February 2013 Camaro Sales and Production Figures (and vs. Mustang & Challenger)

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by ford727

You don't have to agree, but, to me the Mustang is more fun to drive. It is no where ride refined as Camaro with IRS, 600 additional pounds, and 112" whee;base. I don't want it to be.

There's ~ 250lb difference between the two cars. That's the equivalent of having your sister ride shotgun.

Sure you can strip out the interior and shave some weight here and there, but you can do that to ANY car. Perhaps you would be better suited in a Miata? IRS, lightweight, and short wheelbase!

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

There's ~ 250lb difference between the two cars. That's the equivalent of having your sister ride shotgun.

Sure you can strip out the interior and shave some weight here and there, but you can do that to ANY car. Perhaps you would be better suited in a Miata? IRS, lightweight, and short wheelbase!

I have been debating the merits of getting a V-6 Camaro and turning it into a track car (as opposed to a 1LE Camaro).

[ford727]

Weight: I refer to my 07 GT only. Factory spec is 3356#. The MSO lists 3353# at the rail head in Flat Rock, MI. The car is premium GT-leather-satellite-pro sound etc. Shed 40# substituting the 4 motor air bag equipped driver seat with Procar fixed back drifter seat-plasric shell. Shed 20# with single section 4.0" dia alum drive shaft. Shed 17# with Fidanza alum flywheel & Centerforce dual friction. Shed weight with smaller harmonic balancer in undrive pulley set, removed charge motion control valves and actuator motor, Steeda cold-air, rear controls arms, alum radiator etc. Remove the spare tire and jack and hardware, the car is under 3250# and not stripped down, I want the passenger side airbag and back seats, the AC and all the amenities. I believe the 426HP SS 6 speed manual is about 3850#-dry.
That is where the 600# is referenced. The newer GTs are indeed heavier than 2007, and by 300#.
In a stock weight comparo 07GT to 2013SS the is a 500# gap. Obviously, I like cars and I like to drive. The mods took place over six years of ownership. You can understand my reference to "hot rod" platform. For every car mine is faster than there is at least one other faster than mine. So I drive carefully, I have too much invested to wreck the thing.

[ford727]

Thanks for the sales numbers on the 2007-2009 S197. First off I enjoy this site, everyone is educated and up on cars. Second you are right doc7000, the numbers were in decline. There is a story behind that, the US started shedding jobs by the millions in 2008 and 2009 and housing prices crashed and business bankruptcies were high, GM being one. I think that impacted cars sales more than appeal of the car.
At some point there is saturation. Everyone eligible to have one has one. Ford accurately identified a demographic they aimed their modern-retro Mustang at in 2005. Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, in his 2006 announcement of the Camaro return to production, clearly referenced the S197 success as the factor. Detroit is all about numbers. They had to revive the Camaro. History repeated, is that not the same way it happened in th 60s? SuperBowl Feb 2005, the Steve McQueen Mustang field of dreams commercial was all it took. GM and Dodge were coming back.

Well how many babyboomers still want a steel body, long hood, short rear deck, 2 door, V8, solid rear axle, pony car in 2014 and 2015 and 201?. Ten years of modern retro is enough. Ford is going on to something more 370Z like, IRS, 4Cyl, ecoBoost, Digital screen, smaller, lighter and Yuk! I might not like it, but I have crossed the 60 year old mile post and it ain't about me or guys like me anymore.
Regardless, the pony car I have is fun to drive. I truly believe the Camaro and Challenger guys feel the same. However Camaro and Challenger can ride the retro wave longer because those platforms are a little different from a Mustang. Give Ford credit for this, S197 is nice balance, they did not cheat you on modern nor did they cheat on retro.

[ORANGE U NV]

[/B]

Originally Posted by ford727

I am not following your 'sales numbers in decline' statement.
I believe the 2005 and 2006 Mustang sales averaged 160,000 units per year, I am looking for backup on that.
The Mustang numbers I can find online for 2002 are 142,404 units, for 2003 are 155,370 units, and for 2004 are 141,907 units.

GM killed Camaro/Firebird in 2002. Camaro returns seven years later (Pontiac terminated).
I was a high school kid in the 60s that could not afford any car. Now I can afford em' all.
I have driven the Challenger, ridden in the Camaro. They are great cars, but different from the S197 Mustang. It is to me, the 107wb, solid rear axle, and smaller package "hot rod' road feel. It seems you are saying something like that talking about the early history of these cars.

I don"t see Mustang as a sports car, to me they are hot rod platforms. The S197s are the best handling mustangs of the 48 year history.
Back to Camaro Challenger, they are not Pony cars by your definition. They are sedan based. The Camaro is an AUS-Holden Pontiac G8 reduced by two doors, two wheel base inches, substituting the 378HP pontiac engine with the Corvette LS3 (I think) engine, driving a Tremec 6061 trans. That is a great car, I find no flaws in that package nor do 300,000+ buyers.
The Challenger at 116" wb 4100# has a distinctive sedan feel. I have put 160000 miles on two Crown Vics nice riding cars, but sedans! You don't have to agree, but, to me the Mustang is more fun to drive. It is no where ride refined as Camaro with IRS, 600 additional pounds, and 112" whee;base. I don't want it to be.

