By on August 11, 2017

2017 Chevrolet Camaro RS - Image: GMThere’s more than one reason the sixth-generation Chevrolet Camaro has failed to live up to the fifth-gen Camaro’s U.S. marketplace success.

First, the drama of the (quite possibly) superior sixth-gen Camaro’s styling is diminished by the fact that it looks so very much like the fifth-gen car. To the casual muscle car buyer — of which there have to be tens of thousands of it’s going to be the high-volume sports car it was — it’s certainly not obvious that this is even an all-new car.

Then there’s the fact that the sixth-gen Camaro also continues the fifth-gen’s visibility trend: there is none. Added to that, GM always intended to sell fewer Camaros to daily rental fleets when the sixth-gen car arrived for the 2016 model year.

In the end, however, it’s always down to money. Not only is the Chevrolet Camaro a costly ticket, but Camaros are also packaged in a way that shrinks appeal at the affordable end of the spectrum.

According to GM’s North American boss Mark Reuss, the company wants to fix that, though it’s not yet clear what the remedy is.

As sales of the Dodge Challenger rise slightly in 2017 and the segment-leading Ford Mustang’s volume nosedives, Chevrolet Camaro volume is essentially flat, falling by roughly 150 units per month, on average, through the first seven months of 2017.

But that’s a follow-up to 2016, when Camaro volume plunged to the lowest full-year total since the nameplate returned from the grave. General Motors averaged 83,000 annual Camaro sales between 2010 and 2015 but sold fewer than 73,000 in 2016 and is on pace for fewer than 71,000 in 2017.2017 Chevrolet Camaro sS - Image: GM“I think we’ve got opportunities at the very low end of the Camaro range,” Mark Reuss says, “and some remix of some of the V8 options on it so we don’t force people to buy all the options with a V8, just to get a V8.” According to Automotive News, Reuss did not delve into the details of potential Camaro changes at the at the August 10 unveiling of the NASCAR Camaro, and GM’s official line is that the company is “exploring a bunch of opportunities.”

The 2018 Chevrolet Camaro’s base price is $26,900, including destination, only $415 more than the least costly 2018 Ford Mustang. But because there are no base-like trims when it comes to the hi-po Camaros, the base price for the V8-engined Camaro SS is a lofty $37,995, $2,000 more than the V8-engined Ford Mustang GT even with the 2018 Mustang GT’s price jump (and $3,905 more than the V8-engined 2017 Dodge Challenger R/T.)

A “basic” Camaro SS includes numerous standard features and add-ons not associated with basic non-V8 Camaros, such as Brembo brakes, a rear spoiler, 20-inch wheels, chunkier rear tires, and an 8-inch (rather than 7-inch) touchscreen. Could a feature reduction be in the cards, a decontenting that might bring the Camaro’s base price down to $34,995, undercutting the Mustang GT?

On the flip side, there are some items that aren’t even available on non-V8 Camaros, such as magnetic ride control and performance suspension.

All of this could be shuffled to bring Camaros into more affordable price spectrums. With a 2018 Ford Mustang soon to launch with some attention-grabbing features, GM may want to act sooner rather than later.

[Images: General Motors]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

108 Comments on “GM Wants (Needs?) to Figure Out How to Sell More Chevrolet Camaros...”


  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    “…falling by roughly 150 units per month, on average, through the first seven months of 2017.”

    Is that number correct? At 150 units per month, sales would be 1,800 per year. Even sales of 150 per week would be only 7,800 per year.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    The fact that you’re stuck with a turbo-4 at that price can’t be helping, when the V6 GM already has ready is for some reason an extra cost option.

    I’m surprised they sold as many Camaros as they did in the first year. The only V8 models available were fully loaded. The one I drove was $48K, and they weren’t dealing. No way I’m paying an extra $15K for a Camaro over a Mustang GT Premium.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Meh, the Mustang also has a turbo four.

      That’s the way it is these days.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Yeah, but the Mustang has a history of decent turbo-4s (SVO).

