September 2011 Camaro Sales and Production Figures

[thePill]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

How are you so sure that Dodge is making more money than Chevy or Ford? The way I see it, labour costs are going to be nearly identical between the Camaro & Challenger, since they're built less than an hour away from each other. Mechanically, they are very similar so there isn't going to be much difference there. They're priced pretty much the same throughout the lineup (except for the low volume SRT8s which currently have no competitor). However, the Camaro has volume on its side to decrease the per unit cost. So where is the extra profit for the Challenger coming from?

When a product is new, the cost to produce the car is at its peak. This figures in the cost of parts, labor, marketing and in most cases delivery. Over the lifespan of a vehicle, prices begin to come down on parts, shifts are cut to meet real demand and advertising is done on the streets and not on the TV or magazines. The older the car is, the less it cost to produce it unless new hardware is added... The major reason Dodge and Ford are maximizing profits is because they are actually producing what the market is buying and do not have overflow in dealer lots. Ford produced 76,000 Mustangs last year and sold 73,000 and change, Dodge produced 45,000 and pretty much sold every single unit... In Chevrolet's first Camaro MY, they produced 129,000 Camaros and sold about 98,000, year two was just as bad and this year should be a little better. This results in unneeded parts cost, labor cost and delivery cost on cars that will eventually have to be sold, perhaps after the MY, with incentives or.. in the worst case scenario, 47,000 cars will sit on lots, comprised of 2010s, 2011s and 2012s.

Also, don't forget inflation, cars were cheaper to make in 2004 and 2007 then they were to produce in 2009. An economic disaster would have seen prices on almost everything increase.. You can see this in almost every product throughout the years.

There is nothing wrong with mass production, but when sales don't amass to that number.. then there are bound to be losses..

The timing of the new generation of muscle cars couldn't have been better except that the economy tanked...Had the economy stayed healthy all the retiring baby boomers that were teens in golden years of muscle cars would be buying these as thier retirement toys.

This statement is the truest of all in this thread, the economy is always the enemy of cars of this nature. It was in fact the economy that killed the dinosaurs in the 60s and 70s and kept them dead for 30 years. Like I said, if the Camaro would have been released in 2006, sales would have exceeded their initial 150,000 cars. Just like the original was victim to bad timing, so is its successor...

[jackka]

Take a chill pill, "the pill." Who cares if the 5th Gen isn't selling as well as muscle cars used to? No shit, people aren't buying more impractical performance cars today as they were in the 60s-90s? Oh noes!!!

All of his marketing babble and attempts in trashing GM every chance he gets is largely irrelevant to most folks here, though I agree that it does provide a fair chunk of entertainment value as some others have mentioned. I'd say his Joker avatar is quite a good fit, except the entertainment here is more like the kind you get from a fat kid rolling down a hill. But hey, this is the internet. Whatever floats your boat, whatever tickles your pickle.

As far as the Camaro and its sales are concerned, it's interesting to see it still outsell the "new" Mustang, as it confirms the judgment of the segment consumers. I don't have anything against the Mustang really, it's a great car. I just like the Camaro a little better. I would love to see GM falling over themselves benchmarking the shit out of the new Mustang. What have I got to lose? And I highly doubt that the pony car market might be all but gone in the coming years as the pill says, although it would be a nice change of pace not having to see increasing numbers of Camaros every day, at least where I live. I'd prefer it not become as common as Mustangs to be honest.

I hope for the pill's sake that the newer new Mustang will be able to outsell the Camaro when it comes out. Otherwise it would make everything he says that much more hilarious.

[DoggyB22]

With the 2012 Camaro out sales should jump high again! Especially with the ZL1

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by thePill

When a product is new, the cost to produce the car is at its peak. This figures in the cost of parts, labor, marketing and in most cases delivery. Over the lifespan of a vehicle, prices begin to come down on parts, shifts are cut to meet real demand and advertising is done on the streets and not on the TV or magazines. The older the car is, the less it cost to produce it unless new hardware is added... The major reason Dodge and Ford are maximizing profits is because they are actually producing what the market is buying and do not have overflow in dealer lots. Ford produced 76,000 Mustangs last year and sold 73,000 and change, Dodge produced 45,000 and pretty much sold every single unit... In Chevrolet's first Camaro MY, they produced 129,000 Camaros and sold about 98,000, year two was just as bad and this year should be a little better. This results in unneeded parts cost, labor cost and delivery cost on cars that will eventually have to be sold, perhaps after the MY, with incentives or.. in the worst case scenario, 47,000 cars will sit on lots, comprised of 2010s, 2011s and 2012s.

