[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

It’s Alpha siblings performance is also concerning. Ignoring Camaro and poor sales of the new CT4/5 Alpha2 models spells doom.

ATS - 47
CTS - 160
CT4 - 41
CT5 - 3,000
Camaro - 7,185

Total - 10,433

OUCH that is bad. But didn't the CT4 and CT5 just start rolling out in this quarter?

Originally Posted by Smokin19

A lot of assumptions being made here so, I will add mine. Because of this pandemic we are going to be going into a recession, with a lot of people losing their jobs. This does not bode well for any type of car sales. Even those that keep their jobs they may have second thoughts about taking on more debt at this time. Car prices are already outpacing wages. How will this affect car sales, let alone Camaro sales, only time will tell.

This is true ^ this is going to really hurt the segment, the problem here is Challenger and Mustang were still in the 10K units for the quarter. Camaro was not. Yes the segment as a whole is bad, Camaro did worse.

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

FYI: The GT350 and the GT500 are both basically a parts bin car as well. Other than the motor, wheels, and shock the rest is a base Mustang with a package. Just like the ZL1.

Difference is for the parts bin argument is no other Ford has the VooDoo or Predator. LT4 is in the Camaro, Corvette and former CTS-V

Originally Posted by hotlap

- The slammed roof’s bunker sensation is a hard sell to non-enthusiasts.

- Buyer demographic has changed. All non-SUV/CUV sales are down.

- The Camaro is no longer inexpensive.

- The gen6 is going into its 6th model year with no significant power or styling change. (The 2020 redo made it look like previous 16-18)

-Chevy does nothing to build the brand.

1. No advertising.
2. No new performance variants since 2018. Sorry ..A10 in a 1LE doesn’t count.
3. No new attention grabbing trims since 2018 HW. Sorry ...shock and steel went unnoticed. See #1.

It’s clear to me that is Chevy riding this model out until they make the next move. Poor CT4 and CT5 sales don’t point to a future as it is, has, been. I doubt I’ll care about what they will end up doing.

That is one thing that is so hard for people to understand. The volume for all of these cars comes from the low end models where majority of buyers won't care if its the fastest/best handling/ whatever. Does it look good, does it offer good features and does it do what they need it to do.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Flat out, the Camaro is the best performing car in the segment. Regardless of not getting in a HP chase with Fiat and Ford, GM has outstanding engines. The Coyote in the Mustang is wildly more expensive than the LT1/LT4. And to get the HP Ford and Fiat are getting with the GT500 and Hellcat isn't cheap either.

Comments earlier about the Z/28 getting a 10 year old engine and Corvette CC brakes. Well at the time, NOTHING could touch that car. But it was horribly expensive and gave up every creature comfort (optional A/C) to dominate the track. And it did. And it sold like crap not meeting the 2,500 per year target in either year if I recall correctly.

So GM has elected to not pursue higher priced Camaros (LT5) with low sales volumes. Remember, they are about profit now. If people would line up to buy it, make GM more profit, then they would do it.

GM has fixed capital to invest, fixed resources to devote to projects and programs. Of course on this site we believe GM should devote those to the Camaro. But step back and ask why GM should pour more money into a car that is way under performing from a sales point of view and you can jump to the conclusion, not meeting profitability targets. If you could buy stock in Camaro today, would you?

Our only hope is that there is something in the works that fixes sales but that is likely an entirely different vehicle.

In the end, as I've said so many times, GM gave us the best Camaro ever. But in doing so they gave us a car that was compromised for many potential customers in visibility, trunk volume and rear seat room all done for the sake of performance. All 3 attributes made worse compared to the Gen5 with the exception of front visibility over the hood, which was a big improvement.

Not having seen the numbers, but I would guess that the SS sells very well against the Mustang GT. But I would also guess the higher Mustang volumes are coming from the less powerful variants. Because what people buying a 2.0T or 3.6 Camaro want is a more practical car than it is. There are a lot of people that just want a fun car that works every day. Most of you on hear will argue to your last breath that visibility is not an issue (it is) mostly because you are willing to make that trade off for the "Best Camaro Ever". In a previous argument on this topic one of us told me if it was ok for the Camaro to have poor visibility because a Lamborghini had poor visibility. Maybe, maybe not. But if a customer is in the market for a "sporty coupe" in the world of SUVs you need some practicality. And as much as the Camaro is the best performing car in this segment, it's also the least practical of the 3.