        The Camaro has the Iron Duke.

        The Mustang is targeted to countries that heavily tax displacement (China & EU).

        The Camaro, while it may be available, was not designed with foreign markets in mind.

        GM: shun the 4.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          The ecotechs that GM has are great 4 cyl turbos. I don’t want a 4cylinder turbo in either of these cars on principle, but GM’s been doing 4 cyl turbos for a while now (since saab) and they make some decent ones.

  • avatar
    WrittenDescription

    The first two knocks against the new Camaro–looks like the old car and terrible visibility–aren’t getting fixed. And I’m skeptical that GM will offer the juiciest options at a can’t-resist price point. They’ve managed to take a good car designed for a niche market and make it a bad fit even within that niche.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Is there a manual trans available with the base 4-cyl?

    Or does on have to buy the optional V6?

    The base tires are huge.

    Given that a base Cadillac ATS has excellent ride and handling, with smaller tires, I have no doubt the Camaro does too–even the base one.

    But when I asked, I was told there is no turbo 4/manual trans. The V6 adds cost.

    This is a great driving car, but given that it is hard to see out of, and hard to live with (trunk is not tiny–but trunk opening is!), when you factor the ‘hidden costs’ like hyper-expensive tires, it is easy to walk away from.

    The 2010 Camaro was a big hit, yes. This one is better, yes. But the novelty factor is gone now, and we are lift with a great track car (optioned up), or a great driving car that is very hard to see out of.

    I’m not sure that even a base price or $19,900 can stimulate sales much.

    Too bad.

    In hindsight, GM should have considered a retro 1970 Camaro look with the ATS chassis. THAT would have novelty!

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      The Camaro does have the ATS chassis. They are both Alpha Platform products built at the same plant.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Honestly “retro” was played out by 2008.

      • 0 avatar
        gmichaelj

        I couldn’t disagree more with “Retro” being “played out”.

        Challenger sales have steadily increased despite FCA’s lack of investment compared to the redos of the Mustang and Camaro over the last 10 years.

        How has Challenger gained on Mustang and Camaro? Timeless (Retro) Styling.

        Challenger is the Return on Investment Champion (TM) of the Pony Car Market.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      “In hindsight, GM should have considered a retro 1970 Camaro look with the ATS chassis. THAT would have novelty!”

      Remember when each new Camaro/Firebird was distinct from the one that came before it? Those cars were defined by their eras (even the retro craze of the 2000’s), and GM rolled the dice each time and came up with a hit.

      Even a well-kept 4th-generation F-body will be worth 5 figures these days. Only the most abused ones depreciate beyond that point. I doubt the current car will be playing its way into anybody’s heart.

    • 0 avatar
      OzCop

      There is indeed a manual transmission available on the turbo 4. I have a friend in California who has one, and is autocrossing it quite successfully. He has been picked by Sports Car Magazine to win the D Street Class at the Solo Nationals in Lincoln, NE next month…

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Camaro:

    Poor exterior styling
    Extremely cheap-looking and feeling interior (it is GM, after all)
    Typical’GM quality/reliability issjes
    Way too expensive for a pony car when equipped with even modest options and V8
    ELEPHANT IN ROOM: NEW C7 STINGRAYS CAN BE HAD FOR AS LITTLE AS 54,000’NEW*

    *Ask me how I know.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      I’m still waiting on your sign and drive CT6 for under $300/month. Hook a brother up and Cutters is on me.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Patience.

        The “all-new for 2017” (the first ever XT5) is down to $269/month in metro-Detroit; this is a CUV, which as you know, is one of the hottest segments going, also (unlike looks-like-knock-off-of-Korean-Genesis-CT6-but-built-with-cheaper-materials).

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      One word: Transformers

      I think this film has done more damage than service to this car. Being associated with everything that’s wrong with the modern Hollywood movies is just bad.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Tell your dealers to start dealin’ as aggressively as Ford does on the Mustang.

