GM management has apparently thrown the kill switch – on a new Camaro.
The iconic pony car – it wasn’t a muscle car – had been in continuous production since its 1967 introduction as GM’s answer to the Ford Mustang, which was the original – and eponymous – pony car. (A muscle car is a bigger car – such as the Pontiac GTO and its imitators, all of them no longer in production.)
Camaro did get cancelled once before – after the end of the 2002 model year. GM brought it back in 2010 with a new body designed to look like the original (1967-1969) model. And it sold fairly well for awhile.
Until it didn’t.
GM cancelled it – again – last year (2024) and this time for good. According to GM Authority:
“Sources familiar with the matter recently told us that a group within GM had worked up a proposal for a seventh-generation Camaro. With support from some GM executives, the group’s purpose was to make a business case for the seventh generation of the iconic muscle car (sic). A plan was generated and compiled, but upon being presented to decision makers, the proposal was ‘blown apart’ due to the business case not being strong enough.”
Italics added.
But why wasn’t the business case “strong enough”?
Because GM apparently cannot make a Camaro that enough people who might like to buy one can afford. That’s why.
When the original 1967 Camaro was introduced, they could – because the base price of a new 1967 Camaro was about $2,460. This is equivalent to just over $23,000 in today’s degraded buying power dollars. But the take-home point is that the 1967 Camaro was not an expensive car.
The last (2024) Camaro was.
Its base price was $30,900 – which means it cost about $7,900 more to buy in real-buying-power dollars than a base trim 1967 Camaro did. Some will say that the last Camaro was a better Camaro – though it would be more accurate to say it was a better-equipped Camaro. The 1967 model’s base price did not include air conditioning, power windows and locks or four wheel disc brakes and a multi-speaker stereo – all of which were standard equipment in the 2024 Camaro. Which also came standard with a 335 horsepower V6 that was stronger than the top-of-the-line ’67 Camaro Z28’s V8 (which advertised 290 horsepower).
But what good are all of those features if you can’t afford to buy them?
By 2024, Camaro had become exactly what the original Camaro wasn’t: A car for the few who could afford one. It was no longer a car, more specifically, that young men – the Camaro’s main demographic, originally – could afford.
Back in the late 1960s, when GM had no trouble selling lots of Camaros, it was common to see young men in their 20s driving them. By 2024, it was more common to see middle-aged men driving them. And by the time a man reaches middle-age, he is typically obliged to be more practical in terms of what he buys because he’s probably married and probably has kids and needs a car that’s a practical family car.
Which Camaro isn’t.
That leaves not many potential buyers who are the right age and interested in – and can afford – a new Camaro. Which brings us full circle back to the “business case.”
Why not make one?
How about a new Camaro more like the original one? Start with a basic car that can be optioned out – as opposed to one that comes standard with everything that used to be optional. For example, AC and power windows and locks. These and other such features used to be available and so could be chosen if you could afford them and wanted them. But if you didn’t want them – or could not afford them – you weren’t (effectively) forced to buy them. Put another way, you weren’t effectively forced to buy a loaded Camaro – assuming you could afford one – because that’s the only model they sold.
This would, of course, entail a change in plans. Including manufacturing plans.
The manufacturers – not just GM – decided sometime around the early 2000s that it was cheaper (for them) and so more profitable to build loaded vehicles that came standard with most of the equipment and features that were once optional rather than offer them as options and then have to build numerous differently equipped iterations of the same vehicle. This worked – for as long as buyers were able to afford to absorb the cost.
It is clear that’s no longer the case.
Especially as regards impractical cars such as Camaro (and Mustang, too) that are generally bought for fun. But as fun becomes unaffordable, it gets harder to sell fun.
The thing is, a putative 2027 Camaro could be made – and sold – for less than the original 1967 Camaro due to manufacturing efficiencies and lower materials costs vs. 60 years ago. Especially if it did not have to be compliant with cost-adding federal diktats pertaining to “safety” and “emissions.”
This of course will be taken by the ignorant – and the hysterical – to be a plea for an unsafe and polluting Camaro. But what we are really talking about is compliance – with hugely expensive federal diktats.
Is a car without air bags “unsafe”? Well, if so, then nearly every car made from the dawn of the automobile age up to the mid-late 1990s – before air bags were mandated – was “unsafe.” It’s a ridiculous assertion. Having air bags does not make you less likely to lose control of the car and crash it – which is the only way you can be hurt while driving a car. Having rear seat and side-impact air bags for people who aren’t even in the car has zero impact on the “safety” of anyone.
