[Smokin19]

Was not going to post on this thread because of my bias from owning 4 Camaro's. I agree advertising is next to zero for the Camaro but, that cannot be the only reason for poor sales. My ZL1 stickered at $67,490, while I consider that a good price for what it is, I can also say it is a very expensive car that not everyone is able to buy. The price of my first 1970 Camaro RS was $3,900, my have prices changed. Even with inflation the price increase over the years is hard to fathom. Yes, the tech has changed considerably but, again at what price.

Today's younger buyers could mostly care less about buying such an expensive car, let alone afford one. But, that is not the only reason. Most young that I talk to just don't connect to the thrill of a fast car, I am talking majority here. They seem to be more grounded in just basic transportation or some even no car. Hell, I know some that are over 21 and still don't have a license yet. So, the demographics are also changing for car ownership.

The Camaro is a niche car for those that want something "sporty" and as such there is just a limited market. The young want something they can bring their friends along with and obviously it not a two seat Camaro. It is not until later in life that most can afford to buy or want a two seat car. Add to this what people refer to as "value", it becomes more obvious again that there is a limited market. Hence, the SUV bandwagon we see taking place today.

So, again there are many aspects to what we see happening with Camaro sales and it will either continue or not based on the needs of the buying public.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by SteevK

Car magazines, IMO, provide the purest demographic for enthusiast messaging.

The problem isn't nearly as much about selling to enthusiasts as it is about bringing more of those with a much less serious interest in cars on board. Non-enthusiasts aren't likely to read car magazines, or with the same level of interest and understanding if they do happen to pick up a months-old copy of C/D, R&T, or MT in some waiting room.

Magazines can provide the sort of information that leads people like us to choose, say, a Camaro (or a Mustang) over a Challenger. But that kind of detail doesn't mean much to the people who, if you asked them what car company builds the Camaro, would be flexing their thumbs and reaching for their smartphones.


Norm

[Silverado57]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

The problem isn't nearly as much about selling to enthusiasts as it is about bringing more of those with a much less serious interest in cars on board. Non-enthusiasts aren't likely to read car magazines, or with the same level of interest and understanding if they do happen to pick up a months-old copy of C/D, R&T, or MT in some waiting room.

Magazines can provide the sort of information that leads people like us to choose, say, a Camaro (or a Mustang) over a Challenger. But that kind of detail doesn't mean much to the people who, if you asked them what car company builds the Camaro, would be flexing their thumbs and reaching for their smartphones.


Norm

FWIW A year or so ago I was in a doctor's waiting room reading an article in MT comparing the new Camaro with the Mustang in terms of performance. I was never a muscle car owner or in lust for a Camaro, although I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Chevy man. The article, and this statement in particular, really hit home:

To put it bluntly, the Camaro is in another league, with legitimate supercars.

When we went looking for a sporty convertible this year, that article was in the back of my mind. The rest is history.

I found the article here:
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ck-comparison/

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Smokin15

Was not going to post on this thread because of my bias from owning 4 Camaro's. I agree advertising is next to zero for the Camaro but, that cannot be the only reason for poor sales.

I don't think anybody is trying to say that the lack of advertising even could be the only reason. Just that it might be the easiest one to fix.

But, that is not the only reason. Most young that I talk to just don't connect to the thrill of a fast car, I am talking majority here. They seem to be more grounded in just basic transportation

We'd have called that "being old before your time". But I don't think today's kids own all of the fault for that, given the kind of exposure they've had to cars in general.

How many 20-somethings grew up in an environment where the family car (quite possibly a minivan) was looked at as anything other than point A to point B transportation? I'm not looking for 'fast' here, but the more general "fun to drive" thing that covers a much wider range.

How much car advertising even suggests that driving just might be a fun thing to do? Offhand, I can only remember a Jeep ad, a couple of Dodge ads (gotta be the same people behind these), and a Toyota Camry ad or two (who'd have ever expected that?).


Norm

[Stex]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I don't think anybody is trying to say that the lack of advertising even could be the only reason. Just that it might be the easiest one to fix.



We'd have called that "being old before your time". But I don't think today's kids own all of the fault for that, given the kind of exposure they've had to cars in general.

How many 20-somethings grew up in an environment where the family car (quite possibly a minivan) was looked at as anything other than point A to point B transportation? I'm not looking for 'fast' here, but the more general "fun to drive" thing that covers a much wider range.

