Suaviloquent

Nope. They're playing the long game, if anything. Consider: Alpha is currently putting the hurt on its largest domestic competitor, in multiple market segments, some of them quite lucrative. I doubt Ford will ever stop building Mustangs (although the Probe debacle in the 80s shows anything is possible). But I still feel that Lincoln's future is pretty shaky. So, play it safe with the pricing now (especially in such a snobbish market as luxury sedans) and try and expand market share on multiple fronts. Again, to talk about Lincoln...you know no one expects them to build a luxury sports sedan for the track, that is the last thing someone expects from Lincoln. As it is the D6 platform will become every single next-generation Ford/Lincoln product expect the trucks. And it'll have RWD/AWD/FWD. The Mustang brand is too powerful, and too well recognized. And again, Lincoln does not build a sports sedan, because mind you it'll be a sales dud without question even if it was heaven on Earth. The brand identity is more again in line with quiet luxury to begin with. There's a lot of brands that forgo size and remain disciplined. Lincoln vehicles have great automotive margins, like GMC and Buick. But Lincoln prices itself even higher. Anyways, many ways to skin a cat, volume doesn't lead always turn out like it should. I do agree, the competitive pressure from GM is great, but it's about what I would expect as of this time. Anything less would be a joke.

Why not? Two words for you. Financial suicide. You can't just jack up the price without jacking the content as well. The current prices have been conditioned to the average buyer. Just jacking up the price because you think you can will not suffice to the average buyer. We are not talking about rare commodities that attract artificial price inflation. We are talking about cars that sell well over 100K a year between them ( The Camaro and Corvette). Low volume models like the GT350R can do that. High volume can't without increasing the content. See, that's the trap the GM is in. Volume goals do lead to financial suicide. It already happened. It's a mistake in the long-run. It's a fact. But why do high volume there? Why not restrict the supply? And the content is there, believe me...believe Al, believe Bong. Artificial price inflation? I'm talking about fair value. It seems to me all this car is missing is a luxury interior for it to be a fine halo sports car for many luxury brands. The average buyer is not buying an SS 1LE or GT350 or Corvette. These guys have the money. Especially if the value is there. There are three kinds of customers. Value - which means rock bottom price, and basic features. Then there is performance - which means they will pay more if the value is there. That is the buyer. The last buyer is called the luxury buyer. You cater to every whim for this buyer. And some brands which are not exotic have managed to move their performance buyers to the luxury buyer space. Since this is still in this reference frame, a car that rivals many above its price class. Make it as limited as the Z28 then. Alpha is getting amortized already with the lower Camaros. It's not like they're going to convert every SS buyer to ILE. That's not what's going on.

I still feel they should charge more. Don't you feel they're leaving money on the table that is rightfully theirs?

I've already answered your question as regards Porsche. Your answer was not convincing. The customer doesn't care where you put your engine or what displacement it is or what transmission you use. They care, by your logic, about getting the performance numbers as the end, and the means of no consequence. Porsche has been able to train their customers to pay more for the engine being in the back. But really is just behaviour. It's not a decision based on merit. Not when a Z/28 is better than a Porsche 911 GT3 in performance numbers in the hands of a professional driver on a couple of race tracks.

A lot of money is being left on the table. And yeah, I don't expect Ford to compete as well, but they have the gusto to charge more than GM, and get away with it. But their car is more of a departure to. Its looks vastly different than the regular Mustangs, while 1LE is more of a wider fender and wheel exterior upgrade.

And now why did I say the ATS is getting short-changed? Okay, so it's important to protect the Corvette.... so why is the ATS not getting protected, especially the V-Coupe? All that car is- is a $30,000 interior upgrade and exterior skin. And the Camaro looks better, has more performance goodies, and most importantly had the correct engine has the better interior tech and costs less... There's no building of value. And El Kabongs of the world, the guys who read car mags and buy the numbers, well they can gorge on underpriced Camaros, when GM could just charge that much more, and GM would be better off financially. And really, personal question aside, would the Camaro be any less special as well if it was actually $58,000 to start for the 1LE. Priced right on top of the Mustang GT350 - but with better predicted performance? The answer is of course not. The Camaro is certainly worth more, and it seems like the 1LE gives better performance than the base Stingray, while being priced right on top of it too. There no rational reason why they are not charging more other than volume pricing goals. And honestly, the product planners agree with me. They didn't let Al price the car below $40k, which might disrupt... but might also leave a lot of money on the table.