If GM could make a Camaro without air bags – if people were free to choose whether to buy air bags – that alone would cut the cost of a putative 2027 Camaro by thousands of dollars.
How about “emissions”?
Don’t we want want “clean” air? Surely, of course. And we would not have dirty air if GM were able to sell a Camaro with a simple throttle body or even port-fuel injection system and the catalytic converters that have scrubbed nearly all of the harmful pollution from the exhaust stream of vehicles since the late 1990s.
The lie people have been sold is that it is necessary to have direct-injected engines with cylinder deactivation “technology,” transmissions with eight (and more) forward speeds and so on in order to avoid polluted air. In fact, the decreases in exhaust emissions since the late 1990s to now have been minuscule and so meaningless. In the sense that there is no meaningful difference between an exhaust stream that is 97.5 percent free of harmful – in the sense of pollution – byproducts and one that is 97.8 percent free of them.
That is the difference, late 1990s vs. today.
But to make that case, GM would have to abandon its affirmation that engines are unclean – and that only EVs are good.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here. We also accept crypto (see below).
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
The bitcoin code is: 3GAfymoqSUbaFvY8ztpSoDKJWCPLrkzAmi if you’re unable to scan the QR code above!
I’m a former Camaro owner myself (in my 20s in the mid 90s I had a 1990 RS, V8), and I have a different take on this.
About 5 years ago you could buy a new Camaro for like $25k. But people weren’t – including me. Sorry, the styling was horrendous, and they’ve made what was an awkward car to daily drive anyway much, much worse in every way.
The thing is, people don’t want cars like that. You might want one, but look at your age … There is a reason the Camaro was pushed further into sports car territory and included all those things that a Nissan Versa S didn’t have.
It’s because the older Gen X and younger Boomers are the only people that were buying cars like this anyway. And now even they aren’t.
What I mean is, you can’t look at the price and say that’s what killed this kind of car, when all of my neighbors are driving around in enormous trucks that cost more than my house.
Hi Nate,
Interesting take. I once owned an ’89 RS – so basically the same as yours except mine had the V6. That hatchback layout was actually very practical. The car itself also wasn’t as polarizing – love or hate it – as subsequent generations have been. Both the Camaro and the Mustang also just got too damned expensive. I remember when LX Mustangs (even 5.0 equipped) were as common as crossovers are now. Camaros, too. Both were pretty cheap and fun and not entirely impractical cars.
I miss them.
Just like you said Eric, Nikola filed bankruptcy today:
https://wolfstreet.com/2025/02/19/the-collapse-of-the-ev-spacs-nikola-joins-ev-spac-bankruptcy-lineup-here-are-those-already-bankrupt-and-those-not-yet/
The NKLA stock chart is priceless, a wall hanger for consensual hallucination.
And, oh yeah, Oregon makes national news again, some lefty loony shot up the Tesla Dealer in Salem, Oregon and left a note “KILL ELON”. The first thing I thought it was deep state sponsored event. The shooter did not leave a manifesto, lol.
Just a reminder about stock bubbles, according to Robert Prechter, all bubbles end up LOWER than where they started:
https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/US-stocks-nikola-2025-02-19.png
If you think about bubbles, the Fed bubble started in 1913, gold went from 22 to nearly 3,000. Now that is a 100+ year bubble. Currently the triple leverage funds investors are in 60 billion, investors have staked 60 billion on triple x leverage like SPXL. What could go wrong, eh? Even a small downturn is 3x loss. Real estate is in a similar situation, everyone is all in. Contrary investors take note.
Morning, Jack!
I suspect Mercedes is next; see today’s lead…
Eric covered most of the pros and cons of a “new” Camaro; the worst part being the safety freaks the retarded peanut farmer’s wicked witch spawned. Imagine the howls of anguish and outrage by the control freaks over a car that wasn’t nanny-state approved.
The unfortunate aspect of this scenario is that driving and driving habits have changed greatly since the halcyon days of real pony cars (the Barracuda, Dart GTS, and, the Mustang.. yeah, that’s right, the Barracuda came before the Mustang), and not for the better. Also, the majority of those cars came with stick shifts. Imagine people having to learn how to drive with a stick shift, how to apex turns, trail throttle brake without losing the rear end, heel & toe, and even the dreaded double-clutching, and all without their “smartphones” stuck in their faces and NO infotainment systems. Oh, yes, and even worse, having the thing be rear wheel drive.