And lets get everyone started again on this on. You can't get a set of golf clubs in the trunk of the Camaro. You can in both competitors. Many have simply stated, "who the F needs golf clubs in the trunk of a Camaro". Well you have simply answered part of the sales problem. You can sell a car with a small trunk to someone doesn't care about trunk space, but you can't sell a car with a small trunk to someone who does care. It's pretty simple. To paraphrase Bob Lutz's old adage that "you can sell a young mans car to an old person, but you can't sell and old man's car to a young person".

I know this will stir that pot up again, but when you get a "Why can't the Camaro outsell a 15 year old Fiat" and your only answer is lack of advertising, we have a fundamental problem. Most making that claim have to discount how the advertising industry works. And you have to assume that the very same people that advertise the $hit out of the Silverado are the very same people that say no to Camaro advertising. The very same people are smart about one product but blind to another. And you would have to COMPLETELY ignore that these same people have their performance evaluations at least partly based on sales to not have a clue. And again, arm chair marketers, you have believe that you know more than people armed with data we can't see, and years and years of experience we don't have.

And for anyone that has posted "you can sell anything if you just advertise it", that is fundamentally a flawed argument. GM isn't advertising because they know what they have. A car designed for Camaro enthusiasts. Which is why this argument is HUGE here. We are all here because we love this car. What's missing is consideration for the buyer who could not care less if it was a Camaro or the best performing car in the segment. So for them to advertise, it would be advertising to the people it was designed for and already know about it.......us. And that would make a ton of you happy.......it just wouldn't make GM any more money.

So the fundamental question, and GM never looked at is this way in all the years I was there, is not why are people buying the Camaro, we know that. But why are people NOT buying the Camaro.

And watch the posts that follow this. They will be ripe with "it's a perfect car for me so it's a perfect car, how could anyone think otherwise" without the open mindedness that the Camaro may actually not be best for other coupe buyers (as evidenced by the sales numbers)

So go ahead and tear this up.

Well said.

Originally Posted by hotlap

What percentage of Americans golf? Answer : ~8% , 6% men , 1/4 are avid
Only 0.06% of Americans buy Pony cars.
I think I would look elsewhere for the key to low Camaro sales.

I can fit a 30” roller suitcase, a large computer bag and my gym bag in the trunk easily. I don’t give a F about two sets of clubs.

https://cdn.cybergolf.com/images/186...-in-the-US.pdf

But it's not just golf clubs, but golf clubs are the easiest to talk about. That can almost relate to anybody that plays sports. Equipment takes up a lot of room. Ever seen a mens hockey bag? You're (not you but GM in a sense) basically saying anybody that wants to play sports still tough shit you can't also enjoy a pony car.

I've said it many times, I used to DD a Mustang since 04. Could get my golf clubs and bat bag in there. Life got in the way and I had to get rid of it. When my lease is up on my Mazda I might try to get back into a coupe because the wife has an Explorer. At the moment, I can't even consider the camaro because it won't allow me to still enjoy my other hobbies but the Mustang and Challenger will. I am not saying I need to be able to run to home depot and load the car up with stuff. I am just saying I think they could have made a slightly larger trunk opening/area with out compromising performance or styling that much.

Originally Posted by Jeb114

Enough that Corvette made sure a full set of golf bags fit in the new mid engine car.......

Originally Posted by Number 3

You have ruled out a percentage of people like me that LOVE the Camaro but need clubs in the trunk. Glad it works for your suitcase. But it ruled it out for me.

Yep, currently it has Camaro crossed off my potential list of cars as well.

Originally Posted by LESS1

You passed on a Camaro because if you wanted to go to the golf course you would need to put the rear seats down? Really? My wife and I go to the course often and take my Camaro now and again. It's really hard putting the seats down, takes a full min to accomplish. But it let us take our clubs, guess if you want something bad enough you will overcome. It never ceases to amaze me how lazy we are becoming in this instant gratification world we live in.

Can't put the seat down when you have a child seat in the back since it's not a split folding seat. It's a situation like that were trunk space is ideal.

Originally Posted by genxer

You're a tough one to win over. That's for sure.

I haven't been in a new Mustang. But, I'm not convinced it is more than marginally more practical.

The Mustang Convertible has more trunk space than the Camaro Coupe does...

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Show rush hour traffic on the 405 in LA at 5:00 in the afternoon. Show everyone's faces. They're all in their SUVs, family sedans, electrics, hybrids, and econoboxes with scowls on their face as nobody is going anywhere, and it's hot and miserable out......

Then it gets to the 2020 Camaro SS. The girl - yes, I said girl - in it has the biggest smile and she's laughing almost hysterically. That's when Mountain's Mississippi Queen kicks in and the announcer says "Chevy Camaro SS - because life's too short not to enjoy sitting in traffic"

Ford had a Mustang ad very similar to that, female teacher leaving school gets into her Mustang GT

Originally Posted by hotlap

If you’re going to design and leave it alone until the next generation, don’t plan to be relevant in the fifth, sixth and seventh model year. Botched facelift or not.

this ^

[RagingHawk]

This is a marketing and pricing issue pure and simple.