But that has no direct correlation to profit margins. It relates to incentives, but GM is at least competitive if not lower than Ford & Dodge there.


Although, I must admit ... I may be taking the wrong approach on this one. Afterall, you made the claim. It is your responsibility to back it up. But not with opinions, not guesses, not general statements. Facts & numbers. Afterall, to make a definitive claim like Dodge is making more money per Challenger than GM on the Camaro, or Ford on the Mustang, you must surely have numbers that, right? Because if you don't have something that shows that Dodge makes, I don't know, say $2,217 per Challenger (on average) while GM makes $1,812 off of Camaros, and Ford makes $1,994 on Mustangs you can't justifiably say one way or the other which is more profitable, can you? Sure, you could guess or speculate but without numbers you wouldn't know would you?


So since you clearly aren't pulling this out of thin air, show me the article or press release where the profit per vehicle on the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are broken down. If its from a respectable source, I will have no choice but to believe it.

Or, if you did all the number crunching yourself, show me how much the OEMs sell each car for, as well as how much it costs for them to build each one, and what the incentives package is for each one sold (and your sources for all this). I'll double check your numbers.

[doc7000]

Why is the Pill so disconnected with reality?

It doesn't take a mathematician to be able to tell that the pony car market is currently larger then it was in 2005, back then with only the Msutang it was something like 160,000 units a year and we are well above that point as we are already at 157,000 units and we have 2 months left in this year. I expect that in the next two months we will add about 30,000+ units to this total for an est. of 190,000 units. This makes the pony car market some 30,000 units larger then it was in 2005 and not to mention that the total auto market was larger then. So the market share that the pony car segment makes up is much bigger then it was in 2005. I do not know why the pill expects the pony car segment to be twice as large now then it was in 2005 when the total market volume is down by 1/3 compared to 2005 and with that in mind the total pony car market should actually be at 107,000 units so its going to be this year almost double what it should be. This also is only based on the traditional 3 not including the Hyundai Genesis coupe which is a competitor in this market segment, if you include its total volume year to date and you really blow the 2005 numbers out of the water.

So I can not figure out what it is that the pill is getting on about, I don't even think that he knows what he is going on at.

It just seems that he is bitter because the Mustang isn't the sales leader in this market segment, so instead of just admitting it he just rather make stuff up out of thin air.

[stlrammer]

The Pontiac GTO and G8 were awesome cars. Both were manufactured in Australia at GM's Holden factory and imported to the States. Holden is still making the G8 today as the Holden GTS.

http://i1041.photobucket.com/albums/...alia201144.jpg

http://i1041.photobucket.com/albums/...alia201142.jpg

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by stlrammer

The Pontiac GTO and G8 were awesome cars. Both were manufactured in Australia at GM's Holden factory and imported to the States. Holden is still making the G8 today as the Holden GTS.

http://i1041.photobucket.com/albums/...alia201144.jpg

http://i1041.photobucket.com/albums/...alia201142.jpg

Holden produces the Commodore. What you posted is modified by HSV, Holden's performance arm.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

But that has no direct correlation to profit margins. It relates to incentives, but GM is at least competitive if not lower than Ford & Dodge there.


Although, I must admit ... I may be taking the wrong approach on this one. Afterall, you made the claim. It is your responsibility to back it up. But not with opinions, not guesses, not general statements. Facts & numbers. Afterall, to make a definitive claim like Dodge is making more money per Challenger than GM on the Camaro, or Ford on the Mustang, you must surely have numbers that, right? Because if you don't have something that shows that Dodge makes, I don't know, say $2,217 per Challenger (on average) while GM makes $1,812 off of Camaros, and Ford makes $1,994 on Mustangs you can't justifiably say one way or the other which is more profitable, can you? Sure, you could guess or speculate but without numbers you wouldn't know would you?


So since you clearly aren't pulling this out of thin air, show me the article or press release where the profit per vehicle on the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are broken down. If its from a respectable source, I will have no choice but to believe it.

