[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

It hasn’t worked? They have increased their sales 150% since 2009 and increased market share by 10% since 2015 and that doesn’t even take Charger sales into the picture which if were being honest is a direct competitor even though it has 4 doors. Camaro sold 22000 less in 2018 than it did in 2016 and Mustang sold almost 50,000 less cars than it did vs the high in 2015. Only 1 companies strategy is working.

The interesting thing is that from 2015-2018, Camaro lost 26,539 units, Mustang lost 46,597 units and Challenger gained only 351 unit.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

It hasn’t worked? They have increased their sales 150% since 2009 and increased market share by 10% since 2015 and that doesn’t even take Charger sales into the picture which if were being honest is a direct competitor even though it has 4 doors. Camaro sold 22000 less in 2018 than it did in 2016 and Mustang sold almost 50,000 less cars than it did vs the high in 2015. Only 1 companies strategy is working.

So how is it a success when it still sells less than the Mustang even tho the Mustang is 50,000 units below what it did in 2015? It isn't a "successful" seller. It simply improved. A F on an exam is a still a F whether you fail by 30 or by 2. Sure you could say your score improved but it still is a failure. Likewise, just because they improved sales does not mean they are successful. In fact their sales were soo terrible back then that they probably need to sell 3 times what they're selling now to even things out. You're just looking at one number, yet again, without looking at the entire picture, and trying to make these bold claims. The Challenger is not a successful seller at all. Looking at them from day one, they are not successful. They improved. That is all. Nothing more.

Dodge as a whole is not even doing good. The Durango just got pushed back by 2 years. So they now have to add the Hellcat engine to it to keep people interested. And they now have to add a third row to the Jeep GC to keep people interested. So how are they doing that good when they can't even get their refreshes done on time?

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So how is it a success when it still sells less than the Mustang even tho the Mustang is 50,000 units below what it did in 2015? It isn't a "successful" seller. It simply improved. A F on an exam is a still a F whether you fail by 30 or by 2. Sure you could say your score improved but it still is a failure. Likewise, just because they improved sales does not mean they are successful. In fact their sales were soo terrible back then that they probably need to sell 3 times what they're selling now to even things out. You're just looking at one number, yet again, without looking at the entire picture, and trying to make these bold claims. The Challenger is not a successful seller at all. Looking at them from day one, they are not successful. They improved. That is all. Nothing more.

Dodge as a whole is not even doing good. The Durango just got pushed back by 2 years. So they now have to add the Hellcat engine to it to keep people interested. And they now have to add a third row to the Jeep GC to keep people interested. So how are they doing that good when they can't even get their refreshes done on time?

So let me get this straight. Dodge Challenger has steadily increased in sales has a larger market share but receives an F. The Camaro sales have sharply fallen, and it has lost substantial market share, I guess in your thinking it receives an A correct? Is this some new Business model maybe some new math?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

So let me get this straight. Dodge Challenger has steadily increased in sales has a larger market share but receives an F. The Camaro sales have sharply fallen, and it has lost substantial market share, I guess in your thinking it receives an A correct? Is this some new Business model maybe some new math?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and just a dash of reading comprehension should be able to understand the point I made.

Point is, no matter how much their sales have increased by, their numbers still suck. Like I said, you can fail an exam by 50 points or by 1 point. A fail is a fail no matter how much better you did this time compared to last time. How long did they go selling less than half of the units the Camaro sold?. All of a sudden a good year or two and you think they're just doing great eh? Meanwhile, you're such a fan, where's your Chally? You're on a forum for a car you don't like and don't have praising a completely different car you claim you like and also don't have. I should go on M6G and brag about how amazing a GTR is. And guess what, fan or not, I bet you that if anything the Challenger is at more risk of being discontinued than the Camaro despite their sales spurt. 10+ years and no indication of a new Gen is something I'd worry about if I were you since you're such a huge fan.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and just a dash of reading comprehension should be able to understand the point I made.

