[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by triggerjerk

If they didn't care about sales why the 2020 front end refresh?
Why the LT1 model?

There’s a lot of room between being the best seller and hitting sales targets. There was never a focus on achieving best in segment sales. For the brief period in time where Camaro did lead the segment, that was gravy. But hitting the actual sales target is where bonuses are impacted.

[AZCamaroFan]

they wanted to go after quality and profit per vehicle. remember , they went bankrupt 15 years ago while leading in sales. Thus, with the Camaro6 they incresed the material quality and the price. Unfortunately people in this segment don't care about that, witness how long Ford led the segment with the ancient Fox platform, and Dodge's fat, old chassis now.
the other thing is when people complain about power increases, compared to say, Dodge, they're forgeting that weight impacts performance. The Camaro is smaller and lighter
but it also was not made that way just for all out performance, it was done to meet newer CAFE standards. So when someone says it's 'niche', as if it was just made for all out performance, it's more complicated than that.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by sactownbwoy

That is true. GM seems to care more about the Corvette than they do the Camaro.

One cant realistically dismiss the fact that the Corvette name has substantially more cachet in the automotive world than Camaro. Especially to "the masses". It's for that very reason why you may see gm use that very name as a base for a "family" of vehicles and types of vehicles.

[triggerjerk]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

There’s a lot of room between being the best seller and hitting sales targets. There was never a focus on achieving best in segment sales. For the brief period in time where Camaro did lead the segment, that was gravy. But hitting the actual sales target is where bonuses are impacted.

So they added the LT1 to reach a target, ie it was underselling.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by triggerjerk

So they added the LT1 to reach a target, ie it was underselling.

Not really. It was part of the rollout plan all along. Maybe not Day 1, but I thought it was coming sooner than it actually arrived. It was talked about while I was still at GM. I left in early 2017. Camaro was still way ahead of Challenger then and was swapping the lead with Mustang on a month-to-month basis.

[triggerjerk]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not really. It was part of the rollout plan all along. Maybe not Day 1, but I thought it was coming sooner than it actually arrived. It was talked about while I was still at GM. I left in early 2017. Camaro was still way ahead of Challenger then and was swapping the lead with Mustang on a month-to-month basis.

Very interesting info.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by sactownbwoy

I don't believe it was designed to be a niche product. If that were the case I don't think there would be so many different trim levels. They came out with the LT1 in 2020/21 to try to boost sales. A bare bones V8 model.

Told the story many times. GM didn’t clinic the Camaro like they would any other product. Basically took the input from a small group of known Camaro enthusiasts. So it was never intended to have wide or general appeal, it was designed to appeal to Camaro fans and owners. I call that a niche.

If GM had gone after broader appeal or to outsell Mustang, the Gen6 would be a wildly different car. They may have actually done a CTS front AND rear body. What we got was a CTS front to package a V8 and an ATS rear. Problem is the ATS rear has more rear seat room and a trunk that holds 2 sets of golf clubs. So for styling and weight we didn’t even get all of the ATS.

Niche

[#8ZL1Man]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

...in early 2017. Camaro was still way ahead of Challenger then and was swapping the lead with Mustang on a month-to-month basis.

A little misleading in 2017, as the Mustang 'Coyote' was updated with more power in 2018, from 435HP in 2017 up to 460HP in 2018, so 2017s were less desirable back then with the 2018s coming.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Told the story many times. GM didn’t clinic the Camaro like they would any other product. Basically took the input from a small group of known Camaro enthusiasts. So it was never intended to have wide or general appeal, it was designed to appeal to Camaro fans and owners. I call that a niche.

If GM had gone after broader appeal or to outsell Mustang, the Gen6 would be a wildly different car. They may have actually done a CTS front AND rear body. What we got was a CTS front to package a V8 and an ATS rear. Problem is the ATS rear has more rear seat room and a trunk that holds 2 sets of golf clubs. So for styling and weight we didn’t even get all of the ATS.