I can envision such a car, and would really appreciate owning one, especially if it didn’t weigh more than 3000 pounds, had quick ratio MANUAL steering, a six speed MANUAL transmission, and a small displacement V-8 around 300+/- cubic inches with 300+/- horsepower, and a really good suspension, MANUAL bucket seats, etc. It would have to be bullet-proof and a daily driver as well.
Unfortunately, there is a LOT of inertia up against such a car, especially with all the morte cerebrums in the corporate suites and beancounters making the decisions. Then again, how many young men and Donna’s would actually buy a car like that?
The only chance of saving the pony car at Government Morons, inc, is to sack scary Mary bear, and all her cronies.
Bringing someone back like Chrysler did with Lee Ioacoca in the 70’s to completely redirect the vehicle focus & finances on customers demands, not FEDGOV requirements, and it’s possible to save not just pony cars, but domestic cars, period!!!
Otherwise, get used to only having foreign brands available,for cars, and the only domestic products will be SUV’s & trucks.
Almost like there’s an agenda to do just that, hmmm????
100 percent. Saxons –
It can be done. All that’s needed is a car guy with a pair to run the joint. Such a man would have an ally in Trump. The time is now to tell the feds to fuck off. We’re building cars again, goddamn it! Strike when the tide of events is going you way. Strike hard!
Route these pigs before they can regroup!
Preach it, Nike!
And yet, I think it could happen because of the innate appeal of fun cars. Today’s young guys are still young guys. If they could afford to buy a car like a ’67 Camaro, I suspect many would. I think another key to recovery is recovering the family – and the stay-home mom. One income sufficient to provide adequately for a family, as it was once. End the property tax. End SS taxes. No one pays more than 10 percent in federal/state taxes. There’d be a renaissance were that to happen.
Eric,
Thank you. Sometimes it’s just hard to hold back, having been there. The whole concept of the Camaro started back in 1965 with the SCCA TransAmerica road race series. The SCCA (may it rest in peace) was run at that time by level headed people that realized that running car races with British and Italian junk wasn’t attracting enough people. They also realized that a LOT of Americans weren’t interested in watching eurojunk chase each other around a race track, especially with the growing popularity of NASCAR. American compact cars had been introduced around 1962-3 and the decision makers thought, gee, could we attract more AMERICNS to our races if we had a race series using AMERICAN cars?
Well, there were plenty of them running around, like the Barracuda, the Valiant, the Dart, and the Mustang. Many of these compact cars also came equipped with smallblock V-8s and 4-speeds and front disc brakes. HEY! Let’s make a race with these cars and call the class A/Sedan. Surprise, surprise! This series took off like an F-14, and to use the cliche, the rest is history; the pony car was born.
The turd in the punchbowl, of course, was Big Grunt, who only had the Corvette, and it was in a different series called A/Production and raced against the eurojunk. The only car Big Grunt had that could, in the remotest possibility be considered a “pony” car, (with the help of a LOT of alcohol) was the Chevy II.
While the Chevy II was a very practical economy car that even could be bought with a V-8 and a 4-speed, the car itself was so flimsy and lacking in torsional rigidity that it was basically a 4 wheel flexiflyer. Big Grunt had a HUGE hissy fit over Chrysler and Ford getting shit-tons of race publicity and started having temper tantrums over the races and then started throwing loads of money around.
Suddenly, the TransAmerica road racing series became the “Trans-Am” (are you getting a clue), and out of nowhere Big Grunt had a Camaro with Jean-Claude Killy blowing smoke up everybody’s asses, and the Firebird “TransAm”. Also, to make sure Big Grunt eliminated the competition, the rules were changed to limit the engines to 305 cubic inches. Everybody else was running 260s, 273s, 283s, and, 289s, which were not competitive with the brand new, out of the sky Chevrolet Z-28 302.
Chrysler immediately threw in the towel because they were FAR too focused on Drag Racing and NASCAR and limited vision to build a 302 out of either the 273 or the 318. Ford was NOT to be effed with however, and immediately brought out the Boss 302 and proceeded to KICK Big Grunt’s Camaro a new one all over the tracks. When one gets into the dirty politics of this race series it is almost as bad as what the Orange Man has revealed in the past 3 weeks.
