rhumb

Given that Pontiac just anounced the G8 GT's price at $29,995 (and the V6 version at $27,595), I see no reason in the world that Chevy can't bring the smaller, less contented Camaro in at least a grand or two under these prices, especially that they'll be building them here in North America instead of shipping halfway around the world. Remember, the G8 and the Camaro will basically share the same chassis and other major drivetrain and engineering elements, with the Camaro essentially being a shortened, 2-door version of the G8 in rough engineering terms.

Of course, we'll have to see, drive and test the production Camaro and Challenger to see how well they actually pull them off, neither company is beyond flubbing it. On the other hand, if, say, the G8 is any indication of what GM can do with the Zeta (or whatever its name is) chassis, then there is probably the more likely chance that it will be a very good car and every chance of being better than the Stang. I'll bet these cars will make quite a ruckus and stir.

So Ford better not rest on its laurels of doing well in the near zero competition environment of the past few years.

Moosetang

I'm wondering what sort of hit GM's taking by pricing the G8 that low. The smaller, 2-door GTO was marked over that, and wasn't the most profitable vehicle in the world. Shipping prices you can deal with, but they still cut in. on top of that, the echange rate is worse now than it was during the GTO's reign, so that price difference is actually worse than it looks. Are they offering stripped-down base versions with LOTs of costly options? Or are they really swallowing that big of an PPV hit and betting on fantastic sales?

rhumb

Looking at the early "Build Your G8" thing Pontiac has on its Web site, it looks like its pretty well featured from the get-go, i.e., is far from being a price-leader stripper, with only three major option packages: premium, comfort and sound, and sport, along with an optional sun roof. They didn't have prices for these packages, so one can't really tell what a pimped-out G8 would cost.

Given these prices, a similarly spec'd Camaro might then run around $25K base and $28K V8.

jsaylor

I'm wondering exactly the same thing. The 'rumour' about GM considering a live axle for the Camaro was and is very credible coming stright from sources who those in the know, at least in Australia, regularly use and trust. GM pricing the G8 reasonably tells us nothing about the ROI on that car. Part of the reason the Mustang has been such a huge success for Ford is that ROI has been, by all accounts, phenomenal. GM has been introducing many interesting vehicles of late, but thus far their ROI has been terrible as indicated by their own profit and loss documents. If GM cannot turn a profit on their cars it wont matter how competent the product itself is.

jsaylor

Worth considering is the fact that coupes tend to cost more dough than do their sedan platform mates more often than not. Slightly lower content aside if the Camaro costs signficantly less than does the G8 my bet is that ROI will be lower as well....after the importation period is over and G8 production has moved to American shores that is (assuming that actually happens)

GM seems to be backing away from this platform, at least for some of the planned product, and I don't buy the notion that increased mileage requirements are the reason since GM absolutely knew about this development long before outsiders did. Further consider the fact that GM has already looked for a way to seriously slash production costs on this platform, at the cost of product content no less, and we know that somebody in GM's corporate halls looked at ROI and did not like what they saw. As indicated before, I think the evidence indicates that GM's 'problem' with this platform has to do with profitability, or lack thereof, and not pending epa requirements as GM would like for folks to believe.

Vermillion06

This is how I look at it:

Length: '71-'73 wins!
Width : '71-73 wins!
Longest wheelbase: '71-'73 wins!
Height: s197 wins

In three out of four critical dimensions the '71-'73s are the largest. Length and width are important for real world reasons, such as fitting in a garage or a tight parking space. Height, is not so important unless the vehicle is extremely tall (monster truck like).

The s197 only wins the "tallest Mustang design to date" award. Height can easily be changed with lowering springs, however, so the S197 can lose about two inches in height through lowering.

In the 50's and 60's the goal was "Lower - Longer - Wider".
In the mid 70's - 80's the goal was "shorter, lighter, smaller".
Now it's "Taller, Longer, Wider"?? Most current cars have beltline like cars from the mid-50s...

I might be persuaded to part with my S197 for a new Mustang that's about the same dimensions as the '65-66 Mustangs and retains the classic Mustang DNA interpreted in some new way...

bob

Give that up, not only are cars bigger to fit fat people, they are also larger so that you have "space to live", the farther from things like doors, windows, the roof, etc, it lessens the chance for injury, serious injury, or death. Not to mention the space needed for all those air bags to work.

Those 5 star crash ratings not only are good for business, but they also help with insurance. It would be suicide for Ford to introduce a Mustang that would be faster and have higher handling limits but wrapped in an body that had inferior crash performance.

jarradasay

I suppose center of gravity is not all that important...
You can change the height of the current mustang with lowering springs, yes, but you could do the same with the 72, so that doesn't make sense. even if you lower it two inches it is still two inches taller.

width difference is less then a quarter inch so virtually the same.

Anyway, this thread is about the weight of the mustang which brought up how large it is. So all dimension are critical when reducing weight especially if you could cut 4 inches out of the middle of the vehicles profile, reducing the height and an enormous amount of steel, plastic, etc. Just shrinking the greenhouse will not save us much weight. Of course those of us that are 6'4" would have a fit!