    Honestly with Camaro pricing structure one might as well buy an ATS coupe and let the Cadillac dealer kiss your feet in gratitude.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Many Cadillac models are on track, or already, at exotic/niche sales level volume.

      The Alfa Giulia outsold the Cadillac ATS in July, FFS (the ATS will be lucky to sell more than 9,500’copies in 2017, even with $269/month leases).

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        …and good luck to all those new Giulia owners.

        • 0 avatar
          dwford

          Maybe that’s what the 4 leaf clover badge is really for

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Johan GUARANTEED 500,000 Cadillacs sold by 2020.

          He’s going to need more than a wee bit of luck himself (T minus 30 months).

          Had anyone predicted that the ATS and CTS would sink below 10,000 and 8,000 sales per year, respectively, in 2012, they would have been shouted down as “crazy.”

          Wait, they were!

          Cadillac will be lucky if CT6 sales don’t fall to less than 7,600 units per year by 2018.

          Year . Jan . Feb Mar . Apr. May . Jun . Jul. Total
          2017 10,298 10,823 12,861 12,300 13,211 12,580 11,227 83,300

          Assuming (BIG assumption) Cadillac sales don’t further decline Q2, Cadillac is on track to sell 167,000 vehicles in total for 2017 in the U.S.

          http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/cadillac/cadillac-sales-numbers/

          And they have 960-some dealerships.

          I bet there are quite a few Cadillac dealerships selling fewer than 4 vehicles per week.

          Just….wow.

          • 0 avatar

            I was in a chevy/GMC/cad store recently. Executive demo 3.6 ATS4 with V brakes, sticker at 45, sticker on window for 38k, salesman immediately opens with “and we can take something off that, too”.

            To be fair, I can bottom feed at the BMW store down the street too with a 320i. Or the (horrors) CLA.

            They’ve all raced to the bottom, and hit it.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Most new BMWs pretty much suck and are priced for the lease market only (what’s my monthly payment buyers), also.

            BMW will get no praise from me. They’ve morphed into a weird mix of bloatedness and cush, lacking the steering feel, chassis attributes, I6 deliciousness and handling prowess that made them desirable once-upon-a-time.

            One of my biggest automotive regrets is not buying a new 1M for around 38k when I had the chance about 7 years ago.

  • avatar

    Give me a turbo 4 (weighed in to be approximately 3,200 lbs by Mark Scroggs, who is campaigning one nationally in DS) with a 1LE option.

  • avatar
    JLGOLDEN

    While I’m a fan of the style, the Camaro feels cumbersome to maneuver in real world parking lots/garages and visibility issues make for tedious merges/lane changes on freeways. One might have equivalent sightlines from the driver’s seat of a windowless cargo van. The acceleration and handling WOW factor still make this car a one trick pony.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    My main problem with the Camaro is basically the same one everyone else is talking about – the interior is AWFUL. Cheap materials, cheap feel to controls, and you feel like you’re in a pillbox when you’re sitting in it.

    That’d all equate to a “no sale” for me.

  • avatar
    incautious

    The Camaro for years has been, for the most part less user friendly than the competition. Poor visibility and a tiny rear seat are just two of the reasons that consumers may choose an alternative car. Plus with huge tires and RWD only makes this a tough sell in almost half the county where snow is a common occurrence.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Let’s face it, these are bought by middle aged guys with a wife and kids. The Camaro is so small inside with such a tiny trunk, it just can’t be enjoyed by the family. That’s gotta be a huge impediment to sales.

    • 0 avatar
      Willyam

      Here in Truck Country, they are cars I see primarily driven by women. Not young women, but women that don’t need to transport passengers (maybe no kids, older kids, whatever). They appear to be primarily 4/6 cyl models.