So, the original Camaro was basically a gussied up Chevy II with a stiffer body and chassis, but it did the job, and created a loyal following. Turning the later model Camaros into Hot Wheels caricatures didn’t help sales at all.
However, like I stated previously, driving and driver styles have changed drastically since 1967,and for the most part NOT for the better. The population has nearly doubled since 1967, the roads are clogged, including country roads, that were made for pony cars. Also, in that population increase are a LOT of people that apparently don’t know how to drive very well, and don’t have insurance, and have a cloudy history of how they got here.
Yeah, it would really be nice to have a fun, sporty pony car again for around $20K that would double as a daily driver, but you are far too correct about the “resistance” for this to happen, especially considering the onerous theft, oops sorry, taxes we are forced to pay.
To the point about the airbags, I have filed many an insurance claim for hitting deer.
#1 & 2 questions:
Was anyone injured?
Did the airbags deploy?
Them there airbags add a lot to the cost of repair & insurance.
Do they add any benefit if one is wearing a seat belt?
If so, why don’t professional racecars have them?
Can confirm sadly. The Mrs. got hit by a hit-and-run driver this week.
It was a rear end collision so the passenger side rear (bumper, trunklid, turn signal) is all messed up. On the Insurance Claim was a question on if the airbags went off (Luckily they didn’t. The car spun but she didn’t hit anything with the front or side of the car). As it’s a 2019 all manner of airbags would have popped (A Pillar, Side Curtains, even seat side).
As it is the hit was hard enough we’re probably looking at $7 – $10K worth of damage.
I can only hope whoever hit her popped a hole in the radiator and their car overheated.
Hope you wife is well.
Thanks
. No injuries (except a bruised ego because I am not waiting on her hand and foot. She complains I am not sufficiently worried about her. I countered when I stopped at the accident scene the car was still drivable, she was on the phone with her friend, and she was parked in a parking lot waiting patiently for the police to arrive. No blood, no broken bones, no worries. 
Alas she is woman and needs to emote. 
)
Whatever happens to our sedan (now at the body shop) she hath decreed we SHALL have a new vehicle, specifically a new CUV. She is getting sticker shock
now looking at listings.
We had a brand new 2023 Camaro as a rental two years ago in Orlando. The V6 engine burned oil, and about half of the rear view mirror was unusable because safety came first in the design of the C-pillars.
The car had a decent ride at highway speeds and plenty of power to pass when needed, however, and GM didn’t forget about the “secretary car” like Ford did with the Mustang.
I’m sure plenty of girls named Donna would have bought Camaros with the right price tag.
It was always girls named Donna who drove those in the 80s and 90s.
I have a Camaro in the 2010- 2024 range. It is the SS. V-8. 400+ horsepower. It is FAST and gets fast fast. Most impressive is going from 55 mph to 100 mph. Mere moments and you need to back off the gas. The Pony Wars still exist and are happening out there but you’d need to own a Camaro, Mustang, Charger or Challenger to know it. Just fun to run with other horses. Not racing, but playing. Flexing the cars’ muscles together. Ran down an 80 mile stretch of freeway behind a Charger in about 40 minutes. I can take most SRTs and GTs but stand no chance against a Hellcat. And I got my doors blown away by a Jeep Trackhawk recently. I wasn’t even in 2nd gear and he’d lost me already. I am not a kid. I’m a way old enough to know better…old enough to know that you have to have fun in life. The Camaro is fun. It’s my dream car and i have it and love it. Chevy isn’t stupid enough to keep it off the assembly line forever.
Right on, man! Love to hear it.
Hi CBW,
I hope you’re right about the stupid part. But consider who’s running GM now.
The guys a few years older than me we getting out of the service in the late 60’s. Some served in Viet Nam. With the money they saved, they bought the SS Chevys, Pontiac 442s and The Judges, Hot Dodges and Plymouths. A way different time.
When GM gets some real executives that KNOW what they are doing and all grown up and not Dumb Executive Idiots then maybe never say never.
It’s probably best to not have a Camaro than the one that Mary Barra would make.
If somehow GM survives the current age, maybe we can have a Camaro in the future. At least there isn’t a 4 door electric suv “Camaro”.
Among my old Hot Rod friends, I am the straight 6 guy.