The question is why not? I've always said it, if American products are superior, why are they stuck in their value for money thinking?

Again, there is no problem. Which is the problem. There is no problem for GM jacking up prices across the board. Why go for value for money when it's really value for value? There's an age old term. If it is not broken, fix it. I have no beefs with price. The real thing is that the new Camaro variants give all the performance of the last Corvette without any of the exotic car compromises. So in turn, the cars should be priced similarly. And the Corvette, IMO, should be priced right on point with Porsches. Tit for tat.

I would love to see proof of this "fear" you speak of because I believe that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. What you are saying is pure speculation, just like Bong but he is the only one catching grief for his speculation. Just saying that you are using a double standard here Suave. Maybe, just maybe, GM doesn't want to price the Camaro any higher because they have something that Ford does not, which is why Ford is able to price the GT350 the way they do. It's called the Corvette. It's really that simple. It's not fear. It's simple math and the common sense to not step on the toes of your halo car by pricing it too close to it. I fully agree with that sentiment. Which is why I proposed ages ago that the Corvette should also go up in price. It should be more than its direct competitors.

Then why was there a $75,000 Camaro? Why was it a thing? And if this 1LE is better than that, why isn't it a $78,000 Camaro? Answer me that question. Why is GM not pursuing the pricing structure that builds the brand?

I don't think anyone has yet to disagree against the objective performance measurements. Everything else, just a bunch of drivel, but then again, I don't care enough for the 1LE really. I'm wowed by it but, I might as well save even more by not getting it and sticking to the 2SS. His confidence is justified. By his pricing choice is a miscalculation, for multiple reasons. One being the car is worth a lot more, and GM is entitled to earn more money. The GT350 has a lot of intangible value too, as it has a lot of exotic car tech. So it's a wash. In any sense, anyone getting a GT350 is getting a whole of car for the money as well. And with the kind of stuff it comes with, charging more than a Camaro is justified. And what Camaro should then be doing is charging more than the equivalent Mustang. Why are they afraid to move the car upmarket? Because the brand isn't strong enough!!! And why won't it get stronger? Because they're afraid it'll sell in GT350 volumes if they do so. Again, volume goals are not sustainable for such a product.

Yeah, but that would be a problem for the GT350 if is was also pursuing volume goals. But it isn't. The segment is about bang for buck, but only to a point. Anyways, I'm done with this adversarial style posting in this thread. And where did you get that notion? You know at one point people felt that the Z/28 for $75,000 was underpriced in reality. So you're saying the whole game for GM is to drive its margins into the ground? Look, selling at cost isn't sustainable, and again, you know product guys competent they are, are clueless as to the pricing structure they should use.

Anyways, I don't see Porsche Cayman buyers lining up for the Camaro or M2 or M4 buyers lining up for the Camaro any time soon. So your argument about value pricing is going to continue fall on itself every time. Every single time.

No, I would not get the Camaro SS ILE. I would get the 2SS. Though honestly, I like the sound of the V8, and I like the Mustang's looks more. Why do people pay more for Porsches than Corvettes? For the same reasons now people would buy the GT350 - it has the intangibles man. You wouldn't understand. But the thing is you don't have to. And for the last time disparaging remarks are not befitting the Mustang because it also beat the best track cars money can buy. Yay, the Camaro gives better track times in the hands of the most capable drivers, but you can't even live with it on a daily basis - and I don't think it is better for a track user. It is capable of better times. But is it better for the driver? That's the issue. And there no one clear solution. Too bad GM will sell the lap times instead of why the car is better for the driver. And that is where your argument fails. And for a person who doesn't live on the track, the Mustang is just better. You can live with it, it's exhaust is one in a milion, and I quite honestly don't understand your persistence when you certainly don't put up this kind of tirade against other competitors.