      I do see the occasional SS, and they are driven by older men exclusively. It’s the same problem I think as the Vette, in that lots of us want them, but Tod and Buz can’t swing that kind of cash today. –EDIT– If they can, (say they work in Pipeline or Oil production), they drive a truck. The bigger the better.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      dwford- I think you have it wrong on the demographic- the middle aged guys with a wife and kids rarely get the Camaro because of the kids part, it just doesn’t work. The demographic I see are dudes who look like they are just out of the Service in ss’s and middle aged to older ladies who don’t look like they have kids or their kids are out of the house in RS’s.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        That’s my point. The guy with the wife and kids CAN’T buy the Camaro because it doesn’t work. He has to buy the slightly more practical Mustang, or better yet the Challenger.

        These cars have gotten too specialized, and it is limiting who can really buy them.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        You nailed it. Us married with kids have the three row CUVs. I’m not un happy with this. Our CUV is a nice family vehicle. I’m considering buying another sport touring motorcycle in a few years. That’ll be my fun ride.

        Up until recently I usually had multiple passengers just about everywhere I went – the kids and their friends. Also not a bad thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      If you have a wife and kids, it’s socially acceptable to drive pretty much anything.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The Camaro needs a new Camaro, and that won’t be fixed overnight.

  • avatar
    notapreppie

    Make it smaller/lighter and lower the belt line. Take the crap I don’t want out of the packages that I do.

    Seriously, a track pack should not include 20″ wheels, satin black hood, suede steering wheel and shift knob, or run-flat tires.

    Or how about the only way to get HID headlights is to also get 20″ wheels?

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    Its simply too small. A pony car may be an inefficient use of space but it has some space inside. Whereas a mustang or challenger has a back seat people can ride in, the camaros back seat is vestigal. So they are essentialy selling a 2 seater car, and thats a very limited market. Plus it feels small on the inside.

    The 5th gen simply was bigger, and that works for pony cars.

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      The Mustang’s backseat is only useable if you’re an amputee. A back seat in this type of car is pointless.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        I’ve had a 16 year old and a 5 year old in the back of the Mustang with no problems. They’re small for their ages though.

      • 0 avatar
        MrIcky

        But that’s part of why Challenger’s sell pretty well consistently- they are relatively useable (I know, I own one, and my 15 year old is 6feet tall- I don’t think he enjoys riding in back, but he can without being doubled over).

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      I live in Texas, where the density of vehicles per square mile is higher than that of people, and so it’s hard for me to understand this argument. Regardless of the size of the monstrosity that people drive, 95+ percent of time, there is only driver inside with no passengers, unless we’re talking kids with no driver license.

  • avatar
    mcs

    To really boost sales, they need to alter it a bit and create a Chevrolet version of the Range Rover Evoque. A CUV with the “just tried unsuccessfully to drive under a really low bridge” look would sell better.

  • avatar
    Reuleaux

    Visibility is a major problem, anyone with causal interest is going to walk away after sitting in it. It takes a real enthusiast to deal with that on a daily basis.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      I know someone who test drove one and complained the ride was too harsh. I’ve heard the visibility and cheap interior complains before but harsh ride was news to me. I’m sure the upmarket mag-ride (or what GM calls it) fixes this issue but that pushes the price into the hell-no category.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Just do the typical GM thing, but more so, and do a hear end RED TAG SALE, but this time for 30% off Window Sticker MSRP (no games).

    At least it will keep the hourly workers on the job (hopefully), who are the ones that I care about and are being brutalized yet again by daft GM Corporate decisions (while Mary Barra pulls down a cool e8 million in total compensation).

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Just to clarify, Mary Buggin Barra is pullin’ down a cool 28 million annually, not e8 million.

      Nice pay for setting the foundation to run GM into the ground again (where even RAM is starting to sell more pickups than Chevy – good going, Mary!).

      The edit function is FUBAR.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        At $28M a year I’d work one year and retire. I could do everything I ever want to do in life on that kind of savings/investments. That’s $2 just in basic investment interest per year, more than most folks have to retire on in the “real world” of median income.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    My ’16 Cruze Limited has not turned me into a GM believer. It’s not bad, it just mediocre. GM’s handling of a clunk in the rear end the car has turned into “they all do that” even though they really tried to diagnose it (new shocks, new rear axle).