Most of my collection are base models of their time, stupid simple.
No extra doohickies or systems I don’t need. Most have a radio blank instead of a stereo system.
Funny thing is; these are more rare than a fully loaded version of the same thing, fleet vehicles were considered “Throw Aways.”
Go find one now.
Keeping things Stupid Simple; I can double the mileage and triple the wear cycle of consumable parts, by regular maintenance.
Cars used to be made for the shade tree mechanic, now, they are built to keep the Dealership in business, via the service bay.
I can take an empty shell and a pile of parts and build a running vehicle.
We have 26 at last count, with my wifes’ 55 Ford wagon.
It is fun to drive what no one else has, and I can fix it on the side of the road if I need to.
Make Automobiles Great Again!
The customer is always right.
What you got for sale? Is that all?
Can’t be just that.
If you want cars to sell, they should be what the customer wants to buy.
They are there to buy a car, the reason they are there.
Dealerships must be like mausoleums these days. Carvana is down 48 dollars per share today, an indicator for sure.
When a customer enters a furniture store, they are there to buy furniture.
Can’t just be four couches and a couple of easy chairs, the selection needs to be multiple choices.
Maybe apples and oranges, close enough comparison.
Lots of music out there too, songs galore, different instruments, even an oboe in the orchestra, the maestro conducts the symphony. Eight notes and eight octaves make music worth hearing.
You listen, like what you hear. Vehicles can be music if done right.
Now the Indians are dressing up like cowboys
Cowboys are putting feathers and turquoise on
And the music is sold by lawyers
And the fools who fiddle in the middle of the station are gone – Cherokee Fiddle by Johnny Lee
You should send this article to Sean Duffy, Trans Secretary. Ya never know.
In order to grow business the OEMs need to get people into their brands to experience them, build a customer base. That may mean taking a bit of a bath on entry level vehicles.
Ahh . . . The old lose money . . . But make it up on volume strategy.
Customer acquisition is a thing, and it sometimes costs money. This can be referred to as a loss leader.
It’s one thing for Cosco to sell a hot dog and a pop for $1.50 as a loss leader.
It’s completely another for a capital intensive Industry like automotive with a 6% profit margin to be taking multi-thousand dollar losses (in volume) on loss leader vehicles.
The auto industry doesn’t get a pass on basic math.
Even Mercedes is struggling with margins.
https://tinyurl.com/227p6rz2
I bought my first car in 76: a 68 Camero for $1200 from an old man. Had fun with it until I upgraded to my next; a 70 Mustang Mach 1 in candy apple red.
I don’t know who is pitching ideas over at GM but good luck. The days of Peter Brock are long gone. You are pitching ideas to a socialist health welfare benefits company that makes cars on the side. Compliance, DEI, global warming and CO2 are your coins of the realm within GM. Meeting Gavin Newsom’s needs shall be your guidance (better wear knee pads) not your customers’ needs nor stockholders, if you have any left.
GM has a massive affordability problem. After buying GM cars for 50 years, this year I switched to a Mazda.
I bought one of those 2024 V6 Camaros. I’m an old guy with my all my kids grown and a grandfather. Traditionally guys in my situation would have bought a corvette but didn’t want to spend that kind of money. But even after adjusting for inflation my well equipped V6 Camaro costs more than a well equipped corvette did in 1967, for a V6! Sure I don’t have the bragging rights driving a V6 but I like it.
I bought my first pony car brand new in 1992, when I was 21. It was just a cool looking economy car in reality. Today, a 21 year would be hard pressed to even buy any new car which does not bode well long term. No old guys in 30 years trying to relive their youth!
Roger that, Brushmore!
It’s just ridiculous that cars that were once specifically designed to sell to young guys are now basically older guys’ toys. An automotive legend once said: You can sell a young man’s car to an old man, but you can’t sell an old man’s car to a young man.
Especially if he can’t afford it!
Would be a great stat to see – “average age of the new car buyer.”
Probably tracks up the same with home purchases.
30 years ago, even freshly minted, 20yr old, dental hygienists were able to afford new Escorts, Cavaliers and Sunfires.
That was so many Fed printed dollars ago.
