By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I guess your using the term sports car loosely. I don't think any 2 seat sports car has every sold over a 100k, but as far as 2+2 sporty cars such as the Camaro, it's not even close to the best seller in history. I think Ford built over 600k Mustangs during some of years during the 60's (I think '66).
Pontiac built over 100k/yr firebirds in '78 or '79. I don't know what years have been the best for the Camaro, I'm sure others know.
But comparing the sales of the Camaro to the likes of Porsche's and Corvette's is apples and oranges.
Sorry, but this is the truth and real life here. I'm not making this up. The last time someone asked me for a jump it was for a Neon that needed it. I didn't sugar coat it, I told this girl her car was sh*t and this would happen frequently if she didn't get rid of it.
MY GF at the time got mad at me for not being more helpful, but I'm not gonna look under the hood of a car I know is crap. :lemon: I didn't waste more time than to try and jump it, and when that didn't work to start it, I told her call a tow truck, LOL. :P
Umm, I don't think any mullet wearing Mustang or Camaro gear head has ever cross shopped a Mustang or Camaro vs those above. Completely different cars marketed to completely different people. I've always liked Mustangs, but they were never in the same realm as those cars.
While those Supra's, 300z, and the last Gen Rx-7 were great cars in their own right, they simply got to expensive and their was to much competition. You can also add those Mitsubishi GT-3000 into the mix too. Seemed in the early 90's everyone had a $35k+ sports car chasing after a limited buyer pool.
Then you had Probes, Mr2s, Talon's, 240 SX's, Prelude's, Mx-6's etc, all nipping at each other heals.
I dunno. I do remember the car rags comparing them. The Camaro, Firebird, and Mustang have historically had no rival in terms of bang for the buck over the last 30 years.
:P
I, like most Americans, simply don't TRUST the Big 3.
The rags compare everything. I think I've seen Corvette's compete against F-18's in MotorTrend. I mainly remember them be compared to Corvette's and Porsche's. Those cars were driven by the likes of engineers and lawyers, and often just an extra toy. I'd bet the average age and income of a Supra/Rx-7/300Z buyer was close to double that of a Mustang or Camaro. The current 370Z might be cheaper today than the 300Z twin turbo was in '92, especially if you adjust for inflation.
Since when do insurance companies now anything? LOL. They will call a Mustang or any previous Camaro or Trans Am a sports car too. The fact remains, to date, the Camaro isn't in the ball park of being the best seller ever compared to previous Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird sales in a year. If the Camaro is still selling close to a 100k+/yr two or three years from now I'll be very surprised.
I'll agree that the Camaro will most likely be the best selling sports car this year, but ever? Not close.
I doubt they are losing money on it. What I would expect, and we are seeing it already w/ the 2011 Mustang, is that Ford will push the envelope w/ the Stang, and for Chevy to answer means encroaching on Vette territory. As it stands now, you get a 400 hp 6.2 in a base Camaro SS for just under $34k, and a 430 hp 6.2 in a base Vette for $49K. At some point, the performance of the Vette is going to have to justify it's $15K premium, and I believe that the only way it can is to kill the Camaro.
Remember, Ford has nothing to compare w/ the Vette, so the sky's the limit w/ the Stang.
The main reason behind the damage from the GM brand stems from the highly public bailout funding to the automaker. GM’s roughly $50 billion government bailout in 2009 has created a stigma that is driving many buyers away, and Cadillac hopes that by distancing itself from the brand name typically associated with the bailout – GM – it will be able to avoid the negative stigma.
Cadillac has struggled the most out of GM’s remaining core brands, dropping 32 percent in 2009, 2 percent worse than the industry average. In 2010, Cadillac has increased sales by only 14 percent, the lowest of GM’s brands which reported a combined 31 percent increase.
