Pontiac may be dead by monday..

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
GM has no one to blame but themselves.

02'Camaro production was stopped for this POS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR

Lots of guys who would have purchased a GM product left the brand after GM left part of its established core loyalty group. (Camaro owners) Many jumped to Ford and picked up stangs and then F-series too...

A senior GM official has been quoted as saying the Camaro "had to go away" It did not have to go away anymore than the SSR had to be produced. This is an example of just one of a series of bad business decisions made that resulted in the GM that we now see today.

Too bad for Pontiac. Another mistake about to be made. Tossing aside Pontiac heritage is going to be a huge mistake for whatever remains of GM.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it had to go away was impending crash standards that it would not pass. Plus no one was buying the damn car anyway. Check the production numbers of the F body in its final years. The last three years of production GM made 45, 29, and 42 thousand Camaros. No way they could make money on that volume. Or justify redesigning the car.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only one problem with your post above. You are a little misinformed. Middlebrook (the manager who moved over from Pontiac) was the decisionmaker - and the decision to Kill both the Camaro and Firebird was made in 1997.

The 1998 redisign was engineering complete and cost finalized for production in late 1996- the issue for 2003 was rollover not crash.

The reason the car did not sell well after the 1998 redisign was linked to the redesign being only frontal and not the rear as planned. Round Corvette tail lights were planned but rejected due to cost, so sales flopped due to GM failing to freshen up the body as Ford did with the Mustang.

Also Camaro Pulled out of SCCA T/A at the time of the decision and GM then saved even more money by backing Ron Capps in NHRA Funny car.

Advertising fell to just a few ads in periodicals ONLY after the 1997 heritage TV ad campign.

You see there was plenty of time to redesign the Camaro, but the money was in trucks so instead of redesigning the F-Body they shot the wad on the SSR a low mark for quality with a roof that would not even go up or down correctly.

Bad and intentional decisions made at the corporate level.

If you think I am wrong - please be specific on what you think I am wrong on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a rollover NOT a crash??? I didnt say front impact or side impact. I said crash, which last time I checked can involve a rollover.

Production totals fell by 50% from 1995 to 1996. What was the reason for that? The numbers stayed low from that point on.

[70 copo]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it had to go away was impending crash standards that it would not pass. Plus no one was buying the damn car anyway. Check the production numbers of the F body in its final years. The last three years of production GM made 45, 29, and 42 thousand Camaros. No way they could make money on that volume. Or justify redesigning the car.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only one problem with your post above. You are a little misinformed. Middlebrook (the manager who moved over from Pontiac) was the decisionmaker - and the decision to Kill both the Camaro and Firebird was made in 1997.

The 1998 redisign was engineering complete and cost finalized for production in late 1996- the issue for 2003 was rollover not crash.

The reason the car did not sell well after the 1998 redisign was linked to the redesign being only frontal and not the rear as planned. Round Corvette tail lights were planned but rejected due to cost, so sales flopped due to GM failing to freshen up the body as Ford did with the Mustang.

Also Camaro Pulled out of SCCA T/A at the time of the decision and GM then saved even more money by backing Ron Capps in NHRA Funny car.

Advertising fell to just a few ads in periodicals ONLY after the 1997 heritage TV ad campign.

You see there was plenty of time to redesign the Camaro, but the money was in trucks so instead of redesigning the F-Body they shot the wad on the SSR a low mark for quality with a roof that would not even go up or down correctly.

Bad and intentional decisions made at the corporate level.

If you think I am wrong - please be specific on what you think I am wrong on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a rollover NOT a crash??? I didnt say front impact or side impact. I said crash, which last time I checked can involve a rollover.



Production totals fell by 50% from 1995 to 1996. What was the reason for that? The numbers stayed low from that point on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes a crash can include a rollover. Frontal impact, side impact and rear impact can be mitigated by vehicle improvements that typically do not cause a redesign.

