[CalgaryZL1]

Originally Posted by MyNameIs

GM in the hands of hard core liberals now. They will go along with the agenda no matter how stupid. Lets see China will be building a Battery plant near Detroit. The last I heard China was the country trying to destroy us and our economy.

Unfortunately, China owns most of North America.

[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by CalgaryZL1

Unfortunately, China owns most of North America.

And most of DC.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by len125

why cant chevy make a 7th generation camaro? GM doesnt "HAVE" to be full electric until 2035? thats 12 years? cant they try? fix the belt line, create just a little more trunk and back seat space, add some more colors, etc...cant they just try? i mean take a little inspiration from the 5th and 6th and 2nd generation camaro and go for it where are the engineers? they have billions in reserve and they know it...no matter what you read about the industry and the UAW GM has golden parachutes forever.......I dont get the failure attitude...sad...thats my two cents...

The stuff in bold would require a new platform. That is hundreds of millions of investment that would take 10-15 years selling a heck of a lot more than 40,000 units a year to recover. Besides, GM needs to start transitioning Grand River to get it ready for a different vehicle that will be built there in 2025. That’s why Camaro ends production in January instead of July like most programs. They could decide to make the other car somewhere else and keep Camaro going in Grand River. Similarly, I could decide to give my Camaro to one of my kids and buy a Malibu. Equal odds there.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The stuff in bold would require a new platform. That is hundreds of millions of investment that would take 10-15 years selling a heck of a lot more than 40,000 units a year to recover. Besides, GM needs to start transitioning Grand River to get it ready for a different vehicle that will be built there in 2025. That’s why Camaro ends production in January instead of July like most programs. They could decide to make the other car somewhere else and keep Camaro going in Grand River. Similarly, I could decide to give my Camaro to one of my kids and buy a Malibu. Equal odds there.

I always wondered why these relatively small changes would require a brand new platform.

Lower the beltline by 1", raise the roof by 0.5-1", split the taillights in the middle like Dodge did it on the Challenger, and you've addressed 75% of the complaints. Spend a little extra $$$ on interior quality, add a bit of storage, and you're at 95%. Why does this require reengineering the entire platform? What am I missing?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I always wondered why these relatively small changes would require a brand new platform.

[b]Lower the beltline by 1", raise the roof by 0.5-1", split the taillights in the middle like Dodge did it on the Challenger,[ and you've addressed 75% of the complaints. Spend a little extra $$$ on interior quality, add a bit of storage, and you're at 95%. Why does this require reengineering the entire platform? What am I missing?

The stuff in red requires modification to the “body in white” which requires among other things engineering to confirm or improve structural integrity, in many cases requiring recertification of crash performance (super expensive) and in some cases recertification of fuel economy, typically if there are significant changes in mass. The stuff in green is simple to do and is typically included in minor upgrades and sometimes in annual programs. Think 2019 and 2020 front fascia changes.

The stuff in blue depends on what the changes are to get there. Adding door pockets, seat back pockets or center console innovation are typically not a big deal. But if adding storage means touching the firewall to increase glovebox space or repositioning the seats in the cabin it might involve touching the body in white and that typically requires a major change to the platform or a platform redesign. Either one would be costly..

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The stuff in red requires modification to the “body in white” which requires among other things engineering to confirm or improve structural integrity, in many cases requiring recertification of crash performance (super expensive) and in some cases recertification of fuel economy, typically if there are significant changes in mass. The stuff in green is simple to do and is typically included in minor upgrades and sometimes in annual programs. Think 2019 and 2020 front fascia changes.

The stuff in blue depends on what the changes are to get there. Adding door pockets, seat back pockets or center console innovation are typically not a big deal. But if adding storage means touching the firewall to increase glovebox space or repositioning the seats in the cabin it might involve touching the body in white and that typically requires a major change to the platform or a platform redesign. Either one would be costly..

Thanks for the info, as always, much-much appreciated. I honestly don't understand why the taillights weren't updated in 2019 in a way that improves trunk access, it would've been a slam dunk move, especially in light of what you're saying and the fact that GM modified the taillights and the rear bumper and the entire mounting mechanism.

