[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I think its really the opposite as proven by recent sales. Out of the three the car with the best handling is by far the worst in sales and the car with the worst handling is selling very well.

Handling is part of the discussion in general but I don't think it is as big a factor as many believe it to be. As you mentioned Dodge took a totally different approach than Chevy did and it has worked out great for them. They are appealing to what all three of these cars heritage is muscle street/strip.

I'd be willing to bet that out of all three, GM is making the most money off the Camaros they are selling than FCA and Ford are making off the Challengers and Mustangs (respectively) that they are selling.

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I'd be willing to bet that out of all three, GM is making the most money off the Camaros they are selling than FCA and Ford are making off the Challengers and Mustangs (respectively) that they are selling.

I’d be shocked if that were true given the cost of the Dodges and the age of the platform.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

I’d be shocked if that were true given the cost of the Dodges and the age of the platform.

MEDISEN was providing monthly ATP data until he disappeared middle of last year. Mustang and Challenger were selling at a lower ATP (retail) with large percentage of total volume going to fleet.

Fleet is low/no profit and their retail ATP is far lower

Here is Q1-Q2 2018 and 2017 totals

Retail ATP's 2018 Q1-Q2 (JDPin)
Camaro: $40,814
Challenger: $38,241 (-$2,573)
Mustang: $34,798 (-$6,016)

Retail Sales 2018 Q1-Q2
Mustang: 29,548
Challenger: 25,783 (-3,765)
Camaro: 24,809 (-4,739)

Total Sales 2018 Q1-Q2
Mustang 42,428
Challenger 37,367 (-5,061)
Camaro 25,380 (-17,048)

Percentage of Total Sales that are Fleet/Rental 2018 Q1-Q2
Camaro 2.2%
Mustang 30.4% (+28.1%)
Challenger 31% (+28.8%)

Retail ATP's 2017 (JDPin)
Camaro: $39,514
Challenger: $35,498 (-$4,016)
Mustang: $33,792 (-$5,722)

Retail Sales 2017
Camaro: 65,222
Mustang: 60,581 (-4641)
Challenger: 45,821 (-19,401)

Total Sales 2017
Mustang 81,866
Camaro 67,940 (-13,926)
Challenger 64,537 (-17,329)

Percentage of Total Sales that are Fleet/Rental 2017
Camaro 4%
Mustang 26% (+22%)
Challenger 29% (+25%)

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I'd be willing to bet that out of all three, GM is making the most money off the Camaros they are selling than FCA and Ford are making off the Challengers and Mustangs (respectively) that they are selling.

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

I’d be shocked if that were true given the cost of the Dodges and the age of the platform.

Originally Posted by hotlap

MEDISEN was providing monthly ATP data until he disappeared middle of last year. Mustang and Challenger were selling at a lower ATP (retail) with large percentage of total volume going to fleet.

Fleet is low/no profit and their retail ATP is far lower

Here is Q1-Q2 2018 and 2017 totals

Retail ATP's 2018 Q1-Q2 (JDPin)
Camaro: $40,814
Challenger: $38,241 (-$2,573)
Mustang: $34,798 (-$6,016)

Retail Sales 2018 Q1-Q2
Mustang: 29,548
Challenger: 25,783 (-3,765)
Camaro: 24,809 (-4,739)

Total Sales 2018 Q1-Q2
Mustang 42,428
Challenger 37,367 (-5,061)
Camaro 25,380 (-17,048)

Percentage of Total Sales that are Fleet/Rental 2018 Q1-Q2
Camaro 2.2%
Mustang 30.4% (+28.1%)
Challenger 31% (+28.8%)

Retail ATP's 2017 (JDPin)
Camaro: $39,514
Challenger: $35,498 (-$4,016)
Mustang: $33,792 (-$5,722)

Retail Sales 2017
Camaro: 65,222
Mustang: 60,581 (-4641)
Challenger: 45,821 (-19,401)

Total Sales 2017
Mustang 81,866
Camaro 67,940 (-13,926)
Challenger 64,537 (-17,329)

Percentage of Total Sales that are Fleet/Rental 2017
Camaro 4%
Mustang 26% (+22%)
Challenger 29% (+25%)

While the ATP picture is very clear, the profit / vehicle number is unknown and probably unknowable without deep inside knowledge.

We know that Camaro has highest ATP.
We assume (with high probability) that Challenger has lowest cost.
We know Mustang sells the most cars retail and overall.

