Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSSStlfan
The modern GTO is a classic example though. The 5th and 6th gen Camaros at least resemble a Camaro and Muscle car. Despite GM not producing a ton of them, marketing it properly, providing good rebates, etc it's still around.
If the Camaro was totally off like they did with the GTO then it wouldn't have been around this like.
It's clear GM is becoming more bland. I seriously have to wonder what the Corvette will eventually be like. Hopefully that eventually doesn't get basterized as well.
Lambo and Porsche would be able to survive. They just wouldn't be as big but they're still known for sports cars and sell many of them.
I still say with the Camaro the blind spot is an issue with sales. However the incentives along with lack of selection at dealers is an issue too due to price.
Look at Ford. They sell a lot of the base model Mustang GTs and the big Ford dealer 30 miles from me carries a selection of it. The Chevy equiv is the LT1 Camaro. Dealers hardly ever carry the LT1 and when they do carry an LT1 around here they're loaded up and cost as much as a 1ss and they sit there.
Why buy a loaded up Lt1 for 42 grand when a base model Mustang GT with similar performance numbers and better visibility is thousands cheaper and easier to find?
Most of the dealers down here carry loaded up 2SS which cost way more than the base Model Mustang GT and still costs more than the Premium Mustang as well
|
Yeah, I agree that bastardizing the names doesn't usually end too well. Remember the Challengers from the 80s that's basically a rebadged Mitsubishi? LOL
And yeah, usually there are just more choices of Mustangs on the dealer lots, at least over here. When I was in Alberta, though, the choice of Camaro wasn't bad, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjlm
Really good analysis. I have to agree that GM is taking a risk putting all their eggs in one basket, but I understand why they are doing it. I’m just certain that it’s not the way I would approach it. During the transition years there will be a significant number of customers for whom HEV makes more sense than BEV.
I know it wasn’t you, but earlier in the thread someone discounted Mary Barra as “a bean counter”. I’m sure she would like it if her competition was equally dismissive of who and what she is. What she really is is a strategist with a broad knowledge base built from all the places she’s been in the company. That includes HR, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and most importantly, Product Development. Product Development is pretty much what Mark Reuss controls now and what Bob Lutz controlled in his last stint with GM. In the time period between Lutz and Reuss, Mary held the job. Not exactly a bean counting job. Not by a long shot. Ironically, Finance (land of beans and those who count them) is one area where Mary has spent little, if any, time.
You mention that Toyota has their doubts. Here’s just a couple reasons why they have doubts. For many years, the Toyota strategy centered on HEV, with Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV) being the “ultimate hybrid”. Thing is, FCEV tech is at least a couple technology development generations behind BEV. Toyota is not yet ready to abandon FCEV for BEV, so they are by their own choice behind on BEV. The BEV products they are coming to market with next year are because they have to, not because they want to. Their strategy actually makes a lot of sense. Look at their home market, Japan. It’s a nation of islands where the greatest masses of people live in compressed urban high-rise accommodations. Little if any access to plugs, so BEVs don’t make a lot of sense. And since each island has a finite amount of land mass, they can provide fueling coverage for an entire island with a minimum number of refueling stations. Thing is, that play doesn’t work for China, Europe, or North America. They all have sprawling land masses where it is super costly and not very efficient to deploy hydrogen refueling. So Toyota is maintaining a strategy of mainly hybrids in those areas, but now those areas are mandating BEVs, so hybrids aren’t good enough and Toyota is behind on BEV.
|
Yeah, I think something like a modular PHEV/BEV design would be good. It's sort of like what Mazda is doing with the MX-30 - they have a BEV version and then a PHEV version with a rotary range extender. I am not sure how well it will translate with a piston engine(which is larger and less power-dense), but I feel like it could work if executed well. Either stuff the car with more batteries for BEV or take away some space and make a PHEV with a range extender for those who are concerned with range.
I don't really know Mary Barra so I won't judge her. Back when Mark Reuss crashed the C7 ZR1 pace car, I was also among the people that said "paper pushers shouldn't be driving such a powerful car."... Except Mark actually has a ton of performance driving experience under his belt and that crash was more of a fluke. He actively participates in some prototype driving like the CT5-V Blackwing. It's hilarious that he probably has way more performance driving experience than 99.9% of the people who trashed him.
As for Toyota, don't they have some stake in developing solid-state batteries? They are a pipe dream now, but I also feel like if they are capable of developing FCEV, then BEV shouldn't be too much extra effort. Also, the Japanese domestic market has always been weird enough to create some headaches for Japanese manufacturers. I have read before that Japanese manufacturers actually don't like the fact that their Kei cars sell well because those things only really work in Japan, so it limits their resources on what they can manufacture for something that can be used globally.