Wasn't the Ford Fox body platform that the started in 1979 and lasted for decades...... a shorten version of the Ford Fairmont? They even shared the same dash and windshield. :faint2:

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by ford727

Thanks for the sales numbers on the 2007-2009 S197. First off I enjoy this site, everyone is educated and up on cars. Second you are right doc7000, the numbers were in decline. There is a story behind that, the US started shedding jobs by the millions in 2008 and 2009 and housing prices crashed and business bankruptcies were high, GM being one. I think that impacted cars sales more than appeal of the car.
At some point there is saturation. Everyone eligible to have one has one. Ford accurately identified a demographic they aimed their modern-retro Mustang at in 2005. Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, in his 2006 announcement of the Camaro return to production, clearly referenced the S197 success as the factor. Detroit is all about numbers. They had to revive the Camaro. History repeated, is that not the same way it happened in th 60s? SuperBowl Feb 2005, the Steve McQueen Mustang field of dreams commercial was all it took. GM and Dodge were coming back.

Well how many babyboomers still want a steel body, long hood, short rear deck, 2 door, V8, solid rear axle, pony car in 2014 and 2015 and 201?. Ten years of modern retro is enough. Ford is going on to something more 370Z like, IRS, 4Cyl, ecoBoost, Digital screen, smaller, lighter and Yuk! I might not like it, but I have crossed the 60 year old mile post and it ain't about me or guys like me anymore.
Regardless, the pony car I have is fun to drive. I truly believe the Camaro and Challenger guys feel the same. However Camaro and Challenger can ride the retro wave longer because those platforms are a little different from a Mustang. Give Ford credit for this, S197 is nice balance, they did not cheat you on modern nor did they cheat on retro.

If sales only started to decline in 2008 then I would agree that it was mostly the cause of the economy and the credit market locking up. However sales were in decline even before that sales point, the market has more then recovered from that though with two other players in it.

Also there is still a market for a long hood and short deck, it is just that a solid rear axle can no longer cut it (no longer competitive).

[ford727]

Probably right. If the Camaro had a chevy 10 bolt rear axle with a 3.73:1 ring gear I think it would be awesome.

[ford727]

Every vehicle in NASCAR runs a Ford 9" rear axle-by rule. How about a Camaro with Ford 9" and a 3.90:1 ring gear. Would that cut it?

[Forty5th]

Originally Posted by ford727

Weight: I refer to my 07 GT only....
For every car mine is faster than there is at least one other faster than mine. So I drive carefully, I have too much invested to wreck the thing.

Your yellow orange GT looks sharp! Nice ride...

[ford727]

I think these are two of the cars that are faster than mine.

[daytripper]

I have a '12 SS and a '13 Shelby GT500. The Shelby w/live axle actually feels better somehow. More nimble. I also dont worry about breaking something when launching ,inspite of the extra 236HP.
I love my Camaro,I've had 4. But people knocking the live axle should try one. You would be pleasantly surprized. I wish my Camaro had a 9".

[MikeSVX]

Originally Posted by ford727

I am not following your 'sales numbers in decline' statement.
I believe the 2005 and 2006 Mustang sales averaged 160,000 units per year, I am looking for backup on that.
The Mustang numbers I can find online for 2002 are 142,404 units, for 2003 are 155,370 units, and for 2004 are 141,907 units.

GM killed Camaro/Firebird in 2002. Camaro returns seven years later (Pontiac terminated).
I was a high school kid in the 60s that could not afford any car. Now I can afford em' all.
I have driven the Challenger, ridden in the Camaro. They are great cars, but different from the S197 Mustang. It is to me, the 107wb, solid rear axle, and smaller package "hot rod' road feel. It seems you are saying something like that talking about the early history of these cars.

I don"t see Mustang as a sports car, to me they are hot rod platforms. The S197s are the best handling mustangs of the 48 year history.
Back to Camaro Challenger, they are not Pony cars by your definition. They are sedan based. The Camaro is an AUS-Holden Pontiac G8 reduced by two doors, two wheel base inches, substituting the 378HP pontiac engine with the Corvette LS3 (I think) engine, driving a Tremec 6061 trans. That is a great car, I find no flaws in that package nor do 300,000+ buyers.
The Challenger at 116" wb 4100# has a distinctive sedan feel. I have put 160000 miles on two Crown Vics nice riding cars, but sedans! You don't have to agree, but, to me the Mustang is more fun to drive. It is no where ride refined as Camaro with IRS, 600 additional pounds, and 112" whee;base. I don't want it to be.

The original 60's Mustangs were based on the Ford Falcon chassis. How is that any different then what GM and Dodge are doing now. I agree that they are large cars. If compared to the original pony cars, even the Mustang is huge and heavy. Safety standards and all the gadgets of modern cars has caused the cars to swell in both size and weight.(the swelling of the American butts that have to fit in them hasn't helped either). Yes the mustang was the original pony car, but it wasn't the only one. Once again, for the first time since 2002 it isn't the only one.

[FastFord]

Originally Posted by doc7000

No one said sports car, the Mustang when created was a pony car creating that segment and a pony car was a small, inexpensive, and sporty car.

2007: 158,180
2008: 108,767
2009: 46,420

Where are you getting these numbers from? Wikipedia has footnoted references being the sales numbers as follows:

2005:160,975
2006:166,530
2007:134,626
2008:91,251
2009:66,623
2010:73,716
2011:70,438
2012 82,995

I didn't thing Mustang sales have ever fallen below 60,000 annually.

[SSinisterLS3]

This is what makes this car bad. It's its own worst enemy. Way too common. I am looking out my window now, and see two in the street. Mines in the drive. JEEZE! It's stupid. I'm considering getting rid of mine. Many things led up to this.