Or, if you did all the number crunching yourself, show me how much the OEMs sell each car for, as well as how much it costs for them to build each one, and what the incentives package is for each one sold (and your sources for all this). I'll double check your numbers.

I have only heard what Camaro's profits were and those numbers are not confirmed. Since both Ford and GM averaged about $1100 per unit in 2009 and Dodge was in a close 3rd, I can only use what marketing has taught me and look at things I can plainly see. The formula can be as simple as this, take the total amount produced and subtract the amount sold and it will give you a good solid idea on how well internal projections are being met. The proof would be in the trends and numbers, profits of all three are kept close to the chest but I can guarantee that the Challenger cost less to make 5 years ago than the Camaro did in 3. That will overall mitigate profits longer because the product naturally will cost more to produce and take a higher sales volume and high unit price over a longer period of time to turn a real profit. If GM really made $8000 per Camaro in the first 2 years, most of that profit is actually swept back into the initial cost of the vehicle. Do you think that funding comes out of pocket when these guys lay down big money on factories, research, developement and basically anything else that involves the auto industry? No, manufacturers acquire funding for new products the same way dealers acquire new products from the manufacturer. Through loans, so... since the sales of this NEW model has been relatively low as far as new cars go, It would be a safe bet to say that the Camaro is still in the red. Do you know how long it took Ford to go green on the S197 even with twice as many sales? take a wild guess... this is why products are stretched out so long, to actually make some real money...

The market is growing smaller, the Mustang sales numbers are absolutely horrible right now.. I think everyone on this site would agree... So what does that make the other pony cars? Actually, the Mustang's sales were considered bad in 2008 when total sales were 94,000... Which is right where the Camaro has been since it came out... I am having a hard time understanding, when the Camaro sales 61,000, 98,000 and looks like 89,000 cars a year, for 3 of its first years... how does that make more profit when invoices are similar but production years were spread out in a 3-5 year period and affected by inflation? I want to understand this.... The numbers are not there and never were, are you saying that GM somehow discovered a way to avoid inflation, produce the 2010 Camaro for less than the first year Mustang and Challenger and somehow... somehow... paid for the loans in which R&D came from, produced a profit on a car that has been available for only half the time at the same price of competition? All the while, they are overproducing the product by 20%... I am no rocket surgeon but I can always ask Alice if this is feasible

here is a link to what we are talking about... www.commonsense.com

Just a joke, don't hit me with the ban hammer...

Originally Posted by doc7000

Why is the Pill so disconnected with reality?

It doesn't take a mathematician to be able to tell that the pony car market is currently larger then it was in 2005, back then with only the Msutang it was something like 160,000 units a year and we are well above that point as we are already at 157,000 units and we have 2 months left in this year. I expect that in the next two months we will add about 30,000+ units to this total for an est. of 190,000 units. This makes the pony car market some 30,000 units larger then it was in 2005 and not to mention that the total auto market was larger then.

First of all, I am connected, second.. I like this statement. The current cars are outselling the 2005 Mustang. The 2005 Mustang's production was pushed up to 190,000 to meet demand, 166,000 were sold in the US and the remaining cars were sold in Canada. If you eliminated the Mustang and Challenger altogether right now, those lost sales would not just stack on top of the Camaro. The Camaro side of Oshawa maximum capacity is 18,000 a month or 450-460 per day on 3 shifts. Currenty, Camaro Oshawa operates on 2 shifts and produce 20% more Camaros a year than what actually sell. There will never be another pony car that sells in those volumes single handed. Broading the market introduced new buyers more than strayed them away from the other product. How many 2005-2009 owners bought new Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers? Even if it were all of them, they are repeat buyers in the market.. good observation though...

[doc7000]

no the Pill you are far and away from reality..........

Firstly when a new product line is created yes they have sales goals and a business model is built around those sales goals. That is why the Porsche 911 can be produced without selling 40,000 of them a month are you still with me? try to keep up.

Yes the Camaro sales goals (which were stated when the economy was in good shape) was 100,000-150,000 units a year (how you are able to completely disconnect the current economic state with sales data is beyond rational thinking).

Secondly you are looking at total Camaro's produced for global consumption to how many were sold in the US only. You can actually point out that Ford has sold Mustangs out side of the US however fail to come to this conclusion about the Camaro (once more how you manage to do this).

