[SpookShow'84]

Now if they made it voice NAV with Sofia Vergara or Marilyn Monroe giving me directions, I could deal with the price. lol

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by Raven87

I completely disagree. You CAN buy a ~$26000 Camaro TODAY that will run rings around the $4300 Z/28 with 245 HP that I bought in 1973 - on any given track.

A $40K SS is so much MORE car than that '73 Z/28 could ever hope to be so yes, it IS a good value for the performance you get.

And those same calculators say that while I was making $3.35/hr in 1973 I should only be making $18.19 today. I make much, much more than that. Even if I was in the same position today I was in back in '73 I would be making well north of $30/hr.

It is all relative to what you want to spend versus what you can AFFORD to spend.

Yes, a LT 6th gen will run rings around the 2nd Gen Z/28 but it is missing one key aspect, V8.

The LT3.6 putting down similar performance numbers as a LT1 4th Gen doesn't make it a viable replacement...not in the pony/sporty car market.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by aestil

The NAV system is a $500 option? That seems pretty reasonable to me considering the development of the system and integration with the HUD and testing of the GPS and what I assume is long term support of the maps in the Nav system.

Not sure what PDR really brings to the table but I am not personally interested in that one so I haven't given thought to the value proposition on that one.

Before smartphones when people bought stand alone nav units it made sense. When those stand alone units were integrated into cellphone, not as much.

[aestil]

I honestly think you are underestimating the costs of Nav. Google Maps has spoiled us. Google is providing a service in their Maps app and navigation feature that they subsidize by their ability to print money from the advertising dollars they make, and then in turn, their maps and nav features help drive users and keep you in that ecosystem.

Navigation is not as easy to solve as you think it is. Look how hard Apple fell on their face initially with Apple Maps.

Yeah the cost of integrating the GPS receiver is nothing, but making sure the navigation is good, and usable [which from what I've heard is the case with this car] is not such a simple problem, and unlike the $100 phone which can use Google Maps, GM has to support/maintain the nav function on the car. Your $100 phone analogy just falls apart, because you won't even get support for the hardware of that trash tier phone, let alone support [from the phone manufacturer] of any nav/map problems you might have.

Also, $500 navigation is not what is making this car expensive. It's the partially aluminium frame engineered to beat a 3 series, the 455hp Corvette motor engineered to go up against a Porsche, and the interior, which for the first time ever maybe doesn't make people gag. It's just a better car than it used to be, from the underpinnings to the materials used in the interior.

I know you know all those things btw. I'm just trying to point out that complaining about the nav option seems irrelevant since even if that was included in the base price without increasing the cost of the car over what it is now, it wouldn't make the Camaro 'inexpensive' in it's segment.

This is the premium car in the segment. I think the Challenger is the retro car in this segment and the Mustang is the budget car in this segment.

Everything about the new Camaro says 'premium' to me [in context anyways, obviously it's not premium as compared to a Porsche], and as such it makes sense that they would sell fewer cars to me. Maybe GM didn't see that though. But I would think that makes them very bad at business if they didn't expect that increasing the base cost of the vehicle and making it more expensive across the board would also lead to fewer sales.

[aestil]

Originally Posted by Posaune

Before smartphones when people bought stand alone nav units it made sense. When those stand alone units were integrated into cellphone, not as much.

I'm not saying the Nav option is one that I personally care about, although having the turn by turn instructions integrated into the HUD is a significant feature which I think is probably better than the Google Maps Android Auto integration. Overall I agree, I'm used to and can get by just fine with Android Auto/Google Maps.

My only point is that it's not a hugely expensive option if it matters to you. The car is not expensive because of the $500 NAV option.

[mechramc]

Originally Posted by aestil

I honestly think you are underestimating the costs of Nav. Google Maps has spoiled us. Google is providing a service in their Maps app and navigation feature that they subsidize by their ability to print money from the advertising dollars they make, and then in turn, their maps and nav features help drive users and keep you in that ecosystem.

Navigation is not as easy to solve as you think it is. Look how hard Apple fell on their face initially with Apple Maps.

