Re: OT: And we thought the new Z06 was a Bad Ass.
"Michael Johnson, PE" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" <email@example.com> wrote in
>>>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>>>That is a nice car but why is GM putting all its performance eggs
>>>>>into the Corvette basket? Haven't they gone to school on the
>>>>>sales of the new Mustang and see there is a market for an
>>>>> At least Ford is giving the masses a nice affordable Mustang
>>>>>offering cars like the GT. While it is nice, that car is really
>>>>>the last thing GM should be spending their apparently limited
>>>>Good questions, Michael. But, remember, they do have the GTO, and
>>>>don't be surprised if you see a new Camaro protoype hit the auto
>>>>show circuit within a year. Seems Mustang's hot sales numbers are
>>>>powering a Camaro revival.
>>>I will believe that they are reviving the Camaro when I see them
>>>on the showroom floor. IMO, GM's management has done nothing to
>>>me in the last 5-10 years aside from the Corvette. The GTO isn't
>>>to survive for much longer and it was really a poorly executed
>>>operation. Think about it, who but GM would take an aging,
>>>Australian, right-hand drive chassis, convert it left hand drive
>>>and style it like
>>>FWD POS Grand Am and pawn it off as a GTO? The car had decent
>>>performance but so do the LS1 F-bodies. Didn't they learn a
>>>lesson? For what they blew on the GTO they could have freshened up
>>>the old F-body and sold a decent, affordable pony car for a few
>>>more years. I really don't have much hope for GM's future if what
>>>they have done recently is their best effort.
>> I dont see what the RH v LH drive has to do with it, or the fact
>> that the design is "aging".
> Converting a right hand drive car to left hand drive is no small
> feat. Especially for a low production model. IMO, it just an
> indication of GM's sad state of affairs that they had to go to this
> extreme to get a RWD V-8 car to the showroom floor.
All in all, I'm sure it was ultimately less expensive to do that than
to come up with an entirely new car, which would've been the only
>> The Aussies have never dropped interest in muscle cars but their
>> needs and tastes are different than ours.
> I bet their tastes aren't to far off ours. They love muscle cars as
> do many here. This still doesn't mean GM made a good decision to
> base the GTO off an aging Australian chassis.
Well, up until this year the Mustang chassis was older than ancient.
And the present chassis is still borrowed.
>> The nut of it is in the styling and chassis tuning. That is where
>> GM AGAIN missed the boat.
> Absolutely. They had an opportunity to put out a car that would
> give the Mustang some true competition. Instead they offered an
> over weight, over priced car that was doomed to fail from the start.
I don't think they ever intended the GTO to compete with the Mustang.
I think it was slotted somewhere in between the Mustang and the
> The GTO name plate was perfect for them to use on a truly
> affordable muscle car. I think the GTO debacle is a sign of just
> how castrated the Pontiac Division has become. They no long warrant
> a model they can claim as their own. My guess is that GM is reading
> them for the chopping block and doesn't want to spend too many
> resources to keep them afloat.
Which may explain why they never developed a "new" GTO.
>> This points out where Ford is winning, we have the skunkworks with
>> the right mind-set... GM seems to run everything through the
>> "Brand- identification" algorythm.
> Ford has a much better attitude. They are excelling with low volume
> specialty vehicles and trucks but are failing miserably with the
> high volume bread and butter cars like the 500/Taurus. I don't
> think Ford has any horribly engineered cars - many are just too damn
> bland to get anyone's attention.
What "low volume" vehicles are they excelling with? I don't see it.
The Mustang is a runaway success, but that's definitely a high-volume
unit. Without the Mustang, Ford is just as bad as GM except for the
>> Witness the new Caddy-Corvette
> I personally wouldn't pay an extra $30k-$40k for a Corvette with a
> convertible hardtop and an upgraded interior. There are too many
> good Mercedes models to choose from for less money.
Which Caddy are you guys talking about? The 2-seater? Fageddaboudit.
The CTS-V is the Caddy to deal with. It's a 4-door Corvette. And
don't start with the "it ain't a sports car if it has 4 doors" crap.
>> OTOH, Ford has the 500.. sigh.
> It Ford would make the AWD standard on that car, sport up the
> styling and give it a good solid 250 hp with some decent torque they
> might have a real winner, as far as sales are concerned.
No way. The public wouldn't buy it simply because it's not a Volvo,
Audi, or VW. Fercrissakes, it's a _Ford_!
> Ford has
> lost their willingness to live on the edge. When they introduced
> the Taurus it was a truly bold statement and something fresh and new
> brought to the market. It paid off big for them. Same thing goes
> with the Explorer. IMO, they need to get back to this mind set to be
They can't afford to. Not now, at least.