Pontiac may be dead by monday..

[442w30]

I don't necessarily buy that prospective buyers went directly to Ford.

I also don't think the Challenger is a direct competitor to either of them. It's akin to having an Eclispe being a competitor to the Mustang - kinda, yes, but kinda, no.

The Challenger, to me, is a 2-door Charger, FWIW.

[Chevy454]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily buy that prospective buyers went directly to Ford.

I also don't think the Challenger is a direct competitor to either of them. It's akin to having an Eclispe being a competitor to the Mustang - kinda, yes, but kinda, no.

The Challenger, to me, is a 2-door Charger, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with that...I know some guys, in this podunk town of just 600 people, that were left without a car [f-body] and went to the Mustang...and soon their truck purchases followed...as did their wive's car(s).

And I don't see *how* the Chally isn't a competitor to the F-body/Mustang...the target audience is the same, and everyone is comparing the 3.

[442w30]

Mustang product planners discovered that when Camaro buyers couldn't afford insurance, they didn't go to a V6 Camaro - they went to a pickup truck.

Look at my Eclipse analogy again . . . the Challenger is quite a different car than the Mustang. The fact that it looks like a ponycar and it's inspired by one doesn't necessarily make it one, regardless to whom it's targeted. :twocents:

[CC Rider]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with that...I know some guys, in this podunk town of just 600 people, that were left without a car [f-body] and went to the Mustang...and soon their truck purchases followed...as did their wive's car(s).


[/ QUOTE ]

That is EXACTLY what I did. Since the Camaro was discontinued, my once ALL CHEVY driveway now includes a Ford, Dodge, and a Nissan.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
GM has no one to blame but themselves.

02'Camaro production was stopped for this POS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR

Lots of guys who would have purchased a GM product left the brand after GM left part of its established core loyalty group. (Camaro owners) Many jumped to Ford and picked up stangs and then F-series too...

A senior GM official has been quoted as saying the Camaro "had to go away" It did not have to go away anymore than the SSR had to be produced. This is an example of just one of a series of bad business decisions made that resulted in the GM that we now see today.

Too bad for Pontiac. Another mistake about to be made. Tossing aside Pontiac heritage is going to be a huge mistake for whatever remains of GM.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it had to go away was impending crash standards that it would not pass. Plus no one was buying the damn car anyway. Check the production numbers of the F body in its final years. The last three years of production GM made 45, 29, and 42 thousand Camaros. No way they could make money on that volume. Or justify redesigning the car.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only one problem with your post above. You are a little misinformed. Middlebrook (the manager who moved over from Pontiac) was the decisionmaker - and the decision to Kill both the Camaro and Firebird was made in 1997.

The 1998 redisign was engineering complete and cost finalized for production in late 1996- the issue for 2003 was rollover not crash.

The reason the car did not sell well after the 1998 redisign was linked to the redesign being only frontal and not the rear as planned. Round Corvette tail lights were planned but rejected due to cost, so sales flopped due to GM failing to freshen up the body as Ford did with the Mustang.

Also Camaro Pulled out of SCCA T/A at the time of the decision and GM then saved even more money by backing Ron Capps in NHRA Funny car.

Advertising fell to just a few ads in periodicals ONLY after the 1997 heritage TV ad campign.

You see there was plenty of time to redesign the Camaro, but the money was in trucks so instead of redesigning the F-Body they shot the wad on the SSR a low mark for quality with a roof that would not even go up or down correctly.

Bad and intentional decisions made at the corporate level.

If you think I am wrong - please be specific on what you think I am wrong on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a rollover NOT a crash??? I didnt say front impact or side impact. I said crash, which last time I checked can involve a rollover.

Production totals fell by 50% from 1995 to 1996. What was the reason for that? The numbers stayed low from that point on.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
What car took over the plant from the Camaro in Canada?

Certainly there was more profit in that than building an aging F-body whose combined sales didn't match the Mustang's. Stopping the Camaro wasn't such a dumb decision from a business standpoint.

To another post . . . I don't think the general public really cares about what engine is in whichever GM car. They want to be able to get from Point A to Point B. GM's problems really started in the early-1970s with poor quality and poor gas mileage in a time when there was an oil embargo. And - admit it - the musclecars we love so much aren't really so great other than in our minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. If GM made the decision to keep making engines for each brand they wouldve went bankrupt 20 years ago.

[70 copo]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it had to go away was impending crash standards that it would not pass. Plus no one was buying the damn car anyway. Check the production numbers of the F body in its final years. The last three years of production GM made 45, 29, and 42 thousand Camaros. No way they could make money on that volume. Or justify redesigning the car.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only one problem with your post above. You are a little misinformed. Middlebrook (the manager who moved over from Pontiac) was the decisionmaker - and the decision to Kill both the Camaro and Firebird was made in 1997.

The 1998 redisign was engineering complete and cost finalized for production in late 1996- the issue for 2003 was rollover not crash.

The reason the car did not sell well after the 1998 redisign was linked to the redesign being only frontal and not the rear as planned. Round Corvette tail lights were planned but rejected due to cost, so sales flopped due to GM failing to freshen up the body as Ford did with the Mustang.

Also Camaro Pulled out of SCCA T/A at the time of the decision and GM then saved even more money by backing Ron Capps in NHRA Funny car.

Advertising fell to just a few ads in periodicals ONLY after the 1997 heritage TV ad campign.

You see there was plenty of time to redesign the Camaro, but the money was in trucks so instead of redesigning the F-Body they shot the wad on the SSR a low mark for quality with a roof that would not even go up or down correctly.

Bad and intentional decisions made at the corporate level.

If you think I am wrong - please be specific on what you think I am wrong on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a rollover NOT a crash??? I didnt say front impact or side impact. I said crash, which last time I checked can involve a rollover.



Production totals fell by 50% from 1995 to 1996. What was the reason for that? The numbers stayed low from that point on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes a crash can include a rollover. Frontal impact, side impact and rear impact can be mitigated by vehicle improvements that typically do not cause a redesign.

Why new roll over standards are tougher for an auto manufacturers is due to the increased roof crush requirements which cause the entire structure of a vehicle to be revised to insure that structure is strong enough to protect against head and neck injuries- thus improvements in other structural components are needed to reduce injury severity to the crash test occupants.

Changes to crash means you reinforce what you have. Changes to rollover means a redesign.

You state the 1995 and 1996 production as reduced by 50% from year to year.

According to GM records total Camaro production for 1995 was 98,938 and in 1996 75,336.

Just where are you getting 50% from that?

[Charley Lillard]

My understanding was the reason the Camaro got killed in 2002 was simply to get out of the Union contract in Canada.

[The Dude]

http://www.camaro-registry.com/production.htm

[70 copo]

Numbers for both 1995 and 1996 listed at that web site are incorrect. Industry trade Journals did report total assembly output with a higher number in 1995 as 122,844 which was classified as "units" (Ste Therese also made firebirds) and the web site you posted above has another completely different set of production numbers which I have no idea where they got for both 1995 and 1996. Could be a combination of model year vs calander year and industry unit info mixed in.