You state the obvious and some how think that this makes you god or smarter then other people. yes if you can make a vehicle for less money then yes your profits will be higher and you can make more money selling fewer of them. However if you can instead of making it for less money figure out how to charge people more money for that car then you also increase profits.

Secondly when it comes to a market segment just adding more cars to that market segment doesn't mean you are going to grow that market segment by the sales of the new vehicles. You actually have cross shop in a market segment and while you may grow the market segment you are also taking sales from other vehicles in that market segment. You have to look at the total sales of that market segment to look at the health of that market segment. Based on the total sales of that market segment (in the US only) it was 160,000 units in 2005 and is more then that now. Clearly in a down economy this market segment is one that has grown however this market segment has grown at the cost of other market segments.

So its simple math, this market in 2005 was 160,000 units (in the US alone) and is now larger then that. The total US market was something like 17,000,000 in 2005 and has shrunk from that year, are you still keeping up.

The fact that this market segment isn't at 500,000 units a year or near what it was in the late 1960s becomes a moot point. Reason being is current trends have this market segment growing when you look at it from a year to year basis coming from the last 3 model years.

Are you still keeping up? because I have repeated myself a bit in this post so that you can comprehend what is being stated.

In a down market a market segment should decline, so the simple fact that this segment has not shrunk in a down market is a sign of health. In other words if this market was as healthy as it was in 2005 then this would indicate all things being equal that the Camaro would be selling at a rate of about 12,000 units a month and the Mustang at about 9,000 units a month. That would put the Camaro at 144,000 units a year and the Mustang at about 108,000 units a year.

So to sum things up you are making some huge mistakes in your logic.

1. You assume that no external factors can impact this market segment (a down economy)
2. You assume that there is no cross shop (that with the Camaro and Challenger introduction you won't have potential Mustang buyers looking at the other options)
3. You assume that everyone here is just like you except instead of liking Ford and the Mustang we like Chevy and the Camaro (far from the truth).

To conclude this I have figured that you are so biased and this hate for Chevy is so great that you just can't stand the fact that the Camaro is selling better then the Mustang. You instead would rather envision a dooms day the sky is falling scenario where because the Mustang isn't number 1 in sales then there is no way that this market segment can survive.

At the end of the day consider this, the accountants at GM and Ford while they may be able to ruin a car company are really good with numbers. Believe me if this where remotely the case then there would be no new Camaro or Mustang in the works but there is. The pony car market is strong and thriving in the face of a bad economy and thriving mostly on the US market. Even better is the prospects of pursuing sales outside of North America to even further increase the sales potential of this market segment (though this will actually be at the cost of other vehicles in those respective markets).

And believe me in the California market the Camaro is bringing tons of interest from non Camaro (actually non domestic car) people.

[b4z]

The Pill likes to talk about the "20% overproduction" but has forgotten that the Camaro is also sold in other parts of the World.

[thePill]

Yes, I'm not banned!!!

If it wasn't for the Camaro and Challenger, the Mustang's sales would have continued to fall after the all time low in 2009. The new cars brought around a new market, that being muscle cars and not sports coupes or pony cars, this attracted attention and I was hoping that it would have boosted sales and not seen a 2-4% decrease in the Camaro and Mustang.

I completely blame this on the economy and the timing in which the Camaro was released, the total sales GM post every month is total worldwide Camaro sales, they are not broken down by country as they were a decade ago. What you see it what you get. The is obviously more room for the Camaro to make money in the future, but assuming that GM is making more money, with less sales and less time is silly. If the car was released in 2006, things would be different but.. this is the way it is... Ford flooded the market from 2005-2008 with over 500,000 Mustangs, flooded so badly that those sales actually helped the Mustang become a poor seller, along with the economy and competition. The damage was already done it that segment, anything that came after was pure profit after steps were taken to reduce production waste... limit advertising and limited production come to mind.

Now, there are 3 different models flooding the market, as if 2009 was another 2005 and the process began all over again.. it shows in the trend that sales are falling similar to what the pony car did in 2005, but this time, it isn't just one factory, one manufacturer taking a loss... The losses are spread across 3 different companies and with the numbers that they are producing individually, are not enough to sustain 2 shifts (let alone 3). The class of car may be doing just as well but remember, none of these cars are sharing a profit or production cost. If it was 200,000 pony cars from one company then that is great, if it is split in 3... then the numbers become more alarming as individuals and steps must be taken to maximize profits when demand is down slightly and competition is eating at the market.