Point is, no matter how much their sales have increased by, their numbers still suck. Like I said, you can fail an exam by 50 points or by 1 point. A fail is a fail no matter how much better you did this time compared to last time. How long did they go selling less than half of the units the Camaro sold?. All of a sudden a good year or two and you think they're just doing great eh? Meanwhile, you're such a fan, where's your Chally? You're on a forum for a car you don't like and don't have praising a completely different car you claim you like and also don't have. I should go on M6G and brag about how amazing a GTR is. And guess what, fan or not, I bet you that if anything the Challenger is at more risk of being discontinued than the Camaro despite their sales spurt. 10+ years and no indication of a new Gen is something I'd worry about if I were you since you're such a huge fan.

Excuse me but isn't this the 6th Gen Camaro vs forum? I must have missed the disclaimer which states you can not discuss any vehicles you do not presently own, is this a new policy, maybe the moderators can chime in or are you the forum spokesman? But BTW I have owned the Camaro, Challenger, and Mustangs.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by newmoon

So let me get this straight. Dodge Challenger has steadily increased in sales has a larger market share but receives an F. The Camaro sales have sharply fallen, and it has lost substantial market share, I guess in your thinking it receives an A correct? Is this some new Business model maybe some new math?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and just a dash of reading comprehension should be able to understand the point I made.

Point is, no matter how much their sales have increased by, their numbers still suck. Like I said, you can fail an exam by 50 points or by 1 point. A fail is a fail no matter how much better you did this time compared to last time. How long did they go selling less than half of the units the Camaro sold?. All of a sudden a good year or two and you think they're just doing great eh? Meanwhile, you're such a fan, where's your Chally? You're on a forum for a car you don't like and don't have praising a completely different car you claim you like and also don't have. I should go on M6G and brag about how amazing a GTR is. And guess what, fan or not, I bet you that if anything the Challenger is at more risk of being discontinued than the Camaro despite their sales spurt. 10+ years and no indication of a new Gen is something I'd worry about if I were you since you're such a huge fan.

Camaro does not get an A for its performance in the marketplace. I'd say it gets a C-. Not sure I would exactly give Challenger an F either, since it is contributing to filling the corporate till. But BlaqWhole makes a very interesting point here with regards to Challenger being more at risk than Camaro. Camaro staying or going is simply a financial decision. How much does GM need whatever volume that comes from Camaro to keep Alpha viable? As long as Camaro continues to contribute to that, it will be around. That's why there is so much focus on maintaining high ATPs.

Challenger / Charger, on the other hand, is in a similar position that Camaro / Firebird were in in 2002. I don't think that NHTSA regs are threatening it, but CAFE most certainly is. Right now FCA is gambling a bit that the Trump Administration push to continue current EPA FE standards holds. In the meantime, Chargallenger sales are pulling their fleet economy under water, to the point that they have to go heavy into 48V Mild Hybrids on Jeep and Ram vehicles. And, similar to the F-Body issues in the early 2000's, they don't have a clear path to reasonably priced RWD architecture that can support Chargallenger next-gen. They could in theory use the Giorgio architecture that the Alfa Romeo Giulia is built on. This would be a very similar approach to GM using Alpha for Camaro and it may even be a better, more rigid architecture. But it is also more expensive. If they don't use Giorgio, Chargallenger could be a casualty.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

They could in theory use the Giorgio architecture that the Alfa Romeo Giulia is built on. This would be a very similar approach to GM using Alpha for Camaro and it may even be a better, more rigid architecture. But it is also more expensive. If they don't use Giorgio, Chargallenger could be a casualty.

They've pretty much already axed this, as it won't support the Hellcat platform at all. Too much torque/twisted frames.... Doesn't mean that they couldn't modify/further develop it...but I don't know that they will..

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

So let me get this straight. Dodge Challenger has steadily increased in sales has a larger market share but receives an F. The Camaro sales have sharply fallen, and it has lost substantial market share, I guess in your thinking it receives an A correct? Is this some new Business model maybe some new math?

Challenger sales have been flat since 2015. The increase happened in 2014 when the Hellcat arrived.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

So the question is - why is the M6 Mustang PP1 so much slower than the A10 GT: 12.6 vs 12.1 and 4 mph difference in trap speed from the magazine tests (not the Hot rod run of 11.83)? Is the gearing too widely spaced? I think the PP2 M6 does the 1/4 in 12.4 seconds (can't remember which magazine got that time). That's a tenth or two (at the most) slower than the best SS M6 mag time (12.2 but several in 12.3-12.5 range as well for the M6 SS). I would imagine that active rev match is the 0.1-0.2 difference as I don't think the '18 PP2 has rev match.

