[HogsFan75]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Show me. I've seen arguments that the Camaro offers BMW level driving experience for roughly $2k more than a comparably equipped Mustang.

Going upscale framed in the elimination of the low buck LS trim and the RS equipment now standard in the SS. Positioned deliberately higher than the other domestics but nowhere near the Germans

Start here and work backwards.
There have been tons of posts about it in the monthly sales figures threads.

Here is June and July for example.
http://www.camaro6.com/forums/search...rchid=35717940

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/search...rchid=35717974

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by HogsFan75

Start here and work backwards.
There have been tons of posts about it in the monthly sales figures threads.

Here is June and July for example.
http://www.camaro6.com/forums/search...rchid=35717940

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/search...rchid=35717974

Your links didn't work but I'll take your word that you found some. I have seen endless post by guys claiming Chevy has priced itself out of the market by positioning price on par with BMW. That is flatly false.

Chevy has moved the Camaro up scale relative to the other domestics but only marginally when comparing comparable equipped cars. ~$2k for what is widely praised as a much better car. It's the dropping of lower trims and option flexibility that has impacted the bottom end of sales. That was Chevy's decision and no one here needs to justify it.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by sstoronto

For what it's worth, I'm not sold on the "it's not different enough from the 5th Gen" arguement.
Look at the Porsche 911, or the VW Golf. I can barely tell a new Golf from one 2 generations ago....

With that argument, the Challenger should never have beat the 6gen, in sales as the 15-up version is not that much different from the 08-14 car, from a casual glance.

I think it's $ price and awareness of the fact that it's a new/revised car.

They need to tout the LT1, the chassis and the performance IN THEIR ADS (that are lacking).

It won't solve everything, but some good ol' advertising would be a start......I have yet to see a TV ad.

I would say that cars like the 911 and even Challenger have a "look" to them. Its apart of their identity. Looking almost exactly the same as older versions of themselves is a selling point for them. For Camaro it seems to be a detriment.

Camaro has never really had a set design DNA. It's always seemed to have made substantial design changes from gen to gen. Perhaps this change up is what people expect from Camaro now. So a subtle evolutionary change, like the one seen from gen 5 to gen 6, can lead to the customer base not realizing this is more than just an MCE.

[Cldgin2]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

I would say that cars like the 911 and even Challenger have a "look" to them. Its apart of their identity. Looking almost exactly the same as older versions of themselves is a selling point for them. For Camaro it seems to be a detriment.

Camaro has never really had a set design DNA.

Chevy designers already said as much, this is where they are going and compared the look of the car to Porsche in the subtle changes year after year dept. People need to get used to this. Its where Chevy is going with Camaro.

[mr02Z/28]

I understand the "moving upscale" argument but what happens when you produce a multitude of cars in a mass produced fashion and keep on producing them but the sales keep falling ??? does that $2,000-$3,000 they make a profit on each car make up for the thousands that still sit on dealer lots ??? In my business Negative numbers don't bode well ...

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Who said anything about tech? And how are they charging a premium for it?

If by tech you mean disc brakes, airbags, A/C that actually works, transmissions with more than 3 gears, side impact protection, body panels that don't start rusting almost immediately, etc. then yea, tech.

The numbers don't lie. Relatively speaking, for what you get, cars are no more expensive than they've ever been.

Cheaper, actually.

I don't understand how you get there. Your own numbers, which you said don't lie prove that a 2017 Camaro takes more of your income to buy that a 69 Camaro did in 1969....

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Camaro has never really had a set design DNA. It's always seemed to have made substantial design changes from gen to gen. Perhaps this change up is what people expect from Camaro now. So a subtle evolutionary change, like the one seen from gen 5 to gen 6, can lead to the customer base not realizing this is more than just an MCE.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

The impression that cars cost way more today is basically false.

1969 Camaro - Average base price was about $2,900... and that was with NO options. No seat belts, no radio, no A/C, no nothing. So a real car you'd actually want was about $3,100. 1969 median household income was $7,330 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a Camaro was around 42% of your yearly income.

And a 1969 Camaro... despite looking really cool... was, by today's standards, a total piece of crap. If it hadn't already rusted away, they were generally worn out and worthless at 100,000 miles.