Camaro 5th gen used to sell a bunch because the V6 was standard and a 2LS could be had for 24-26K. People want to get in a Camaro but the V6 Camaro's are too expensive and most people don't want a turbo Camaro.

So instead they get a stripped down Ecoboost or Challenger V6 or even Challenger RT. Consumers are not smart and will not do research like enthusiasts do. They are driven by price and design. Corvette Team did a great job with the under 60,000 and everyone thinks you can get a C8 for under 60,000 when we know well majority of them will be well optioned out but nevertheless that's what the consumers heard.

Camaro's potential is also limited by the Corvette, but that is no longer the case since it the Vette went mid engine.

So for 7th gen, Chevy needs to improve the marketing. Drop the turbo and replace it with a standard V6. Defintely include an LT1 easy to get into V8 at launch. Include a supercharged version and then introduce more exciting variants like an more powerful supercharged version and electric peformance version.

The Mustang GT and 392 Scatpacks are more exciting options for consumers because there are so many variants. Bullit, California edition, PP1, PP2, Shaker, 1302 or whatever it is, widebody, SRT(at one point), Daytona, etc.... Just mix it up so consumers will feel they have a wide array of options. Reality is those variants are 95% similar to each other but consumers like gimmicks and exciting brands.

Letting performance speak for itself will not work, especially in the US where these are mostly street cars. Even in Europe they prefer the Mustang because of better brand reputation. So I hope GM gives a 7th gen a chance and rebuilds a brand reputation for the Camaro. But, I feel like they feel their future is electric and they see no worth in investing a 7th gen.

And people can tell they are not too invested in the Camaro and it's apparent in the sales. Change that up for the 7th gen.

What you need:

1.) Remove turbo 4, make V6 standard and cheap to had, make only two versions, non-premium(stripped down) and premium(all the goodies).

2.) Have LT1 dollar for peformance variant at launch

3.) Make SS more exciting and give it more special variants like Dodge and Ford do with their cars

4.) Introduce competition to Hellcat/GT500

5.) Launch electric version

...
...

This will not affect C8 sales much now that it is mid engine and demand is very high for it. Corvette has good brand rep and is not in trouble.

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by Number 3

To say they have no idea is pretty inaccurate. But to say they are somewhat limited by Corvette is fair. This site has been nothing short of giddy over the Camaro getting Corvette engines. It’s the “little brother” syndrome.

How many have been excited over the images of mid engine Camaros? Too many.

GM has the best car in the segment, yet you criticize them for not continuing to develop the car???

Camaro began life getting Corvette engines.

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Their handling of the Camaro has been abysmal. Or do you think a likely second cancellation is a ringing endorsement?

The Camaro has been getting "Corvette engines" since what 1991? People just hear "Corvette" and think it means anything special. Especially considering the Corvette engines have been bested at every level by comparable options from Dodge and Ford, LT2 aside. Even then, I don't see the LT2 fitting in the Camaro. The manifold looks too tall.

The Camaro is the most compromised car in the segment.

What does someone getting excited over some random internet rendering have to do with it?

The engine options are lacking.
The A8 stayed around far too long.
The naming scheme is mediocre.
The "special" editions are just sticker packs.
No power increases over the life different models.
Nothing done to get some life back in a failing program.

Look at all the versions Dodges has brought out. The Scat Packs, the 1320 editions, where you can strip out the whole interior or get it all for a dollar. The wide body versions. Power increases. The Demon. The Redeye.

Ford has the GT350 with a flat plane crank V8, the R carbon fiber wheels, the Bullett with more power. The GT500 with a dual clutch transmission. Now they are bringing in the Mach 1, most likely with more power. All things GM doesn't do and would never consider doing for the Camaro.


The chassis engineering is the only thing on the Camaro that keeps it relevent. Anything else has come from what GM allows them to use or what Team Camaro had the authority to do.

Those Nissan truck fender flares are pretty special on those Challengers. Lol

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

Camaro began life getting Corvette engines.

Not 100% true. The 67 Camaro was the ONLY vehicle that year to have the optional 350 SB available. Everything else (including the Corvette) got the 327 SB.

1968 seen it available in all Chevy vehicles.

Short of that, yes, they've all been slightly detuned 'vette engines.

[LESS1]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I'm a Camaro guy. I never really was interested in the Corvette. If I had the resources to buy any Camaro or Corvette built, I would pick the Camaro.