Yeah the cost of integrating the GPS receiver is nothing, but making sure the navigation is good, and usable [which from what I've heard is the case with this car] is not such a simple problem, and unlike the $100 phone which can use Google Maps, GM has to support/maintain the nav function on the car. Your $100 phone analogy just falls apart, because you won't even get support for the hardware of that trash tier phone, let alone support [from the phone manufacturer] of any nav/map problems you might have.

Also, $500 navigation is not what is making this car expensive. It's the partially aluminium frame engineered to beat a 3 series, the 455hp Corvette motor engineered to go up against a Porsche, and the interior, which for the first time ever maybe doesn't make people gag. It's just a better car than it used to be, from the underpinnings to the materials used in the interior.

I know you know all those things btw. I'm just trying to point out that complaining about the nav option seems irrelevant since even if that was included in the base price without increasing the cost of the car over what it is now, it wouldn't make the Camaro 'inexpensive' in it's segment.

This is the premium car in the segment. I think the Challenger is the retro car in this segment and the Mustang is the budget car in this segment.

Everything about the new Camaro says 'premium' to me [in context anyways, obviously it's not premium as compared to a Porsche], and as such it makes sense that they would sell fewer cars to me. Maybe GM didn't see that though. But I would think that makes them very bad at business if they didn't expect that increasing the base cost of the vehicle and making it more expensive across the board would also lead to fewer sales.

Hey....not disagreeing with you at all. I do agree to an extent that the Camaro is a premium car....but for the below $35K segment where the Mustang GT is....what is not premium about that car, considering that is the cheapest V8? The difference between the 1SS and GT without any additional features added to it is only the 8 inch display. They do get line lock which we don't. So what is the difference that warrants a $4k price gap?

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by aestil

I honestly think you are underestimating the costs of Nav. Google Maps has spoiled us. Google is providing a service in their Maps app and navigation feature that they subsidize by their ability to print money from the advertising dollars they make, and then in turn, their maps and nav features help drive users and keep you in that ecosystem.

Navigation is not as easy to solve as you think it is. Look how hard Apple fell on their face initially with Apple Maps.

Yeah the cost of integrating the GPS receiver is nothing, but making sure the navigation is good, and usable [which from what I've heard is the case with this car] is not such a simple problem, and unlike the $100 phone which can use Google Maps, GM has to support/maintain the nav function on the car. Your $100 phone analogy just falls apart, because you won't even get support for the hardware of that trash tier phone, let alone support [from the phone manufacturer] of any nav/map problems you might have.

Also, $500 navigation is not what is making this car expensive. It's the partially aluminium frame engineered to beat a 3 series, the 455hp Corvette motor engineered to go up against a Porsche, and the interior, which for the first time ever maybe doesn't make people gag. It's just a better car than it used to be, from the underpinnings to the materials used in the interior.

I know you know all those things btw. I'm just trying to point out that complaining about the nav option seems irrelevant since even if that was included in the base price without increasing the cost of the car over what it is now, it wouldn't make the Camaro 'inexpensive' in it's segment.

This is the premium car in the segment. I think the Challenger is the retro car in this segment and the Mustang is the budget car in this segment.

Everything about the new Camaro says 'premium' to me [in context anyways, obviously it's not premium as compared to a Porsche], and as such it makes sense that they would sell fewer cars to me. Maybe GM didn't see that though. But I would think that makes them very bad at business if they didn't expect that increasing the base cost of the vehicle and making it more expensive across the board would also lead to fewer sales.

I'm really not underestimating anything. For crying out loud for $400 they should have a fully integrated android operating system in the damn Mylink with all kinds of custom camaro app (like PDR). We're losing my point though in the NAV debate. My point was that all the tech in the car that supposedly makes it "premium" is only new tech in the auto manufacturers dated definition of it. MRC is what? 8 years old now? Why are we paying a premium? How old is Alpha? I remember when A/C was an option that cost 10 times more than a window A/C unit with half the cooling ability. These are just some examples. The auto industry is somehow the only one left getting away with massive price increases for nothing new or innovative.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by mechramc

Hey....not disagreeing with you at all. I do agree to an extent that the Camaro is a premium car....but for the below $35K segment where the Mustang GT is....what is not premium about that car, considering that is the cheapest V8? The difference between the 1SS and GT without any additional features added to it is only the 8 inch display. They do get line lock which we don't. So what is the difference that warrants a $4k price gap?