Total profit = Sales x (ATP - cost/unit)

Mustang has highest sales, Camaro has highest ATP, Challenger probably has lowest cost. We don’t have enough information to say which is most profitable.

[JhonnyGTR]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

While the ATP picture is very clear, the profit / vehicle number is unknown and probably unknowable without deep inside knowledge.

We know that Camaro has highest ATP.
We assume (with high probability) that Challenger has lowest cost.
We know Mustang sells the most cars retail and overall.

Total profit = Sales x (ATP - cost/unit)

Mustang has highest sales, Camaro has highest ATP, Challenger probably has lowest cost. We don’t have enough information to say which is most profitable.

The only we now by now is that they are still alive, surviving and upgrading

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

While the ATP picture is very clear, the profit / vehicle number is unknown and probably unknowable without deep inside knowledge.

We know that Camaro has highest ATP.
We assume (with high probability) that Challenger has lowest cost.
We know Mustang sells the most cars retail and overall.

Total profit = Sales x (ATP - cost/unit)

Mustang has highest sales, Camaro has highest ATP, Challenger probably has lowest cost. We don’t have enough information to say which is most profitable.

ATP is also a little misleading in determining profit as what a buyer pays does not directly benefit the Corporation. If dealers won’t move far off msrp for Camaros while ford dealers are willing to sell mustangs at close to invoice that has zero impact on the profit to the company. Also the fact that Camaros can’t be had in inexpensive lower content versions keeps their ATP higher but that extra content is not free to the company either... they cost more to build.

We are never going to know if these cars are profitable...until they stop making them.

We should all hope that doesn’t happen.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

ATP is also a little misleading in determining profit as what a buyer pays does not directly benefit the Corporation. If dealers won’t move far off msrp for Camaros while ford dealers are willing to sell mustangs at close to invoice that has zero impact on the profit to the company. Also the fact that Camaros can’t be had in inexpensive lower content versions keeps their ATP higher but that extra content is not free to the company either... they cost more to build.

We are never going to know if these cars are profitable...until they stop making them.

We should all hope that doesn’t happen.

For the most part this is correct, but sometimes Corporations provide dealers with incentives that the consumer most often does not know about that allows the dealer more room to move on the MSRP. Those would lower the ATP and also impact profitability, since the dealer would be paying the Corporation less for the car sold at a discount.

Corporations also occasionally supplement the finance and lease deals, provided the dealers use Corporate financial arms. So,for example, a 0% finance rate would be supplemented by the Corporation and would not affect ATP but it would lower profit margin for the Corporation in that it is an added cost.

[BlaqWhole]

The Camaro sells enough. They sell enough that they were able to put adequate coolers on the LEs. They sell enough that you don't have to pick and choose specific models with specific options. They sell enough that they were able to build the ZL1 to handle 200 MPH. They sell enough that they were able to have a complete redo after 6 years. They sell enough that they can build a car that is very impressive in a straight line and around a track. They sell enough that they could put a decent tire on the ZL1 instead of P-Zeros. They sell enough that they haven't been stuck with the same 3-4 engines with different outputs and just rearranging suspensions and mixing parts together (1320 is basically a Demon with SRT engine). They sell enough that the ZL1 was able to be priced lower than their competition despite beating their competition at everything stock for stock for 2 MYs. They sell enough. Period. End of story.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

I was just watching a Las Vegas GT500 video where someone who appears to be a Ford employee says the GT500 is almost 4 seconds faster than the GT350R around a 2.5 mile track. Just for fun (I realize it's hypothetical and not precise), if you extrapolate that to a 4.1 mile track (Lightning lap) that brings the GT500 to about 2:45.25 (GT350R ran 2:51.8), about 1/2 second faster than the ZL1 1LE's time (2:45.7). Nurburgring...is the ZL1 1LE's 7:16 on the 12.8 mile track or the 16.1 mile track?

The GT350R ran 7:32.1 on Nurburgring. Assuming the 12.8 mile track, taking 1.6 seconds off per mile brings that time down to 7:11.6. Assuming the 16.1 mile track brings it to 7:06.3. I think it's the 12.8 mile track cars are running now so the 7:11 may be the new time...

I know, I know, each track is different and favors different things (power, handling, braking, etc.). But it's fun to speculate.

[rocket403]

Ya they sell so well that they are 3rd out of the 3 pony/muscle cars, I'm sure GM is saying they sell enough. If they sell enough for the next couple of years and keep moving in the same direction for sales they might as well turn out the lights on it.

