08-05-2016, 11:08 AM | #435 |
Bump in the night
Drives: '84 Monte Carlo SS, '15 Optima Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 744
|
Now if they made it voice NAV with Sofia Vergara or Marilyn Monroe giving me directions, I could deal with the price. lol
__________________
|
08-05-2016, 11:10 AM | #436 | |
Drives: Four wheels and an engine Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Garage
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
The LT3.6 putting down similar performance numbers as a LT1 4th Gen doesn't make it a viable replacement...not in the pony/sporty car market. |
|
08-05-2016, 11:14 AM | #437 | |
Drives: Four wheels and an engine Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Garage
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
|
|
08-05-2016, 11:20 AM | #438 |
Drives: White Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 251
|
I honestly think you are underestimating the costs of Nav. Google Maps has spoiled us. Google is providing a service in their Maps app and navigation feature that they subsidize by their ability to print money from the advertising dollars they make, and then in turn, their maps and nav features help drive users and keep you in that ecosystem.
Navigation is not as easy to solve as you think it is. Look how hard Apple fell on their face initially with Apple Maps. Yeah the cost of integrating the GPS receiver is nothing, but making sure the navigation is good, and usable [which from what I've heard is the case with this car] is not such a simple problem, and unlike the $100 phone which can use Google Maps, GM has to support/maintain the nav function on the car. Your $100 phone analogy just falls apart, because you won't even get support for the hardware of that trash tier phone, let alone support [from the phone manufacturer] of any nav/map problems you might have. Also, $500 navigation is not what is making this car expensive. It's the partially aluminium frame engineered to beat a 3 series, the 455hp Corvette motor engineered to go up against a Porsche, and the interior, which for the first time ever maybe doesn't make people gag. It's just a better car than it used to be, from the underpinnings to the materials used in the interior. I know you know all those things btw. I'm just trying to point out that complaining about the nav option seems irrelevant since even if that was included in the base price without increasing the cost of the car over what it is now, it wouldn't make the Camaro 'inexpensive' in it's segment. This is the premium car in the segment. I think the Challenger is the retro car in this segment and the Mustang is the budget car in this segment. Everything about the new Camaro says 'premium' to me [in context anyways, obviously it's not premium as compared to a Porsche], and as such it makes sense that they would sell fewer cars to me. Maybe GM didn't see that though. But I would think that makes them very bad at business if they didn't expect that increasing the base cost of the vehicle and making it more expensive across the board would also lead to fewer sales. |
08-05-2016, 11:24 AM | #439 | |
Drives: White Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
My only point is that it's not a hugely expensive option if it matters to you. The car is not expensive because of the $500 NAV option. |
|
08-05-2016, 11:29 AM | #440 | |
Drives: None Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
|
|
08-05-2016, 11:49 AM | #441 | |
Drives: 2014 2LS (traded in) 2015 1SS 1LE Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: New York
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
08-05-2016, 11:58 AM | #442 | |
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 964
|
Quote:
If you don't value the competency of the Camaro and just want a V8 powered sports coupe to casually drive around, the base Mustang GT is perfectly suitable for those types of people and probably wouldn't be able to justify the $4k difference. But if you're buying the track pack for the Mustang GT, the Camaro 1SS should be given a look too. Or if you are going to pick up an automatic pony car and want the better suspension of the Camaro vs the Mustang GT since the track pack is not available with the auto. |
|
08-05-2016, 12:21 PM | #443 | |
C'mon- really?
Drives: Looking for a ZL1 Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nortwestern Ohio
Posts: 1,966
|
Quote:
I was only making the point that even with the rate of inflation you can buy a much better car - in safety, fuel mileage, structural rigidity, engine management, emissions, rust resistance, NVH, comfort, and especially performance - for the equivalent dollars as a '73 Z/28 cost 43 years ago. Sure, a '73 Z/28 had 8 cylinders - that is irrelevant. It also got 8-10 mpg and was lucky if it ran a 15 second quarter mile. So for SOME people who do not care about cylinder count and only want to have fun, the LT is a BETTER car at an equivalent price to the '73 Z/28. No, it does not have an SS on the grille or a Z/28 for that matter. It does not have 8 cylinders. But it is still a much better car at an equivalent price in 1973 dollars and we should not lose sight of that. The pony/sporty car market is SO much bigger than our 'V8 or nothing' universe that it is easy to not see what is really there. I'm just sayin' that in TODAY'S world, the 6G LT 3.6 is indeed a viable replacement - especially performance wise - for a '73 Z/28. No, it's not an SS, a ZL1 or a new Z/28. But it is still a damned good car for the money that will put just as big a grin on your face as that '73 Z/28 did mine and at a much lower cost of ownership for fuel etc.
__________________
Steve
2018 Camaro 2SS 1LE Black #3805 - SOLD |
|
08-05-2016, 12:39 PM | #444 | |
Drives: Four wheels and an engine Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Garage
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Let's study Jan-July 2015 and 2016. Can't break 2016 numbers between 5th gen and 6th gen down because GM has provided no breakdown so these numbers will be off in favor of the 6th gen. Jan-July 2015 sales = 50062 units sold and let's set the ATP right around the national average - $33,000. 50062*$33,000=$1,652,046,000 in revenue. Jan-July 2016 sales = 42354 (don't forget this does include some 5th gens, actual 6th gen volume is lower) and the ATP is $33,000 + $3700 = $36,700. 42354*$36,700=$1,554,391,800 in revenue. $1,652,046,000 - $1,554,391,800 = $97,654,200 in additional revenue in Jan-Jul 2015 over Jan-July 2016. What will the rest of 2016 need to look like to match 2015? 2015 sales = 77,502 (using the same averages again) 77,502*$33,000=$2,557,566,000 2016 sales need to hit $2,557,566,000/$36,700= 69,688 units to match 2015s revenue. Chevy needs to average 5467 per month for the rest of the year to hit the revenue goal. Remember two things: 1) This is revenue, not profits 2) These numbers are skewed in favor of the 6th gen by counting all 2016 sales as 6th gen (which we know is not true). Which means Chevy/GM have their work cut out for them. |
|
08-05-2016, 12:42 PM | #445 | |
C'mon- really?
Drives: Looking for a ZL1 Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nortwestern Ohio
Posts: 1,966
|
Quote:
__________________
Steve
2018 Camaro 2SS 1LE Black #3805 - SOLD |
|
08-05-2016, 12:45 PM | #446 |
Drives: Four wheels and an engine Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Garage
Posts: 363
|
I'd bet no as well. 6th Gen is new and needs to amortize the development costs while paying for actually building each car.
|
08-05-2016, 12:49 PM | #447 | |
Drives: 2016 Summit White Camaro 2SS Join Date: May 2009
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 759
|
Quote:
The discussion shouldn't focus on how many cars are sold, but on if GM is making a profit, the one question that we can't answer. Making this whole thread a lot of speculation and personal opinion, at least for the time being. |
|
08-05-2016, 12:50 PM | #448 |
Drives: 2014 2LS (traded in) 2015 1SS 1LE Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: New York
Posts: 2,132
|
Part of the issue is we don't know what Gen 6 cost GM so we have no idea what the profit margin is or what percentage of R&D was camaro specific in the parts bin that needs to be amortized by Camaro 6.
All we really know is that for some reason which is logically price people don't want it.
__________________
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|