Cadillac’s last annual sales increase took place in 2005 when the luxury brand sold a healthy 235,002 units – an increase of .3 percent. By contrast, Cadillac’s volume has slid low enough that the automaker is hoping for a 28 percent increase in annual sales for a total of 140,000 units.
Dump GM
NOW we see the truth from within. How refreshing is that?
That's why GMC should have been axed as many on this board have recommended. Period. GM needs to die as a brand name. Like it or not.
Regards,
OW
I doubt it too. My point was GM has a history of making horrible product decisions, so nothing would surprise me.
What I would expect, and we are seeing it already w/ the 2011 Mustang, is that Ford will push the envelope w/ the Stang, and for Chevy to answer means encroaching on Vette territory. As it stands now, you get a 400 hp 6.2 in a base Camaro SS for just under $34k, and a 430 hp 6.2 in a base Vette for $49K. At some point, the performance of the Vette is going to have to justify it's $15K premium, and I believe that the only way it can is to kill the Camaro.
Well, even if they had the same HP, the Corvette will easily out perform the Camaro due to having over 600lbs of less weight to drag around.
Anything Ford does extra beyond next years 400+hp GT will cost a lot more money. A Shelby Mustang is a $45k+ car. Yeah it's cool, and yeah it has 540hp, but it will still gets beat by a vette due to being nearly 600lbs heavier, not to mention being extremely nose heavy.
The Mustang and Camaro are basically elephants compared to something like the Corvette.
I would assume that a '65 Chevelle SS396 was faster in a straight line than a base '65 Vette w/ just a 327/300hp. But we know that the base Vette would handle much better. The public accepted it then, but will they today?
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?lang=en&cl=18534451
That is the electric car future, right!!!!
-Rocky
I don't believe that at all.
-Rocky
Time will tell who's right.
...along with Buick. Leave Buick only for the Chinese market.
Then you would have Chevy and Caddy, and perhaps GM could focus on good vehicles instead of divisions.
Are those the same accountants that predicted GM's resurrection in 2009?
The Big 3 are already the beneficiaries of this huge Toyota scandal. It is only going to get worse for the Japanese companies because now congress is going to get there hands on a memo written by the JAW workers about safety concerns raised by the workers. GM has retooled and is ready to fight for those customers. I think this story is here to stay and the perception in the American consumers mind about Japanese superiority is beginning to shift.
I think Honda, isn't the flawless automobile manufacturer you think they are and I'd be willing to bet my life on it they have some skeletons in there closet also!!!
-Rocky
Remember GM has other competitors besides Toyota. Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Ford, VW, etc. All will be trying to take every customer Toyota loses. Ford seems to be benefiting the most and with their continued product improvement and better image with the public, they will continue to benefit more than GM for a while anyway.
I was talking to my dad the other day. He bought an '09 Accord EX-L v6 last January. He's put 35k miles on it and he just raves about how much he likes it. As I've mentioned in the past, prior to the Honda, he's mainly owned Fords. He told me he was glad he didn't buy a Toyota (he did consider a camry), he didn't say "I wish I would have bought a Ford or GM".
GM and Ford both have a huge opportunity to boost their market share some. We'll see how it plays out this year.
Hell no. Not even remotely in this Country let alone the ballpark... If the Mullet Camaro and Mustang "wrang the death knell" then why would all these makes build their high horsepower, highly tossable and much more advanced sports coupes/cars that would wipe the floor with either of these dinosaurs in the first place? Because the domestics weren't even the targets.
Sorry, uh uh. No way. The F-body was crude, unrefined and sloppy and the Mustang was only a bit better. The ergonomics sucked, the seats sucked (Mustangs are pretty good some years), the visibility was gawd aweful and both were built for straight line performance, exactly what they were built to do 3 decades earlier while the Supra, 300Z, 3000GT, Eclipse, etc. were meant to to do something those other live axled beasts couldn't....
Take corners... :shades:
Sorry, you my friend have no idea what you are talking about. The Camaro and Mustang were not what killed cars like the Supra, it was the price and a product with a limited market. Period.
