[Mountain]

Honestly, I think part of the problem is the way dealerships order cars for their lots. I cannot tell you the amount of people who I've spoken to that just want a 1SS without really anything added, or maybe a 2SS with no add ons. Look on the dealer lots, it's mostly 2SS cars with all kinds of add ons. This is in respect to V8 cars. Personally, I have no quells with the stand equipment on the 1SS, and the price point is appropriate. However, I can see where people may not want a car that has HIDs, the 20's, all the added coolers or the upper level entertainment system. The Brembos don't add much cost or complexity since it's on all V8 cars, but I guess you could penny pinch that.

[Mountain]

The truth be told, many market trends are established based on what the dealers think will sell, will order and will be placed on the lot. Most buyers will shop the dealer lot and compromise on what they would actually like to order.

[F1FTY]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Because business.

Volume drives many things.

For example, if you need to buy door handles for your car, the price of the door handle is volume dependent. If you go to your supply base and ask how much per part for 100,000 door handles? How much for 150,000 door handles? Those are not the same answer. So the cost of the parts it takes to build a Camaro is based on volume.

Next, volume covers your fixed costs. So for example if it costs you $500,000,000 million to engineer, design, develop, validate and tool up to build your Camaro, how much is that per car for 50,000 Camaros? How much is that for 75,000 Camaros? Finance people will have to weigh in on the number of years expected to make that pay off.

Now on top of that, assume the the company asks the Camaro to cover it's fair share of the other company costs, e.g. cost of employee healthcare, cost of pensions, cost of the proving grounds, tech center and the cost of the many employees that are there in R&D, HR and hundreds of other functions that can't be billed to the Camaro development or any other specific program. Those costs are huge. So again the bigger number you can divide that across the better. And each program is assigned it's "fair share" in it's plan.

Now when you are in production for your Camaro, you need to keep your assets running around the clock. That means a modern automobile assembly plant wants to run about 20 hours per day with 4 hours for maintanance. If it sits idle due to volume, you are wasting your asset or assembly plant. If you have to run your line rate slower than optimal, you are wasting your assets. If you can run it every possible hour at the negotiated line rate, then your heat, light and taxes on the plant are spread across more units, meaning either lower cost to the consumer or more profit to the company or a combination of both. And arguably the same great car for a lower price to the customer should result in even more sales.

Don't get me wrong, GM has set up Bowling Green KY for low volume, but that product also due to it's material choices is designed to be a much lower investment product for many parts of the car. It's a plant designed and built for lower volumes.

LGR was not designed for Corvette low volumes.

The Camaro advantage right now is that it shares capacity with other Alpha products. Unfortunately none of the 3 cars there are meeting expected sales volumes. Well Camaro might be, but it's pretty obvious ATS was not intended to be a 25,000 unit car and the CTS sure wasn't planned around 15,000. If the ATS and CTS were hitting targets then it is very likely the Camaro would have been built elsewhere.

Back in the day, GM didn't have many plants with multi model/multi architecture assembly lines. That may be part of the reason why the Gen4 couldn't keep St. Catherines open because 40,000 units couldn't keep the plant open.

Now assume you have 2 shifts running 6 1/2 hours production in 2 8 hour shifts (lunch and 2 breaks). My hourly cost for the factory technicians is based on hours of their labor. If I run my line rate for 70,000 Camaros vs. 50,000 Camaros and my hourly cost to run the plant is the same, my production costs for each Camaro goes down if I can build more.

And volume matters most when you plan for all of the above. If you plan for 50,000 Camaros in your business case and sell 50,000 Camaros, then AWESOME. If you sell 60,000 even more AWESOME.

But if you planned for 75,000 Camaros and sell only 50,000 Camaros your business case implodes.

And keep in mind, GM's business case accounts for retail sales by simply planning for an expected ATP. So YES, selling more retail cars at higher ATPs than planned for helps the business case. But what we have not a single clue on is that even with the higher retail sales, GM may have planned for even more. We simply don't know. And model mix is another HUGE factor. So say for example, GM planned on a 25/25/50 mix of 4 cylinder/6 cylinder/8 cylinder cars and they sell 20/20/60. That also drives the overall ATP higher.

Volume is pretty much everything in the overall business case for any product................and sometimes one of the hardest things to predict.

well said

[IMadeYouReadThis]

[QUOTE=Bobkd;9862387]The 5.3 in truck form has over 100 lb/ft of torque more than the 3.6. It would destroy it.[/QUO

Yes the new 2018 5.3 does have 100 torque more and 15 extra HP but also red lines at 5600 RPM versus 7200 RPM for the 3.6 which is also quite a bit lighter. I love the 5.3 it's reliable I have one in my Sierra but it won't destroy it it will be slightly faster unless you mod it. You would probably have a better quarter mile but you wouldn't see much difference 0 to 60. But don't take my word for it if it comes out we will see then. There's guys with the automatic 3.6 L that have done 0 to 60 in 4.6 or 4.7 seconds.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

The 5.3 talk is just crazyness. As sweet as it would be.. No way they will offer 2 V8's.. Although,......... any 3rd gen fans will distinctly remember the 5.0 and 5.7 IROC's..

IF,.. If any engine upgrades/changes will happen,.. It will most definitely be the I4.
Absurd amounts of potential left on the table for cheap fixed operational costs.
{Flex fuel capability + factory tuning = Huge gain..cheap}

2018 Mustang EcoBoost__ base: 310 horsepower / 350 lb-ft torque
2018 Chevy Camaro_____ base: 275 horsepower/ 295 lb-ft torque

Oh yeah, .... the Mustang is cheaper with more standard options...

