GTO
I agree...and they are way over priced....people buy the camaro..all the v6 ones they could make..but lets be real 30k for a ss when you can get a gt in the mid 20's...gm killed the car for greed..hell look at the price of the truck about 3-5k more...until they get wages under control there sales will still suffer look at honda had there first sales loss ever......the car is soo plain no strips or a nice hood nothing....the american buyer has wised up alil and won't just buy anything... now the aussie car looked good
ORIGINAL: 66chevyIISS
ya why was the Camaro losing money? no one wanted it lol.
ya why was the Camaro losing money? no one wanted it lol.
Part of it was the plant the other part was the declining in sales was huge. If the Camaro was really hot and sold then they would find a way to keep making it. No company is going to kill off a car if it was a seller. Its been well documented the sales of the Camaro was declining every year.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe in 2002 sales of the fbody (Firebird and Camaro combined) were about 70,000 compared to 130,000 for the Mustang. I read that in the Hot Rod article about the new Stang.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ORIGINAL: TommyV8
If I'm not mistaken, I believe in 2002 sales of the fbody (Firebird and Camaro combined) were about 70,000 compared to 130,000 for the Mustang. I read that in the Hot Rod article about the new Stang.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe in 2002 sales of the fbody (Firebird and Camaro combined) were about 70,000 compared to 130,000 for the Mustang. I read that in the Hot Rod article about the new Stang.
Dollar per what you get is exactly the same as the Mustangs.
19k for a V6
24k for a Z28/GT
30k for an SS/na 4.6 SVT
I don't see where you guys are coming from with this "the GT was a better deal" when the Z28 ran mid 13s for the same base price as a 14 second GT?