    The ’17 Cruze also hasn’t wowed me either, even though there are improvements that are noticeable (and downgrades as well). I just drove a ’17 Elantra as a rental and I’d go with that over another Cruze.

    While the Cruze was in for service, I sat in a new Camaro convertible. The interior is still cheap and ugly, the view is awful even with the roof down. The one I sat in was a fully loaded turbo four and it was 44k.

    Even if they were dealing (I have multiple emails from GM to terminate the Cruze lease and get into something else GM) and I could get past the interior (I’m a Mazda 5 owner and considering a Fiat 500 Abarth) the gun slit view is awful. I need to see to make decisions and I can’t see or get comfortable enough in a Camaro to see. And at 44k? No. Not even at 34k.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Haha, $44K! That’s the best joke I’ve heard all day.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        If you wa t to laugh your a$$ off, peruse the window stickers of the vehicles of your nearest Chevy, GMC, Buick or, especially, Cadillac, dealership one day.

        It’s like the most epic joke…but in a bad, surreal way.

        (Hence GM going to the “okay Mrs. Bluehair, here’s your $99/month leased Buick Encore” to keep the assembly lines moving)

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          I wonder how many more people they’d get in the door if they just listed a reasonable MSRP to begin with.

          Yeah, most people know that’s not the real price, but they don’t know if the real price is $2,000 or $10,000 lower.

  • avatar
    bultaco

    Part of the problem is that the car is enormous. When parked next to my Cherokee xj, the Jeep looks like a toy. The other problems are interior materials no nicer than those in a base Silverado, and no desirable models at the affordable end of the range. In the 60s and 70s when the Camaro sold well, there were very inexpensive base models that we’re basically Novas with cool styling. A person with an entry level job could buy one and feel cool driving a car that didn’t look or feel cheap

  • avatar
    AK

    Give me a v6/stick with the rad exhaust, no other options and some decent 18inch wheels on summer tires for $25k.

    That’s what it would take to get me in one.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    How to sell more Camaros? Simple: Just add windows.

    That, and reduce the price.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    I’d never buy a muscle car that I can’t semi comfortably rest my arm on the window sill of.

  • avatar
    kobo1d

    I actually really love the sixth generation Camaro. SS 1LE would be my pick, except then I’d probably just buy a base C7 for the price.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “so we don’t force people to buy all the options with a V8, just to get a V8.”

    Wow, a GM executive said something I agree with.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I’d consider a base Camaro with just the V8 upgrade, all for $29,995 list. Basically the spiritual successor to the stripper LX 5.0 (Fox) Mustang.

    I could live without the Brembos, Magneto ride, 20″ billet wheels, Nav, Bose, Leather, sunroof, etc, for that price (before rebates).

  • avatar
    stingray65

    GM could do what the aftermarket is already doing, which is use a few body panel and fascia mods to create a Firebird version. I’m sure Buick/GMC dealers wouldn’t mind having something sporty in the showroom with a new Firebird with a screaming chicken decal on the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      I have thought about a way some old brands could return. Not the whole established brand with a full model line, just maybe one car sold through existing channels.

      Examples:
      Your Firebird for Buick-GMC dealers is a good one.

      Mercury Cougar, a stretched Mustang with a bigger and more comfortable interior, more luxury with less emphasis on performance. Just like the original Cougar. Give it the 2.7L EcoBoost, optional V-8.

      Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, based on the Omega platform, basically a cheaper version of the CT6 with Oldsmobile styling ques. Tuned for a smoother ride. To appeal to customers who don’t want a razor sharp sedan, just a comfortable and luxurious one. LS-series V-8 optional, 3.6L standard. No turbo 4.

