Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin2323
you cannot compare sales figure of a 30k per year car to a 100k per year car. simple as that imo.
|
Exactly. And yet I hear people with 2010 Camaros at car shows talking about owning a "collector car" LMAO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
My point is this, if the car had a demand of 100k thats what would be produced. But from the start, everyone knew that wouldn't happen, including Chrysler. When they developed the car, they knew that it wouldn't sell like the Camaro or Mustang, for various reasons. Consequently, they gave the suppliers an expected volume of 30-50k, not 80-100k, and they didn't add another shift at the plant to produce the cars, and so on. Looks like they did pretty well in their estimate for their product, as did GM. But if they made a car with more mass appeal, it would sell better. They didn't, and it doesn't.
|
I don't think that's correct. I think Chrysler didn't have the money to build the Challenger on it's own assembly line. It's shared with two other models which limits how many can be produced.
The Challenger is the best looking between it and the Camaro and Mustang. I've owned my Hemi Orange R/T since February and it still draws a crowd every time I drive it somewhere. I don't see that same reaction to Camaros in my area. By this time next year the Camaro will just be another car on the road, like Mustangs. Challengers will remain unique.
I nearly bought a Camaro, but local dealers didn't want to "deal" back in February which I was shopping. I bought the Challenger for Employee Price and $1000 cash back and 0% for 48 mos making it a hell of a deal. Had that deal not been presented, I'd probably own a Camaro today as I do agree the Challenger is over priced compared to the competition.
However, the Camaro interior is terrible and WILL NOT age well. In 3 years it will look very dated and cheesey and was the only real turn off for me on the car, and that huge 6 speed shifter ball needs a re-work as well.
I'm hoping for 2011 the interior gets an upgrade on the Camaro. I love the Challenger interior. It's simple and old school with a modern touch of convenience. The Camaro also needs a different gear set like 3.73s or even 3.92 (which my Challenger has giving it LOADS of torque off the line).
If those options get updated on the Camaro, I may end up with one of those as well, especially if they make a supercharged Z28.
In the mean time I'll enjoy the Challenger. They hit the nail on the head with it from a styling perspective. It produces great torque (more than the Camaro) and that's what you feel. My R/T is about 30HP less than the Camaros dyno numbers in power, but about 20TQ over. I could care less about the 2/10ths difference in the quarter mile. That's not even the blink of an eye.
The Camaro is a nice car and a GREAT value. I think the problem is that it was designed toward the youth crowd and the more I see of it the more disappointed I am with that interior. It's just awful, and I'm no grandpa. I just appreciate old school styling. Having said all that I think the Mustang's interior is the best of all three, but the power is pathetic. I test drove a 2010 GT two weeks ago and it just sucked.
Oh, edited to add....I'm no Mopar (or any other brand) loyalist. Had someone told me 2 years ago I'd own a Dodge anything, I'd have laughed. I agree most of their cars are crap, but they got it right with the Challenger. It is truly an awesome ride. The torque is just ridiculous. If they'd come out with a bit more of a line up they'll do OK...I just wonder if it's too late.
They are putting a 6.4L in the Challenger next year though.