|
Does GM Need Another Muscle Car Right Now?
Being the pontificating prognosticator that I am, I just cant seem to forget about an off-hand comment made by a top-level General Motors executive while traveling in the back seat of a Chevrolet Cobalt that I was piloting during the vehicles launch program.
We were discussing the success Ford is having with its new Mustang, and the rumors being bantered about regarding a Chrysler/Dodge LX-based two-door sports coupe that might go by the name of Challenger or Cuda (rumors propagated by unscrupulous automotive journalists such as yours truly), when he asked us what we would think of GM bringing back the Camaro.
Pardon?! Yes, my ears were working properly. He wondered  | | I just cant seem to forget about an off-hand comment made by a top-level General Motors executive about the possibility of a new Camaro. (Photo: Artists Rendering) | if my co-driver and I thought a new Camaro might experience the same success as the Mustang, or at least similar success. We, of course, couldnt pass up the opportunity to respond with a few nuggets of wisdom... well, maybe more than a few nuggets. Actually, we got so entrenched discussing it that Im sure he was glad to change cars at the next stop and never bring the subject up again.
Why  | | He wondered if my co-driver and I thought a new Camaro might experience the same success as the Mustang, or at least similar success. (Photo: Artists Rendering) | this executive brought it up, Ill never know. Possibly he knew something that few others did at the time, or was merely hypothesizing, but nevertheless he was probably smarting at an opportunity missed by GM, that could have easily been ripe for the taking.
Lets just think about that for a minute. GM scrapped the Camaro in 2002 because the car wasnt capable of achieving six figure sales numbers. The less than ideal situation didnt make retooling  | | GM scrapped the Camaro in 2002 because the car wasnt capable of achieving six figure sales numbers. (Photo: Artists Rendering) | its plant worthwhile, and there wasnt another car in the lineup that it could possibly have shared platforms with because GM only made front-drivers at the time - other than the Corvette, which wouldnt do. The European derived Cadillac Catera was dead and the CTS had yet to arrive, but both were too expensive to build for an entry-level sports car. The result, Camaro and the even weaker selling Firebird were pushed out to pasture. The irony? Pontiac started development of the rather dated looking Australian-built GTO a year later and resultantly cant even sell half as many examples as it did Firebirds | | It makes sense that GM wants to show Ford how to build a muscle car. (Photo: Artists Rendering) | at the end of the old girls product cycle.
In the meantime, Ford trundled along with its archaic Fox-platform Mustang making a decent profit on each one sold; being that the tooling was paid for so long ago its been a gravy train for the last two decades. When everybody was about as sick of the previous generation pony-car as possible, voila, the 2005 model was born and is kicking muscle car dust in every competitors windshield.
So it makes sense that GM wants to show Ford how to build a muscle car. The problem the automaker faces, however, is the same one it did back when it discontinued the Camaro/Firebird duo, a lack of rear-drive platforms.  | | Bob Lutz has been quoted as saying, "Were going to take another look at high performance rear-wheel drive." (Photo: Artists Rendering) | Sure, the new Kappa architecture is good, but not designed for a midsize, V8-powered sports coupe. The Cadillac CTSs Sigma architecture is good, but too pricy to build if Chevy has any hopes of competing directly with the Mustang V6.
|