I4 seems like a no brainer , in combination with LS V8 , plus mid-cycle refresh....
If they want sales, it will happen...

2018 Mustang starts at $26,485 cs $26,900 bucks for a Camaro, so yes the Mustang is cheaper however I don't know if I would make a big deal out of $415 bucks. As far as what comes standard it looks about the same, from a performance stand point the Camaro 2.0T has a curb weight of 3,340 pounds compared to 3,500 pounds for the EB Mustang. This mass difference largely makes up for the power difference for the two cars, really the Camaro is just a 1LE pack away from being able to keep up with the EB Mustang with PP on the 2018 cars. In other words with all of the improvements Ford made to the Mustang I expect performance parity between the two cars.

[Richard0nee]

Originally Posted by Michigan1LTRS

I would think a V8 LS then have ala carte would be a popular option.

Agree, one reason why you see 10x more RT Challengers than Scatpacks/SRTs.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

I see:
2018 Mustang EcoBoost__ base: 310 horsepower / 350 lb-ft torque
25,585
2018 Chevy Camaro_____ base: 275 horsepower/ 295 lb-ft torque
26,900

Even if I float you 200LBS of weight advantage in the Camaro,..{don't think its that much}..
To say :. "This mass difference largely makes up for the power difference for the two cars"....
Is more crazyness.....

CAMARO IS:

-35 horsepower
-55 lb lb-ft torque

Not to mention the 10 speed offered in Mustang.... Lets be serious....

That doesn't = 200LBS!!!

Something must be done if they wish to sale........

$25,585 doesn't include destination charge, I prefer using both pricing with destination charge as the destination charge isn't the same for both. Which is $26,485 for the Mustang and $26,900 for the Camaro which isn't a big gap.

Ford suspects that with the 10 speed auto and PP you will be able to hit 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with the ecoboost Mustang (which is no small thing). If you pick the manual trasnmission on the EB Mustang then you won't get there in that time and if you get the 10 speed and not the PP then you won't get their either. What if you want a stick shift? as for me I don't see how the EB and 2.0T models are fun without a stick.

Motor Trend compared the 2.0T Camaro manual to a 2.3EB Mustang manual and got to 60 MPH in the Camaro in 5.2 seconds. My guess is manual transmission base model Mustangs will get there in around the same time and 10 speed cars would also be around the same time (maybe 5.3 for manual and 5.1 for 10 speed). This is why I say performance parity between the two cars, not to mention if the come out with a 1LE version of the 2.0T Camaro with better tires you might see 5.1 seconds to second in the thing.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...tang-ecoboost/

[doc7000]

BTW to further my point, in that Motor Trend test the Camaro with the RS package (and whatever options were on it) pushed mass up to 3,392 pounds while the Mustang came in at 3,622 pounds. A difference of 230 pounds between the two, the Mustang picking up torque but no horsepower won't do that engine many favors on the top end. The Camaro in that test had a power to weight ratio of 12.3 pounds per horsepower while the Mustang had a power to weight ratio of 11.6 pounds per horsepower and I suspect that the 2018 Mustang will put on even more weight.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by Richard0nee

Agree, one reason why you see 10x more RT Challengers than Scatpacks/SRTs.

The problem with this route and why you pretty much see no one do this comes down to the added manufacturing cost to do this.

If you know you are going to sell 10,000 2SS Camaro then you know you will need 10,000 units of leather seats for example. It streamlines the supply line, look at the Honda Civic for example as you have 5 trims for the car and from there like almost not options (lots of accessories though).

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Take a 1LT Camaro and stuff SS running gear into it. No HID's, no digital reconfigurable dash, small touch screen, etc.

Call it the RS, rename option package on the V6/2T cars.

There's zero reason to ditch fifty years of tradition. The 5th gen did it right - you could buy a low cost/feature SS, or you could buy an SS/RS, in 1SS or 2SS trims, and the base engine got an RS appearance package option (badges and all).

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by triggerjerk

How about lowering the cost on/bundling magride and npp?
This is legacy tech that really makes the driving experience.
Offer them at a reduced rate/make them standard on the 1SS.
Take that Mustang GT.

Oh yeah, make blind spot monitors standard (again bake it into the price if you have to) to keep visibility nazis happy.

At least make the safety features optional on the 1LS, 1LT, and 1SS, sure.

But if the idea is to lower the price of admission, adding optional features will do nothing to accomplish that, especially when we're talking $2700 worth of MRC/NPP features. You're not going to cut costs by adding any comfort/tech features you can't already get on a 1LS/1LT.

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by doc7000

If you know you are going to sell 10,000 2SS Camaro then you know you will need 10,000 units of leather seats for example.

As stated above, the risk for GM is the Operations labor and overhead at the factory, R&D & CapEx. Material costs are very well fixed well in advance.

So you wanna be a modern tier 1 supplier. You will have signed up to deliver whatever the factory wants, whenever the factory wants it, in whatever volume the factory orders, at a given delivery time every day, at a fixed price. All the unit volume/cost risk is born by you, the supplier. No promises, no guarantees, take it or leave it. If you wanna be a Tier 1 supplier, you must first like pain. Lots of pain.

[newmoon]

Its not going to help. I'm sure this is focused on attempting to increase sales, lagging in 3rd place is probably not going over well in the top offices. Chevy already has the most performance bang for the buck, stripping the car down to lower the price 2-6% isn't the answer especially now that the Mustang will be right with the Camaro in pricing. Address the issues that are the real problem in the next model.

[Need4Camaro]

Just wanting to add my $0.02 --
For everyone saying to remove the infotainment screen.. ..they can't. It would literally be illegal because it would make the backup camera completely useless and backup camera's are REQUIRED on today's vehicles. The infotainment system would have to stay.