[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry you want a TV commercial so badly. A TV commercial for THIS car will not increase sales enough to offset the cost. It’s really that simple. That is why GM has not satisfied your apparently very strong opinion. You see GM has tons of data on this, the car and it’s customers. And in a time frame of trucks and SUVs ruling the market even trying to fight for incremental increases in a shrinking market make zero business sense. Just because you work with a ton of people that can afford a Camaro has no connection on them buying one. After all you are GMs best advertising when you drive it to work and they see your awesome car......and even the BEST form of advertising isn’t getting all your co workers to buy Camaros.

I’ll keep trying to explain bit, but GM has said they are about making money. And they have bigger problems with pickups falling to 3rd spot behind RAM than keeping up in this tiny segment.

And just because you think you could shoot a cool commercial with your iPhone, a celebrity and air time alone will cost millions. It’s not cheap.

Sorry again but they aren’t stupid, they just have data that would suggest a TV commercial for a car with very limited appeal would be ineffective. You see they have data on why people buy Camaros, but more importantly why they don’t. And Therein lies the problem. If you have data that says people do buys Camaro because it’s the best performance car in the segment, but don’t buy because the visibility is bad (thanks Ed Wellburn) no cool TV commercial will convince someone to go “ohhhhh I thought visibility sucks but The Rock says it’s a cool car in that new commercial so I’ll buy one anyway.

But again I respect your opinion. Just don’t appreciate you calling people I know and used to work around stupid which is why I continue to try and explain the business to people that don’t understand it.

I’ll co-sign all of this, including and especially the part about working with and around some truly brilliant people in Powertrain development and Vehicle development.

[gtfoxy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

CAFE standards are law. There is a process for setting / changing them that requires

1. Defining what they will be, how they will be measured, and what the expected impact on air quality will be.
2. After all that is set, there is a requirement to post Notice of Proposed Rule Making, which requires that all impacted have a chance to submit opinions / request changes in the proposed rule / law. States, car companies, non-government agencies, activist groups, etc get a chance to weigh in on the changes.
3. Then the impacted timeframe has to be agreed upon. If I recall correctly, the earliest timeframe can be no closer than 2-years from the time the rule making is placed into law.

That second step usually takes about two years. Then the third step can take just as long, depending on what comes out of the second step and how much contention there is.

The current law runs through 2026. There needs to be a lot of work done just to put a plan together that starts then. Trying to force something in the interim would at best have impact starting in 2024, but would more than likely fail in committee.

What the Biden Adminstration can do in the interim is restore California’s waiver that allows them to set their own Zero Emissions targets and set their own Green House Gas (GHG) requirements. That would apply to California and can be adopted by other states. About 17 other states had adopted the previous CARB requirements and will no doubt sign up again when California’s waiver is reinstated. Other states that were on the fence will likely also sign on.

Have you not been paying attention, laws don’t apply to them. Only us pleebs.

[LT4Greg]

Originally Posted by gtfoxy

Have you not been paying attention, laws don’t apply to them. Only us pleebs.

True words gtfoxy!👍

[Bhobbs]

GM is failing to keep the Camaro relevant.

Ford and Dodge are not failing to keep their product relevant.

GM is building the Camaro that requires the least effort for them.

Ford and Dodge are building cars that their fans want.

[90503]

So the Camaro may be around until 2026. That is great news. Or, is it really news? Was it ever written in stone that the Camaro would end in 2023? or was that an oft repeated rumor that turned into likely being true?...Impalas were supposed to end after a certain year...I think they kept making them for two or more years after everyone thought they would end.

How many years in advance did they announce the end of the Cruz? Not many if at all, as I recall.

Just sayin' the Camaro could end this year, or go on for seven more. No one really knows.

[Dave777]

If the Camaro had bigger side windows I honestly believe the car would sell much better.

[90503]

The Camaro needs no TV commercials. It's a waste of money, the decision makers know best. Quit asking to see a TV ad to boost Camaro sales. Sales are lousy, but ads won't help. The Camaro marketing team is realizing the maximum sales and popularity possible. That's what is the correct and polite thing to believe.

The real genius of the folks at GM is paying for one 5 million dollar Super Bowl TV ad with BLM spokesperson LeBron James receiving an undisclosed payment (likely as high as possible) for the new Hummer.