Can you try to find the article that actually ran 0-60 and 1/4 mile for the pp2, all I've read is estimates of these figures. Not saying it didn't happen or being argumentive, I legitimately like reading the articles and haven't found very many full pp2 review articles.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

As far as all the stats go, if you want the fastest auto car an auto SS vs a GT a10 is debatable with the GT at pp1 possibly having the nod in a driver's race, but every SS is capable of running it's best time and not all GT a10s run the same. However the 1320 may take the crown soon, unless it's like the top level challengers (HC, demon) that need the stars to align to actually be able to run their claimed times. If you want the fastest manual pony car, the m6 SS is the fastest and there's no debate. The fun thing is that manual vs manual is always a driver's race to some degree regardless of who has the "faster" car.

[shaffe]

Holy crap this place blew up over the last few days lol.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

They are selling a lot better than they were in the past and I commend them for that. If the trend continues then they will keep seeing increases every year. Hopefully their next Gen will be different enough to set it apart but close enough that it'll retain the classic look and boost sales even further. And hopefully it'll handle much better.

If that is the case then the GT500 will never really get it's time to shine. Both cars come out for 2020. And I imagine a stripped down C8 will be right around the price of a GT500 and will probably have a good amount of standard options. That will just give the GT500 another enemy to fight. And I can see a lot of people who are in the market for one switching over to a C8 seeing as how the allure of a mid engine setup is more attractive and they might not want to pay markups. On top of that the GT500 will still have to prove itself against the Redeye and ZL1/ZLE which I do believe the C8 might be able to eclipse.

The funny thing is that they had to restrict it to 215 MPH!! That car is capable of going over 215. Think about it. The Hellcat and ZL1 both can hit low 200s. The ZR1 is restricted to over 10 MPH faster than they both can go!!

Everyone on this forum except for you cares about the Vette!! With the C8 I will be transitioning away from Camaros and sticking with Vettes...unless the next ZL1 follows the 6th Gen ZL1 and has the same powerplant of the C8 Z06 but for half the price. Then I'll gladly switch back.

I think Hotlap was being facetious.

The 15 GT I owned also was where I drew the line. Although it was a huge step up from the S197 and from typical Mustangs in the past, it still fell far short of what was available around that time. And the 18s came too late. The 500, even if it is amazing, is no longer an option for me. The price will not be in line with the performance based on the competition. So I'll have to pass.

Now maybe because personally I have always held Corvette's in higher regard than just about any domestic performance car, I wouldn't be shocked/disappointed if it performed close or better than the GT500. It is most likely going to be several hundred pounds lighter, and with the mid engine layout be able to put power down extremely well. I kind of expect it, but then again like I said I hold the Corvette to a high standard. It should put up crazy performance numbers because that is what Corvette's do.

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

It's not speculation. This is a car that will have had 3 model years, and really, closer to 4, to build a bad ass car. Instead, we're going to get a GT 500 that won't be faster than a Hellcat Redeye. We're going to get a GT 500 that won't be able to match the 200 mph speeds of both the Hellcat and ZL1. We're getting a GT 500 that will almost certainly never run the Ring.

But most of all, we're getting a car that will cost as much as 100k... WHY?

I personally already view the GT500 as a failure. Many of my Mustang friends also feel this way too. It's not going to be a terrible car, but it won't be what it could have been.

The GT 500 is a great looking car and sounds great, but it's about 3 years too late, and it will still be #2 in virtually every category you put it in.. save perhaps braking..

That's a lot of speculation. you may end up being right but lot of speculation on your part. Only thing you are right about is the top speed and ring time.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Camaro does not get an A for its performance in the marketplace. I'd say it gets a C-. Not sure I would exactly give Challenger an F either, since it is contributing to filling the corporate till. But BlaqWhole makes a very interesting point here with regards to Challenger being more at risk than Camaro. Camaro staying or going is simply a financial decision. How much does GM need whatever volume that comes from Camaro to keep Alpha viable? As long as Camaro continues to contribute to that, it will be around. That's why there is so much focus on maintaining high ATPs.

