[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Call BS all you want. They didn't even make 2000 of them and they are still sitting on dealer lots 2 years later brand new. All that stuff you just posted is fan boy bench racing. GM set a price. The consumers said no way. End of story.

Of all the consumers who were targeted (ie. the number of cars that were built)....most said yes.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Of all the consumers who were targeted (ie. the number of cars that were built)....most said yes.

LOL, OK fair enough. If GM's target was under 1400 people than yes they only made a few too many cars. DO you know what the production target was? I think I read somewhere they actually ceased production early because of poor sales. But I have no proof. So that statement is worthless lol.

[mkorgan]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Call BS all you want. They didn't even make 2000 of them and they are still sitting on dealer lots 2 years later brand new. All that stuff you just posted is fan boy bench racing. GM set a price. The consumers said no way. End of story.

Still waiting on imperial evidence that points to this car being overpriced for the purpose it was designed. Inventory does not speak to value or price. Inventory speak to supply and demand. Damn, man...basics. Just because the demand does not meet or exceed supply does not mean the product is overpriced or overvalued. If GM misjudged the track market from a retail sales perspective, that is a different argument which I will not disagree with. However, my challenge still it there for you should you wish to accept it.

Explain to me how you would have delivered a car that car do what this car does, provides what this car provides, and done it significantly cheaper. That is what I want from you. Give me a better value for this purpose built Camaro Z/28 OR how you would have delivered a car with capabilities at a significantly lower price. Let me help you so we can move on....you can't.

If you are not a track rat, you will not understand the Z/28 and that is fine. Guess what...it wasn't built for you so get over it.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by mkorgan

Still waiting on imperial evidence that points to this car being overpriced for the purpose it was designed. Inventory does not speak to value or price. Inventory speak to supply and demand. Damn, man...basics. Just because the demand does not meet or exceed supply does not mean the product is overpriced or overvalued. If GM misjudged the track market from a retail sales perspective, that is a different argument which I will not disagree with. However, my challenge still it there for you should you wish to accept it.

Explain to me how you would have delivered a car that car do what this car does, provides what this car provides, and done it significantly cheaper. That is what I want from you. Give me a better value for this purpose built Camaro Z/28 OR how you would have delivered a car with capabilities at a significantly lower price. Let me help you so we can move on....you can't.

If you are not a track rat, you will not understand the Z/28 and that is fine. Guess what...it wasn't built for you so get over it.

You are doing exactly what GM's marketing tried to do. Sell me the cars value based on time sheets and slick phrasing like show me how to go faster for less money. There is no challenge. There is nothing for me to prove to you because all you need to do is look how many cars are still sitting new on lots 2 years later drastically reduced. The Z was a parts bin car. I'm not arguing one bit that it not awesome it is awesome, so you don't need to get your Chevy embroidered boxers in a knot. I love seeing a big heavy brute American parts bin car put a smack down on the Euro fancy boy cars. But the fact remains, people thought that for a parts bin GM product it was WAAY too expensive. I'm one of them. Don't give me this track perspective nonsense either. You could pick up a C6 Z06 for less that's faster if what you want is a track weapon. And if $75k is so cheap for you track experts just buy a C7 Z06/07. It's only 25K more

[oldman]

Originally Posted by mkorgan

Ok, I am finally calling BS on you. Please provide me a car AT THE TIME that performed equally or better than the Z/28 on the track within $20K. I'll wait.

If the car was overpriced, please tell me the car (or cars as I am sure you have quite the list) that provided one of the best N/A V8's ever built, a suspension only used in 1 production car that cost in excess of $350K when new otherwise was limited to F1 racing, Carbon Ceramic Brakes, Trofeo tires, AND a WARRANTY for track use.

Here is a list of cars in the 2014 VIR evaluation and how the Z/28 (which you say is overpriced) did in the comparison. GM said it was built for one purpose, and it did the purpose EXTEMELY well. PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me how this $75K car beating cars twice, three, four times more expensive at the one thing is was design to do it overpriced.

powned!

