[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Seeing as how I spent my last 10 years at GM leading the powertrain competitor intel group I clearly have an opinion on the matter. And I also happen to be very well acquainted with the people who lead the competitor intel teams for Stellantis (used to be FCA) and Ford. Even more so now that they are my customers. I used to get paid a lot of money by GM to tell them what Ford, FCA, Toyota, and everybody else was doing. Now I get paid a lot of money by a company that does consulting work for all of them. So yes, they do pay attention to each other’s every move.

Paying attention and responding to that are different things. Mustang and Challenger build what they want. Camaro builds what GM allows. If the choice came to a 700+ horsepower Camaro or no more Camaro, the plant would close tomorrow.

[MBSS1LE]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So then what was the point you were trying to make? Your initial comment seemed to be resistant to the idea that companies answer to the competition. And now you're saying...what exactly??

Here, let me simplify it for you. I am saying that while manufacturers clearly need to be aware of what the competition is doing, not every product they roll out is "an answer" to what the competition has put forth. Most of the time, they just roll out what they believe the biggest segment of the target market is looking for. Certainly, it needs to be competitive in the intended segment versus other makes, but it does not have to be better in every way.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You mean "S197".

Yes, I meant S197.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The Camaro was going to come back regardless of what happened with the Mustang. That was always the plan, that they were going to come back at some point. The sales were always going to be there.

Was it? That's easy to say without knowing what the thinking was when they discontinued it back int he early 2000's. If the "retro" Mustang had not been selling so well with the introduction of the S197, I don't think it would have. If I were Ford, I could say that when the Bronco was discontinued in 1996, it was always going to come back, right?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You missed the point.

The point is that if they were selling at the same price, then nobody would buy the significantly lesser performing, significantly less equipped, significantly less optioned vehicle. The Mustang sold well because it was significantly cheaper. In fact, Base GTs were selling for mid to high $20K. A LOT of people who couldn't afford or couldn't get financing for a SS were able to get into a Base GT. But again, the SS destroyed it in performance and had a ton more options. Now in this same case, if the GT costed the same as the SS, then only diehard fans would have still bought it. And that also means that if a Base GT was as much as a standard SS, then a similarly equipped GT would have been around the price of a ZL1. Now who would have bought a GT PP1 Premium for the same price as a ZL1?? Again, only diehard fans and even half of them would have gone elsewhere.

I strongly disagree here. Despite all the shortcomings the S197 had (which you pointed out) when the Gen5 Camaro went on sale, Ford still sold almost as many Mustangs as Chevrolet did Camaros. Yes, the Camaro did impact Mustang sales, for sure, but it was not a zero sum game. And I agree, if Ford has not improived performance with the introduction of the Coyote powertrain, there could have been even more attrition.

Costed? Is that a word?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So that is why companies have to answer to what their competitors offer. Because otherwise there would be a great disparity between what your money will get you from one vehicle to the next. While, yes, some will still buy, they would lose a large portion of sales to the competition and that would be a devastating loss. That is why Ford HAD to put the PP2 out. Because they needed something to compete with the SLE. And that is why the GT500 came out a bit undercooked. Because they HAD to get something out to compete with the ZL1 when they did.

While I do think offering the PP2 package for the GT was a response to what Chevrolet offered with the 1LE package, I really don't think either package sold in high enough volume to make a huge impact on sales. I think Ford did it as a way of throwing a bone to the tiny portion of Mustang buyers who wanted a track-ready version of the Mustang GT. I think the GT500 follows the same line of thought. Base GT500 for those that want good overall performance on the street and track and the availability of a track package for those that want to compete in a track setting. Personally, I would buy neither trim level, as I think the MSRP is too high for what you get. I think we all agree there.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by MBSS1LE

Here, let me simplify it for you. I am saying that while manufacturers clearly need to be aware of what the competition is doing, not every product they roll out is "an answer" to what the competition has put forth. Most of the time, they just roll out what they believe the biggest segment of the target market is looking for. Certainly, it needs to be competitive in the intended segment versus other makes, but it does not have to be better in every way.

