Posted on 05/16/2008 1:18:43 PM PDT by XR7
Motorheads don’t want to hear it; refuse to believe it — but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ‘09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.
Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala — nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can’t. So it’s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division — and ending its role as a performance brand.
No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.
Now consider the 2009 Camaro — and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro’s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.
Maybe more.
At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well — so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful — and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car — so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.
GM is well aware of these facts — which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.
That’s bad enough — and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.
But wait, there’s more. Don’t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that’s about to fall onto GM’s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes … everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.
A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.
But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?
Forget it.
Don’t believe it? Chew on this:
The current Ford Mustang GT — a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ‘09 Camaro — manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That’s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT’s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang’s viability?
You’d better believe it.
The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won’t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg — and highway mileage that isn’t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford — don’t come close to delivering 35 mpg.
Camaro’s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they’re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase — from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.
And here’s the deal: Chrysler’s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it’s worth trying to hold the line — at least, for the moment.
But Camaro?
GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool’s errand. And it’s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge. If Camaro sinks — as all signs indicate it will — GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.
Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.
You wait and see.
So, I guess a big-block version is out of the question? Curious post from a poster with a Ford trim level as a screen name.
Bull. The Camaro is based on the Australia Holden Zeta RWD platform.
Regardless of what GM decides to do about the Camaro in the US, the Zeta rear wheel drive platform is going to be built for the European and Australian markets, so the platform costs for the Camaro is in sheet metal.
I can’t believe nobody’s posted “this thread is useless without pictures” yet...
At least the last batch had VW engines..
With all of this sort of bull coming down the pikeI don’t think I’ll be buying any new cars. I have a ‘98 firebird v6 I’m looking to bolt a supercharger to (anyone out there selling one?). I’ll make do with that. Off the line it’ll probably do a shade better than the factory V8 (300HP). Can’t imagine what it’ll sound like though, a little angry and hollow I’d imagine.
1993 red Mustang LX convertible 4 cyl. 2.3L. People laughed when I bought it for my son two years ago. “Secretary car,” one punk told me to my face! Ha ha ha ha ha! Who’s laughing now? All the chicks know is that it’s a Mustang convertible! I know it gets 30 mpg hwy and 22 city.
Well, I don’t know about his predictions but I’m driving a thirty year old truck that gets LESS than 15mpg and while it’s a pinch for me it’s what I have.
Any less than thirty something who has a decent job today should be able to afford to drive a Camaro if they want...
There are plenty of people who don’t care about gas mileage.
Should be enough to keep the gas guzzlers going in niche markets where they won’t hurt CAFE much.
The Challenger currently only has a 5 speed auto.
The Viper 8.4L V10 with the 6 speed manual gets 22mpg on the highway. So the Challenger will probably better that with a 6 speed manual.
Laying down rubber with a front wheel drive car is just plain wrong.
"Cold dead hands baby..."
not only is what you said in support of him slinging bull, but he has no clue when he mentioned the guzzler tax.......I train product knowlege for Chevy at times thru the southwest......that guzzler assumption ain’t making an as outta me
I suppose the Bugatti, the Lamborghini, and the Ferrari will become illegal to own in the US?
Everyone go out and buy a prius and forget about freedom of choice. America no longer stands for such things.
Thats the line that jumped out at me too...
A little odd I guess to go on a car thread and the first thing I see is the political bias of the author...but I guess that is what we do here eh?
As to the Camaro or the Mustang or any current production muscle car...My mpg should be none of the govments d@mn bidness...If I can afford the gas I should be able to buy whatever I want...
Market forces will dictate the success or failure of these cars...they should not be essentially outlawed by govment fiat..Just a glance at the current market for suv's vs econocars should make that pretty clear...
The article implies that all cars by 2012 must get 35 mpg. This is far from the truth. The fuel economy bill requires that manufacturers must meet an average fleet (all cars sold) fuel economy of 35 mpg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.