[SecondZ28]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

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.

Now Dodge is also giving the Scat Pak some hand me downs from Hellcat, in the form of the 2015-18 hood and also getting the widebody option.

[gringo]

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.

I'm still not convinced of the NHTSA crash test argument on why GM cancelled the 4th gen at the end of '02. The SN95 debuted a year later for '94 and continued on until the S197 came out in '05. Even though the SN95 adopted new edge styling for '98, it still retained the old basic Fox body platform from '79 and was able to meet or exceed the crash test regulations and CAFE requirements until the all new S197 came out in '05.

A brand new platform would not have been required to keep the 4th gen F-body soldiering on for another 7-8 years. However, I think the damage was already done way back in the Rodger Smith era with the failed GM-10 program. Lack of new product development and stagnation of the 3rd gen F-body among other platform lines under his watch set the stage for what ultimately became GM's downfall in the early '00's.

Utilizing Zeta for the 5th gen was eventually chosen due the fatcors you have mentioned, but it was really too heavy for a model like the Camaro. However, since its primary competitors including the Mustang bulked up during this transition, the effect was not that noticeable.

The Alpha platform was a natural choice for the 6th gen since it offered both the cost sharing attributes with Cadillac and the weight reduction goals the engineers were looking for. However, rear seat legroom and trunk space was severly reduced making a somewhat impractical car even more impractical.

I don't know if you remember or can offer more insight on this, but I do remember a discussion regarding the placement of the rear bulkhead behind the seats. It seems the Alpha platform has a basic design problem in which the rear bulkhead structure is located too far forward in the chassis. This apparently caused a drastic reduction in rear seat leg room compared to the Zeta based 5th gen.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by gringo

I'm still not convinced of the NHTSA crash test argument on why GM cancelled the 4th gen at the end of '02. The SN95 debuted a year later for '94 and continued on until the S197 came out in '05. Even though the SN95 adopted new edge styling for '98, it still retained the old basic Fox body platform from '79 and was able to meet or exceed the crash test regulations and CAFE requirements until the all new S197 came out in '05.

A brand new platform would not have been required to keep the 4th gen F-body soldiering on for another 7-8 years. However, I think the damage was already done way back in the Rodger Smith era with the failed GM-10 program. Lack of new product development and stagnation of the 3rd gen F-body among other platform lines under his watch set the stage for what ultimately became GM's downfall in the early '00's.

Utilizing Zeta for the 5th gen was eventually chosen due the fatcors you have mentioned, but it was really too heavy for a model like the Camaro. However, since its primary competitors including the Mustang bulked up during this transition, the effect was not that noticeable.

The Alpha platform was a natural choice for the 6th gen since it offered both the cost sharing attributes with Cadillac and the weight reduction goals the engineers were looking for. However, rear seat legroom and trunk space was severly reduced making a somewhat impractical car even more impractical.

I don't know if you remember or can offer more insight on this, but I do remember a discussion regarding the placement of the rear bulkhead behind the seats. It seems the Alpha platform has a basic design problem in which the rear bulkhead structure is located too far forward in the chassis. This apparently caused a drastic reduction in rear seat leg room compared to the Zeta based 5th gen.

As with most things in the auto industry, there is rarely one single reason, but multiple factors which are weighted differently. I did say that sales was a factor but not THE reason. Crash and f/e were definitely the primary factors that tipped the scale towards cancellation, especially when throwing in the “what architecture?” question. Architecture became a question because when confronted with the crash and f/e issues, the first thing that became apparent was that triaging F-body would be too expensive. Not that it couldn’t be done. But that it was too expensive and also committing people to do it could possibly mean people not available for other more important programs. Doing an all new architecture made no sense because the sales volume of Camaro / Firebird couldn’t support the cost and resource drain. That is how sales was a factor, not a reason.

Ford was obviously in a different place with the Fox architecture. Could be that the work needed to make it comply required fewer man-hours and dollars than requirements to get F-body to comply. Could be Ford had the dollars and man-hours to spare.

I would certainly agree that GM10 did a lot to set the company back. There was a heavy reliance on launching with coupe versions of the nameplates on GM10, even though the industry forecasts were already signaling a shift to sedans. By the time the sedans caught up, SUVs were becoming a thing.

