 V6 Camaro. And in my area, again, the Mustang is cheaper than the Camaro. A guy I knew in high school had a 94 GT and he paid about $850 every 6 months compared to my $1069. He has similar discounts as I did, too (good student, multicar, multiline, etc.). I'd also like to point out that right now, at age 22, I pay $86 a month for FULL coverage, with full everything, the only deductable on collsion $250. That's only $516 every 6 months compared to what I paid at 18. And all the previous quotes of my insurance was for the same insurance on my 84 and 94.

I suppose you make a good point about the ability of these cars, especially when you consider how stupid many kids are, especially today. I never had to deal with this because I was very responsible and my parents knew I would find a way to get the car regardless. All I needed was another $4700, which probably would have taken me 6 to 8 months to save up, then go buy my car. But that wouldn't have gotten me a loan and established good credit (which was what I also wanted, to kill to birds with one stone). I don't have kids, but I can understand what you mean. I let my father drive my car one time, because his truck was in the shop. When he got home, he said he was glad he didn't drive a car like that every day, because he'd use it to go 140 all the time. And your reasoning is the same that I never let anyone ever use my car. I might trust my parents to drive it, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust my classmates.

I still think that the price of the car is too much for many people who originally want them (age 16 to 25) brand new. They have to settle for a used car, in which case this does not help the car companies. They make money on new cars, not used cars. By the time many people get to the point where they can afford them (I could afford to buy a brand new Camaro for $30K if I could right now, but then I couldn't afford college), many people end up buying something else to haul around a family. A Camaro isn't exactly the kind of car to haul around groceries and kids. I didn't miss your point, I'm just adding another one that you didn't originally include.

 

Doom, you mentioned that your V6 Camaro was a 1994, and the Z28 you priced was a 1999. Of course insurence is going to be way more.....it's a newer car.

Again, you mentioned your friend in a 94 GT paying less in insurence than your 94 V6 Camaro. That's one of the points I brought up (though not to you) to kill off the pesky "smaller, less powerful engines are cheaper to insure" mentality that pops up time to time here. The one thing that's seems pretty standardized is that Mustang V6s do not save money in insurance over more powerful GTs, and most of the time are way more expensive to cover than the so-called slower car.

One thing I noticed you didn't compare here was your 94 V6 Camaro to a 94 Z28 Camaro on the same body (ie: hardtop to hardtop). When you check that, let me know. I think you'll be a bit surprised.

 

Actually, I'm sorry, but you read it incorrectly. I don't own a 94 V6 Camaro, I own a 94 Z28 (as it reads in my sig). The 94 V6 was being compared to the car I purchased in 99, my 94 Z28. Maybe I wrote that a little funny, with too many numbers in there, but the 94 Z28 is about $400 more expensive than the 94 V6 Camaro back when I purchased my 94 Z28 in 1999. The price for a 99 Z28 insurance in 1999 was almost $2000 every six months. The only car I did not price was a 99 V6 Camaro for insurance, because I had no interest in a V6. The only reason I knew the insurance for the V6 was because my insurance company accidently gave it to me first (they didn't click the Z28 model option in their computer). The other thing I do not know about is a V6 Mustang compared to the GT. I knew some people with V6 Mustangs, but most of them were girls, so I never asked them their price on insurance (that really ticks me off, girls get off with so much less insurance). At least for the Camaros, the smaller engine car DOES pay quite a bit less in insurance, a difference of $400 when I was 18.

 

To start off, I do fall into the target age group of this (High School Senior).

I do consider myself a rarity among my peers. I spent 3+ years saving up for my 94 Z/28 6-Speed. The F-Body LT1 was *the* only car I really wanted. I bought it for basically one reason, the big, rumbly V-8 and the power that comes along with it.

However, if I read all the posts correctly, there were a number of other theoretical deturents that might have kept me from purchasing my Z/28.

Price, along with insurence. I'm pretty sure this topic has been debated dead, except that there are of course other costs besides the cost of the car and insurence. Most kids like me have part time jobs which don't bring in a lot of money. My car gets on average 12-18 mpg and I have to use premium. That is A LOT of money for anyone, especially kids like me. Most people ( at least I hope) do a little research before buying their cars and do find out about this. A comparable four-banger import gets quite a bit better fuel economy and that fact is huge deturent.