Your proof of GM engine development not being half assed is an engine that doesn't exist? The Blackwing is a good example of it. Why does the Blackwing rev so low? Because of its small bore and long stroke. They built it that way to make it as small as possible. The Blackwing can't be bored or stroked to increase displacement. It's capped out where it is. The Blackwing is a long and expensive route to a lesser LT4. More expensive and heavier for 100 fewer horsepower. Hell, they even released a 3.0 TTV6 that barely makes 300 horsepower. Does that really impress you? The closest GM has come to an exotic engine recently was the LF4 in the ATS-V and even that was a dead end engine. It was barely a replacement for the LT1.

I disagree with Ford only building special Mustangs because there is no halo car over it. Ford has always built specialty vehicles. Ones GM would never dream of building. Things like the Cobra Rs, the Lightning trucks, the Raptors, the STs and RSs. There's nothing stopping GM from doing the same, except for the corporate attitude.

You sure you don't have a Mustang tucked away somewhere that you only drive when your family, friends, and acquaintances aren't present? Honestly, I'd never mistake you for a GM/Chevy/Camaro fan.

Concerning the Blackwing LTA, while it appears GM won't use it they will still develop and sell to an Italian company for use in special order cars. I'm not going to debate the merits of the innovations of the LTA. You don't appear to be open minded unless the term innovative and Frod are in the same sentence.

Regarding the bore and stroke proportions, I believe the term you are looking for is undersquare. Why this format was chosen is for the significant increase in efficiency and lower surface area relative to cylinder volume. This means there is less area to reject heat and in turn, results in great heat retention in the cylinder and power production. Additionally, a smaller bore promotes more efficient combustion since the flame front has less area to cover for a complete burn. Another benefit is an increased piston dwell time at TDC and BDC. And since the piston is at TDC for a longer time period (crank degrees of rotation) as opposed to an oversquare layout this again results in more efficient combustion, and resulting power production. The primary use case of undersquare layout is to produce more power under the curve. Since GM chose forced induction there is little need to wind them out to produce power like you would with an oversquare NA application. Regarding cost and LT4. Underlying cost becomes relative to the number of vehicles sold. As for lesser comment don't be surprised to find tech from BW LTA in C8.

The LF4 3.6 TT V6 that makes 464HP - 445lbft? A good friend has one that produces 540WHP on pump gas and has for the past 4 years and 60K miles of abuse with zero issues. Your right its a turd. I will add the LTA further advances the innovation and technology of the LF4. Not sure why you think this somehow makes the LTA a "lesser" design.

Frod built these "specialty vehicles" because the regular "vehicles" in particular Mustangs are too far behind the competition. Cobra, GT350/500CF, Snack Pack this that and whatever else are band-aids in an effort to compete. End of story.

[LESS1]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

The Camaro isn't losing because of a halo model deficit.

It is losing because it's not as practical as the Mustang/Challenger and the visibility is worse. We are all used to the bunker after owning the car for months/years. However someone from the general public is going to sit in the car, say 'I can't see shit' and then leave. Every car review touches on this point. Very few people will buy a car with such visibility concerns, especially when the competitors are so much better.

Also, the Camaro isn't as practical. There's very little inside storage and the trunk opening is HORRIBLE. The trunk volume itself isn't bad, but the opening compromises what you can actually fit in there. The competitors don't have that problem.

The back seat is worse as well. Yes, you probably won't be transporting back seat passengers that often in a Mustang or Challenger but the Camaro makes it damn near impossible.

If GM addressed the visibility and practicality then it would be a better seller. Simple as that.

^This.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by LESS1

You sure you don't have a Mustang tucked away somewhere that you only drive when your family, friends, and acquaintances aren't present? Honestly, I'd never mistake you for a GM/Chevy/Camaro fan.

Concerning the Blackwing LTA, while it appears GM won't use it they will still develop and sell to an Italian company for use in special order cars. I'm not going to debate the merits of the innovations of the LTA. You don't appear to be open minded unless the term innovative and Frod are in the same sentence.

Regarding the bore and stroke proportions, I believe the term you are looking for is undersquare. Why this format was chosen is for the significant increase in efficiency and lower surface area relative to cylinder volume. This means there is less area to reject heat and in turn, results in great heat retention in the cylinder and power production. Additionally, a smaller bore promotes more efficient combustion since the flame front has less area to cover for a complete burn. Another benefit is an increased piston dwell time at TDC and BDC. And since the piston is at TDC for a longer time period (crank degrees of rotation) as opposed to an oversquare layout this again results in more efficient combustion, and resulting power production. The primary use case of undersquare layout is to produce more power under the curve. Since GM chose forced induction there is little need to wind them out to produce power like you would with an oversquare NA application. Regarding cost and LT4. Underlying cost becomes relative to the number of vehicles sold. As for lesser comment don't be surprised to find tech from BW LTA in C8.