[Fraxum]

Why worry about sales? If Chevy keeps making Corvettes and Camaros what's the point? It's all about the business of building cars that us car nerds will buy. I wonder though at some point where will this all end?

All 3 money making corporations are doing what they can with what they have to make the most $$ ASAP. At some point when does all the HP and speed just become silly? The muscle car market has gone from 30-40K cars to 60-100k. And these cars, the ZL1 included just do not make sense on the street. Some ZL1 owners complain they can't just punch the throttle at any time without spinning. LOL they just don't get it. Huge speed only works on the track and the Internet.

But the super-car rush is

Scaring the crap out of yourself is just so much fun. It's a drug.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Fraxum

Why worry about sales? If Chevy keeps making Corvettes and Camaros what's the point? It's all about the business of building cars that us car nerds will buy. I wonder though at some point where will this all end?

All 3 money making corporations are doing what they can with what they have to make the most $$ ASAP. At some point when does all the HP and speed just become silly? The muscle car market has gone from 30-40K cars to 60-100k. And these cars, the ZL1 included just do not make sense on the street. Some ZL1 owners complain they can't just punch the throttle at any time without spinning. LOL they just don't get it. Huge speed only works on the track and the Internet.

But the super-car rush is

Scaring the crap out of yourself is just so much fun. It's a drug.

Having grown up in the 80s and 90s, and really started getting into cars around 1989, I can say that it's nearly silly already. The top of the heap (back then) Ferrari F40 went 0-60 in 3.9 seconds which was downright scary fast back then. The '18 GT runs to 60 in 3.8 seconds (Car and Driver) and the SS in 3.9 seconds. As a muscle car fan and 3rd gen Z28 owner in the mid 90s, I couldn't have imagined a factory car from either side (especially Ford) making their pony cars that fast.

My dream car was the first Viper GTS in the mid 90s...a mid 12 second 450 hp car if memory serves me correct. Crazy how the GT and SS are faster than that now.

I was looking up 1/4 mile times for mid-late 80s Camaro Z28s and Irocs and GTs and it was almost comical how slow they were compared to the cars now, 30 years later. They were running 15/16 second 1/4 mile times in the upper 80s to low 90s mph trap speeds. These cars now get to 90 mph in like 7 seconds.

It makes me wonder if, in 30 years, we'll be looking at the times for the Mustang and Camaros and talking about how slow the 12.1 second 1/4 mile runs were in the GT, or 12.2 in the SS seem. I mean, when does this power cycle end, or does it?? In 2049 will we be arguing about 10.1 vs 10.2 in the 1/4, and the "slow" M6s running "only" mid 10s? All in the GT/SS trims? Not to mention the 9.1 second GT500 and 9.5 second ZL1 of the future? And mid 6 minute Nurburgring times?

Only time will tell.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I was just watching a Las Vegas GT500 video where someone who appears to be a Ford employee says the GT500 is almost 4 seconds faster than the GT350R around a 2.5 mile track. Just for fun (I realize it's hypothetical and not precise), if you extrapolate that to a 4.1 mile track (Lightning lap) that brings the GT500 to about 2:45.25 (GT350R ran 2:51.8), about 1/2 second faster than the ZL1 1LE's time (2:45.7). Nurburgring...is the ZL1 1LE's 7:16 on the 12.8 mile track or the 16.1 mile track?

The GT350R ran 7:32.1 on Nurburgring. Assuming the 12.8 mile track, taking 1.6 seconds off per mile brings that time down to 7:11.6. Assuming the 16.1 mile track brings it to 7:06.3. I think it's the 12.8 mile track cars are running now so the 7:11 may be the new time...

I know, I know, each track is different and favors different things (power, handling, braking, etc.). But it's fun to speculate.

Yea what was he, a janitor? LOL!! I don't see that happening but ok...

Originally Posted by rocket403

Ya they sell so well that they are 3rd out of the 3 pony/muscle cars

Is this a serious statement? Tell you what, let me know exactly how many units GM needs to sell. We'll continue this debate when you have that info for me.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Having grown up in the 80s and 90s, and really started getting into cars around 1989, I can say that it's nearly silly already. The top of the heap (back then) Ferrari F40 went 0-60 in 3.9 seconds which was downright scary fast back then. The '18 GT runs to 60 in 3.8 seconds (Car and Driver) and the SS in 3.9 seconds. As a muscle car fan and 3rd gen Z28 owner in the mid 90s, I couldn't have imagined a factory car from either side (especially Ford) making their pony cars that fast.