Erhhhh.....

Really? Well, I thought it looks pretty good. Cadillac doesn't have anything like this. If I wanted a luxo cruiser coupe, by default this Lexus is the best. Style is one thing. But da materials dood. Mahogany.... Merhagony.... Merhhhhagony...

Model X. The all-new electric viagara. Instant flow...er...okay R-rated section.

Awesome. You sure you won't make a rat rod of this? The ol rusty C.O.E with a hopped up flathead like they used to do?

Lexus wasn't an established brand AT ALL... they had to build superior products. and Porsche and Ferrari, when becoming global began their climb into glory and pricing dominance around the same time. Weak examples, coming from you bro. Again.... I will turn a blind cheek, because we are still selling the same message. Except the real analogy is that if Lexus did build superior products to Germans, and if they were otherwise perceived as true equals, then of course I would also want Lexus to price itself higher. And the Ferrari example? Well - I think it bears to it that Ferrari sells about 7000 vehicles a year and is probably the highest valued brand in the automotive world. So volume, again, has no relation to brand equity? Are you sure, we're not in agreement fully? Because I think we are, but your understanding of the brand is latent. You'll get it. It'll come to you. A win is a win, and that's something from your playbook. I'd hunt to find where I saw that, but I'm pretty sure my jarred memory, Maserati edition is better than even yours. Like I said: C/D gave the Ford the win. Because they know it's now or never. And I'm ok with that. Just like I was ok with R&T admitting that they may have made a mistake giving the Shelby it's Driver's Car award. Something better, this way comes. Okay here's something really objective. Was Camaro even available at the time of the test? Nope. So die if you do die if you don't, you still die - as in your magazine fails if it fails to hold the test and sell magazines based on the result.

^^^^^^^^^ winner winner^^^^^^^ yup, that's GM, make it smaller and charge more. Am I supposed to be pleased by your reaction or am I supposed to imagine your statement aloud in Eric Cartman's voice and laugh my a$$ off?

Like I said, part of targeting a segment is firing the customers you don't want. Ford doesn't want the EL Ks of their world to buy their Shelbys. Nor does Porsche. Nor does AMG or M. Those kind of customers demand a lot and don't want to pay a lot. Those customers, YOU want to fire them because they go to your competition and either drive them out of business if they're the same size or at-least prevent the other guy by moving upmarket. Now GM isn't in that situation, and the economics are different. But still. The point remains. You pick who you want. Some guy wants incredible looks and sound. Some guy wants the numbers - and is okay with that even if the new styling is a bit meh and the V8 is like any other V8 the company has made before, great, but not bespoke, and a familiar sound at that. But now the previous buyer of the Corvette might be even a little perturbed how the runt Camaro is getting any attention, because it's like the Corvette was robbed of everything that made it great to sell the same in a car at a lower price point. I'm not saying that the Camaro should purposely tank. Obviously the new Corvette was atleast $30,000 better than the last even, even the base stingray. I would reckon (very arbitrary) that the SS 1LE should be between $55 to 60k. And the Corvette Stingray should just have Z51 folded in (I think it already is) and priced from $85,000. The value is there. We all agree on that. But GM for volume reasons did not go there. Look, wearing out your machinery and tooling is a thing as well. Always going for volume goals is not the pinnacle of success. It can deliver great product at a great price. But I think GM wants great returns even more. A win is a win, and that's something from your playbook. I'd hunt to find where I saw that, but I'm pretty sure my jarred memory, Maserati edition is better than even yours.

For the most part I'm onboard with this. But the Corvette truly is a different animal. It is no more a competitor to the Mustang as it would be to a Charger or SS sedan. No. Why? It's the Camaro a vehicle that can upset supercars as per Motortrend. The cars compete than you would believe, because you're talking about numbers, numbers alone, not the intangibles.