The LF4 3.6 TT V6 that makes 464HP - 445lbft? A good friend has one that produces 540WHP on pump gas and has for the past 4 years and 60K miles of abuse with zero issues. Your right its a turd. I will add the LTA further advances the innovation and technology of the LF4. Not sure why you think this somehow makes the LTA a "lesser" design.

Frod built these "specialty vehicles" because the regular "vehicles" in particular Mustangs are too far behind the competition. Cobra, GT350/500CF, Snack Pack this that and whatever else are band-aids in an effort to compete. End of story.

Good post

[LESS1]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Good post

[Devstrike]

Originally Posted by LESS1

You sure you don't have a Mustang tucked away somewhere that you only drive when your family, friends, and acquaintances aren't present? Honestly, I'd never mistake you for a GM/Chevy/Camaro fan.

Concerning the Blackwing LTA, while it appears GM won't use it they will still develop and sell to an Italian company for use in special order cars. I'm not going to debate the merits of the innovations of the LTA. You don't appear to be open minded unless the term innovative and Frod are in the same sentence.

Regarding the bore and stroke proportions, I believe the term you are looking for is undersquare. Why this format was chosen is for the significant increase in efficiency and lower surface area relative to cylinder volume. This means there is less area to reject heat and in turn, results in great heat retention in the cylinder and power production. Additionally, a smaller bore promotes more efficient combustion since the flame front has less area to cover for a complete burn. Another benefit is an increased piston dwell time at TDC and BDC. And since the piston is at TDC for a longer time period (crank degrees of rotation) as opposed to an oversquare layout this again results in more efficient combustion, and resulting power production. The primary use case of undersquare layout is to produce more power under the curve. Since GM chose forced induction there is little need to wind them out to produce power like you would with an oversquare NA application. Regarding cost and LT4. Underlying cost becomes relative to the number of vehicles sold. As for lesser comment don't be surprised to find tech from BW LTA in C8.

The LF4 3.6 TT V6 that makes 464HP - 445lbft? A good friend has one that produces 540WHP on pump gas and has for the past 4 years and 60K miles of abuse with zero issues. Your right its a turd. I will add the LTA further advances the innovation and technology of the LF4. Not sure why you think this somehow makes the LTA a "lesser" design.

Frod built these "specialty vehicles" because the regular "vehicles" in particular Mustangs are too far behind the competition. Cobra, GT350/500CF, Snack Pack this that and whatever else are band-aids in an effort to compete. End of story.

Well said

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

I never DD my car and track it often. I still would also love if it was a hatchback so i didn't have to shove my golf clubs in through the passenger door. (I know, i know golf clubs and golfer % was discussed pages ago...)


I'm on the fence with the LT5 thing as Rocket points out the long lifecycle of the Dodges is clearly being extended even longer just by spiking sales with "new" models and absolutely just adding more power. Perhaps if Chevy did what they never do and make the LT5 Camaro an actual limited edition with only 800 or so models like the Demon was, they would all be sold out before production starts and it would make financial sense.
Can I bring up Dodges cool commercials again? Yeah I think they work.

I DD my SS 6spd 24/7/365����

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by DanZ

The Camaro is primarily a car purchased by males, and younger males at that. Older males will typically move to the corvette.
I don’t know one female that has a Camaro. I very rarely see a female driving a Camaro.
For example my sister has a Mustang, a girl down the street has a Mustang, a gal where I work has a Mustang, a receptionist at a client I see has a mustang, my cousin and his wife just bought a Mustang. Unlike the Camaro, Mustangs seem to cross the sexes more.

I saw a women today driving a yellow one. It was a 4 or 6 banger, looked brand new.

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by Dark Phoenix

Due to price. Average younger people can not afford $50,000 plus car with all of the other inflation of costs in today’s USA.

Someone said Ford doesn’t have a Halo car affordable above Mustang like the Corvette is slotted above the Camaro. Mustang is Ford’s Corvette basically. Corvette was innovative and something completely new in 1953. Mustang was the same in 1964. Camaro was a Chevrolet response to the Mustang. Like Corvette, Mustang is a nameplate the people buy whether or not the car it’s self is trash or not.

Yep...and the Mustang was Fords response to the Corvair.

[Deputy Dog]

My cousin who is female, saw a picture of my Camaro and she thought it was a Mustang. I said it was a Camaro and she said she didn't know they started making them again.��