The GT isn't ready for the track. Need to get the track pack for that( manual transmission only). Without the track pack, hear the GT is rather soft in the suspension( will test drive myself when it comes time to buy a car). With the track pack, the price difference is only $1400.

If you don't value the competency of the Camaro and just want a V8 powered sports coupe to casually drive around, the base Mustang GT is perfectly suitable for those types of people and probably wouldn't be able to justify the $4k difference. But if you're buying the track pack for the Mustang GT, the Camaro 1SS should be given a look too. Or if you are going to pick up an automatic pony car and want the better suspension of the Camaro vs the Mustang GT since the track pack is not available with the auto.

[Raven87]

Originally Posted by Posaune

Yes, a LT 6th gen will run rings around the 2nd Gen Z/28 but it is missing one key aspect, V8.

The LT3.6 putting down similar performance numbers as a LT1 4th Gen doesn't make it a viable replacement...not in the pony/sporty car market.

Which topic are we discussing now? Is it that you can buy a better performing car 43 years later for a relatively same price given the rate of inflation? Are we debating which 'model' of the Camaro should be compared to a '73 Z/28 based on model designation only? Or, are we arguing cylinder numbers vs performance potential?

I was only making the point that even with the rate of inflation you can buy a much better car - in safety, fuel mileage, structural rigidity, engine management, emissions, rust resistance, NVH, comfort, and especially performance - for the equivalent dollars as a '73 Z/28 cost 43 years ago.

Sure, a '73 Z/28 had 8 cylinders - that is irrelevant. It also got 8-10 mpg and was lucky if it ran a 15 second quarter mile.

So for SOME people who do not care about cylinder count and only want to have fun, the LT is a BETTER car at an equivalent price to the '73 Z/28.

No, it does not have an SS on the grille or a Z/28 for that matter. It does not have 8 cylinders. But it is still a much better car at an equivalent price in 1973 dollars and we should not lose sight of that.

The pony/sporty car market is SO much bigger than our 'V8 or nothing' universe that it is easy to not see what is really there.

I'm just sayin' that in TODAY'S world, the 6G LT 3.6 is indeed a viable replacement - especially performance wise - for a '73 Z/28. No, it's not an SS, a ZL1 or a new Z/28. But it is still a damned good car for the money that will put just as big a grin on your face as that '73 Z/28 did mine and at a much lower cost of ownership for fuel etc.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by hotlap

We do have some numbers.

According to GM "The (gen6) Camaro is selling for $3,700 more on average than its predecessor"

July 2016 production = 5,520 -26% (Pr Ye)
So. July 2015 production = 7,460
7,460 - 5,520 = 1,940 less units in July 2016

Additional amount transacted (over 2015) for units produced July 2016
$3,700 x5,520 = $20,424,000.

Additional amount received for each additional unit not produced relative to 2015
$20,424,000 / 1,940 = $10,528

I have no idea if this volume was planned but it is now a shared facility transacting more per unit

Just wanted to dig into this $3700 more thing for a second.

Let's study Jan-July 2015 and 2016. Can't break 2016 numbers between 5th gen and 6th gen down because GM has provided no breakdown so these numbers will be off in favor of the 6th gen.

Jan-July 2015 sales = 50062 units sold and let's set the ATP right around the national average - $33,000.
50062*$33,000=$1,652,046,000 in revenue.

Jan-July 2016 sales = 42354 (don't forget this does include some 5th gens, actual 6th gen volume is lower) and the ATP is $33,000 + $3700 = $36,700.
42354*$36,700=$1,554,391,800 in revenue.

$1,652,046,000 - $1,554,391,800 = $97,654,200 in additional revenue in Jan-Jul 2015 over Jan-July 2016.

What will the rest of 2016 need to look like to match 2015?

2015 sales = 77,502 (using the same averages again)
77,502*$33,000=$2,557,566,000

2016 sales need to hit $2,557,566,000/$36,700= 69,688 units to match 2015s revenue.