No offense intended btw, I probably should grab some coffee...
I disagree, I bet they are losing a good amount on each Camaro that they produce. Government Motors put years of effort and I'me sure billions of dollars in development into the Zeta platform and the only thing that materialized was the Camaro! Then GM closed the door on the program... sorta. If they do bring the Zeta Caprice as a pedestrian option as well as the police cruisers then I could see money being made off the development, but until then I bet the Camaro brings in little to zero profit.
For the Camaro to be the best selling pony car/sports car, muscle car, or whatever you want to call it, it will have to sell over 418,812 units over a 12 month period as that is what the Mustang's record is.
Um, GM doesn't have any car that will sell over 400k units/yr during the next 3 years. The only domestic vehicle that will sell that many, will have a bed on the back.
Can the Camaro be the best selling sports car over the next 3 years. Maybe, but history says the Mustang will outsell it again in a few years.
So basically what you are saying is Government Motors is not as American as we'd like to make them out to be. Gotcha.
I wonder if the Camaro might end up appealing to a younger demographic than the Mustang and Challenger? The Mustang/Challenger seem more like updates of the originals, trying to copy them as closely as possible using modern vehicles, whereas the Camaro seems more like a caricature of the '69, with proportions that are exaggerated and a bit cartoonish.
I guess I can see Mustangs and Challengers appealing more to aging baby boomers trying to recapture the good old days, whereas the Camaro would appeal to someone who saw it in the Transformers movies, and is too young to remember that in the original cartoon, Bumblebee was a VW Bug!
BTW, I saw a new Camaro on Sunday, in a really dark blue. I thought it looked pretty sharp in that color.
2007 24,018
2008 15,587
2009 4,826
2010 20
Those are the production numbers for the Solstice. I remember in '05 and '06 were talking about what a smash hit the Solstice was going to be and how it would kill the Miata. Well, it looks like all that wanted one, bought one by 07. Then GM determined they were loosing to much money on each one and now it's gone. Mean while the Miata keeps plugging along.
I don't know current production numbers of the Miata, but in 2006, Mazda built over 48k. They sell them all over the world and not just the US.
Just buy the best out there..That it is a GM/Honda/Ford is secondary...And damn,,they make such shoddy cars--it`s really a surprise that they still have 20% of the market --and folks are accused of not being patriotic.. If inspite of pathetic cars for 4 decades-folks still buy GM --damn that is some patriotism.. Can you imagine folks buying [non-permissible content removed] or Korean cars if they had made crappy cars for 4 decades... forget 4 decades-even 4 yrs of crap cars and they would be out of business !! :shades:
I couldn't agree more.
You ended up with a situation where leasing companies couldn't afford to take a killing anymore due to dropping residuals and owners couldn't afford to trade in due to being thousands upside down. Used vehicles got cheaper and cheaper (particularly domestics). I was in the market for a new SUV in 08. Looked at new Denaili's, Subuurban's, and Expeditions etc. Instead of spending $45k on a new SUV, I found a 1 year old 07 Eddie Bauer Expedition nicely optioned in great shape for $23k. That was an easy decision for me. Saved a minimum of $15-20k. I haven't bought a new car since '01 due to being able to find low mileage used vehicles so cheap.
Today the environment is changing. When it's time to replace the Expe in the next few years, I probably won't find a bunch of low mileage 1 year old SUV's on the lot with huge discounts. Supply and demand are more in line today. I may buy new because the prices of used will probably be more expensive unless you buy something more than a few years old.
IIRC, same type of thing happened in '86. That was a boom year in sales as the market rebounded from years of low sales and the us fleet of cars was getting old. Good used cars were getting harder to find and prices helped people decide to start buying more new cars.
Looks like GM and Ford could be poised for some good times in the next few years. They've lowered production and when sales surge again, it won't quite be the buyers market we once had.
link title