The firewall didn't need any modifications, the interior could have easily been updated to provide more storage space, or heck, even a large wireless charging pad, say, the one that GM already has for the trucks. The screen could've been updated, too, like it was done on a zillion Cadillac models.

None of this is too difficult, and similar improvements are routinely made by BMW, Mercedes, or even Ford (thinking of their optional fully digital gauge cluster and updated software as an example, but they added other interior improvements as well). Let's not even go into powertrain upgrades... somehow everyone else is able to bump power and/or improve efficiency on a regular basis, tweak the suspension (MRC 4.0 anyone?), but not GM, not with the 6th gen Camaro, there was always some kind of excuse to explain why not.

I hear you on the beltline and total height and will not try to argue that, even though intuitively it's hard to imagine how that would have compromised anything---it feels like a change that would have improved crashworthiness, but again, I know next to nothing in this area so I'll just leave it at that.

My actual point is that even without these dimensional body changes, there was a ton of room for incremental improvements over the years, but GM simply didn't give a ****. That is why many of us are disappointed and will likely not buy a GM vehicle again, no matter what, the competition is actually pretty good, the 6th gen Camaro was simply an amazing unicorn (okay, the C8 Corvette, too).

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by olrocker

So we all know that January of 2024 is going to be the end of Camaro production.

If that is the case, I have a question for General Motors....... why is the Cadillac CT5 going into 2025 then?

I just received an update from the Cadillac website that the UPDATED 2025 CT5 will include the one piece 33" curved LED screen dashboard similar to the Escalade.

So they're not only going to continue CT5 production, it's getting a very expensive, serious update. For model year 2025, which means they still need to go through the full 2024 model year production.

Keep in mind this is the exact same chassis the Camaro is built on. This is also the exact same division Queen Mary wants to convert to full electric first, to lead the way to GM's full electric conversion.

It really feels like she's just pi--ing on our heads but just telling us it's raining.

Lol it’s not getting an expensive serious update. Using a carryover screen and a front fascia is not expensive or serious.

Keep in mind the CT5 is also sold in China and doing pretty well. Better sales than here if I recall the numbers correctly.

[arpad_m]

I'm not entirely sure we care about how automakers build and sell cars in China.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Thanks for the info, as always, much-much appreciated. I honestly don't understand why the taillights weren't updated in 2019 in a way that improves trunk access, it would've been a slam dunk move, especially in light of what you're saying and the fact that GM modified the taillights and the rear bumper and the entire mounting mechanism.

The firewall didn't need any modifications, the interior could have easily been updated to provide more storage space, or heck, even a large wireless charging pad, say, the one that GM already has for the trucks. The screen could've been updated, too, like it was done on a zillion Cadillac models.

I was one of the Captured Fleet drivers for the 2015 ATS 2.0T 6MT Coupe which I considered to be the “pre-Camaro 6”. I’m a weekend musician. I found that I couldn’t even fit my smallest bass amp through the trunk opening even though there was plenty of room for it in the trunk. I had to let the rear seats down and put it in the trunk from inside the cabin. PITA. So I spoke with Dave Leone, Alpha platform Chief Engineer. He explained the decision. Paraphrasing, we could beat BMW on structural rigidity and set the platform up for world class handling or we could make a bigger opening. Pick one. It was an easy choice. Changing the tail lamps is easy. Changing the underlying structure as you describe not so much. Would require a redesign of the platform and it would significantly compromise handling.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

None of this is too difficult, and similar improvements are routinely made by BMW, Mercedes, or even Ford (thinking of their optional fully digital gauge cluster and updated software as an example, but they added other interior improvements as well). Let's not even go into powertrain upgrades... somehow everyone else is able to bump power and/or improve efficiency on a regular basis, tweak the suspension (MRC 4.0 anyone?), but not GM, not with the 6th gen Camaro, there was always some kind of excuse to explain why not.

