Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503
The "first three things" you mention, Norm, are what made this car a success and is what buyer's wanted in the Camaro model line, and why other makes were not even considered ...All of a sudden this is just no longer acceptable?
What you call a compromise, I would say gives the car it's sales appeal, popularity, repeat customer loyalty, and "image"...
|
Did you happen to catch the first part of that
Quote:
|
You don't have to target the car directly to be great or just merely good at all of those things. Build the car to have primary emphasis on the first three but with enough utility to be able to function as somebody's only car.
|
As in, I am not disagreeing with performance being the car's primary focus or that it should stay that way.
The catch comes with what constituted an adequate level of performance, and I'm sure that you and I differ substantially on how much attention is paid to each of the various measures of that performance. Let alone what's OK to somebody less hardcore than either of us.
As far as the stereo-types you describe that now buy the car, ignoring their reasons or ability to purchase a car that others may not see as "practicle", is the reason the car should not include a I-4....Build a car that is "practicle"...compete for market with every other "practical" car with the Camaro, and those damn elitist, v-8, SS owners with some money in their pocket, just might not consider a Camaro in the future...[/QUOTE]
Coupes in general aren't as "practical" as 4-door sedans and such, and I don't expect them to ever be that practical. Certainly not to the extent that performance absolutely must be bred out of them in order to get there. What's your point here?
And I still don't get why you or anybody else would refuse to buy a V8 SS Camaro solely because of the existence of an I4-T version. Talk about shots fired and feet
. . . . neither you nor I would have to buy such a version, and it's highly unlikely that either of us ever would.
Norm