[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

The Camaro has a price range that can triple the car's price. Some would say that is insane.

A lot of vehicles are like that though. Especially the ones in the same segment as the Camaro. I think that's a good thing for those cars. Something for everyone.

[CamaroWinz]

Some context, for the folks who are arguing price differentials.

The base price of a 3-series is about 42k. An M3 Competition has a base of 74k and can quickly get close to 90k with some basic (some would say "desirable") options.

An Audi A3 opens up at 33.3k (you do NOT want this car) and a 400+ hp RS3 and runs to 64k with basic options such as the Dynamic Handling package and a 4G-enabled nav system.

The mechanical, monetary and philosophical distances between the least and most models of both of these German standards and those of the Camaro is precisely the same.

It's a branding strategy that works for basically every manufacturer. Alfa Giulia - base price 39.4k. Giulia Quadrifoglio, about 79k. Again - roughly twice as much car, for about twice as much money.

What doesn't differ significantly, by the way, across these examples is the interior configuration. Different seats, generally. But the baseline interior quality of an RS3 is exactly the same as an A3. Etc.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by CamaroWinz

Some context, for the folks who are arguing price differentials.

The base price of a 3-series is about 42k. An M3 Competition has a base of 74k and can quickly get close to 90k with some basic (some would say "desirable") options.

An Audi A3 opens up at 33.3k (you do NOT want this car) and a 400+ hp RS3 and runs to 64k with basic options such as the Dynamic Handling package and a 4G-enabled nav system.

The mechanical, monetary and philosophical distances between the least and most models of both of these German standards and those of the Camaro is precisely the same.

It's a branding strategy that works for basically every manufacturer. Alfa Giulia - base price 39.4k. Giulia Quadrifoglio, about 79k. Again - roughly twice as much car, for about twice as much money.

What doesn't differ significantly, by the way, across these examples is the interior configuration. Different seats, generally. But the baseline interior quality of an RS3 is exactly the same as an A3. Etc.

The 3 series always had that wide range going back to the original 1986 E30.

Camaros have typically had a much more narrow price range and have been affordable to most people even at the top of the line until the 5th Gen Z28 came out.

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The 3 series always had that wide range going back to the original 1986 E30.

Camaros have typically had a much more narrow price range and have been affordable to most people even at the top of the line until the 5th Gen Z28 came out.

Never mind the fact that those companies did not have 10K "shitboxes" then.

Listen, the difference between those then and now are closing - everyone can see that -

But for instance, the Jeep Grand Cherokee this gen was built from the top down,

MEANING, the lowest model was built on the top model first. And most of the German vehicles did that, unlike the competition.

So if you bought a base model 3 it was NICE! vs a 31K Chevy Cruise which was uphill.

So in this instance shit flowing downhill was awesome. But with the introduction of MASS GLOBAL MARKET (not just global market) other car MFG took a piece, like Genesis (Hyundai - USA)

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I keep getting the same impression.

Then again, maybe it really is that hard for some people to understand why anybody would choose "less" when "more" is always supposed to be better . . .


Norm

the only thing "less" is the 6 cylinder.which sounds good,offers up as much speed as one really needs on the street,and gets slightly better mpg on 89 octane fuel.i cant bring myself to run 87 in the florida heat,thats begging for detonation.but it has all the same interior comfort options as a 2SS,and when im driving i feel good about it.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

The Camaro has a price range that can triple the car's price. Some would say that is insane.

And I would agree.


It's from direct experience driving cars from the 1950s - early 1960s era that makes complaints about the interiors of cars made in this century sound like whining for the sole sake of finding something to whine about.

Most of the interiors from back then make even base S197 or 4th gen F-body interiors look positively luxurious. Think unpadded steel dashboards, vinyl bench front seats and floor covering, and floor-mounted "stomp-on-it high-beam switches.


I suspect that all the attention paid to interiors started with the magazine reviewers, which I'm sure we all agree are the ultimate authorities on such things . . . .


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

the only thing "less" is the 6 cylinder.which sounds good,offers up as much speed as one really needs on the street,and gets slightly better mpg on 89 octane fuel.i cant bring myself to run 87 in the florida heat,thats begging for detonation.but it has all the same interior comfort options as a 2SS,and when im driving i feel good about it.

I was really addressing my "less" and "more" comment at the idea that the interior must be upgraded as you move up the trim ladder. Introducing a stand-alone interior upgrade package as a line-item option wouldn't be the same thing unless it was made mandatory at/above some 'trim'.