Another big part of price that many of you seem to be hinting at but missing is that most kids have to buy used. And lets face it, F-bodies are not the most reliable cars in the world. I have multiple friends with cars with atleast 40,000 miles more are having less repair problems than I am having. I do also believe that some kids are deturred by the fact and stereotype that American cars are built like crap compared to their good 'ol civic.

 

Your post made me think. When you were 16-25 there wasn't much else to look at performance wise. It was either F-body, Mustang or Corvette. That is why these cars sold so well.Today there are many different performance models available that are more efficient, comfortable, reliable, easily modified, and with easy access for all your friends to get in. I think that is why more kids desire an Aisan performance car. (You can't forget about Grand Tourismo either the Camaro in that game is a slug). So if the next gen is going to attract younger buyers it must be (at least the base) efficient, comfortable, easily modified, inexpensive, good quality, and very easy on the eye's.

 

The thing is, if the way into younger buyers hearts and wallets are ground effects, and general "appearance" items. What kind of car is going to be left over for adults? There's some concept I vaguely remember from school that said something like, you can't make a product that appeals to everyone, all you'll end up with is a product that nobody likes.

What I'm starting to wonder, is that in the Generals' hunt for buyers of all ages, is it even possible to have a car that will be engineered and styled the way the old farts like me want, but will still be able to sport wings and ground effects, stickers and fart cans for the children? I don't know....I don't think so.

I gotta tell you, I don't like the way the industry is going, with the cutting out of options, and limiting how you can order stuff. Sure it's cheaper for the manufacturer to have fewer build combinations, but if you end up w/ a product that nobody is happy with, whats the point? My latest personal example is the CTS. I wanted a sunroof in it, but its only available in the luxury and luxury sport models, which I didn't want/need. So if I REALLY wanted that sunroof, I had to buy into the $2300 something luxury package, and then slap on $1000 or so for the actual sunroof. A $3300 sunroof is not the way to go, and am I really gonna cut the roof for a Pep Boys sunroof? Me thinks not.

Back to the cars though. Tell me if I'm sounding old. I love Camaros/Firebirds, always have. What I want in the 5th gen is GREAT engineering, performance, and style (adult version). I almost cringe at the thought of the car I have envisioned w/ a wing, and stickers and a fart pipe. I truly cannot believe that most kids would rather have stickers and a folgers can rather than a well styled car, w/ a good factory exhaust. If that is truly the case, then they need their own car. If Camaro is destined to be that car, to appeal to youth as in highschoolers, it's time for people like me to start looking at a GTO. No doubt the car is geared for younger buyers, but 18-34 is a BROAD market. And there just aren't a whole lot of commonalities that I see these days w/ what the kids drive and what I want.

My question...is there a car that can be all things to all people. I don't think so, particularly in our segment, the performance enthusiast. We are SO PICKY in what we will accept, thats one of the reasons why I think our warranty claims are so high, we want our cars PERFECT. We won't live w/ a rattle or a shake that we feel shouldn't be there. With this mentality, I'm just not so sure that it's even possible to have a one size fits all performance car that appeals to youths "image is everything" outlook, and adults "give me a car w/ great engineering, style, performance" preferance.

Guion, Formula, and all you other guys w/ vast resources. What is the actual target market for the F cars? What was it in the past, and what do you think it will be in the future?

 

Maybe there are more choices now....but there were plenty to choose from back then too. FWD was just starting to come (VW Scirocco) on the scene...but there were plenty of choices from oversees.

Datsun/Nissan had some cars to choose from.So did Mazda. So did Toyota (for one....the original Celica was RWD). Mitsu had the Starion and others.

There were lots more from Europe and Ford and Chrysler too. But let's just look at the offerings from GM for a minute.

The "personal luxury car" craze was in full swing back then. Young people were buying, Monte Carlos, Grand Prix's, Grand Ams, Cutlass's, Regals by the boatloads. Their were also the H "special" cars like Monza/Starfire/Sunbird, etc.

What I'm trying to point out is....there was a time when young people would automatically gravitate to Camaro/Firebird.

That is no longer the case.

 

Verrry interesting.

Out here in California I don't believe they discount insurance for women (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe that's part of the difference between here & there.

If anyone else has time today, look into insurance prices. It would be interesting to see the difference in how they calculate insurance rates in different states.

 

I know several girls that said they looked at camaro/firebirds, but they didn't buy because they couldn't see over the dash or see the hood which made them hard to park. And of course when they ride with me they complain of the hump on the passenger side.