Chevy needs to average 5467 per month for the rest of the year to hit the revenue goal.

Remember two things:
1) This is revenue, not profits
2) These numbers are skewed in favor of the 6th gen by counting all 2016 sales as 6th gen (which we know is not true). Which means Chevy/GM have their work cut out for them.

[Raven87]

Originally Posted by Posaune

Just wanted to dig into this $3700 more thing for a second.

Let's study Jan-July 2015 and 2016. Can't break 2016 numbers between 5th gen and 6th gen down because GM has provided no breakdown so these numbers will be off in favor of the 6th gen.

Jan-July 2015 sales = 50062 units sold and let's set the ATP right around the national average - $33,000.
50062*$33,000=$1,652,046,000 in revenue.

Jan-July 2016 sales = 42354 (don't forget this does include some 5th gens, actual 6th gen volume is lower) and the ATP is $33,000 + $3700 = $36,700.
42354*$36,700=$1,554,391,800 in revenue.

$1,652,046,000 - $1,554,391,800 = $97,654,200 in additional revenue in Jan-Jul 2015 over Jan-July 2016.

What will the rest of 2016 need to look like to match 2015?

2015 sales = 77,502 (using the same averages again)
77,502*$33,000=$2,557,566,000

2016 sales need to hit $2,557,566,000/$36,700= 69,688 units to match 2015s revenue.

Chevy needs to average 5467 per month for the rest of the year to hit the revenue goal.

Remember two things:
1) This is revenue, not profits
2) These numbers are skewed in favor of the 6th gen by counting all 2016 sales as 6th gen (which we know is not true). Which means Chevy/GM have their work cut out for them.

Is this magical $3700 more in SELLING price equate to $3700 more in PROFIT? I'm betting no because I do not believe GM ever explicitly said that the $3700 was all profit.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by Raven87

Is this magical $3700 more in SELLING price equate to $3700 more in PROFIT? I'm betting no because I do not believe GM ever explicitly said that the $3700 was all profit.

I'd bet no as well. 6th Gen is new and needs to amortize the development costs while paying for actually building each car.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by Raven87

Which topic are we discussing now? Is it that you can buy a better performing car 43 years later for a relatively same price given the rate of inflation? Are we debating which 'model' of the Camaro should be compared to a '73 Z/28 based on model designation only? Or, are we arguing cylinder numbers vs performance potential?

I was only making the point that even with the rate of inflation you can buy a much better car - in safety, fuel mileage, structural rigidity, engine management, emissions, rust resistance, NVH, comfort, and especially performance - for the equivalent dollars as a '73 Z/28 cost 43 years ago.

Sure, a '73 Z/28 had 8 cylinders - that is irrelevant. It also got 8-10 mpg and was lucky if it ran a 15 second quarter mile.

So for SOME people who do not care about cylinder count and only want to have fun, the LT is a BETTER car at an equivalent price to the '73 Z/28.

No, it does not have an SS on the grille or a Z/28 for that matter. It does not have 8 cylinders. But it is still a much better car at an equivalent price in 1973 dollars and we should not lose sight of that.

The pony/sporty car market is SO much bigger than our 'V8 or nothing' universe that it is easy to not see what is really there.

I'm just sayin' that in TODAY'S world, the 6G LT 3.6 is indeed a viable replacement - especially performance wise - for a '73 Z/28. No, it's not an SS, a ZL1 or a new Z/28. But it is still a damned good car for the money that will put just as big a grin on your face as that '73 Z/28 did mine and at a much lower cost of ownership for fuel etc.

Yep, and that kind of fixation on one element (not having a V and an 8 when describing the engine) instead of just comparing what matters, the v6 of today is better in every way than those old v8's, is what is most aggravating about this whole sales discussion.

The discussion shouldn't focus on how many cars are sold, but on if GM is making a profit, the one question that we can't answer.

Making this whole thread a lot of speculation and personal opinion, at least for the time being.

[Thor142]

Part of the issue is we don't know what Gen 6 cost GM so we have no idea what the profit margin is or what percentage of R&D was camaro specific in the parts bin that needs to be amortized by Camaro 6.
All we really know is that for some reason which is logically price people don't want it.