Prior to the LeBron James Super Bowl ad, the Hummer had already maxed out how many will be built and sold for the next one, two, or three years.

So the Hummer that needs no advertising and has reached its build amount capacity for a few years gets a $5 Million tv ad, (plus production cost, and celebrity fees, etc.) and a Camaro that is lagging behind its competitors and seeing poor sales has no TV advertising budget.

Yep, those GM marketing people sure know their stuff (and are very nice people) so don't question their decisions.

[Realist]

Originally Posted by 90503

The Camaro needs no TV commercials. It's a waste of money, the decision makers know best. Quit asking to see a TV ad to boost Camaro sales. Sales are lousy, but ads won't help. The Camaro marketing team is realizing the maximum sales and popularity possible. That's what is the correct and polite thing to believe.

The real genius of the folks at GM is paying for one 5 million dollar Super Bowl TV ad with BLM spokesperson LeBron James receiving an undisclosed payment (likely as high as possible) for the new Hummer.

Prior to the LeBron James Super Bowl ad, the Hummer had already maxed out how many will be built and sold for the next one, two, or three years.

So the Hummer that needs no advertising and has reached its build amount capacity for a few years gets a $5 Million tv ad, (plus production cost, and celebrity fees, etc.) and a Camaro that is lagging behind its competitors and seeing poor sales has no TV advertising budget.

Yep, those GM marketing people sure know their stuff (and are very nice people) so don't question their decisions.

Spot on, here is where you would drop the mike.

No reason they can’t work the Camaro into other vehicle commercials for very little cost. It doesn’t need to be featured, just have the Silverado park next to a ZL1 at the end of a Commercial.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry again but they aren’t stupid, they just have data that would suggest a TV commercial for a car with very limited appeal would be ineffective. You see they have data on why people buy Camaros, but more importantly why they don’t. And Therein lies the problem. If you have data that says people do buys Camaro because it’s the best performance car in the segment, but don’t buy because the visibility is bad (thanks Ed Wellburn) no cool TV commercial will convince someone to go “ohhhhh I thought visibility sucks but The Rock says it’s a cool car in that new commercial so I’ll buy one anyway.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’ll co-sign all of this, including and especially the part about working with and around some truly brilliant people in Powertrain development and Vehicle development.

I couldn't agree more about the lack of class in baseless and unfounded name calling.

As to the highlighted part, however, I beg to differ. One fundamental function of targeted ads is exactly to bridge such gaps in perception, these well-known shortcomings of the Camaro design aren't inherently fatal. You are grossly underestimating the herd mentality that governs a large segment of this late 20th, early 21st century modern population.

Oh, and if GM really, really wanted the Camaro to succeed, they could've spent the budget allocated to the completely uncalled for redesigns on addressing these gaps. I think the Corvette is the only sports car GM wants to keep alive going forward.

This is a story similar to what I witnessed with Betamax vs VHS, Commodore Amiga vs IBM PC and many other examples. Clearly superior technologies can very easily lose out due to perceptions that could have been swayed effectively with advertising/marketing (inept financial management also contributing to their demise in some cases, but I have no idea whether or not that is applicable here).

[Adamone92]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Smaller engines don't necessarily save fuel, though. There are a lot of factors in play than just displacement. Or maybe they do on EPA tests, but your real life fuel consumption will be much worse. A lot of turbocharged cars are guilty of this, and that's why you see people say Ford forgot a slash for Ecoboost. Eco/boost, can't have both.

GM's idea is that, by using a larger displacement engine and cylinder deactivation, you can still have enough displacement and thus, power to cruise.

The issue with turbocharged engine is that they have lower compression ratios compared to NA engines, which means worse efficiency compared to the same displacement NA engine. I have actually seen people on the Accord forum say that the 3.5 with VCM(Honda's cylinder deactivation) can be better on fuel on highways than the new 2.0T. It actually makes sense, the 3.5 becomes a 1.8 NA when cruising, which, unsurprisingly, is more fuel efficient than a 2.0T engine. So it doesn't surprise me that the 6.2 with DFM can do better than a 3.5TT. It can run on smaller displacement and it's NA.

Sent from toaster or something

I saw a video that evidenced this pretty well.

It was a mustang gt vs a prius around the track. The prius goes as fast as it can, while the mustang just has to stay with it. At the end, the mustang had better fuel economy than the prius.

Ill try to find the video shortly.

