[Stex]

Two different cars...C is newer design, subframe, engine etc......should be better

[gringo]

[QUOTE=Blazin383;10250719]

Originally Posted by gringo

What planet are you living on? Sales is everything for the automakers.

Isn't that why the 4th gen F-body was cancelled at the end of '02? No sales or weak sales means less money available the suites at GM will allocate towards a heavily revised or totally new platform program.

CUV's are selling hot so that's why we have a new Blazer for '19 that looks like...well...another CUV with Camaro styling cues.

Ford's decision to bow out of the sedan market and concentrate on trucks, CUV's and the Mustang is primarily due to slow sales of sedans in the marketplace.

The automakers won't continue to make what doesn't sell.[/QUOT

I've yet to buy a car based on production numbers. I've always bought cars that moved me and struck a cord with whatever performance and/or styling queue that spoke to me! I understand bean counters rule the production line, but that never entered into my decision making process.

I Like the look of the Challenger styling from the outside and the straight-line performance of the upper level monsters, but driving this v6 rental car version is totally uninspiring. My LT Camaro is basically a rental car level Camaro too, but it is so much more engaging, and feels so much more inspired and modern...in my opinion.

I'm not saying you have to buy a car that has high sales numbers. If we did, we'd all be driving Camry's. Heaven forbid that thought!

I'm talking about it from an auto manufacturer's perspective. However, you keep stating how the Challenger is a junk when it comes to handling compared to the Camaro. Well, the Challenger and Camaro are two different cars that became even more different when the 6th gen debuted.

When Camaro went to the Alpha platform for '16, it became more sports car like and the handling improved. The Challenger remained on the same old Diamler E-class chassis from the early '00's. I'm sure Dodge can improve the handling to be more competitive, but they don't have to. It's already selling very well. However, the extra weight will always an issue for handling until they put the platform on a crash diet. If that could even be done.

[Cmax]

I have read this entire thread....
I have also found out that they made 717 of my particular Camaro... Not counting minor options.
There are few things more fun to me, than taking mine out on a winding country road and letting it run....
I want to live long enough to buy a 75th edition, but we might be flying drones by then.
But if there are not many SS and ZL1 ground pounding sports cars out there in 15-20 years, guess who’s car just got more valuable....I just hope WE can still but 93 octane!

[Balzdeep]

Lol. I instead of debating which brand is better let’s be greatful we got to see a second coming of the muscle car era II. The hardware available today far exceeds the 1965-1971 era.

[Blazin383]

[QUOTE=gringo;10250841]

Originally Posted by Blazin383

I'm not saying you have to buy a car that has high sales numbers. If we did, we'd all be driving Camry's. Heaven forbid that thought!

I'm talking about it from an auto manufacturer's perspective. However, you keep stating how the Challenger is a junk when it comes to handling compared to the Camaro. Well, the Challenger and Camaro are two different cars that became even more different when the 6th gen debuted.

When Camaro went to the Alpha platform for '16, it became more sports car like and the handling improved. The Challenger remained on the same old Diamler E-class chassis from the early '00's. I'm sure Dodge can improve the handling to be more competitive, but they don't have to. It's already selling very well. However, the extra weight will always an issue for handling until they put the platform on a crash diet. If that could even be done.

You just made my point for me!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by gringo

Nice slam post about how you hate Challenger. Think of it this way, though. That big ole sloppy handling slow shifting Challenger is kicking both the Mustang and Camaro's butt in sales.

The things you complain about is par for the course. The Challenger is a modern day muscle car, not a sports car. The Camaro, especially the 6th gen, is more sports car like than it has ever heen.

Instead of marketing more CUVs, GM could have developed a competitor to the hot selling Challenger and maybe called it...oh let's say...the Chevelle. A car like that would sell like hotcakes to people who like the Camaro but need just a little more room.

Unfortunately, GM won't do anything wise like that.

GM did offer a “Chevelle”, except it was called Chevy SS. The Chevelle name was considered, but just not used. It was off the Holden’s Zeta platform, just like the GTO that it replaced when Pontiac went away and just like Gen 5 Camaro. Sold “ok” but was limited by import restrictions and high price.

As far as offering something like that over pick-a-model CUV? Dollars speak volumes. A lot more than sales figures. I can’t think of a GM CUV model that sells less than 100,000 units a year at similar profit margins to Camaro. Actually, I can think of one. Cadillac XT5. But I would expect profit per unit for those is a bit higher than Camaro and most other GM CUVs. What profit based company would not want to sell more volume at similar or better profit margin?

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

I didn't say it was just due to Transformers. It was the combination of Transformers and the return of the nameplate. The pent up demand would have dried out most likely by the 2012-2013 MY, but the 5th gen remained strong through out the generation.