Yes, I meant S197.

Was it? That's easy to say without knowing what the thinking was when they discontinued it back int he early 2000's. If the "retro" Mustang had not been selling so well with the introduction of the S197, I don't think it would have. If I were Ford, I could say that when the Bronco was discontinued in 1996, it was always going to come back, right?


I strongly disagree here. Despite all the shortcomings the S197 had (which you pointed out) when the Gen5 Camaro went on sale, Ford still sold almost as many Mustangs as Chevrolet did Camaros. Yes, the Camaro did impact Mustang sales, for sure, but it was not a zero sum game. And I agree, if Ford has not improived performance with the introduction of the Coyote powertrain, there could have been even more attrition.

Costed? Is that a word?

While I do think offering the PP2 package for the GT was a response to what Chevrolet offered with the 1LE package, I really don't think either package sold in high enough volume to make a huge impact on sales. I think Ford did it as a way of throwing a bone to the tiny portion of Mustang buyers who wanted a track-ready version of the Mustang GT. I think the GT500 follows the same line of thought. Base GT500 for those that want good overall performance on the street and track and the availability of a track package for those that want to compete in a track setting. Personally, I would buy neither trim level, as I think the MSRP is too high for what you get. I think we all agree there.

Enough of us who know better have given you enough information that should have made you understand by now. Even Martin, a retired GM corporate guy (I forget what his title was) chimed in to inform you. This has been discussed multiple times on this sub-forum by those of us who frequent this particular section throughout several of the threads we've started and moved on from over the years. Yet you're clearly resistant to thinking otherwise and I'm certainly not up for another debate with another newbie that's gonna last indefinitely. Suffice to say, you're entitled to think what you want. Whether they answer to or simply create stuff for a particular market or whatever, so be it.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

at the ZL1 being "underpowered". How about: just not as extreme hp as the heavier cars (i.e. 4,170 lbs GT500 and 4,525 lbs Hellcat Redeye)?

IMO MSRP to MSRP, the GT500 (base) similarly equipped to a ZL1 is not quite up to the overall performance value of a ZL1 because it is a lot more expensive. This is because the ZL1 comes fully equipped - with the GT500 you have to option in the Recaros (which are manual and are not heated/cooled), and the Tech package, so at $79,700 with those two options, it still doesn't have quite as many features as a ZL1. And that doesn't even factor in the ADM that most dealers still seem to be charging.

Contrary to the ADMs of the Shelby, GM is offering incentives on all Camaros, including the ZL1. So at the moment, a buyer is looking at ~$66k for an A10 ZL1 with a few options vs. likely $85k for a similarly equipped GT500 (with a "moderate" $5k ADM). A $19k price difference buys you an extra 110 hp (and a bonus ~250 lbs), and a DCT and CF driveshaft, and several tenths in the 1/4 mile at a drag strip (not really on the street due to traction limitations). That extra dough is why it's not quite the performance value that the ZL1 is.

I suppose if you could find a completely base GT500 for $74k, then it may be an equal performance value to an A10 ZL1 with a few options since they'd only be about $8k apart at those prices ($66k vs. $74k).

Of course, this all assumes people can actually find any of these cars to buy, or that they can be ordered and built right now!

Haha, I had to put "underpowered" in quotation marks on the comment. Although from a pure numbers perspective it is underpowered, I'll also add that GM spent a lot of research into building a WHOLE car that certainly makes better use of the power it does have. Which is why it can compete with the higher powered competition and in many cases win. I'd say the ZL1 can beat the competition in more performance comparisons than it will lose in and that says a lot considering that at the least it is "underpowered" by 110HP.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MBSS1LE

...