Its nothing new for GM, especially Chevy to build performance number delivering vehicles. Two generations of Corvettes and two of Camaro, including the new one. So what would be new is GM changing is pricing strategy to be on top of its competition if the company truly believes it is delivering more value. That's the appeal of the Corvette though. The buyers are trained such that they think it's the affordable exotic. But that fails to build a premium brand, and I can see why a Chevy car with a Corvette name reaching multiple six figures would be tough to sell to the same buyer. We know it's perhaps the best exotic for certain reasons, and the price just ends up being a great windfall. But it's not perceived the same way. It's because of the brand that in the face of obvious performance shortfalls that Porsche buyers, that M, AMG buyers have not defected wholesale to GM's different performance brands. And building a brand does take time. But building it to a price - it can train the buyer. And I'm not sure if in the long-run that is what GM wants in its best interests.

Going further back, LIKE WAYYY back, like the Matthew McConaughey back in this thread... El K and I have been really saying the same argument, just different iteration. His argument is that the Camaro delivers superior product (based on validated, objective performance metrics), and will win market share by selling at a price unbeatable by the competition. The competition is forced to compete on GM's terms, which puts the company ahead in the product race. My argument is to deliver superior product (based on validated, objective performance metrics), and to sell at price above the competition to develop the brand, and "fire" customers who don't want your value proposition. My argument is that the subjective matters too. And you can assign value to what people want that is intangible - such as looks and sound, and charge a fair price for it too - all to build the story of the brand. And the story of the brand is what carries the names of your product. The story is what it's about. And I want the superior story to sell at a superior price. There is no difference, and being ahead of the competition and pricing above them can go hand in hand. When I said again, arm chair marketers, I really meant democrats and republicans. So now you know how the sausage is made. Look, I'm just going to say it, pricing above the competition isn't greedy. It's chasing after every consumer with the same value proposition that is. For example, the incredible pricing advantage of the Camaro affects more than just the Mustang or the Challenger. If there's any American brand that I expect to be the best at anything right now (except quiet luxury) it's Cadillac - especially bettering the German competition. I would hope that the ATS-V (especially coupe) would be the obvious performance choice in this small car high performance segment. I think the pricing just erodes the value in the ATS-V. And the weird thing is (my subjective viewpoint was always why the LF4, when a V8 is what American performance buyers expect?), putting the LF4 was what I think Ford would've done in the hi-po, small car segment. Honestly, being more in tune with GM recently, I see no value in the Corvette story if the Mustang GT350 (being better than a Corvette) - which if the Camaro beats already, you know, TWO pony cars I would consider before the Corvette. So we're coming to the conclusion. It's no secret that buyers of the incumbents, M, AMG and RS from Quattro and others have developed new vehicles that are not as hard core as they used to be? Why? Because they have built a brand to the point that the value is inherent. And it's good to know that the Mustang now is trying to create a better value proposition. But I don't think the Mustang buyer really cares. The ones who wanted the earliest 2015s paid handsomely - and they don't feel upset because most of them aren't driving them. But if the Mustang is now trying to compete on price more, it's all the more obvious that the Camaro creates even more value that I thought, and should therefore be priced even higher. If the value is inherent, and it is, I want Alpha platform to reign in the monies. Make every dollar you can, that you deserve for the hard work. So again, Democrats, Republicans... same story, different person.

After driving one as a rental car a while ago, I can say that it was bland and inoffensive. I didn't quite like the engine groan, but the tech interface was good, gauges good, and the ride/handling was good. And the seats were okay. I mean it got the job done. It just felt like a Toyota by any other name. And that's a trap. Any other automaker doing that will be caught imitating Toyota. Even Honda doesn't imitate Toyota. The closest rival to the Hyundai Sonata is to me the Nissan Altima. And having driven multiple past Nissans - from 1995 model year to 2006 to then 2013. The company has lost everything that made it great against its Japanese foes And going up against companies with weak product but strong brands, with weak product and a weaker brand is a recipe for failure.