Why new roll over standards are tougher for an auto manufacturers is due to the increased roof crush requirements which cause the entire structure of a vehicle to be revised to insure that structure is strong enough to protect against head and neck injuries- thus improvements in other structural components are needed to reduce injury severity to the crash test occupants.

Changes to crash means you reinforce what you have. Changes to rollover means a redesign.

You state the 1995 and 1996 production as reduced by 50% from year to year.

According to GM records total Camaro production for 1995 was 98,938 and in 1996 75,336.

Just where are you getting 50% from that?

[Charley Lillard]

My understanding was the reason the Camaro got killed in 2002 was simply to get out of the Union contract in Canada.

[The Dude]

http://www.camaro-registry.com/production.htm

[70 copo]

Numbers for both 1995 and 1996 listed at that web site are incorrect. Industry trade Journals did report total assembly output with a higher number in 1995 as 122,844 which was classified as "units" (Ste Therese also made firebirds) and the web site you posted above has another completely different set of production numbers which I have no idea where they got for both 1995 and 1996. Could be a combination of model year vs calander year and industry unit info mixed in.

[markinnaples]

Give me a break. GM has made Shiite for the last 20 years, and you want to compare the latest and greatest GM vehicle made to Japanese vehicles that have had excellent quality for over 30 years.

I love America, more than most, but you have to admit the American cars since about 1974 to 2005 have sucked.

My wife has a 2000 Grand Prix that is the biggest POS ever. Now, you can't expect to produce crap for 20+ years and then win some people over in two or three years.

GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt, renegotiate the union contracts and make the best quality cars in the world, again. Then, maybe they will come back and be profitable.

[BJCHEV396]

No matter who's to blame it is pretty sad.And what division of GM is next on the chopping block?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a break. GM has made Shiite for the last 20 years, and you want to compare the latest and greatest GM vehicle made to Japanese vehicles that have had excellent quality for over 30 years.

I love America, more than most, but you have to admit the American cars since about 1974 to 2005 have sucked.



[/ QUOTE ]

Show me a 1979 Toyota or Honda still on the road. 30+ years of excellent quality? The Japanese didnt always have top notch cars. The first imports were obscenely slow, underpowered and rotted if sneezed on. What they did have was low cost and good milage. They steadily improved on it until they took over the market. But dont say that for 30 years they have been great, they were shitcans for a long time.

I can go on for hours listing great cars built by Detroit from 1974 to 2005.

[firstgenaddict]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding was the reason the Camaro got killed in 2002 was simply to get out of the Union contract in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I remember as well... CAW

Now as far as quality... I had a 97 Toyota 4runner for 11 years and 200,000k miles... all of the interior parts were the same as when I bought it, everything worked inside and out with less than stellar maintenaince and being beat to death. My father has a 99 Suburban with half as many miles... the interior parts rattle, the doors are sagging, all kinds of things don't work and he maintains his vehicles to the Nth degree... just my experiences...

For a HD truck... Powerstroke diesel... For an everyday vehicle HONDA or TOYOTA.... Muscle... another story I'm GM all the way!

[camarojoe]

In regards to the 97-02 Camaro/Firebird...bottom line is that if the car was making them any money they wouldn't have killed it. Whatever the reason it wasn't making them any money can be argued all day, but the fact remains that if it was profitable it would not have been killed. I worked part time at a Pontiac dealer in 98-02, and Trans Ams/Firebirds sat on the lot a LONG time before they were ever sold, and half the time they were just dealer traded to someone else. Sure they were cool, but no one actually bought any. Same fate will come of the new Camaro within a few years I'm afraid....if it even makes it that long.

I'm a die hard Chevy/GM guy, and have been all my life, but I'd buy a 6 speed Challenger R/T tomorrow if I had the coin. To say this car is not direct competition with the Camaro and Mustang is rediculous. Not only is it competition for unbiased consumers, but its also cool enough to convert lifelong Ford/Chevy guys to go Mopar.