GT500 discussion on GM site
3/25/05, 09:23 AM
#81
Originally posted by HammyZTS@March 24, 2005, 9:00 AM
Regarding the Camaro name, it is true that they cannot use this name anymore unless they use that exact factory. This is not speculation. Also, it was a fact that they Chevy was going to use the Chevelle name, but found that in test groups more people reacted favorably to Monte Carlo and would prefer it over a Chevelle. Thus, Monte Carlo was going to be dealt a whole new makeover, which explains why it, and the current Impala were so subtly redesigned right now. These were simple reskins to tide everyone over until the Zeta built Monte and Impala would debut in 07 as 08s asrear-wheel drive, large output V8 cars to compete with Mustang and 300...
Regarding the Camaro name, it is true that they cannot use this name anymore unless they use that exact factory. This is not speculation. Also, it was a fact that they Chevy was going to use the Chevelle name, but found that in test groups more people reacted favorably to Monte Carlo and would prefer it over a Chevelle. Thus, Monte Carlo was going to be dealt a whole new makeover, which explains why it, and the current Impala were so subtly redesigned right now. These were simple reskins to tide everyone over until the Zeta built Monte and Impala would debut in 07 as 08s asrear-wheel drive, large output V8 cars to compete with Mustang and 300...
3/25/05, 09:27 AM
#82
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I would have like the Chevelle name a lot more than the Monte Carlo name. But, Chevy cant go and pull off a GTO/Charger fiasco with the Chevelle name.
3/25/05, 09:51 AM
#83
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlackRiderX+March 25, 2005, 11:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BlackRiderX @ March 25, 2005, 11:26 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-HammyZTS@March 24, 2005, 9:00 AM
Regarding the Camaro name, it is true that they cannot use this name anymore unless they use that exact factory. This is not speculation. Also, it was a fact that they Chevy was going to use the Chevelle name, but found that in test groups more people reacted favorably to Monte Carlo and would prefer it over a Chevelle. Thus, Monte Carlo was going to be dealt a whole new makeover, which explains why it, and the current Impala were so subtly redesigned right now. These were simple reskins to tide everyone over until the Zeta built Monte and Impala would debut in 07 as 08s asrear-wheel drive, large output V8 cars to compete with Mustang and 300...
Regarding the Camaro name, it is true that they cannot use this name anymore unless they use that exact factory. This is not speculation. Also, it was a fact that they Chevy was going to use the Chevelle name, but found that in test groups more people reacted favorably to Monte Carlo and would prefer it over a Chevelle. Thus, Monte Carlo was going to be dealt a whole new makeover, which explains why it, and the current Impala were so subtly redesigned right now. These were simple reskins to tide everyone over until the Zeta built Monte and Impala would debut in 07 as 08s asrear-wheel drive, large output V8 cars to compete with Mustang and 300...
[/b][/quote]
There are some odd things about the agreement but it was basically that GM could build a Camaro for 2007. Here is a link to an article that explains all the crap behind it. No wonder the Camaro was cancelled. The bean counters win again.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...409phr_camaro/
3/25/05, 10:39 AM
#84
That article just about sums it up.
I think GM is making a huge mistake with not having a ponycar at this price point.
The brand loyalty with the Mustangs is probably second to the F150 in the Ford lineup. I remember reading that a very high number of Mustang owners buy another one, or another Ford.
Translation: You get someone hooked on your sporty car when they are a teenager/first car buyer and they will stick with that brand.
I seriously believe there are legal reprocussions with building a Camaro. Despite all of GM's efforts to save face, I believe the CAW and governments would freak unless they had the Camaro built somewhere in Canada. That PHR article is a little old and I believe that there are no Camaros in the works as suppliers would already be leaking credible information given the car would have to be at final design to be inroduced in fall '06 as an '07 model.
The only chassis they could really use is the solstice chassis if it was stretched out to accomodate a 2+2. Otherwise they could just make it FWD, but not building it at all would be a better option.
Given that Lutz hates retro (explain the HHR then?) the Camaro would probably look poorly executed like its current lineup.
I think GM is making a huge mistake with not having a ponycar at this price point.
The brand loyalty with the Mustangs is probably second to the F150 in the Ford lineup. I remember reading that a very high number of Mustang owners buy another one, or another Ford.
Translation: You get someone hooked on your sporty car when they are a teenager/first car buyer and they will stick with that brand.
I seriously believe there are legal reprocussions with building a Camaro. Despite all of GM's efforts to save face, I believe the CAW and governments would freak unless they had the Camaro built somewhere in Canada. That PHR article is a little old and I believe that there are no Camaros in the works as suppliers would already be leaking credible information given the car would have to be at final design to be inroduced in fall '06 as an '07 model.
The only chassis they could really use is the solstice chassis if it was stretched out to accomodate a 2+2. Otherwise they could just make it FWD, but not building it at all would be a better option.
Given that Lutz hates retro (explain the HHR then?) the Camaro would probably look poorly executed like its current lineup.
3/25/05, 12:10 PM
#85
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, the prospect of a Camaro before 08 or 09 right now is pretty bleak.
The thing with retro that GM fails to understand is that you can do retro depending on the car and its heritage. GM is saying that the sales drop off too much for retro. The PT Cruiser was cool with its 40's styling, but had no heritage. The Beetle had heritage, but how many flower power people are going to buy it? Only so many. The Tbird was nice, but was a luxury 2 seat coupe that was not cheap. Again, limited market.
Along comes the Mustang with styling that looks like the 60's Mustangs combined with the muscle of the late 60's Mustangs and a good price. Another example of GM missing the mark, and I think they now know that. This Mustang will continue to sell in decent numbers until its next re-style. The chassis will probably be with us for a while, which is OK because it seems to be very solid. This is where GM just doesn't get it and it makes me sad. I have seen so many cool looking retro Camaro designs you would have thought that they would have at least made a concept car, even if they didn't had no plans to build it.
The Holden Monaro, on which the GTO is built, was a styling exercise done behind the scenes without executive management knowing about it. Once it was finished, they convinced management to unveil it at an Australian auto show. People flipped for it and it was put into production. The executives never thought they could sell it. (This was in the mid 90's, so the car had fresh styling then).
The thing with retro that GM fails to understand is that you can do retro depending on the car and its heritage. GM is saying that the sales drop off too much for retro. The PT Cruiser was cool with its 40's styling, but had no heritage. The Beetle had heritage, but how many flower power people are going to buy it? Only so many. The Tbird was nice, but was a luxury 2 seat coupe that was not cheap. Again, limited market.
Along comes the Mustang with styling that looks like the 60's Mustangs combined with the muscle of the late 60's Mustangs and a good price. Another example of GM missing the mark, and I think they now know that. This Mustang will continue to sell in decent numbers until its next re-style. The chassis will probably be with us for a while, which is OK because it seems to be very solid. This is where GM just doesn't get it and it makes me sad. I have seen so many cool looking retro Camaro designs you would have thought that they would have at least made a concept car, even if they didn't had no plans to build it.
The Holden Monaro, on which the GTO is built, was a styling exercise done behind the scenes without executive management knowing about it. Once it was finished, they convinced management to unveil it at an Australian auto show. People flipped for it and it was put into production. The executives never thought they could sell it. (This was in the mid 90's, so the car had fresh styling then).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post