I am also not blaming just the decreasing halo from the transformers franchise either for the 6th gens downfall. It's part of the equation. The Challenger has been the same car for the last 10 years on the same 20 year old platform with some styling updates along the way. It was bringing up the rear in a very distant third until Dodge slapped a 707 HP engine into it and successfully marketed it. Cause if it is the styling of the Challenger that is causing the uprising, it wouldn't have been averaging 3000 sales a month when Mustang and 5th gen Camaro was pulling in 7000-10,000 sales a month before the Hellcat. The yuppies are buying the Challenger now because of the Hellcat. Sort of like people who buy a 320i and slap a M3 badge on it because they want people to think they have a Hellcat instead of a V6 Challenger or R/T. You can also argue with the market shifting towards CUV's/practical cars, the Challenger is the only vehicle in the segment that has the most practicality to sell to the family.

A Chevelle is just not going to happen. GM doesn't have a platform for it, would still overlap with the Camaro too much, and they are done with just straight line machines.

I think there are two angles to the Challenger story, based on which part of the lineup you’re talking about. I think Challenger (and Charger) are selling more Scat Packs because of Hellcat and Demon. Performance oriented buyers come in to look at Hellcat and find they can get into an R/T or even a Scat Pack at a reasonable price. Clearly a halo effect. They’ve also done some really cool things with paint and tape packages that make the 10 year old design look good.

On the lower end, it’s very simple. P-R-I-C-E. BECAUSE it’s a 10 year old design on a 20 year old platform, cost is lower than S550 and Alpha so they can afford to price it lower than Ford or GM can price Mustang or Camaro. Lease deals in the Detroit area are ridiculously low.

As I pointed out above, Chevelle already happened, and a lot of people simply didn’t care.

Originally Posted by gringo

Well, remember Dodge still has the Charger which probably has the most practicality of them all since it has four doors. The Challenger model fits in that niche where no other automaker has a good presence in these days. A relatively fast roomy car with heritage styling cues from the past.

I don't think people are buying lower end model Challengers because they can slap a Hellcat badge on it and make people think it's a Hellcat. They're buying Challengers because they offer the closest approximation to what the old muscle cars provided in their younger days.

Also, Dodge didn't screw up the design of the Challenger yet. They kept it mostly the same adding tasteful tweaks (here and there) and adding more power over the years.

I agree with the fact that GM doesn't have a platform to do a Chevelle model on. They really didn't have a platform for the 5th gen either, but they made due with a fullsized platform borrowed from Holden and designed a beautiful retro design body around it. Now, they could've also done a Chevelle model off the Zeta too, but that is a moot point now.

Keeping the Challenger design fresh without changing it much is definitely a huge success for FCA. Look how much Charger has changed over the years. Then park a 2008 Challenger next to a 2018. Most of the differences are things someone modding their car might do. No sheet metal changes. Very subtle tail lamp and front lighting changes. A lot of paint options and tape jobs. Well played, Dodge.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by gringo

What planet are you living on? Sales is everything for the automakers.

Isn't that why the 4th gen F-body was cancelled at the end of '02? No sales or weak sales means less money available the suites at GM will allocate towards a heavily revised or totally new platform program.

CUV's are selling hot so that's why we have a new Blazer for '19 that looks like...well...another CUV with Camaro styling cues.

Ford's decision to bow out of the sedan market and concentrate on trucks, CUV's and the Mustang is primarily due to slow sales of sedans in the marketplace.

The automakers won't continue to make what doesn't sell.

Sales is NOT everything to automakers. PROFIT is. Sales does not always equal profits. Selling a lot of a low profit or money losing vehicle is not as good as selling a moderate amount of high profit vehicles. This was Lesson #1 for GM coming out of bankruptcy.

And, as I’ve stated many times on this forum and a few times on M6G (probably more times there ) the gap between Gen 4 and Gen 5 had very little to do with sales. Sales was a FACTOR but not a REASON. The primary reason is that the F-Body architecture was incapable of meeting new fuel economy and NHTSA Crash Regulations that were about to become law. Choices for rear wheel drive architectures were very slim. Either the (then) all-new Sigma architecture which at that point was committed to Cadillac only, or the Zeta architecture out of Holden, which, if the car was to be built in Australia, would limit import of the vehicle to either 30k or 60k (I honestly can’t remember which and I’m too lazy to go look it up).

Even if Cadillac could be convinced to walk back from the Cadillac-only mandate for Sigma, between CTS, STS, SRX, and two other vehicles that were in the product plan at the time, but never made production, there was not enough capacity at the Lansing plant where Sigma vehicles were produced. The fact that 6th Gen is built in Lansing on an architecture previously mandated as Cadillac-only is not a coincidence. What it amounts to is a second (and successful) kick at the can.

