why the camaro needs a "track pack"

[SoloSK71]

Originally Posted by Treadstone

Cars are always better with a stock track pack. Adds to the value, and it's covered under warranty.

Arguing against this idea is kinda dumb, considering FBODYFATHER has already let the cat outta the bag that one is on the way. So clearly they see the need for it.

Cars are NEVER better with stock than after market. Even the Mustang drivers admit that. Cars may be cheaper with a stock track or performance package but you never see those stock cars winning races. It is always the modified ones that win.

- SK

[alrox]

Originally Posted by stratman

How can you people say that the Camaro shouldn't be concerned with out performing the Mustang. That is ridiculous. The muscle car craze is nothing if not a pissing contest that has been going on since the mid 60's. The Camaro should not only be concerned with beating the Mustang it should be chiefly concerned with it. That is it's #1 in class rival. People who aren't concerned about HP and performance aren't the people who buy this car. This car will not sell like Honda Accords. Muscle cars and sports cars in general are a niche market. If you're going to be in that market then you give people the best performing car you can and try to stay one step ahead of the rest. And I'm sure next year will see improvements. And yes a factory "track pack" is a needed option.

You're catering to a small minority with those cars. Minorities don't pay the bills.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by stratman

People who aren't concerned about HP and performance aren't the people who buy this car. This car will not sell like Honda Accords. Muscle cars and sports cars in general are a niche market. If you're going to be in that market then you give people the best performing car you can and try to stay one step ahead of the rest.

If what you say is true how do you explain the mustangs sucess while almost always having less power than other muscle/pony cars? that just proves that it is indeed NOT all about horsepower.

[UsedTaHaveA68]

Originally Posted by alrox

You're catering to a small minority with those cars. Minorities don't pay the bills.

First of all, if they're making profit off the options it does. In fact, I'm pretty sure the company makes more money off of a car loaded with options than it does the bare bones base model.

Second of all, the Camaro itself doesn't exactly cater to every person in America. It's a 2+2 pony car. Not a Camry. There will be a larger percentage of the population that it DOES appeal to who would want a performance package, compared to the buyer group for a Camry. Why not try to appeal to this group? If 50% of the SS buying population would also spring for an inexpensive Z/28 package, why WOULDN'T they offer it? I understand what you're saying, that GM needs to appeal to as wide of a group as possible. That's why they have the LS and LT models. But within the buying population of a car like this, you still need to think about what JUST that population wants. The more options they can sell (as long as they don't go overboard with 1,000 different separately available options like they did in the '60's, which is why now everything is offered in packages), they more money they make, end of story.

Originally Posted by Unfair

If what you say is true how do you explain the mustangs sucess while almost always having less power than other muscle/pony cars? that just proves that it is indeed NOT all about horsepower.

I agree. It's about looks. The Camaro finally has the looks. But that doesn't mean they should get complacent and stop there. A Z/28 "track pack" would be an inexpensive thing to add and a relatively inexpensive thing to purchase. If they make profit off of it, I don't understand everyone's problem with adding it to the option list. Once again, I'm not screaming for a 50k ZL-1 with the LSA. Merely a more performance oriented suspension for those who want it.

[KoTToN]

Originally Posted by alrox

Minorities don't pay the bills.

you have no idea how true that is

[stratman]

Originally Posted by Unfair

If what you say is true how do you explain the mustangs sucess while almost always having less power than other muscle/pony cars? that just proves that it is indeed NOT all about horsepower.

Mustangs from their inception have sold an idea above and beyond the product itself. It is the quintessential pony car to most people whether it out performs or not. They will sell tons of V6s to high school and college kids, or their parents I should say, and GTs to people who want to have a V8. I'll make the argument that anyone who wants a V8 has some concern for HP and performance. Whether it's someone who thinks a 300hp V8 is amazing or that its a good starting point. I'll also make the argument that someone who isn't concerned about performance wouldn't order a track pack on a GT.

The SS is being marketed to enthusiasts. People who want a car that performs. Why not have an upgraded suspension option for people who wish to sacrifice a little ride comfort for better performance from the factory? Ford thought it was a good idea. Why be content keeping up with your competitors when you can stomp them in the crotch. Not to mention that Mustangs had free reign over the class for about 5 years of successful sales.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

(...besides, most people don't take their cars onto a road course.......)

BINGO!!!!!

All the bickering about 1/4 mile times and handling in the twisties is all about bragging rights. Most of these cars are gonna be daily drivers and boulevard cruisers and nothing more. I can ride down a busy four lane road in anything and keep up with any car.

[2cnd chance]

guys guys guys!
I feel like we are giving directions to someone who doesn't know left from right.

Simply put it's about the marketability!
Look at the Challenger. A number of mags have already stopped including it in comparisons (we seldom discuss it), ask yourself why? It doesn't compete in magazine tests. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but it's reality. To keep the Camaro in the spotlight with the better selling Mustang (long term sales) the Camaro must be better. It must offer higher value, and all the toys of it's competitor. Yes, the money is made in the bread and butter packages, but the top dog packages draw them.
Why build a ZR1 when there is a Z06? GM showed the world it could not only compete with supercars, but beat them for much less!

GM's future will have to be based on High Value & High Visibilty!

[stratman]

What he said.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by UsedTaHaveA68

Lots of words.

You're asking them to repeat the same mistakes they made with the 4th gen. That will cost GM even more money. You're looking at this from a 1 or 2 time consumer angle, which is not what will make GM money.

GM should have made these changes in the 70's, not in 2009. They would be more successful if they learned a lesson once in a while.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

guys guys guys!
I feel like we are giving directions to someone who doesn't know left from right.

Simply put it's about the marketability!
Look at the Challenger. A number of mags have already stopped including it in comparisons (we seldom discuss it), ask yourself why? It doesn't compete in magazine tests. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but it's reality. To keep the Camaro in the spotlight with the better selling Mustang (long term sales) the Camaro must be better. It must offer higher value, and all the toys of it's competitor. Yes, the money is made in the bread and butter packages, but the top dog packages draw them.
Why build a ZR1 when there is a Z06? GM showed the world it could not only compete with supercars, but beat them for much less!

GM's future will have to be based on High Value & High Visibilty!

The Challenger isn't mentioned much anymore because it won't be made for much longer. Chapter 7 is inevitable for Chrylser.

[stratman]

The Camaro died as much because of a majority shift to SUVs and trucks as anything.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by stratman

The Camaro died as much because of a majority shift to SUVs and trucks as anything.

So why didn't the Mustang?

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by stratman

The Camaro died as much because of a majority shift to SUVs and trucks as anything.

No it died because it just wasn't being bought by the general public the interest was low it wasn't a money maker.
if that was the case every muscle/pony/sports car between 2002 and 2009 should have died. (which didn't happen, dont blame the SUV's)