Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Chevrolet Camaro
231 messages, Last post on Oct 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
Replying to: chris65amg (Jan 09, 2006 2:54 pm) Styling (with the exception of the nose) looks 'right' to my eyes. But I see NO WAY that GM can build this car, with an aluminum 400hp LS2, IRS, and 6M for less than $30k. What killed the last F-bodies was NOT a lack of performance. Partly what killed them was the cost. GM would do fine with their 5.3l V8 as the 'standard' V8 and a 5M to keep the base V8 cost at around $25-26k. Leave the LS2 for a future SS edition. And maybe some enterprising 'Yenko' type dealer can talk GM into a few Z06 editions....
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jan 10, 2006 8:05 am) But I dont think price will stop die hard Camaro fans.  I guess at the end of the day the Mustang stands out as the real value, albeit with less power, only 300hp for less than $30K. But even it's 450hp cousin the GT500 will be $40K. Essentially there is no way for the Big 3 to sell +400hp muscle cars at $30K. The Mustang has 300hp so that's why it's cheap.
|
|
|
Replying to: navigator89 (Jan 10, 2006 9:35 am) It's my opinion, but there will be very few people who will pay $35k for a 2 door rwd v-8 coupe. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept, but the reality is, not many people who can afford this, will buy it. It is a niche vehicle, and when the price spars past $30k, it becomes even more of a niche. Now around $22k - $26k, then you have a lot more potential buyers. I agree with Rorr, put in the 5.3, and leave the 6.0 for future models or Yenko tuners. I think the 3.9 with a turbo or supercharge would also be a viable alternative. No matter what, Camaro's have always been about performance and value, and they are not mutually exclusive. If the Camro can't compete price wise with the 300 hp Mustang, that extra 100 hp may make it faster, but it will lose a lot in sales. If they want to get an edge, make an awd Camaro. Those of us in the snow belt would really be interested then. True, that goes against the original, but so do airbags, and ABS and most of us (I know not all) believe those are important items to have too. I think the IRS is a good move on their part, but I would rather less and not have it - or have the option if that was possible. Lack of an IRS doesn't seem to be hurting Mustang sales I don't think. |
|
|
|
|
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/13/behind-the-scenes-creating-the-chevrolet-- camaro-concept/ Interesting pictures.
|
|
|
Replying to: navigator89 (Jan 14, 2006 2:27 am) |
|
|
First of all, welcome to Edmunds. But there's no need to be rude just to stir the pudding. Second, who in the heck is Mike from Scarborough? If you want to reply to someone, there's a nice little 'reply' option next to each post. It works great and can cut down on the confusion. Third, I'll agree that for the last few years, the Mustang certainly hasn't been in the same ball park (ie. graveyard of failed models). And for several years prior to that, it certainly wasn't in the same low-selling ballpark as the Camaro (more than double Camaro/Firebird sales combined). I'm fairly certain FoMoCo didn't want to be in that particular ball park. But even if you only look at performance, the Mustang has been pretty much in the same ballpark as the Camaro for most of their history which is one reason why the rivalry has been so entertaining for nearly 40 years. And fourth, I think it's just a tad bit early to start comparing the two since all we've seen to this point on the Camaro is a concept. We have no idea if the LS2, 6sp, IRS, etc. will actually make production and, if they do, where the MSRP might be. Which brings me to a question for the forum: can the Camaro compete with the Mustang on roughly equal performance footing (approx. 300hp/5sp manual in a 3500lb package for a base of $25k) OR must the Camaro offer superior performance to sell in large numbers? The reason I ask is because the previous generation F-bodies had superior performance but there was a price to be paid; either in a higher MSRP or perceived reliability/quality issues, insurance cost, etc. Does GM run the risk of deja vu all over again if they go for the big 6.0l guns right out of the box? |
|
Back in the muscle car era, you didn't have to be rich to drive a Mustang, Camaro, or a Challenger, even if they had the big engines in them. All 3 of these cars should be priced under $30K or they just aren't going to sell in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile for their companies to build them.
|
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Jan 16, 2006 5:23 pm) -------------------------------------------- I agree but I think the base price needs to be under 25k. 30k is still too much for the young guys who would love these cars. Under 25k means a smaller, lighter body and a smaller engine. A sharp looking coupe with 250hp that weighed under 3000lbs could be a lot of fun. The price would be lower, the mileage would be better, the insurance would be lower. Makes a lot more sense to me than a 3800lb car with 400hp that costs 35k. |
|
|
|
This should satisfy all those wanting the Camaro to be affordable and come with a V6.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Chevrolet Camaro
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Camaro
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