2017 Camaro - Base price for a 2LT is $31,400. And that's a very nice car with lots of goodies that will last almost indefinitely if well maintained. 2015 median household income was $53,657 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a 2017 Camaro is 58% of your yearly income... 16% more than in 1969... but it is infinitely better in every way than a 1969 Camaro.

Yes, you can option one up to be really expensive, but you don't need to. You could option up a '69 pretty good, too, so it's the same thing.

Your example has not factored in what the disposable income was in '69 compared to now. Tax rates, service fees, insurance, gas and cost of living was nothing like it is today so the "burden" of having debt is higher today than it has ever been.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

The impression that cars cost way more today is basically false.

1969 Camaro - Average base price was about $2,900... and that was with NO options. No seat belts, no radio, no A/C, no nothing. So a real car you'd actually want was about $3,100. 1969 median household income was $7,330 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a Camaro was around 42% of your yearly income.

And a 1969 Camaro... despite looking really cool... was, by today's standards, a total piece of crap. If it hadn't already rusted away, they were generally worn out and worthless at 100,000 miles.

2017 Camaro - Base price for a 2LT is $31,400. And that's a very nice car with lots of goodies that will last almost indefinitely if well maintained. 2015 median household income was $53,657 (U.S. Census Bureau). So a 2017 Camaro is 58% of your yearly income... 16% more than in 1969... but it is infinitely better in every way than a 1969 Camaro.

Yes, you can option one up to be really expensive, but you don't need to. You could option up a '69 pretty good, too, so it's the same thing.

You need to read this. Your numbers don't tell the real story. I know from living through all those years that buying a nice car back then was much easier for a lot more people than it is now. It's out of hand. If you can't see that then you have to be too young to have lived it or you are just very naive, and if you think a 2017 Camaro will last forever being used as a daily driver just by maintaining it, you are naive.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...-middle-class/

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by motorhead

You need to read this. Your numbers don't tell the real story. I know from living through all those years that buying a nice car back then was much easier for a lot more people than it is now. It's out of hand. If you can't see that then you have to be too young to have lived it or you are just very naive, and if you think a 2017 Camaro will last for ever being used as a daily driver just by maintaining it, you are naive. Car are made more disposable today then ever before.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...-middle-class/

Your comment about cars being more disposable doesn't reflect reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...-too/30821191/

Pretty much every statistic I can find shows that cars are lasting longer, are being better built, and the cost of which has been holding to inflation for the make-model for Camaro at least... yet the features and performance has drastically increased compared to what was available back in the 4,3,2,and 1st generation.

What I think you mean is that American culture has become addicted to a disposable economy. They may get rid of their car for another, but that car is still on the road under a new owner. And it stays on the road on avg significantly longer than cars from back in the day.

So if car prices have been keeping up with inflation (and at least with the camaro it basically has compared to 2001), then the real impact to disposable income would be other things like housing, family costs etc.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by motorhead

You need to read this. Your numbers don't tell the real story. I know from living through all those years that buying a nice car back then was much easier for a lot more people than it is now. It's out of hand. If you can't see that then you have to be too young to have lived it or you are just very naive, and if you think a 2017 Camaro will last for ever being used as a daily driver just by maintaining it, you are naive. Car are made more disposable today then ever before.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...-middle-class/

I plan to drive this SS daily for eight years to make it economical. My ownership history since 2002 has been to run them minimum 8 years so the economics work.

Moving to this SS, I sold a 2004 GTO that I daily drove for 10.5 years/110k miles. The engine was never touched. Brake calipers, radiator, alternator, starter, etc. were all original. No electrical failures. It needed tires, brakes pads, clutch, complete suspension rebuild, drivers power window motor and door lock.

My wife's current Honda is 6 years old with 86k miles. Only brake pads and tires. Her car before that was 8 years, 150k miles with similar general wear items and maintenance (all done by me).

None of these cars had body rust either.

I justify buying something I really like by averaging the cost out. Resale value ends up being 25-30% of the original purchase price.

Bottom line - Modern cars last twice as long, with far fewer problems, than 20 years ago.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I plan to drive this SS daily for eight years to make it economical. My ownership history since 2002 has been to run them minimum 8 years so the economics work.

