August 2016 Camaro Sales Figures (and vs. Mustang & Challenger) - Page 13

JLSuperfly · 09-07-2016, 02:56 PM

The infinite wisdom on this thread. I love it.

AZCamaroFan · 09-07-2016, 03:16 PM

every month

mr02Z/28 · 09-07-2016, 03:22 PM

Example, I understand it's a Convert, but really, at this price ...
http://www.spencerchevrolet.com/Vehi...-PA/2787679733

Another crazy example ...
http://www.burlingtonchevy.com/Vehic...-NJ/2811064203

Iron Lung Jimmy · 09-07-2016, 03:24 PM

The impression that cars cost way more today is basically false.

1969 Camaro - Average base price was about $2,900... and that was with NO options. No seat belts, no radio, no A/C, no nothing. So a real car you'd actually want was about $3,100. 1969 median household income was $7,330 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a Camaro was around 42% of your yearly income.

And a 1969 Camaro... despite looking really cool... was, by today's standards, a total piece of crap. If it hadn't already rusted away, they were generally worn out and worthless at 100,000 miles.

2017 Camaro - Base price for a 2LT is $31,400. And that's a very nice car with lots of goodies that will last almost indefinitely if well maintained. 2015 median household income was $53,657 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a 2017 Camaro is 58% of your yearly income... 16% more than in 1969... but it is infinitely better in every way than a 1969 Camaro.

Yes, you can option one up to be really expensive, but you don't need to. You could option up a '69 pretty good, too, so it's the same thing.

mr02Z/28 · 09-07-2016, 03:31 PM

Dealers really wanna sell what is on the lots, maybe you have a good salesperson that is willing to go out of their way and order what you want but from my experiences they usually want to get rid of what they already have in stock ...... it benefits them to get rid of current inventory ....

Thor142 · 09-07-2016, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

The impression that cars cost way more today is basically false.

1969 Camaro - Average base price was about $2,900... and that was with NO options. No seat belts, no radio, no A/C, no nothing. So a real car you'd actually want was about $3,100. 1969 median household income was $7,330 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a Camaro was around 42% of your yearly income.

And a 1969 Camaro... despite looking really cool... was, by today's standards, a total piece of crap. If it hadn't already rusted away, they were generally worn out and worthless at 100,000 miles.

2017 Camaro - Base price for a 2LT is $31,400. And that's a very nice car with lots of goodies that will last almost indefinitely if well maintained. 2015 median household income was $53,657 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a 2017 Camaro is 58% of your yearly income... 16% more than in 1969... but it is infinitely better in every way than a 1969 Camaro.

Yes, you can option one up to be really expensive, but you don't need to. You could option up a '69 pretty good, too, so it's the same thing.

You're trying to compare the lack of tech in a time when there was no tech to a car that full of almost obsolete tech and being charged a premium for it because in the alternate reality car manufacturers exist in it's "new" tech".

Iron Lung Jimmy · 09-07-2016, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor142

You're trying to compare the lack of tech in a time when there was no tech to a car that full of almost obsolete tech and being charged a premium for it because in the alternate reality car manufacturers exist in it's "new" tech".

Who said anything about tech? And how are they charging a premium for it?

If by tech you mean disc brakes, airbags, A/C that actually works, transmissions with more than 3 gears, side impact protection, body panels that don't start rusting almost immediately, etc. then yea, tech.

The numbers don't lie. Relatively speaking, for what you get, cars are no more expensive than they've ever been.

Cheaper, actually.

mr02Z/28 · 09-07-2016, 03:52 PM

From my understanding, when products are "mass produced" it should mean a lower cost to customers/consumers but these prices seem to keep rising, I mean Mag ride isn't a New technology maybe to the Camaro but not New .. same with the other parts on the car, they are shared across other platforms in the GM lineup, I don't know, I can't seem to justify spending more on a New car, I guess i'll just keep my paid off 2013 2LT .... and be satisfied with it ...

hotlap · 09-07-2016, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motorhead

You got me. I'm not the one claiming that they built this car to play in BMW's playground as been professed in here and other car fourms as an agrument for it's new found MSRP.

I don't put it in that world. Never did and never will. It will always be just a poor man's vette as it always was to me. Only the cost doesn't meet what it is anymore. If I have a bucket of rocks and one day decide to price them as a bucket of diamonds just because I've decided they are equals now, how many people would bite and purchase them? Maybe, I should give it a try. It seems that people these days will believe just about anything if the marketing is done properly. Any marketing experts here want a new project? Lol

I've seen arguments that the Camaro offers BMW level driving experience for roughly $2k more than a comparably equipped Mustang.