How much car advertising even suggests that driving just might be a fun thing to do? Offhand, I can only remember a Jeep ad, a couple of Dodge ads (gotta be the same people behind these), and a Toyota Camry ad or two (who'd have ever expected that?).


Norm

Yep, no more 'See the USA in Your Chevrolet' ads. (for a reason)

My friend ( restored cars and drove performance cars) was raising his kids about 15 years ago and said then all the young wanted was any form of wheels and a loud radio. Not much in the way of car or brand enthusiasm concerns.

My other sales concern is the styling. I have many car enthusiast friends that will not consider the Camaro due to styling. They gravitate to the Chal or Stang for styling reasons, usable room and yes driving visibility. Not just rear visibility ( so please skip the adjust your mirrors lecture) but all around visibility. like out the side windows and windscreen. They are going either restored or the Stang or Chal and sometimes both restored and new.

Lets hope the next Camaro comes around with a few styling changes.

[Mountain]

It gets stated a lot about what Camaro is "supposed to be".

Honestly, I think part of the problem with Camaro is just that: sticking too close to what enthusiasts think and what the car is "supposed to be" and NOT evolving more with times.

It is because of this that the visibility was not improved.
It is because of this that the styling was not as evolved more.
It is because of this that there are the number/types of trims there are (I'm looking at price-point and equipment on the trims).
It is because of this that there are too many power/drivetrain options.

The confusing thing, to me, about Camaro is that, when it came back out (5th Gen), it was an evolution, but an evolution of the American Muscle/Pony car. When the 6th Gen came out, it evolved into a true sports car, but held major elements to associate it back as an American Muscle/Pony car because of "Camaro is supposed to be...".

Look at Mustang. It made a major evolutionary step for 2015 and really detached it self from what was always known to be and formed a linked, but new Mustang identity. Although many enthusiasts didn't like this, it had to be done to keep the Mustang going.

The 6th Gen is a kick-ass American sports car. Not a muslce car... a sports car. This is where Camaro's business case becomes confusing to me: Camaro was engineered as (and became) a top-rated sports car, but still wanted to retain it's "Camaro roots" as an every-mans, every-day muscle/pony car? What I am saying is that you can't expect to produce a Prosche Cayman and also expect to sell like a Honda Accord...

Honestly, this is what I'd do with Camaro:
-Move Corvette out of the perfromance-level and price-point picture. Move that car into the realm of Z06/ZR1 territory, standard. Elevate it more.

-Allow Camaro to take over the current base Corvette realm and also all the way down to around an entry level Mustang/Challenger and GT86 realm. Keep Camaro as a sports car (more sensible evolution from the 6th Gen and to keep the "momentum" in recognition, making it different than Mustang and Challenger).

-Drop one of the lower powertrains. I would say to ditch both, current turbo 4 and V6 and put in a higher-powered, higher revving turbo 4 (shared engine with something else, but a Hi-Po version). Keep the V8, but move to a lower displacement, DOHC version (insert C8 DOHC V8). I think these are the best choices as 1. keeping a V8 stays with the unique-ness of "Camaro" and 2. a turbo 4 allows better potential to bank off a shared powertrain and keeps the door open for the tuner/import/lowest-weight crowd, but also keeps the economy and price average buyers like. A turbo V6 would be cool, but I think staying away from too many powertrain options is smarter (added ED&D, costs, complexities, etc) and the turbo 6 buts with the V8 too much.

-Alter the trim levels as such: LT, RS, SS and Z/28
*LT (cloth, T4, A10/M7; $23k-$25.5k) is a true base-model type of car for someone who wants the looks and a sports car, but not the price. Limit options so that dealers cannot option the crap out of the car and it sits on the lot.
*RS (leather, T4, A10/M7; $26k-$33k) is the LT but with some basic added tech and creature comforts standard. Limit options so that dealers cannot option the crap out of the car and it sits on the lot.
*SS (V8, A10/M7; $30k-$50k) is like the current 1SS, but with less standard equipment to move the price point down a little. Allow cloth and leather as options. Allow a lot of options so anyone from pure grass-roots drag racer to luxury sports car weekend cruiser has the car they want and price point.
*Z/28 (NA V8, A10/M7 $48k-$60k) is the car that will take a place between the SS 1LE and ZL1, but not as hard-core as the ZL1 1LE. This will, also, take the place of the current base Corvette. Allow A10 to evolve the "traditional" sports car, but keep the M7 as standard.This will be a triple-"threat car". Special perfromance interior. Special perfromance/track tech. Lower weight, less sound deadening, etc: a performance-oriented and track capable out of the box coupe, straight from the dealer (keeping with what the SS 1LE/ZL1 is, but evolving it).
-Open the possibility for a special variant withe-assist (AWD) or all-electric.
-As far as styling, look at the Buick Avista concept, but evolve it. Keep small Camaro styling cues in mind, but focus on a sports car that could be a daily driver. Do not hinder usability (this includes visibility).
-Option B. drop the lower price point/trims add an option within the SS realm for the turbo 4 engine as an RS (SS not with a V8). Maintain the Camaro as an upper-level car to anything Mustang, Challenger, etc.