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Thor142

You are doing exactly what GM's marketing tried to do. Sell me the cars value based on time sheets and slick phrasing like show me how to go faster for less money. There is no challenge. There is nothing for me to prove to you because all you need to do is look how many cars are still sitting new on lots 2 years later drastically reduced. The Z was a parts bin car. I'm not arguing one bit that it not awesome it is awesome, so you don't need to get your Chevy embroidered boxers in a knot. I love seeing a big heavy brute American parts bin car put a smack down on the Euro fancy boy cars. But the fact remains, people thought that for a parts bin GM product it was WAAY too expensive. I'm one of them. Don't give me this track perspective nonsense either. You could pick up a C6 Z06 for less that's faster if what you want is a track weapon. And if $75k is so cheap for you track experts just buy a C7 Z06/07. It's only 25K more

Sorry the oldest car buying saying in the world is the seat has to fit the pants. For the people that purchased the z/28 is was the best spanking deal out there. For the people that did not or could not, it was overpriced / undervalued. The original L88 was really a rip-off for a parts bin car... We all know how much they go for now...

[SuperSound]

Packaging, not price. Making CC brakes ($5k at least) standard pushed the Z/28 into $70k range. What happens when you add something like that to the GT350R, you approach that barrier too. If the GT350R did not exist, this whole argument would be mute. But even though it does, it's also a shared platform with better packaging and a lighter/stronger chassis starting point than the 5th gen Z/28 platform.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Thor142

LOL, OK fair enough. If GM's target was under 1400 people than yes they only made a few too many cars. DO you know what the production target was? I think I read somewhere they actually ceased production early because of poor sales. But I have no proof. So that statement is worthless lol.

Nobody knows. Bottom line is while there are still many on the lots...the vast majority of those cars produced sold.

Furthermore...at the time you could not touch the on-track performance of the car for under $100,000. Now you can. But I do question the longevity of that car under harsh track-duty...I did not know it didn't come equipped with dry-sump...

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by Thor142

LOL, OK fair enough. If GM's target was under 1400 people than yes they only made a few too many cars. DO you know what the production target was? I think I read somewhere they actually ceased production early because of poor sales. But I have no proof. So that statement is worthless lol.

Then why type it?

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by oldman

Sorry the oldest car buying saying in the world is the seat has to fit the pants. For the people that purchased the z/28 is was the best spanking deal out there. For the people that did not or could not, it was overpriced / undervalued. The original L88 was really a rip-off for a parts bin car... We all know how much they go for now...

You can throw old sayings and bench racing numbers at me all you want. You can even resort to ridiculing my income as not being worthy if it makes you feel any better. Economics 101 people: If you can't sell a product for the price you put on it then the market has rejected it. What it's fetching it 20 years is irrelevant. It's best track time is irrelevant. Comparing it to other more expensive cars is irrelevant. Whether or not you can afford one and I can't is irrelevant.

If you're telling me that out of 380 million Americans the amount of people who like to track their cars on weekends and can afford a $75k toy is less than 1400 now I'M CALLING BS

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Thor142

If you're telling me that out of 380 million Americans the amount of people who like to track their cars on weekends and can afford a $75k toy and wants a Camaro one is less than 1400

Yes track rats can be fan boys or simply be biased to other cars. Or even simply think they would rather build the car themselves. Is that so hard to believe? How many GT350Rs have been sold? Anyone know?

[mkorgan]

Originally Posted by Thor142

You are doing exactly what GM's marketing tried to do. Sell me the cars value based on time sheets and slick phrasing like show me how to go faster for less money. There is no challenge. There is nothing for me to prove to you because all you need to do is look how many cars are still sitting new on lots 2 years later drastically reduced. The Z was a parts bin car. I'm not arguing one bit that it not awesome it is awesome, so you don't need to get your Chevy embroidered boxers in a knot. I love seeing a big heavy brute American parts bin car put a smack down on the Euro fancy boy cars. But the fact remains, people thought that for a parts bin GM product it was WAAY too expensive. I'm one of them. Don't give me this track perspective nonsense either. You could pick up a C6 Z06 for less that's faster if what you want is a track weapon. And if $75k is so cheap for you track experts just buy a C7 Z06/07. It's only 25K more

Don't change the subject. Cars on dealer lots are supply and demand issues, not value/price issues. Let me see if I can take another approach to this. If I were to BUY the parts to build the Z/28 from the ground up....do you have any idea of what the cost would be? I mean from "body in white" shell, through putting tires on it and gas in the tank. Any clue? Well, let me help you...

BODY - $7800
LS7 - $16,500
TRNS - TREMEC 6 SPD w/ Z/28 GEARING $3900
CCB - BREMBO inc/ ROTOR, CALIPER, PADS $13400
DSSV - $3900
REAR AXLE, HALF SHAFTS, and CARRIER - $3400
WHEELS and TIRES - $4200

Total so far WITHOUT RECARO's and the rest of the interior, electrical, lighting, glass, safety (air bag, seat belts) and BUILD TIME and LABOR....$53,100. So...if you think you can finish this car with parts AND build it for less than $20K...well then you are delusional. Oh, and this car would not be street legal as it would not have a VIN nor be registerable in most states, nor pass CAFE standards, and the rest of the things GM has to worry about that we conveniently forget when building these production race cars.