Sales will continue to drop as more used cars are available and as I said before, there are still 47,000 brand new Camaro's sitting on dealership lots across the world. If this doesn't sound like a bad business decision, I can see why the American auto industry went bankrupt a few years ago... Look at 4th Gen production and sales vs. 5th Gen production and sales (Camaro only) and you will see that the numbers are almost identical at this point, the 5th Gen is behind in sales but has similar production rates.

I agree that the Camaro has brought a lot of interest to the market, but interest doesn't pay the bills... sales and profit do....

[v6sonoma]

Originally Posted by thePill

Yes, I'm not banned!!!

If it wasn't for the Camaro and Challenger, the Mustang's sales would have continued to fall after the all time low in 2009. The new cars brought around a new market, that being muscle cars and not sports coupes or pony cars, this attracted attention and I was hoping that it would have boosted sales and not seen a 2-4% decrease in the Camaro and Mustang.

I completely blame this on the economy and the timing in which the Camaro was released, the total sales GM post every month is total worldwide Camaro sales, they are not broken down by country as they were a decade ago. What you see it what you get. The is obviously more room for the Camaro to make money in the future, but assuming that GM is making more money, with less sales and less time is silly. If the car was released in 2006, things would be different but.. this is the way it is... Ford flooded the market from 2005-2008 with over 500,000 Mustangs, flooded so badly that those sales actually helped the Mustang become a poor seller, along with the economy and competition. The damage was already done it that segment, anything that came after was pure profit after steps were taken to reduce production waste... limit advertising and limited production come to mind.

Now, there are 3 different models flooding the market, as if 2009 was another 2005 and the process began all over again.. it shows in the trend that sales are falling similar to what the pony car did in 2005, but this time, it isn't just one factory, one manufacturer taking a loss... The losses are spread across 3 different companies and with the numbers that they are producing individually, are not enough to sustain 2 shifts (let alone 3). The class of car may be doing just as well but remember, none of these cars are sharing a profit or production cost. If it was 200,000 pony cars from one company then that is great, if it is split in 3... then the numbers become more alarming as individuals and steps must be taken to maximize profits when demand is down slightly and competition is eating at the market.

Sales will continue to drop as more used cars are available and as I said before, there are still 47,000 brand new Camaro's sitting on dealership lots across the world. If this doesn't sound like a bad business decision, I can see why the American auto industry went bankrupt a few years ago... Look at 4th Gen production and sales vs. 5th Gen production and sales (Camaro only) and you will see that the numbers are almost identical at this point, the 5th Gen is behind in sales but has similar production rates.

I agree that the Camaro has brought a lot of interest to the market, but interest doesn't pay the bills... sales and profit do....

The Camaro of today is more profitable then the one of yesteryear. The last generation was built in a plant that EXCLUSIVELY built Camaro's and Firebirds. This time around it is built in a flex plant that can switch lines to build which ever vehicle is selling more. The plant currently builds the Camaro, the Impala, the Equinox, and the Regal. It's much more efficiant and cost effective. Also the design of the cars and their packages make more financial sense. They limit the number of options and put them together as packages. Which creates less issues with complexity during the build process. Also as options drop below certain take rates they will be changed out, Aqua blue while a nice color just didn't get a lot of takers so rather then have very expensive paint go bad they discontinued the color to save on costs. They new what they needed to sell in order to make money on this car. The fact that they have put out the convertible and now the ZL1 is proof that it is a platform worth investing in. A negative ROI would mean they would spend their limited resources on other platforms. I don't think they could have ever dreamed of it to be the success that it is, but they are going to run with it and continue to make it better. #'s sold isn't everything. The Challenger has never been close to the top seller but it's numbers have always been going up. The mustang is the one the might have issues. Since it's clear that Ford didn't anticipate it's sales to be so impacted by it's rivals. The 5.0 was rushed in mainly to combat it. The engines probably wouldn't have been introduced till 2012 or why else would they do it 1 year after introduction. At any rate they all are still selling and I don't see that stopping any time soon. And that's a good thing.