‘Share of new vehicle sales to the coveted 18- to 34-year-old demographic has dropped to 9.2%, its lowest share on record. Meanwhile, the 65+ crowd has more purchasing power than ever before, surpassing 26% of new vehicle sales, its highest share on record (Figure 1). How many new car launches are targeting the 65+ demographic?’ — S&P
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/demographic-marketing-automotive-industry.html
Targeting geezers:
1. Large-print Clownscreen.
2. Braille buttons for the legally blind.
3. Voice assistant asks, ‘Did you remember your glasses? Your grocery list? Do you know the way home?
Doctor, please, some more of these
Outside the door, she took four more
What a drag it is getting o-o-o-old
— Rolling Stones, Mother’s Little Helper
With those numbers, Ford should bring back the Crown Vic
Rented a new Mini Countryman recently. Just an awful device of a car with an incredibly dangerous center screen user interface. After driving for less than 2 hours, it interrupted the audio with a message on the center screen that I should pull over and take a break.
Lol. Thanks for the link.
Its no wonder crossovers sell like crazy – over low slung coupes – as ingress/egress becomes high priority for the many elderly with blown out hips and knees.
Lets relive a youth spent on eggshells in a passive aggro dance around psychofems ?
Not my cuuppa petrol. You poor kids.
You can buy a small refrigerator for under $150 on Amazon. Air conditioning isn’t expensive anymore. What is expensive is making sure it doesn’t leak anything out for 200K miles, lest you be summoned before the EPA Sachbearbeiter for allowing too much gas to escape and somehow rise up to the ozone layer.
“Start with a basic car that can be optioned out”
The only option I’d keep is powered / remote door locks and AC. Otherwise, all the additional “features” are nice-to-haves at best.
From the text of the Camaro ad:
‘That’s a Camaro Sport Coupe. This is how it comes. Strato-bucket seats, a pair. Full carpeting. Vinyl interior. Wide stance wheels for faster cornering. A 3-speed transmission, fully synchronized. A 140-hp Six that hates to stop for gas.
‘And a lengthy list of new saaaaafety features, including the GM-developed energy-absorbing steering column, dual master cylinder brake system with warning light, folding front seat back latches, four-way hazard warning flasher.
‘There.(?) Now you start adding extra-cost options …’
Sounds pretty spartan by today’s hifalutin standards. Chevrolet still talked about a ‘fully synchronized’ transmission, for silver-haired Coolidge voters who grew up shifting a Ford Model T (crash; crunch).
Shifting a model t is actually really easy, shifter pedal at mid height (held there by the emergency brake), car in neutral. Press down on the pedal to the floor, you’re in low range, release the pedal and you’re in high. Easy Peary Japaneseey.
But the manual 4 speed in ford trucks well into the 1960s, like I learned on, was straight, non synchro gears in all 4, and made horrifying grinding sounds when a 8 year old is learning.
[Chevrolet still talked about a ‘fully synchronized’ transmission, for silver-haired Coolidge voters who grew up shifting a Ford Model T (crash; crunch).]
Makes ya wonder how the vulnerable elders got along back in the early days when there wasn’t ‘automatics’, no power steering, power brakes, not even a starter. Today’s kiddies give you the blank nobody’s home stare when you mention three on a tree, four on the floor and double clutching, dual quads, triples, cam duration and a host of other things.
My son learned to drive on a school simulator using a steering wheel mfg by Mattel. He and his mates won’t admit it today,,, a big Harley driver that has the LCD screen, ABS, computer Fuel injection, keyless startups and costs $25,000. Big mechanic as well. Takes it to the shop even for oil changes.
Yeah,,, but somehow we made it without all the nanny stuff. Miracle!
“…when GM had no trouble selling lots of Camaros, it was common to see young men in their 20s driving them.”
Ah, yes. Evil white men. Rapists, racists, bigots and polluters. Indeed, the Camaro ad shows a WHITE man with his WOMAN. Can’t have that in 2025. Clearly racist — and loaded with heteronormative, sexist bias. Why, I’ll bet that white man drove his Camaro straight to the Klan rally after he raped his woman and burned a cross.
No, what we need today is to market electric cars to purple-haired interracial lesbian couples with children conceived through IVF. That’s progress, you see. Every transgender with an Ivy League degree working for Mary Barra’s GM knows this, plain as day.
That’s why we can’t have a Camaro today.
‘Why, I’ll bet that white man drove his Camaro straight to the Klan rally after he raped his woman and burned a cross.’ – X
Obviously he was supremacy signaling with those whitewall tires. Jim Crow is over now, and we all have tire sidewalls with plenty of melanin.