Challenger / Charger, on the other hand, is in a similar position that Camaro / Firebird were in in 2002. I don't think that NHTSA regs are threatening it, but CAFE most certainly is. Right now FCA is gambling a bit that the Trump Administration push to continue current EPA FE standards holds. In the meantime, Chargallenger sales are pulling their fleet economy under water, to the point that they have to go heavy into 48V Mild Hybrids on Jeep and Ram vehicles. And, similar to the F-Body issues in the early 2000's, they don't have a clear path to reasonably priced RWD architecture that can support Chargallenger next-gen. They could in theory use the Giorgio architecture that the Alfa Romeo Giulia is built on. This would be a very similar approach to GM using Alpha for Camaro and it may even be a better, more rigid architecture. But it is also more expensive. If they don't use Giorgio, Chargallenger could be a casualty.

LOL Chargallenger....I like that lol.

Martin you bring up an interesting point I'd like you to comment on.

GM obviously needs volume out of Camaro to help move alpha products (CT5/4) and keep the factory rolling along. At what point will they need to stop focusing on high ATP's and start focusing on dwindling volume/market share? I know you have said they expected to lose some volume while focusing on higher ATPs, I just can't believe they are comfortable with it being this much lower or expected it to be this much lower.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

GM obviously needs volume out of Camaro to help move alpha products (CT5/4) and keep the factory rolling along. At what point will they need to stop focusing on high ATP's and start focusing on dwindling volume/market share? I know you have said they expected to lose some volume while focusing on higher ATPs, I just can't believe they are comfortable with it being this much lower or expected it to be this much lower.

Another related question...

The CT5 is being introduced at Lansing Grand River now. It represents the answer to what GM perceives as the problem with the CTS. (high belt line, size, materials, etc.)

If CT5 flops in 2020 ...2021. Does GM pull the plug on Alpha2 - CT5/CT4/gen7 Camaro?

[Ethanolic]

Sales aren’t a zero sum game so comparing sales to an “F” letter grade is nonsense. Even my 12yo knows a 10% will hurt his overall grade worse than a 40%. Manufacturers make x profit per unit... more units sold, more profit made. Mustang and Camaros profit/yr is in decline while Charallenger(MJ) has increased and is holding steady. Know way of knowing whose F is higher st this point but Ford and Chevy’s grade is heading in the wrong direction and they seem unwilling/unable to stop it.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

…..
Martin you bring up an interesting point I'd like you to comment on.

GM obviously needs volume out of Camaro to help move alpha products (CT5/4) and keep the factory rolling along. At what point will they need to stop focusing on high ATP's and start focusing on dwindling volume/market share? I know you have said they expected to lose some volume while focusing on higher ATPs, I just can't believe they are comfortable with it being this much lower or expected it to be this much lower.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Another related question...

The CT5 is being introduced at Lansing Grand River now. It represents the answer to what GM perceives as the problem with the CTS. (high belt line, size, materials, etc.)

If CT5 flops in 2020 ...2021. Does GM pull the plug on Alpha2 - CT5/CT4/gen7 Camaro?

Good questions. If I had the answers to those they wouldn't have let me retire.

I'm sure there is not a Cadillac or Product Development executive that is comfortable with the current status of Alpha platform sales. But I don't think the first answer will be to can the platform. Steve Carlisle said in a recent interview that Cadillac has not given up on sedans. To me, that means CT5 AND CT4 AND CT6 AND..... Now, CT6 is off of Omega, but the next "AND" could be a CT3 off of Alpha. Also, if I were king of GM Product Development and wanted to push some volume out of Alpha, I'd be developing an XT7 off of either Alpha or Omega.

I also think that the GM plan to revive CT6 will be to add Omega to Lansing, which makes the idea of a RWD XT7 even more likely. Now, here's the caveat....suppose Cadillac does a RWD CUV off of Alpha and it sells at ridiculous volumes while Camaro keeps poking along. That could drive a different path towards a Camaro exit. One of the reasons Camaro didn't go on Sigma was because with CTS, STS, and SRX all on Sigma, there wasn't room. That could happen again if GM builds a homerun CUV off of Alpha.