[3.8TransAM]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry you want a TV commercial so badly. A TV commercial for THIS car will not increase sales enough to offset the cost. It’s really that simple. That is why GM has not satisfied your apparently very strong opinion. You see GM has tons of data on this, the car and it’s customers. And in a time frame of trucks and SUVs ruling the market even trying to fight for incremental increases in a shrinking market make zero business sense. Just because you work with a ton of people that can afford a Camaro has no connection on them buying one. After all you are GMs best advertising when you drive it to work and they see your awesome car......and even the BEST form of advertising isn’t getting all your co workers to buy Camaros.

I’ll keep trying to explain bit, but GM has said they are about making money. And they have bigger problems with pickups falling to 3rd spot behind RAM than keeping up in this tiny segment.

And just because you think you could shoot a cool commercial with your iPhone, a celebrity and air time alone will cost millions. It’s not cheap.

Sorry again but they aren’t stupid, they just have data that would suggest a TV commercial for a car with very limited appeal would be ineffective. You see they have data on why people buy Camaros, but more importantly why they don’t. And Therein lies the problem. If you have data that says people do buys Camaro because it’s the best performance car in the segment, but don’t buy because the visibility is bad (thanks Ed Wellburn) no cool TV commercial will convince someone to go “ohhhhh I thought visibility sucks but The Rock says it’s a cool car in that new commercial so I’ll buy one anyway.

But again I respect your opinion. Just don’t appreciate you calling people I know and used to work around stupid which is why I continue to try and explain the business to people that don’t understand it.

All I hear is the same old excuses GM has made over and over again. I'll stand by they are stupid. How can you justify a car that you manufacture, yet there are people who could be interested in it and don't even know the vehicle is still in production? Kind of seems like a textbook example of stupidity to me.



You don't need professionals or actors to make effective advertising. There is a new development in the world called social media where you can do a lot with a little bit. They make an awesome car and people who know are turned off before ever actually getting into one, where the problems people complain about are a lot less significant than they are made out to be.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I couldn't agree more about the lack of class in baseless and unfounded name calling.

As to the highlighted part, however, I beg to differ. One fundamental function of targeted ads is exactly to bridge such gaps in perception, these well-known shortcomings of the Camaro design aren't inherently fatal. You are grossly underestimating the herd mentality that governs a large segment of this late 20th, early 21st century modern population.

Oh, and if GM really, really wanted the Camaro to succeed, they could've spent the budget allocated to the completely uncalled for redesigns on addressing these gaps. I think the Corvette is the only sports car GM wants to keep alive going forward.

This is a story similar to what I witnessed with Betamax vs VHS, Commodore Amiga vs IBM PC and many other examples. Clearly superior technologies can very easily lose out due to perceptions that could have been swayed effectively with advertising/marketing (inept financial management also contributing to their demise in some cases, but I have no idea whether or not that is applicable here).

Not really. The biggest complaints about the Camaro (visibility, trunk opening, belt line) are products of the platform. They can’t be changed without making significant changes to a platform that has been recognized as world class for ride and handling. Some of those changes might work to actually sub-optimize the things that make the platform great. When I was assigned a Cadillac ATS as a Captured Test Fleet Vehicle before it was launched, I had it for a day before I went to the Vehicle Line Executive and complained about the shape of the trunk opening. He explained to me in terms I honestly don’t totally remember today why it had to be that way to obtain the structural rigidity to compete in handling with BMW 3-Series.

The point of that is, fixing that would have required a “vehicle major upgrade”. Those cost several hundred million, sometimes as much as a billion plus. A mid-cycle upgrade, like 2019 got costs tens of millions. For a 60,000 / year car, you’re getting a mid-cycle, not a major. That’s also why Mustang has built S197, S550, and soon S650 off the same D2C platform with some generational fixes, even though enthusiasts are screaming for a new platform. And then there’s Dodge....

[LT4Greg]

Originally Posted by Dave777

If the Camaro had bigger side windows I honestly believe the car would sell much better.

If someone wants larger side windows and a taller top buy a Truck or SUV which the Camaro isn’t!

[V8 Firebird]

That doesn't mean GM would get many updates in Alpha Camaro. It probably goes like Nissan 370Z.

Consider today's sport car market, Camaro isn't really bad in the market. Hey, Fiat doesn't want to sell 124 anymore.