But I agree that the same thinking could be applied to other aspects of the cars as well.


I think being a bit older means I have a somewhat wider outlook on what constitutes acceptable interior design/materials.


Norm

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

And I would agree.


It's from direct experience driving cars from the 1950s - early 1960s era that makes complaints about the interiors of cars made in this century sound like whining for the sole sake of finding something to whine about.

Most of the interiors from back then make even base S197 or 4th gen F-body interiors look positively luxurious. Think unpadded steel dashboards, vinyl bench front seats and floor covering, and floor-mounted "stomp-on-it high-beam switches.


I suspect that all the attention paid to interiors started with the magazine reviewers, which I'm sure we all agree are the ultimate authorities on such things . . . .


Norm

Devils advocate, alot of those interiors were designed well and were nice to look at it. Colors, contours, chrome they all had a unique style lol.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

And I would agree.


It's from direct experience driving cars from the 1950s - early 1960s era that makes complaints about the interiors of cars made in this century sound like whining for the sole sake of finding something to whine about.

Most of the interiors from back then make even base S197 or 4th gen F-body interiors look positively luxurious. Think unpadded steel dashboards, vinyl bench front seats and floor covering, and floor-mounted "stomp-on-it high-beam switches.


I suspect that all the attention paid to interiors started with the magazine reviewers, which I'm sure we all agree are the ultimate authorities on such things . . . .


Norm

Before plastics came in those old school interiors didn’t squeak, rattle, or fall apart. They were all metal lol - they last forever and don’t have porous, uneven surfaces adjoining each other. It was the early 70s when car companies discovered cheap extruded plastic. Oh boy did the quality go down the tubes

[90503]

The only real Camaro interior choices basically were cloth or leather seats. Interior options have less to do with the actual materials than what comes with the "leather package" of speakers, tires and wheels, and electronics. Interior options have less to do with the actual interior quality, and simply facilitate more expensive non-interior quality add-on options.

[Number 3]

The best example I use for this discussion is the Saturn Sky Redline we had several many years ago (miss that car, among a few others). At $19,995 for a decent convertible it was not a bad car. Both Solstice and Sky, however, had hard plastic IP and door trim, with the Saturn getting some Piano Black Trim to make it more "upscale".

Jumping up the the Redline with all the options, however, put that car $33,000, within a couple of grand of the Audi TT and it's wonderful interior.

So GM put an interior in that car that was "competitive" at under $20,000. But option it up to the mid 30's and it was clearly out of it's league with the benchmarks.

GM still has an issue with making Chevrolets "too nice". That is Buick's lot in life. So GM has somewhat hamstrung Chevy in this regard. Most other OEMs only have 2 brands in their hierarchy. GM maintains 3.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The best example I use for this discussion is the Saturn Sky Redline we had several many years ago (miss that car, among a few others). At $19,995 for a decent convertible it was not a bad car. Both Solstice and Sky, however, had hard plastic IP and door trim, with the Saturn getting some Piano Black Trim to make it more "upscale".

Jumping up the the Redline with all the options, however, put that car $33,000, within a couple of grand of the Audi TT and it's wonderful interior.

So GM put an interior in that car that was "competitive" at under $20,000. But option it up to the mid 30's and it was clearly out of it's league with the benchmarks.

GM still has an issue with making Chevrolets "too nice". That is Buick's lot in life. So GM has somewhat hamstrung Chevy in this regard. Most other OEMs only have 2 brands in their hierarchy. GM maintains 3.

My old supervisor bought a Sky Redline when they came out. In dark blue with black interior. It was really sweet. I liked its looks much better than the Solstice.

[OB0001]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

The way things are now...the question should be ..America's Future.

What he said!

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I was really addressing my "less" and "more" comment at the idea that the interior must be upgraded as you move up the trim ladder. Introducing a stand-alone interior upgrade package as a line-item option wouldn't be the same thing unless it was made mandatory at/above some 'trim'.

But I agree that the same thinking could be applied to other aspects of the cars as well.


I think being a bit older means I have a somewhat wider outlook on what constitutes acceptable interior design/materials.


Norm

agreed.i remember mom and dad buying a 1966 country squire station wagon and having to wait two days for the optional seat belts to be installed.but i am thrilled with the interior in my camaro,wouldnt change a thing.