  • avatar
    302 boss

    I for one, regardless of nameplate would never ever support such a corrupt car company. Their ignition scandal was more than enough to know
    there will never be another gm product parked in my driveway again. They allowed 174 people to lose their lives in the name of a .57 cent piece, not to mention the hundreds that were injured. People in todays society reward bad behavior apparently like it never happened. Even if this isnt enough to turn your stomach, over 3
    5 million recalls and still counting. It doesnt give you a warm fuzzy feeling owning a car you certainly cannot trust with the lives of your loved ones.

    • 0 avatar

      “Corrupt car company”…

      You mean, like the company that discovered the design of its new mid-size SUV was inherently unstable and prone to roll over, but they were too far along in development so they “fixed” it by telling owners to keep the tires at 26 PSI?

      The same company that a few years earlier had a stud sticking out of the rear axle on its minicar and in a rearend crash the gas tank could hit the stud and explode?

      Hmmmm…

      • 0 avatar
        302 boss

        Justify it as you wish, however maybe trade one of your family members lives for just one that was taken by general motors and come back and tell be how much you love your bowtie.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        @budda-boom.

        If they’re defective, and were never “fixed” so they’re safe to drive, why haven’t we seen news reports *consistently* over the past 20 years of people dying due to the faulty design? It ended after the recall replaced the only defective component.

        I don’t know about you, but I still see plenty of 1st and 2nd gens running around, all shiny side up. I see them for sale with 200k+, so how is it that they traveled that far for this long without killing anyone, if they’re still defective? Pure luck that out of the millions sold, only a few have had the “defect” cause an issue?

        As far as the other thing you drudged up from the bottom of the ocean, that car still had a lower death rate than its competitors, and despite popular opinion, no attempt was made to continue to allow it to kill people so they could save money.

        That has been proven, as has the fact that GM ordered hundreds of thousands of replacement ignition switches *months* before the enormous risk to the drivers and passengers of these cars was acknowledged by the company.
        Clearly, they knew there was a problem, made a decision to keep it to themselves, BUT prepare for when it would eventually come out. How many lives would’ve been saved had they come forward as soon as it was known within the company that there was a potentially fatal issue with all these cars?

        All that said, all companies (and people) have made mistakes, and its very rare that actual malice is intended by a company that depends on millions of people to buy its products. You can get into a pi§§ing match all day about what this one did or that one did, but chances are, the company that made your chosen brand/car has had something equally bad happen at one time or another in its past. You don’t build millions of something, with thousands of variations and differences, with nothing ever going wrong.

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          I have a Malibu Classic with the defective switch. Yep, I can see how it could twist to “ACC”. On my car, you can even pull the key out while the car is running. It is a 170K mile car.

          Folks need to get out on a quiet road or parking lot and practice coping with a stalling engine. Turn the key to “ACC” and learn to stop safely.

          I can’t believe how dependent the average person is everything going right when they drive. Maybe everyone needs to spend time in a 50 year old car with drum brakes, no safety systems, and a propensity to spin out in turns.

          A car can stall while in motion for many different random problems including running out of gasoline or a broken timing belt.

          Folks ought to learn to develop a plan for dealing with things like that so they don’t die. The steering gets heavy (hydraulic boosted) and the brakes are less effective (no boost) but both still work.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      LOL. I think you haven’t watched recently “Fight Club”. When a car company realizes that the cost of class action suits is lower than a total recall, then they don’t do the recall. That’s how it works to maximize the profits and the bonuses for the CEOs in ALL businesses. Moreover, a CEO has an attention span of about 3-5 years. So he knows that if he does not order a recall of product, then by the time the class action suits hit his company, she or he will be out of company long after the bonuses have been cashed. Welcome to capitalism.

  • avatar
    turbo_awd

    I want an ATS/CTS with the non-supercharged V8. Just give me the NA 6.2L in a 4-door with passable rear seats for $40k.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      They had those last March when they were having the 20% off sale on the SS sedans, not to mention you could get one with a 6 speed manual. 6.2L RWD

    • 0 avatar
      Reino

      I believe the BMW 550i and whatever Infiniti calls the old M50 are the only cars in that class that still offer a V8 option (without moving into a makers “performance division”), but neither of them are anywhere near $40k.