 

CLEAN, I wanted to wait till I had a real chance to sit down to reply to your post (lunchtime), because you bring up so many interesting points.

I don't think today's "ricer" market is all that different from what kids were into when I was growing up. V8 top performing F-bodies were still cars that teenagers wanted, but like today, insurance & monthly payments (there was no such thing as 60 months or 0% back then) kept the average age group well into the 20s & 30s. Our outlet was taking cheap to insure cars, putting some fancy decals, rims, stereo, shifter & steering wheel (well before airbags). So that's very much like today's tuner market, so things haven't changed.... except we'd kill for cars as fast as today's Impalas or Civics.

Back then, the choices wern't limited to only Mustangs & F-bodies. Back in Jr. High School, there were still Aspen R/Ts & Plymouth Road Runners that could keep up with TAs & Z28s. Later there were the turbo Chrysler cars, especially the Omni GLH & Daytonas. AMC even still made the AMX....in Spirit form (bad pun). That's not to mention that the Japanese sports car invasion was just begining. So there were plenty of choices. most of them forgotten today, but GM & Ford didn't have a monopoly.

I agree with you with industry (especially GM) limiting what you can order as a way to squeeze more money out of you. I believe it's a cop out saying it's cheaper to produce because how much would really be added to the price of a car allowing the owner to pick & choose something as simple as a sunroof? Even if it's an extra $500 to the price of the base car, to me it's worth it. Pay for over $2,000 worth of stuff you don't want just to pay the extra $1,000 for the one thing you do want?? Then they'll make additional money when those things you didn't want in the first place start to break! It begins sounding like a pretty underhanded scam.

As far as who the f-bodies have been geared towards, the Zs & Trans Ams were never geared towards young drivers. Sure we wanted one in the late 70s & early 80s, but just like the complaints voiced here today about insurance & price, it tended to keep us out of them at least till after our 25th birthday, exactly as the current ones do (see guys, it's always been that way, so stop groveling! ).

Z28's median buyer's age is 41 years old, and the median income is $65,000 per year. Before anyone starts pointing to this as an excuse for Camaro's faliure, the Mustang GT's median buyer's age is 37, with an annual income of $55,000 per year. The Camaro SS & Mustang Cobra tend to be higher in both catagories, so no one here should whisper a word about not being able to afford an SS at age 20.

Finally, the base Camaro & Mustang buyer median age and income are 36 years & $55K and 35 years old and $53K respectively, effectively killing the impression that these cars are marketed to the young, which they never were. No, not even the base versions. That's what Chevy II's & Novas, Falcons & Mavericks, Pintos, Vegas, & Dusters of the late 60s and early 70s were for.

BTW: the Honda Accord's median buyer age is 41, Huyndai Tiburon is 32 ($65,000 income), Celica GT-S is 36, Focus ZX5 is 32, and even the WRX is targeted to those at least 30 years old.

However, Dodge SRT-4 is for young drivers. It's target market is 18-24 year olds with an annual income of $33,500 per year, making it the only real performance car currently on the market with this target group.

And I'm still fighting the urge to get one as a daily driver.

 

I tend to agree w/ your opinions. I always aspired to the Fbod when I was growing up in the 80's, the IROC's were the cream of the crop, not to mention the GN's, and stangs and everything else. I ended up buying an 8 yr old Firebird as my first car. It may have been slow, but at least it had a 350 and a hurst.

I've never believed that the cars were marketed to youth in that they would ever actually be able to buy them. Aspire to them...yes, buy them when they're a little older...absolutely! But to flagrantly market to them by incorporating wings and all the other appearance stuff that todays kids get into, and I'm gonna include any talk of ANY 4 cyl engine too, it scares me to death that they will turn the Camaro into a car that can't meet both ends of the performance enthusiasts spectrum. I just don't know how successfully they could bridge a gap as wide as what both age groups consider cool. I can understand that both groups are cut from the same cloth, but when one wants a 4cyl turbo w/ stripes, wings, odd lighting effects....and the other wants big cube V8, and classic musclecar DNA...I just wonder if it's possible to pull it off w/ the same car. I just personally think the Camaro should keep to it's heritage, and if that means ticking the kids off until they CAN afford one, then so be it. I didn't get my first new one til I was 30 for heavens sake, but I always aspired to it.

I think GM will do what they've said, and keep the heritage, but every time the subject of "what can be done to the car so teenagers will buy it" comes up, I get nervous .