My dream car was the first Viper GTS in the mid 90s...a mid 12 second 450 hp car if memory serves me correct. Crazy how the GT and SS are faster than that now.

I was looking up 1/4 mile times for mid-late 80s Camaro Z28s and Irocs and GTs and it was almost comical how slow they were compared to the cars now, 30 years later. They were running 15/16 second 1/4 mile times in the upper 80s to low 90s mph trap speeds. These cars now get to 90 mph in like 7 seconds.

It makes me wonder if, in 30 years, we'll be looking at the times for the Mustang and Camaros and talking about how slow the 12.1 second 1/4 mile runs were in the GT, or 12.2 in the SS seem. I mean, when does this power cycle end, or does it?? In 2049 will we be arguing about 10.1 vs 10.2 in the 1/4, and the "slow" M6s running "only" mid 10s? All in the GT/SS trims? Not to mention the 9.1 second GT500 and 9.5 second ZL1 of the future? And mid 6 minute Nurburgring times?

Only time will tell.

There is only soo much that average or even highly skilled people can handle. And I think that cars now are at that threshold now. These engines are overpowering the chassis and suspension of these cars. So what I think we'll start seeing is that the HP and TQ of these cars will remain the same or close but we'll see better tires, better suspensions, AWD, more efficient setups, etc. I mean, look at the GTR. It is clearly as fast as a Redeye despite having like 200 less HP. The M5 is just about as fast despite being a sedan and having much less HP. The X5M and X6M likewise can keep up with a Trackhawk although being short on HP. So we'll start seeing cars with the same HP and TQ or even less but in more efficient setups.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Fraxum

Why worry about sales? If Chevy keeps making Corvettes and Camaros what's the point? It's all about the business of building cars that us car nerds will buy. I wonder though at some point where will this all end?

All 3 money making corporations are doing what they can with what they have to make the most $$ ASAP. At some point when does all the HP and speed just become silly? The muscle car market has gone from 30-40K cars to 60-100k. And these cars, the ZL1 included just do not make sense on the street. Some ZL1 owners complain they can't just punch the throttle at any time without spinning. LOL they just don't get it. Huge speed only works on the track and the Internet.

But the super-car rush is

Scaring the crap out of yourself is just so much fun. It's a drug.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Having grown up in the 80s and 90s, and really started getting into cars around 1989, I can say that it's nearly silly already. The top of the heap (back then) Ferrari F40 went 0-60 in 3.9 seconds which was downright scary fast back then. The '18 GT runs to 60 in 3.8 seconds (Car and Driver) and the SS in 3.9 seconds. As a muscle car fan and 3rd gen Z28 owner in the mid 90s, I couldn't have imagined a factory car from either side (especially Ford) making their pony cars that fast.

My dream car was the first Viper GTS in the mid 90s...a mid 12 second 450 hp car if memory serves me correct. Crazy how the GT and SS are faster than that now.

I was looking up 1/4 mile times for mid-late 80s Camaro Z28s and Irocs and GTs and it was almost comical how slow they were compared to the cars now, 30 years later. They were running 15/16 second 1/4 mile times in the upper 80s to low 90s mph trap speeds. These cars now get to 90 mph in like 7 seconds.

It makes me wonder if, in 30 years, we'll be looking at the times for the Mustang and Camaros and talking about how slow the 12.1 second 1/4 mile runs were in the GT, or 12.2 in the SS seem. I mean, when does this power cycle end, or does it?? In 2049 will we be arguing about 10.1 vs 10.2 in the 1/4, and the "slow" M6s running "only" mid 10s? All in the GT/SS trims? Not to mention the 9.1 second GT500 and 9.5 second ZL1 of the future? And mid 6 minute Nurburgring times?

Only time will tell.

We are definitely already there. I remember back in 2008 when I was heading up the Powertrain Technologies Planning and Competitor Intel group at GM Powertrain HQ. The VP of Powertrain had a pair of ZR1s parked in the garage that qualified execs could take out for test drives. His admin assistant (whom I got along with very well) controlled the keys. So I go and ask for the keys. She says “Sure...just show me your [I don’t remember what] license and pick which one you want”. I said my “what” license?” She says “If you don’t know, you don’t have one. No keys for you”.

Fast forward to today and I have a convertible that is nearly as fast and could have bought a ZL1 or Z06 convertible that would have been faster. Without any special license.

By 2049 we’ll be comparing e-motor kW ratings, 1/4 mile times in the 8s, and saying to our grand children “I remember when you could get cars where you could change your own gears” only to have them ask “grandpa....what are gears?”