  • avatar

    Use the 1970 1/2 Z28 as inspiration for the next one.

  • avatar
    smartascii

    I’m in the DINK demographic and should, in theory, be the customer for this sort of vehicle. But it’s simply not useful enough to be an only vehicle, and getting a fun one with nice options pushes it very close to $50k. It doesn’t have the kind of residual value to make it a sane place to park that kind of cash (even if I could part with that much without worry), which also makes it a bad car to lease. The Challenger offers AWD, and though it’s not offered with the power train I’d prefer, it’s large enough to be a little more useful and would work better year ’round. The Mustang comes across as being a higher-quality product. And for me, at least, the Miata exists as a fun car for about half the price. So there’s really no value proposition to the Camaro. Good luck to GM with that one.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    The Camaro design is simply confounding. I don’t understand how any human being could sit in a car made for masses, and approve such a design. I don’t car how well it handles or how well it accelerates. The Camaro fails as a every day vehicle. It is less practical than Corvette. That should never be. A full resdesign is what they need, but we know how GM doesn’t refine. Once a car is out, it looks pretty much the same until the next generation. They deserve the lowly sales.

  • avatar
    hamish42

    Make them so that this slim-built 5’7′ man can get in the thing and having any chance of driving it safely because you are in essence driving a tube. I think the lack of visibility could even have play in auto accidents. I tried, but there was just no way I could see. Not to mention my 5’4″ wife who might have wanted to drive it the odd time based on her 50% of the payment load.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    -Fix the visibility
    -Get rid of every stamp for the Alpha platform, seriously who designed that POS? Compared to the Zeta it is a garbage platform.
    -V8 in the upper 20k range, seriously I don’t get this, stop treating these engines like they’re special, people are willing to buy them – offer them at a real no BS price.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t expect they’d do a 6.2L car for under $35K, but I think it would be a good move to replace the 3.6L (starts at ~$28K) with either the 5.3L (which would probably get the same fuel economy as the V6) or the 6.0L from the Caprice (which is very likely cheaper to produce than the V6).

    • 0 avatar
      Reino

      I’m curious: what’s makes the Alpha so bad?

  • avatar
    C7Z514Ever

    GM could sell many more Camaros by reducing the cartoonish look and improving the visibility. While this look may be popular for some, it’s a definite turn off for many. All it has to do is look back to 1969 for true inspiration. I’d buy one tomorrow if the look was more “classic”.

  • avatar
    Reino

    I think the sport sedan is what’s killing the muscle car. Back in the 90’s the Camaro was king of performance in a useable 2+2 coupe (it even had a hatchback!). Except for BMW, there were not many four-doors available that catered to performance. Today you have dozens of performance 4-doors from the affordable Focus ST, GTI, and WRX all the way to the bonkers M3, M5, IS-F, C63 AMG, GS-F, ATS-v and CTS-v, etc. All of these cars are much more feasible for daily use than the muscle cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      If you’re a young high testosterone male in a small town in the flyover America, then it is not socially desirable to drive a car like VW GTI or Ford Focus ST. Please. You need a car that’s _big_ and _loud_. Most of the guys who drive Camaros and Challengers did not buy those because they sat down and did a calculation to answer the question “which car gets me through a twisty canyon fastest for the least amount of monthly payment”. Their main concern is “which car gets me the most pussies with my credit?”

  • avatar

    GM will probably cancel the Camaro. This is what Mary Barra is all about. When things get tough GM just surrenders. What is happening over at Cadillac is simply criminal.

    Until there is a leadership change at GM the problems will just get worse.

  • avatar

    The only Camaros in my area tend to cluster-on the way to our weekly car show, and are all the hi-po ground pounders, most modded. I enjoy the non OE v-8 thunder.

    Same buyers as the Corvette….guys my age with some grey hair……

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Maybe it’s just such a dumb form of car that few people want one.