Going upscale framed in the elimination of the low buck LS trim and the RS equipment now standard in the SS. Positioned deliberately higher than the other domestics but nowhere near the Germans

SpeedIsLife · 09-07-2016, 05:50 PM

Well the SS gained not only the RS package, but also a good hunk of the old 2SS equipment by getting the HUD.

At this point the only difference between the 1SS now and the 2SS then is the leather seats, audio and ambient lighting. Of those, two can be added easily aftermarket.

BRMike · 09-07-2016, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Well the SS gained not only the RS package, but also a good hunk of the old 2SS equipment by getting the HUD.

At this point the only difference between the 1SS now and the 2SS then is the leather seats, audio and ambient lighting. Of those, two can be added easily aftermarket.

Didn't think HUD came on a 1SS. Did that change for 2017?

SpeedIsLife · 09-07-2016, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRMike

Didn't think HUD came on a 1SS. Did that change for 2017?

I thought the HUD was SS standard, and optional on the 2LT with the electronics pack.

HogsFan75 · 09-07-2016, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotlap

Admittedly, I'm not knowledgeable of all things BMW but...

Please, please, please! Show me the Camaro trim that is targeted at a comparable BMW cost.

LOTS of 6th gen owners in this group have repeatedly made comments that Chevy was moving the car upscale to compete with BMW hence the higher prices.

I think that was the point of the comment.

hotlap · 09-07-2016, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HogsFan75

LOTS of 6th gen owners in this group have repeatedly made comments that Chevy was moving the car upscale to compete with BMW hence the higher prices.

I think that was the point of the comment.

Show me. I've seen arguments that the Camaro offers BMW level driving experience for roughly $2k more than a comparably equipped Mustang.

Going upscale framed in the elimination of the low buck LS trim and the RS equipment now standard in the SS. Positioned deliberately higher than the other domestics but nowhere near the Germans

09-07-2016, 02:56 PM	#169
JLSuperfly Drives: 2014 Red Hot LS3 Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,266	The infinite wisdom on this thread. I love it.

09-07-2016, 03:16 PM	#170
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,469	every month

09-07-2016, 03:22 PM	#171
mr02Z/28 Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Phila.,PA Posts: 1,137 View My Garage	Example, I understand it's a Convert, but really, at this price ... http://www.spencerchevrolet.com/Vehi...-PA/2787679733 Another crazy example ... http://www.burlingtonchevy.com/Vehic...-NJ/2811064203

09-07-2016, 03:24 PM	#172
Iron Lung Jimmy Drives: Iron Lung, Jimmy Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Louisiana Posts: 1,577	The impression that cars cost way more today is basically false. 1969 Camaro - Average base price was about $2,900... and that was with NO options. No seat belts, no radio, no A/C, no nothing. So a real car you'd actually want was about $3,100. 1969 median household income was $7,330 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a Camaro was around 42% of your yearly income. And a 1969 Camaro... despite looking really cool... was, by today's standards, a total piece of crap. If it hadn't already rusted away, they were generally worn out and worthless at 100,000 miles. 2017 Camaro - Base price for a 2LT is $31,400. And that's a very nice car with lots of goodies that will last almost indefinitely if well maintained. 2015 median household income was $53,657 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a 2017 Camaro is 58% of your yearly income... 16% more than in 1969... but it is infinitely better in every way than a 1969 Camaro. Yes, you can option one up to be really expensive, but you don't need to. You could option up a '69 pretty good, too, so it's the same thing.

09-07-2016, 03:31 PM	#173
mr02Z/28 Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Phila.,PA Posts: 1,137 View My Garage	Dealers really wanna sell what is on the lots, maybe you have a good salesperson that is willing to go out of their way and order what you want but from my experiences they usually want to get rid of what they already have in stock ...... it benefits them to get rid of current inventory ....

09-07-2016, 03:52 PM	#176
mr02Z/28 Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Phila.,PA Posts: 1,137 View My Garage	From my understanding, when products are "mass produced" it should mean a lower cost to customers/consumers but these prices seem to keep rising, I mean Mag ride isn't a New technology maybe to the Camaro but not New .. same with the other parts on the car, they are shared across other platforms in the GM lineup, I don't know, I can't seem to justify spending more on a New car, I guess i'll just keep my paid off 2013 2LT .... and be satisfied with it ...

09-07-2016, 05:50 PM	#178
SpeedIsLife Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Oregon Posts: 3,241	Well the SS gained not only the RS package, but also a good hunk of the old 2SS equipment by getting the HUD. At this point the only difference between the 1SS now and the 2SS then is the leather seats, audio and ambient lighting. Of those, two can be added easily aftermarket.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password