Before the decision to do 6th Gen off Alpha, the decision was made to do 5th Gen off of Zeta, but instead of being volume constrained due to import restrictions, the decision was made to add a module of Zeta capacity at Oshawa. As 6th Gen timing approached, similar issues arose regarding the Zeta architecture. Add to that the fact that Zeta is a heavy architecture and would make the next gen Camaro non-competitive in its segment, the decision was made to do 6th Gen off of Alpha.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I think there are two angles to the Challenger story, based on which part of the lineup you’re talking about. I think Challenger (and Charger) are selling more Scat Packs because of Hellcat and Demon. Performance oriented buyers come in to look at Hellcat and find they can get into an R/T or even a Scat Pack at a reasonable price. Clearly a halo effect. They’ve also done some really cool things with paint and tape packages that make the 10 year old design look good.

On the lower end, it’s very simple. P-R-I-C-E. BECAUSE it’s a 10 year old design on a 20 year old platform, cost is lower that S550 and Alpha so they can afford to price it lower than Ford or GM can price Mustang or Camaro. Lease deals in the Detroit area are ridiculously low.

As I pointed out above, Chevelle already happened, and a lot of people simply didn’t care.

Agreed that price is also part of the equation.



When I was bringing up the Chevelle, I was envisioning it as a sports coupe as gringo kept on pointing towards the Challenger when bringing it up which would overlap with Camaro too much and there really isn't a platform for it now besides maybe Omega, but I bet that would be too cost prohibitive.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Agreed that price is also part of the equation.



When I was bringing up the Chevelle, I was envisioning it as a sports coupe as gringo kept on pointing towards the Challenger when bringing it up which would overlap with Camaro too much and there really isn't a platform for it now besides maybe Omega, but I bet that would be too cost prohibitive.

Oh God, yes!!

[DC5]

Martinjlm:

The sharing of your experience, knowledge, and insight are very much appreciated by myself---and many others, I'm certain---on this forum.

[FH212]

My wifes 18 Charger R/T has that slow shifting auto trans too. I hate it. Hers is the 5.7 Hemi and has a real nice exhaust tone and can sound mean. That car is our family car and we haul around our 3 girls in it every weekend. Its honestly a good family car for muscle car people. If OP would have drove a Challenger with the Hemi I am pretty sure his opinion would have been better about it. But they are not in the same class as a Camaro. I agree with the people that say the Camaro is a sports car and the Challenger is a muscle car because they are a lot different.

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by DC5

Another thread that evolves into a discussion about Camaro sales. Since sales dictate "success," let us all agree that the Toyota Camry is the best non-truck/CUV/SUV offered in the United States.

Toyotas suck...no better than any other just been hyped a lot more. Especially by the mgazine/media industry who poured money into their stock then used magazines and other media to hype the product to up the stock back in the early 70s when stock was dirt cheap. My mother had a 80's Camary and it didn't make it to 80k miles without continuous problems. She now drives a early 2000's GM car which still runs just fine.

[wrankin]

I rented a V6 Challenger and it was just a car. Nothing special! I also rented Charger with a Hemi and liked that a lot. It would be a nice grocery getter.

Bill

[Bongos2U]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Sales is NOT everything to automakers. PROFIT is. Sales does not always equal profits. Selling a lot of a low profit or money losing vehicle is not as good as selling a moderate amount of high profit vehicles. This was Lesson #1 for GM coming out of bankruptcy.

And, as I’ve stated many times on this forum and a few times on M6G (probably more times there ) the gap between Gen 4 and Gen 5 had very little to do with sales. Sales was a FACTOR but not a REASON. The primary reason is that the F-Body architecture was incapable of meeting new fuel economy and NHTSA Crash Regulations that were about to become law. Choices for rear wheel drive architectures were very slim. Either the (then) all-new Sigma architecture which at that point was committed to Cadillac only, or the Zeta architecture out of Holden, which, if the car was to be built in Australia, would limit import of the vehicle to either 30k or 60k (I honestly can’t remember which and I’m too lazy to go look it up).

Even if Cadillac could be convinced to walk back from the Cadillac-only mandate for Sigma, between CTS, STS, SRX, and two other vehicles that were in the product plan at the time, but never made production, there was not enough capacity at the Lansing plant where Sigma vehicles were produced. The fact that 6th Gen is built in Lansing on an architecture previously mandated as Cadillac-only is not a coincidence. What it amounts to is a second (and successful) kick at the can.

Before the decision to do 6th Gen off Alpha, the decision was made to do 5th Gen off of Zeta, but instead of being volume constrained due to import restrictions, the decision was made to add a module of Zeta capacity at Oshawa. As 6th Gen timing approached, similar issues arose regarding the Zeta architecture. Add to that the fact that Zeta is a heavy architecture and would make the next gen Camaro non-competitive in its segment, the decision was made to do 6th Gen off of Alpha.

Exactly. Before bankruptcy, GM was the global auto sales king. Problem was that they were selling cars at razor thin margins, or at a loss. Just to move the metal off dealerships lots.