    • 0 avatar

      no, back in the 60’s…they made sense. Baby Boom, an economy where a “kid” could save his pennies and save his dimes, and buy a brand new 409…….they weren’t all yet in debt bondage for school.

      I had a 1969 Firebird in High School….it was a beater back then, not some car show classic….and it had decent room front and a usable back seat….not like the current Camaro or the Mustang rental in my driveway now.

      Heck, GM would do better to pull an FCA and build a retro “maro, to the tune of the 67-69 version.

      A modern Camaro, shorn of the baggage, would be on the Zeta chassis….a two door coupe on the holden frame….livable back seats….minimal electronics, a V8 and a V6.

      DW calls it. You’d not buy a Camaro if the Vette is 57k new….and a lightly used C7 is hovering around 40-45k

      • 0 avatar
        DweezilSFV

        Speedlaw: you could also get the Sprint OHC 6 at that time as well. The “pony cars’ were not all hi-po muscle cars, but many were modest, sporty looking grocery getters.

        Many had the lowest HP V8 available as a balance between acceleration and fuel economy. Some sort of variance of purpose in the model line up.

        The first Camaros even used the single leaf rear springs from the Chevy II did it not ?

        I’m with you on the Zeta thing. The Mustang and Camaro have morphed into something wide of the mark. Caricatures. The 71 Mustang compared to a 65.

        Perhaps the market for the sort of car they have become has been saturated and a re-thinking of the concept is necessary.

        • 0 avatar

          I recently had a two day rental of the ecotech 4 mustang. I was floored. Last “stang I rode in was a flappy fendered, crap build house for a V8. Fast in a line but that was it.

          The current Mustang is fast…decently built inside…OK seats…Sync was easy to use. The turbo four made very good power. I had to get over that part, but the gages allow a lot of displays…hit a new high bar for how good gages can be. ATS take note. I left the middle gage on “boost”. 20 lbs in bursts…and it liked 93 octane.

          Even with the base tires, it handled pretty well. The only thing was the back seat was a joke…my son is six foot. His GF is a size two, and even she was close in the back seat…if you consider it a two seater it’s quite nice. Over rough pavement, zero rear axle walk or axle tramp.

          Sacrilege to say it, but it drove like a friend’s 428i…and the interior quality wasn’t far off. I’ve never driven a Camaro (after the 1975 model year) but the current ‘Stang makes me wonder…hmm…with a V8 ?….

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    The wheels look stupid on the Camaros in my town. 20″?!? The old guys are driving them around their neighbourhoods like they’re breaking the engines in – at 1700 RPM.

  • avatar
    nrd515

    I would be in the market for a Camaro next year, IF:

    1. It looked good. I’ve never understood the whole basis for this and the last generations’s looks. It’s awful ugly. And why they continued the ugliness with the current generation car just totally amazes me, and not in a good way. All you need to get me back? Second gen styling, with a hatch. SOLD!

    2. I’m not a fan of huge greenhouses, it was one of my constant complaints years ago that there was too much glass on many cars, but in this case, more glass would be an improvement, a big one. But don’t go crazy.

    3. I don’t care all that much about the back seat, but make the next one, if there is one, a hatchback, or make the trunk usable. It’s not hard.

    The Challenger gets it all right. Looks good, back seat is usable, and the trunk is huge. I use the trunk every day.

    My 2010 R/T is almost 7 years old and I plan on buying another one next year.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • gasser: Pull every diesel, car or truck, over 20 years old off the road. Start a statewide “cash for smoke...
  • shane_the_ee: You must work on the Eastside. We’re in West Seattle, where the commute is, well, “a hell...
  • Sigivald: This. Let’s not handwave “emissions” as if smog has anything to do with CO2 (which is...
  • Scoutdude: I now have a clam shelled 4dr Supercab F150 in the fleet and they are a pain in tight parking lots. I...
  • JohnTaurus: *by then, not “V-6then”

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff