Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjlm
Here's why there is such a difference between the Camaro and the Corvette. Camaro, like Mustang, has to generate sufficient volume to make the program profitable or it doesn't make sense. And it has to do that within a certain price band. In order to fit the car within that price band, it has to sell beyond the performance car enthusiast population. Those are the people that are more likely to be considering it as an only car. If it's an only car, it needs to do car things well. Camaro does those things "less well" than Mustang, Charger, or Challenger. So what we see as "shortcomings" the person who's replacing his Ford Escape or her Chevy Cruze will see those shortcomings as deal breakers.
Corvette is what it is. Performance first. And it is rarely an only car. My first Corvette was an only car. For about 6 months. I was 26, had just bought my first house, and I was single. Then winter hit. Bought a used Buick Skylark T-Type with the quickness  Before that, Mustangs and Fieros were my "only cars" and they fit the bill just fine. Camaro needed to do the same in the Chevrolet portfolio, but Corvette never needed to. Volume is less important because Corvette has a lot of room for pricing flexibility. Today prices range from $68,300 to a hiccup below $200k. The fact that it costs about half what its primary competitors cost reinforces GM's ability to price profitably for every option. The person buying a Corvette could care less about back seat room (don't have / don't need) and as long as you can see around the curves at Waterford Hills or VIR or Road America it's all good. Sure there are people who never take their Corvette to the track, but they buy it because it's ability to kill on the track translates into street cred and completely forgives any shortcomings as a daily driver.
Corvette doesn't have to reach beyond the core group of performance car enthusiasts to survive. Camaro (and Mustang and Charger / Challenger) absolutely have to. The compromises made in the 6th Gen Camaro make it very hard for a first time sporty car buyer coming out of a more mainstream vehicle come to love it on first impression. |
And the other issue is that the Corvette from the beginning is set up as low volume car that can be profitable at lower volumes. As much as everyone over the years has bitched about the "plastic" Corvette, the tooling for door, fenders etc. is much less when you are using molded parts vs. stamped. As just an example. But if your capital is less, then the business case changes.
The Gen6 Camaro was forced to use the Alpha architecture. It was GM's only RWD choice to make a Camaro. Take one look at the aluminium cast front strut mounts and that will tell you all you need to know. And the business case for the Camaro was very likely built around 75 to 80,000 units. And when you pick an expensive architecture to start with you set a very high bar, even when you are sharing a manufacturing facility.
So, yeah, you can get into the tooling was paid for (GM typically used 18 months) you still have to sell a lot of cars to keep it going.
And as this conversation goes on, I have to remind everyone that advertising is a subset of marketing. The car not being advertised doesn't mean it wasn't marketed. The Mustang was not advertised either and it was pretty much number one in the segment for all of Gen6. Just because Vin Diesel was in some cool commercials doesn't mean GM didn't know what it was doing. If you have to pay Vin $5,000,000 you better be selling another 5,000 Camaros. GM knew it wouldn't/couldn't.
It was a fabulous car designed for Camaro owners who already had a Camaro. It was NOT designed to attract non Camaro owners. THAT was GM's failure in this. Nothing more. It was a car with very specific appeal, and they did an outstanding job of making a car for those customers. You see it in years of passionate posts in Camaro5/6 and in this very thread.