Funny story, told to me by one of my few black friends in the late 80s. He and some other “brothers” were driving through the Deep South in the late 60s and had whitewalls on the front and black walls on the back. The cops stopped them and made them rotate the tires so the blacks wouldn’t be pushing the whites around….
Ahhh you must be at the lower case car company like me…..your description is spot on for the majority of salaried employees at the TC! lol
General Motors is basically a Chinese company anymore. They don’t design vehicles for the American market, they designed vehicles for the Chinese market. Funny thing, though, they’re losing billions of dollars now in the Chinese market. Anything that General Motors happens to do for America is not a big priority with them. And you ask why they don’t build automobiles in this country anymore? I wonder too. For 100 years they had models in every price and size and they were cars. White happened. General Motors went from number one on the face of the planet to what? I believe with their present business model, they will be out of business within 10 to 15 years. Maybe President Trump can change their fortunes?
Part of what made the 1967 a cheaper car to build was that it was based on the next generation Nova. Since there are not many cars anymore, what platform would they build it on?
Could you imagine a Camaro built on a Colorado or Equis platform? It would probably look and sell as well the Mustang E. There is not a suitable RWD platform to build it on. If they could build it as an affordable, good looking car it might do well.
Agreed, and this is what people keep missing: Cars like the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, and Barracuda shared platforms and components with common cars like the Falcon, Chevy II/Nova, or Valiant (for the Barracuda up until the 1970 E Bodies). And they cribbed engines from the corporate line that sat under the hoods of common cars.
Now? as you point out a rear-drive coupe is going to be its own platform. The last Camaro was sharing its underpinnings with the Cadillac rear drivers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Alpha_platform
Certainly not a dead common car, and the per-unit cost wasn’t going to fall much. How long does Ford keep the ICE powered Mustang sitting on its own platform?
On another site people were salivating over the musings of Dodge’s CEO about having Dodge build an “Entry Level Sporty Car, around $30K”. Whereupon I threw cold water on the plan by asking one simple question: Exactly what platform are they going to build it on to keep it at $30K? Because they don’t have one that I can see within Stellantis.
Hi Mack,
I wonder what could be done with the Colorado/Canyon platform. It’s the right size and it’s rear drive. Seems to me it’s just a matter of sheetmetal to go on top.
GM has engineers, right?
Dunno Eric. I do know that Toyota has their “Global Architecture” platform usable to spin up sedans or CUVs. Two of them spawn CUVs/SUVs and Sedans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_New_Global_Architecture
“The TNGA-C platform underpins unibody vehicles in the C-segment or compact car, subcompact/compact crossover SUV, and compact/mid-size MPV categories.”
“The TNGA-K platform underpins unibody vehicles in the D-segment or mid-size car, E-segment or full-size car, compact/mid-size crossover SUV, and large MPV categories.”
They also have an RWD platform:
“The TNGA-L platform underpins unibody vehicles in the E-segment or executive car, F-segment or full-size luxury car, and S-segment or grand tourer categories. The platform is offered in both rear-wheel drive and all-wheel drive variants and is paired with a longitudinal engine. The platform also supports a wheelbase length of 2,870–3,125 mm (113.0–123.0 in).”
(Their shortest wheelbase is about 3 inches longer than the last Camaro at 110 inches)
Ironically, Toyota could probably spin up a Camaro like car faster than GM. And amortize the cost faster since the RWD platform is worldwide.
“I wonder what could be done with the Colorado/Canyon platform. It’s the right size and it’s rear drive.”
That’s a non-starter since the Colorado shares it’s platform with the Silverado:
“Despite being a mid-size, in some dimensions it is somewhat bigger than the full-size Silverado, being built around the same chassis and frame while sharing the same L3B engine.”
“VSS-T is GM’s planned body-on-frame SUV and pickup truck (T) platform, considered a successor to the long-standing GMT platform and capable of all-wheel drive. It is to be capable of supporting midsize and fullsize truck dimensions, and will underpin both the fifth generation Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra and the third generation Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon.”
A peruse of Edmunds tells me the 2024 Colorado is on a 131 inch wheelbase, which would give us a Camaro the size of a 1970s era Cadillac, Buick, or Oldsmobile C Body.