So, to say the Z/28 is overpriced is FACTUALLY inaccurate. To say the Z/28 is overvalued based on the segment it competes on the track is FACTUALLY inaccurate. To say that GM misjudged the market and built more than the market could support could have merit BUT that was not the basis of our discussion. There is really nothing else I can do to prove to you that the Z/28 was an extreme value for the dollar based on what you get and what it could do so I am done at this point as I have provided the empirical evidence to support my case...free of opinion or bias.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by Posaune

Then why type it?

LOL OK....From the NY Times 2014 "Speaking of realism, Chevrolet is probably wise to limit Z/28 production to 3,000 over two years." SO GM told the times their production target was 3000. SO sorry I didn't fact check and made you call me out.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Yes, the wheels were a first, and new territory.

As much as people hate to admit it, the flat plane crank is nothing new...in fact it's very, very old - the GT350 is just a unique application of it. And I tend to find just as many people that think it's a stupid idea as I do people who would marry it.

The Z/28 used some very expensive technology to overcome the weight of the Zeta platform to get it to be where it was. Thin rear glass, etc...small-production items like that are outrageously expensive. And it showed in the price...

But my intention is not to put either car down. Both serve the same purpose to each company - they're experiments at pushing the limits of performance from their respective platforms. They're not meant to be high production, and they're not meant to be affordable.

It's only going to go up from here....handling, weight reduction, and aero are going to be the next frontier...

Your post sure seemed to be aimed to put the 350 down. Or at least that is the way I read it. You were trying to find items to justify the Z/28s high price while implying the 350 didn't use anything unique or expensive.

Both cars had extreme items on them, all in the name of performance. Both used items that added to the cost of the cars.

Both were not made to be affordable or high production, but Ford was able to do it cheaper why can't GM?



This is a fun debate

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The GT350R vs Z/28 isn't really a direct comparison. The GT350R is more of an option package than a stand alone car, like the Z/28. The R just tweaks what the GT350 already had to improve it. If the R didn't have a cheap base GT350 to spread development costs, I'm sure it wouldn't have ended up much cheaper than the Z/28.

Is that's Ford fault for offering more versions of the car so more people could buy them and have them they way they wanted? No. Did hit help them have a lower price yes no denying that. When you can spread the costs out its going to help you have a lower price, good on Ford for doing that.

Originally Posted by mkorgan

Ok, I am finally calling BS on you. Please provide me a car AT THE TIME that performed equally or better than the Z/28 on the track within $20K. I'll wait.

If the car was overpriced, please tell me the car (or cars as I am sure you have quite the list) that provided one of the best N/A V8's ever built, a suspension only used in 1 production car that cost in excess of $350K when new otherwise was limited to F1 racing, Carbon Ceramic Brakes, Trofeo tires, AND a WARRANTY for track use.

Here is a list of cars in the 2014 VIR evaluation and how the Z/28 (which you say is overpriced) did in the comparison. GM said it was built for one purpose, and it did the purpose EXTEMELY well. PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me how this $75K car beating cars twice, three, four times more expensive at the one thing is was design to do it overpriced.

So do you not put the GT350R in that list because of the super limited 15 run? Because the one head to head we have to go off of, the 350R was faster than the Z/28 around Chuckwalla and was able to do it for less money. You can also get the 350R with all the creature comforts for less than what the Z/28 sold ford. So when your primary competitor comes out beats you around the track while offering more options for less money I would say that lends some credit to people saying the 5th gen Z/28 was over priced. But if you say that the 350R doesn't count because of the limited run in 2015 ok whatever.

Also the 2015 Z06/Z07 in its cheapest version is 92K which falls within the 20K you outlined. And was IIRC 4 seconds faster around Laguna Seca than the Z/28

Yes the Z/28 did its job extremely well. No one is saying it didn't. It embarassed some very expensive cars. I still say a lot of the sticker shock came from the idea of a 75K Chevy Camaro with no a/c or tech stuff. Yes that is not the point of the car, but like I mentioned above, your primary competitor came to fight and was able to make a faster car (based on the 1 head to head we have to go by) that offers more content for a lower price.

If anything came off as hostile, not my intent just typing very fast on my lunch break which this thread made fly by!!!!