Much of what you say here is spot on, particularly wrt MRC 4.0. Some of those changes, particularly the infotainment based changes, require an upgrade to the electrical architecture, which is almost as big a deal as upgrades to the physical architecture. I’m light on understanding the details around that, but I do know for a fact that significant infotainment and technology changes were blocked for a particular generation of Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade solely because of the need to upgrade electrical architecture to implement. If it couldn’t be funded for the biggest money makers in the company, there’s no way that amount of money stood a snowball’s chance in hell being spent on a low volume marginally profitable niche vehicle.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I hear you on the beltline and total height and will not try to argue that, even though intuitively it's hard to imagine how that would have compromised anything---it feels like a change that would have improved crashworthiness, but again, I know next to nothing in this area so I'll just leave it at that.

My actual point is that even without these dimensional body changes, there was a ton of room for incremental improvements over the years, but GM simply didn't give a ****. That is why many of us are disappointed and will likely not buy a GM vehicle again, no matter what, the competition is actually pretty good, the 6th gen Camaro was simply an amazing unicorn (okay, the C8 Corvette, too).

I think the most valid point you make is that there are certainly things that could have been done as simple model year tweaks to increase power and/or torque and that just simply didn’t happen. I have no clear insight as to why that had to be the case, other than to note that this was very typical inside the company. The only performance bumps I recall seeing during my time in the company where I was in a position to see the changes were when we introduced new fuel injection tech or new cam phasing tech on a rolling upgrade basis. Otherwise, Powertrain based changes only happened on major upgrade programs.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I was one of the Captured Fleet drivers for the 2015 ATS 2.0T 6MT Coupe which I considered to be the “pre-Camaro 6”. I’m a weekend musician. I found that I couldn’t even fit my smallest bass amp through the trunk opening even though there was plenty of room for it in the trunk. I had to let the rear seats down and put it in the trunk from inside the cabin. PITA. So I spoke with Dave Leone, Alpha platform Chief Engineer. He explained the decision. Paraphrasing, we could beat BMW on structural rigidity and set the platform up for world class handling or we could make a bigger opening. Pick one. It was an easy choice. Changing the tail lamps is easy. Changing the underlying structure as you describe not so much. Would require a redesign of the platform and it would significantly compromise handling.

I’m sure GM has at least one M3 they’ve dismantled down to the last bolt and weld seam in an effort to study it.

I just have to ask them: didn’t anyone in engineering ask how BMW was able to achieve such structural rigidity AND have a very easily accessible and fully useful trunk?

[50MileSmile]

Production of the 2025 CT5 starts at Lansing next spring, so you’ll probably see it at your favorite Cadillac dealer before summer. Other than a front-end restyle, most of the changes to the CT5 are electronics-related additions like the nannies that are already being used in other GM models - but the big-screen dash is all-new and exclusive to the CT5, at least for now.

Regarding improvements to the Camaro, most of the ones mentioned here make sense, but the reality is GM decided years ago (maybe 2019 or so???) to not invest any more money in a vehicle with lousy sales - especially in the face of having to invest billions in EVs. If Camaros had been selling at three or four times the rate we’ve seen the last few years, this thread wouldn’t even exist. GM clearly hasn’t believed for years that “Camaro” has the power in the marketplace that Ford has with the Mustang, or we’d still be in the middle of the Camaro vs. Mustang wars. What we’re going to get in a few years instead is this on the cover of Motor Trend: “Battle of the Muscle Car Nameplates: Camaro EV sedan vs. Mustang Mach E vs. Dodge EV Charger Daytona SRT.”

[olrocker]

Just saw this today in my news feed from another car enthusiasts forum on FB and it really hit me: where did it go wrong? 50 years ago the Camaro SS was literally an affordable Corvette you could live with daily and everyone not only embraced that but GM was proud to advertise it as such.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Attachment 1136382

No…..no there isn’t a chance.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Just saw this today in my news feed from another car enthusiasts forum on FB and it really hit me: where did it go wrong? 50 years ago the Camaro SS was literally an affordable Corvette you could live with daily and everyone not only embraced that but GM was proud to advertise it as such.

Attachment 1136565

Yes, back then it took 2 assembly plants to build 400,000 Camaros and Firebirds. Now? Barely 1/4 of one shift in one plant. Coupes are almost as dead as station wagons.