Technically speaking, Alpha was a natural. Politically, financially, and brand strategy wise, not so much. A lot of debate and study until it finally came to pass.

Not sure about the bulkhead issue. Wouldn’t surprise me. Mass and rigidity were the main triggers for Alpha development. If placement of the bulkhead helped to improve either of those elements, then I would not be surprised at the trade offs.

[IOMike]

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.

Really? There are 2x as many Camaros on the road from 2010 to now.

Oh, it won a month or two. Yep.

The double standards are ridiculous

[Timeless]

Originally Posted by gringo

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.

They kind of tried this with the SS....but lack of sales killed it.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Timeless

They kind of tried this with the SS....but lack of sales killed it.

Again with the "lack of sales". There is more to this story than just saying the SS was a failure.

I'm no expert like Martin and his great insight.

But I do know of some things on this one:

1) The car was never going to continue on forever due to Holden shutting down.
2) The car was never meant to sell in large numbers and was more of an opportunity for GM to sell more of those imported units here in the U.S. where it then lacked a sports sedan due to the death of Pontiac
3) The car was never really advertised, and it only came fully loaded (again, going back to point 2 above)

The SS didn't sell great...no it didn't, but it was never really meant to either.

P.S. A part of me wishes I had accepted the "fancy Malibu" looks and slight performance hit compared to my Camaro SS and picked one up during the 20% off sales on the SS. They are worth that much or more today.

[GearheadSS]

I'm a long time GM guy and I currently own a 2016 Challenger R/T Plus. I just bought it 8 weeks ago. It's my first non-GM vehicle in 23 years.

I had been itching to get back into a modern muscle car for a daily driver and I wanted to go used instead of new just to save money. My must haves were V8 and leather. I had originally been dead set on another Camaro 2SS. I had not even considered anything else because I've been die-hard GM for most of my driving life. But, my wife(who currently daily drives a 2016 Camaro) has always liked the Challenger so I decided to check them out. Mustang was never a consideration. I came across this car and decided to pull the trigger.



I've been impressed with the car overall so far. The 8 speed in the Challenger is better than any Camaro 8 speed I've ever driven. Dodge has that trans perfected. I'm surprised that the OP didn't like the transmission in the rental unit. Perhaps they tune the 8 speed differently in the rental cars.

I like the room inside too. I know a lot of people bag on the Challenger for its size but I actually like that about it. I'm a big guy at 6'5" and the extra room is great for me. It has a usable backseat which is nice when I need it.

It has its faults though. Performance of the 5.7 R/T isn't anywhere close to the SS though. I love the way it rides and drives but when it comes to all out performance, it feels slow because it is. If I could go back and change one thing, I would buy a Scat Pack over the 5.7 R/T.

It also didn't come with remote start. It has heated/vented seats, navigation, sunroof, Harmon Kardon sound system and damn near everything else but for some reason, it didn't come with factory remote start.

It has more rattles than any Camaro I've driven since my 1987 IROC.

If you ever want to feel good about the blind spots and visibility out of a Camaro, go drive a Challenger. The blind spots in the Challenger might be the worst I've ever experienced.

Even with all of that, I do like the car as a daily driver. It had everything I wanted and it was cheap. I paid $21,500 for this car which was several thousand dollars less than a comparable 2016 2SS. Will I buy another one? Possibly. The things I like about this car outweigh my dislikes.

[jeep_junkie]

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.

Funny you say that because today the Camaro6 homepage has an article saying Camaro topped Challenger and Mustang sales. Maybe the tide's a'turnin

[Royal Tiger]

I’ve driven three challengers:

V-6 auto
5.7L V-8 auto
6.4L V-8 auto


Wasn’t really impressed by any of them. As my car sits, if felt faster than the 392 and would run circles around it in the mountains. I did like the extra back seat space though. Shame they never did a convertible.

I’ve also driven V-6 & 5.7L V-8 police cars and OMG did they suck!!! Terrible interior space once you put the cage & equipment in and the transmissions blow yearly. It KILLS me to say I prefer the Taurus.

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by jeep_junkie

Funny you say that because today the Camaro6 homepage has an article saying Camaro topped Challenger and Mustang sales. Maybe the tide's a'turnin

That article is from 2017.

June 2018 USA sales numbers.

Camaro-4530
Challenger-6822
Mustang-7400