Moving to this SS, I sold a 2004 GTO that I daily drove for 10.5 years/110k miles. The engine was never touched. Brake calipers, radiator, alternator, starter, etc. were all original. No electrical failures. It needed tires, brakes pads, clutch, complete suspension rebuild, drivers power window motor and door lock.

My wife's current Honda is 6 years old with 86k miles. Only brake pads and tires. Her car before that was 8 years, 150k miles with similar general wear items and maintenance (all done by me).

None of these cars had body rust either.

I justify buying something I really like by averaging the cost out. Resale value ends up being 25-30% of the original purchase price.

Bottom line - Modern cars last twice as long, with far fewer problems, than 20 years ago.

My dad ran cars for 20 years and more. I have cars right now that are over 40 years old. They will run just as long as anything now. And currenty are still running. It doesn't matter if they do. Lasting a few more years doesn't make up for how much a new car cost compared to incomes that have been flat since 1970. And you you think new cars don't rust, just look at ford superduties in the 6 year old range with wheel wells, tail gates and bed supports rusting out or chevy trucks with rocker panels and cab corners. Media, survey companies and manufacturers have the blinders pulled on most people. Not me.

[JAZ]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

...
Camaro has never really had a set design DNA. It's always seemed to have made substantial design changes from gen to gen. Perhaps this change up is what people expect from Camaro now. So a subtle evolutionary change, like the one seen from gen 5 to gen 6, can lead to the customer base not realizing this is more than just an MCE.

Originally Posted by Posaune

Originally Posted by Cldgin2

Chevy designers already said as much, this is where they are going and compared the look of the car to Porsche in the subtle changes year after year dept. People need to get used to this. Its where Chevy is going with Camaro.

Subtle changes work for Porsche because it has a classic style that is well recognized. The Camaro does not have that. It seems to be struggling every generation to find a new Camaro look. It always ends up with a new collection of parts that don't say "classic styling". It always just says "Look at me, I'm really fast but not a Corvette of a Cadillac."

[90503]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I plan to drive this SS daily for eight years to make it economical. My ownership history since 2002 has been to run them minimum 8 years so the economics work.

Moving to this SS, I sold a 2004 GTO that I daily drove for 10.5 years/110k miles. The engine was never touched. Brake calipers, radiator, alternator, starter, etc. were all original. No electrical failures. It needed tires, brakes pads, clutch, complete suspension rebuild, drivers power window motor and door lock.

My wife's current Honda is 6 years old with 86k miles. Only brake pads and tires. Her car before that was 8 years, 150k miles with similar general wear items and maintenance (all done by me).

None of these cars had body rust either.

I justify buying something I really like by averaging the cost out. Resale value ends up being 25-30% of the original purchase price.

Bottom line - Modern cars last twice as long, with far fewer problems, than 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by motorhead

My dad ran cars for 20 years and more. I have cars right now that are over 40 years old. They will run just as long as anything now. And currenty are still running. It doesn't matter if they do. Lasting a few more years doesn't make up for how much a new car cost compared to incomes that have been flat since 1970. And you you think new cars don't rust, just look at ford superduties in the 6 year old range with wheel wells, tail gates and bed supports rusting out or chevy trucks with rocker panels and cab corners. Media, survey companies and manufacturers have the blinders pulled on most people. Not me.

I think both you guys make valid arguments. I see it as a mixed bag.

I believe newer cars are better made, and conceivably "last longer", but with a huge asterisk. Once newer cars do need some moderate to serious maintenance, the cost of newer complex electronic, air bags and computer type items that older cars never had, soon bring these modern cars to a quick end.

The expense needed for repairs, and cost of even minor accident repairs, sends many to the scrap yard way sooner than the old jalopies that could be fixed with bailing wire and duct tape and a hammer. (so to speak). The value of what could be a car in decent shape easily falls well below what it is worth due to high cost of components and very minor damage, rendering them "worthless" very quickly.

Newer cars are great, much more reliable, and trouble free until they aren't. What kills new cars today, wasn't the case in the old days. So it could be argued longevity is a "tie". Plus leasing and "non-ownership" of new cars is much more prevalent now as the full purchase price is higher and more prohibitive requiring expensive, long-term financing (which means some may only keep their cars, not having any other alternative, other than a trade-in/up to a more expensive financing deal)....

...Just my random $.02 thoughts...