Niche

I remember GM using the input from a group off people called "The 12 Disciples of which there are 15"

Met them at one of the early CamaroFests.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by #8ZL1Man

A little misleading in 2017, as the Mustang 'Coyote' was updated with more power in 2018, from 435HP in 2017 up to 460HP in 2018, so 2017s were less desirable back then with the 2018s coming.

That’s true for GT, but about 2/3 of Mustang sales back then were EcoBoost which saw no real change from ‘17 to ‘18.

[AZCamaroFan]

Originally Posted by Number 3

golf clubs.

we know. we know.

actually thinking back on past generations, i'm really doubting golf clubs would fit in my 3rd and 4th gens under the hatch.

if only the Camaro was big blvd cruiser.

i hate to break it, but no one is buying cars to begin with. Where's that nice looking Impala GM brought out 9 years ago? No, what we have in it's place are lil' Trailblazers, Blazer, Equinox's , Traverse's , Trax,
and however many other 'crossovers' i can 't keep track of. Next time you go out look what's driving down the streets.

ps. you know what Chevy has on their website under "Cars"---- the Malibu....that's it.

[Silveradoss573]

Originally Posted by LateBrakeU2

You get the feeling they are just extending production to a 24 MY to exhaust their parts inventory on the way to clearing the books on the gen 6. Bit of stating the obvious but with as much time as it has taken to get a 23,you have to wonder how many 24's will actually get built in five months of production. Did the same with the Z4C, it's an easy out for them.

^^^THiS 100%^^^

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

we know. we know.

actually thinking back on past generations, i'm really doubting golf clubs would fit in my 3rd and 4th gens under the hatch.

if only the Camaro was big blvd cruiser.

i hate to break it, but no one is buying cars to begin with. Where's that nice looking Impala GM brought out 9 years ago? No, what we have in it's place are lil' Trailblazers, Blazer, Equinox's , Traverse's , Trax,
and however many other 'crossovers' i can 't keep track of. Next time you go out look what's driving down the streets.

ps. you know what Chevy has on their website under "Cars"---- the Malibu....that's it.

There is a very counterintuitive reason for this. CAFE. Automakers have thinned out their sedan portfolio because it’s easier to to meet CAFE targets with utilities. The domestic automakers in particular have a difficult time meeting CAFE with sedans. Chevrolet used to have four sedans. Five when SS was available. Now they have one. How many sedans does Ford have? I’m thinking zero. Stellantis has the most, although three of them are going away after this year. Stellantis also happens to be the company with the worst CAFE performance.

Here’s why that’s the problem. CAFE targets are set by footprint shadow area. Basically, wheelbase x track. That’s not the exact measure, but close enough. The bigger the footprint shadow area, the lower the CAFE target. Now, layer on top of that the fact that there are different target graphs for Cars and Trucks. Capitalized for a reason. When I say Cars and Trucks, I’m speaking to how the EPA has each vehicle categorized, not what the buyer might see it as.

So, consider that Impala and Blazer are pretty close in terms of footprint shadow area. Blazer would have a lower and easier to achieve mpg target than Impala. They have the same engine transmission combinations and the Impala is lighter, but it would still need expensive hybrid technology or other costly fuel improvement technologies to meet the CAFE targets for a vehicle its size. So Blazer wins, Impala fades into the history books. Personally I’m surprised Malibu survived.

[arpad_m]

Funny though how in other posts you ex-GM guys claim that it's the market, not the government, dictating (I specifically recall you James saying it would happen anyway because of the global shift to SUVs and eventually EVs, so the government isn't forcing anything via CAFE, just acknowledging the trend). Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

Plus this is a classic example of "receivers" optimizing to artificial metrics, which then defeats the original purpose—the bigger, more expensive and polluting, the better because of CAFE metrics, real world impact be damned. Metrics weaponization is another term that comes to mind.