Was it? That's easy to say without knowing what the thinking was when they discontinued it back int he early 2000's. If the "retro" Mustang had not been selling so well with the introduction of the S197, I don't think it would have. If I were Ford, I could say that when the Bronco was discontinued in 1996, it was always going to come back, right?


....

I can help with this. I was in the room for many of the discussions when Camaro was discontinued and I was in the room for many of the discussions when it came back. When it was discontinued I was the Director of Powertrain Planning for GM. That means I led the team that worked with each of the vehicle teams to determine which vehicles were getting which engines and transmissions and when. So we had to know in advance that Camaro was being discontinued.

The primary reason (there were several) for discontinuing it was that the F-Body platform it was built on would not be capable of meeting the upcoming CAFE and NHTSA Crash regulations. The other RWD platforms available at the time were too expensive (Cadillac Sigma) or couldn’t provide enough capacity (Sigma and Zeta).

When the decision was made to bring the Australian Zeta platform to North America and build Camaro in Oshawa I had moved to Product Planning / Competitor Intelligence. There we worked with the vehicle teams and the Powertrain teams to keep them up to date on what key competitors were working on, typically up to five years into the future. Worked that job for 10 years, then retired. Now I work for the company that provided my GM intel team with much of the info we used to determine what competitors were doing. We forecast up to 12 years into the future. We field questions from each automaker about what the other is doing. They do “answer” each other. Maybe not line for line or car for car, but where it’s important, they answer. Watch Jeep and Bronco over the next couple years and tell me they are not answering each other. Tell me Jeep Grand Wagoneer is not a long overdue answer to Chevrolet Suburban.

[MBSS1LE]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I'm certainly not up for another debate with another newbie that's gonna last indefinitely.

Yet, here you are.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The primary reason (there were several) for discontinuing it was that the F-Body platform it was built on would not be capable of meeting the upcoming CAFE and NHTSA Crash regulations. The other RWD platforms available at the time were too expensive (Cadillac Sigma) or couldn’t provide enough capacity (Sigma and Zeta).

Although the answer(s) as to why the Camaro was discontinued have been out there for some time, I appreciate the reiteration coming from someone who offers a firsthand perspective.

We field questions from each automaker about what the other is doing. They do “answer” each other. Maybe not line for line or car for car, but where it’s important, they answer. Watch Jeep and Bronco over the next couple years and tell me they are not answering each other. Tell me Jeep Grand Wagoneer is not a long overdue answer to Chevrolet Suburban.

Again, a reasonable voice in a typically overly reactive venue. I, and I'm sure many others, appreciate your content and how you deliver it. Some seem to want to deliver their message with condescension and derision instead of engaging in a mutually respectful conversation.

What you have noted is what I was trying to say earlier but did not do a good job getting across. I do believe that, in any industry, companies do pay close attention to what their competitors are doing, or what their competitive intelligence tells them they believe competitors are looking to do in the short and long-term future.

Again, what I was trying to say from the very start, was that not every Camaro or Mustang trim level rolled out is always "an answer" to something the competition did or might be suspected of doing in the future. I agree that it happens, as you pointed out, 'when it is important." I believe it is important when market share is at risk for a given demographic or a manufacturer want to make inroads into a segment that they feel they are missing out on. (i.e. Ford Bronco/Jeep Wrangler, Chevy Suburban/Jeep Grand Wagoneer/Ford F150 Raptor/RAM TRX, etc.)

Back to what started all of this, I am of the opinion that neither the Mach 1 trim level or GT500 trim level Mustang are a direct answer to GM's Camaro offerings. There is no Camaro "1LE" trim level. It is simply a performance package that can be ordered on the SS or ZL1 trim levels. The Mach 1 is its own trim level and, like the SS and ZL1, can be ordered with a performance upgrade package. It's the same for the GT500.

There is no doubt that Ford is hoping to pull some sales from the Camaro by offering these trim levels, that is not in argument, but I do not see them (as Jim put it) as car-for-car answers to anything. Again, simply my opinion.