[FirstandFifthGen]

For the hell of it (and because he bleeds almighty Oval blue), some more good news from AutoWorld, for the Ford loving Pill:

Focus wasn’t the only culprit in Ford’s poor car-sales results. The Taurus fullsize sedan turned in a dreadful performance, with deliveries plummeting 38.3% to 4,305 units.
Erich Merkle, Ford’s newly appointed U.S. sales analyst, says the fullsize sedan segment is in decline as consumers move toward smaller cars.

Ford Taurus sales in September off 38.3% vs. year-ago to 4,305.
Merkle says the Taurus should receive a boost following the recent discontinuation of the Crown Victoria fullsize sedan, although that model almost entirely was relegated to fleet sales.
“We’ve stopped production of Crown Victoria and we’re going to focus on the Taurus as our large car going forward,” he says.
Crown Victoria sales in September were up 53.5% vs. year-ago to 3,013.
Other poor-performing cars were the Fusion Hybrid and Mustang, which posted declines of 67.0% and 12.3%, respectively.

[danl]

Originally Posted by thePill

I have only heard what Camaro's profits were and those numbers are not confirmed. Since both Ford and GM averaged about $1100 per unit in 2009 and Dodge was in a close 3rd, I can only use what marketing has taught me and look at things I can plainly see. The formula can be as simple as this, take the total amount produced and subtract the amount sold and it will give you a good solid idea on how well internal projections are being met. The proof would be in the trends and numbers, profits of all three are kept close to the chest but I can guarantee that the Challenger cost less to make 5 years ago than the Camaro did in 3. That will overall mitigate profits longer because the product naturally will cost more to produce and take a higher sales volume and high unit price over a longer period of time to turn a real profit. If GM really made $8000 per Camaro in the first 2 years, most of that profit is actually swept back into the initial cost of the vehicle. Do you think that funding comes out of pocket when these guys lay down big money on factories, research, developement and basically anything else that involves the auto industry? No, manufacturers acquire funding for new products the same way dealers acquire new products from the manufacturer. Through loans, so... since the sales of this NEW model has been relatively low as far as new cars go, It would be a safe bet to say that the Camaro is still in the red. Do you know how long it took Ford to go green on the S197 even with twice as many sales? take a wild guess... this is why products are stretched out so long, to actually make some real money...

The market is growing smaller, the Mustang sales numbers are absolutely horrible right now.. I think everyone on this site would agree... So what does that make the other pony cars? Actually, the Mustang's sales were considered bad in 2008 when total sales were 94,000... Which is right where the Camaro has been since it came out... I am having a hard time understanding, when the Camaro sales 61,000, 98,000 and looks like 89,000 cars a year, for 3 of its first years... how does that make more profit when invoices are similar but production years were spread out in a 3-5 year period and affected by inflation? I want to understand this.... The numbers are not there and never were, are you saying that GM somehow discovered a way to avoid inflation, produce the 2010 Camaro for less than the first year Mustang and Challenger and somehow... somehow... paid for the loans in which R&D came from, produced a profit on a car that has been available for only half the time at the same price of competition? All the while, they are overproducing the product by 20%... I am no rocket surgeon but I can always ask Alice if this is feasible

here is a link to what we are talking about... www.commonsense.com

Just a joke, don't hit me with the ban hammer...

First of all, I am connected, second.. I like this statement. The current cars are outselling the 2005 Mustang. The 2005 Mustang's production was pushed up to 190,000 to meet demand, 166,000 were sold in the US and the remaining cars were sold in Canada. If you eliminated the Mustang and Challenger altogether right now, those lost sales would not just stack on top of the Camaro. The Camaro side of Oshawa maximum capacity is 18,000 a month or 450-460 per day on 3 shifts. Currenty, Camaro Oshawa operates on 2 shifts and produce 20% more Camaros a year than what actually sell. There will never be another pony car that sells in those volumes single handed. Broading the market introduced new buyers more than strayed them away from the other product. How many 2005-2009 owners bought new Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers? Even if it were all of them, they are repeat buyers in the market.. good observation though...

Hey Pill: you

If Camaro is, was still in the RED....Then how did GM pay back its government loan years ahead of time?
They even admitted, it was the new Camaro that pulled GM thru the hard times and allowed them to pay off the loan early!
I think, you, THE PILL, should take your mustang and yourself and go away. I'll take my Camaro over a mustang any day, in any kind of economy....the Camaro is a work of art, you just cant fix the ugly stang!