Summary: Make the LT/RS limited in options, smartly (limit part/package options, not create more variants), and penetrate the lower end of the market. Allow the car to be very easily attainable. For the SS, set a strategic price point and allow vast optionability to appease traditional Camaro fans and allow new-comers to get whatever they want. As a halo model, the Z/28 is set up as a true performance car to compete where the current base Corvette is, but with better usability and a slightly cheaper entry point (SS 1LE+ to ZL1 level of performance). Lastly, allow the option for electrification.

[RealG]

So many great ideas in this thread and some great observations. Lots of common sense , lots of good reasoning. How is it that the people here can figure all this out but the people at GM have no clue.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by RealG

So many great ideas in this thread and some great observations. Lots of common sense , lots of good reasoning. How is it that the people here can figure all this out but the people at GM have no clue.

Some times it just takes one "key figure" to make or break something...

[pyroguy]

Originally Posted by RealG

So many great ideas in this thread and some great observations. Lots of common sense , lots of good reasoning. How is it that the people here can figure all this out but the people at GM have no clue.

Sometimes if you're too close to something you can't see it. I think that could be the case of GM right now. I can't figure why a manufacturer would limit themselves to one design of a vehicle. The Silverados have the same front end as the Camaro as the Traverse, as the Cruze, as every other vehicle. If someone doesn't like one front end they're going to hate all of their models. If you diversify a little someone who doesn't like one model might like the next. Seems like one of the best things Chevy/GM could do is to bring their "real world" people in to design meetings instead of commercials talking about how great their vehicles are.

[RealG]

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Sometimes if you're too close to something you can't see it. I think that could be the case of GM right now. I can't figure why a manufacturer would limit themselves to one design of a vehicle. The Silverados have the same front end as the Camaro as the Traverse, as the Cruze, as every other vehicle. If someone doesn't like one front end they're going to hate all of their models. If you diversify a little someone who doesn't like one model might like the next. Seems like one of the best things Chevy/GM could do is to bring their "real world" people in to design meetings instead of commercials talking about how great their vehicles are.

See now I think that’s a great observation about the styling all looking the same. when the new Blazer came out I thought it looked pretty good and people were saying how that’s what the Camaro should look like and I get it because it’s not as ugly as the new Camaro but the point is how far have things changed. We were hoping just hoping that the Camaro would look as good as the Chevy blazer or the same at least , Nobody would ever want that in 1969 LOL

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Sometimes if you're too close to something you can't see it. I think that could be the case of GM right now. I can't figure why a manufacturer would limit themselves to one design of a vehicle. The Silverados have the same front end as the Camaro as the Traverse, as the Cruze, as every other vehicle.

I get this.

While there is some advantage to all or most of the products in a mfr's lineup sharing a few common cues, it can be taken too far. Especially if it's too progressive or "avant-garde".


Norm

[mdhopt36]

Just for yucks, I had a '15 Silverado, and had a good look-see at the front end.
Same thing for the 2018 Camaro I have now.
No friggin way were they the -SAME THING-.
******
Sorry, Pard. No way.
This takes an IQ of about 10 or something to figure out !!!

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by mdhopt36

Just for yucks, I had a '15 Silverado, and had a good look-see at the front end.
Same thing for the 2018 Camaro I have now.
No friggin way were they the -SAME THING-.
******
Sorry, Pard. No way.
This takes an IQ of about 10 or something to figure out !!!

If you can't see the likeness between models you are bling. How does grilles does one vehicle need?

[Mountain]

There are shared elements.

One thing to note from looking at this is the saturation of vehicles... Traverse-Equinox-Blazer. Malibu-Cruze(-Sonic-Trax-Spark). How many of nearly the same car, but different sizes, is needed?