GM has one platform for RWD cars:
“VSS-R: GM’s planned rear-wheel drive (R) platform, considered a successor to both the Alpha and Omega platforms. Vehicles slated to be underpinned by this platform include the second generations of the Cadillac CT4, CT5, and CT6, as well as future models of the Chevrolet Camaro.”
Well we know the later ain’t happening.
Hi Mack,
How difficult is it to shorten a wheelbase? Or just design and build a simple frame onto which a body can be bolted? The underthings of my ’76 Trans Am (same thing as a ’70-81 Camaro, fundamentally) are very simple. There’s a front subframe that holds the engine and transmission and front suspension. Everything aft of the cowl is unibody.
GM probably still has the tooling and so on for the RWD Holden Monaro – and that could also be used to make a new Camaro.
It’s not, as they say rocket science.
Eric,
It could probably be done fairly easily once all of Jacques Nasser’s DEI and AA hires were ALL fired; but the turd in that punchbowl is called crash testing. That’s where the research and development funds go to die.
The Holden platform is a good idea, but there was some auto news a while back that Holden was either dead or was going to be killed off.
Hi Nike,
See today’s lead article. The moment is at hand. Or could be!
The sedan market is dying. Coupe market appears to be practically dead.
1st and 2nd gen Camaros were better scalable when they shared parts with the budget Nova. 3rd gens were sharing power trains with S-10 pickups. 4th gens shared a V6 with an Buick Regal.
Car makers have no use for lower priced models as all the profit on new cars comes from financing and service.
Even when the entry level/base model exists, there’s always only a handful and hard to find. So the response you get from manufacturers when they are confronted with eliminating the “base” trim, or low priced models is “well, nobody is buying them, so we’re canceling it.”
How is Nissan – a company that builds cheaper cars- LOSING money in a market that is (allegedly) demanding lower priced vehicles?
With the malinvestment of the EV debacle becoming more evident, and as OEMs bleed from it, I’d expect to see the problem get worse before it gets better. RIP Camaro.
Factoid: Since the 1997 emissions “law”, the car exhaust is actually “cleaner” than the natural air (mother nature doesn’t wear a catalytic converter…The bitch). The modern cars are now actually cleaning the natural air of NOx, CO and HCs as you drive.
I believe it, but do you have a cite?
Yeah, I’d love to be able to cite that point.
Ernie,
Not sure if every manufacture does it but I know VW does. Catalyst coated radiators.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/982728/
‘it was cheaper … to build loaded vehicles … rather than … to build numerous differently equipped iterations of the same vehicle.’ — eric
Why was it possible sixty years ago to order a vehicle with the options, exterior and interior colors you wanted — but not possible today?
Reintegrating such semi-custom technology into the production process should not be a big deal. Otherwise what is that computer-controlled, robotic production line for?
At the dawn of the automotive age in the early 1900s, some manufacturers just made the bare chassis. It was shipped to custom coachbuilders who beat the panels and sewed the upholstery by hand.
We aren’t asking for a return to that Old World craftsmanship model. Is the ability to generate an order-based build sheet and run it through the production line really so terribly challenging?
Or — more likely — is the customer no longer king? If so, we’ve come full circle to the old curmudgeon Henry Ford, who (imperiously banging the table with his silver cane) stipulated that his cringing rabble of ‘customers’ could have any color they wanted, as long as it was black.
I see a red door
And I want it painted black
No colors anymore
I want them to turn black
— Rolling Stones, Paint It Black
…And now you have to pay extra for colors you want. Colors other than grey and black.
“We aren’t asking for a return to that Old World craftsmanship model.” – Jim
I am. There are plenty of custom shops out there who could easily take up coach building. 3D printing and “desktop” CNC mills are easily had for a few hundred thousand dollars, well within the reach of an SBA loan. Yesterday’s discussion about paint cost not withstanding, there’s little to suggest a custom vehicle couldn’t be built on a generic chassis.
The RV industry is the basic business model.
Absolutely and it is an opportunity. Especially with the bespoke prices of new stuff, it should be entirely possible to do production runs under the commie limits giving people exactly what they want.
In fact it is likely easier and more viable than in the 50s and 60s, the heyday of the Manx, Devin, Cheetah, etc.
Then go do it.
All this talk of 3D printing and CNC is the same as the EV fans spinning tales of the pending breakthrough of miraculous battery technologies.
It just shows that you aren’t in touch with the realities of what it takes to build a vehicle at a profit
The aerospace and performance racing world is using 3D printing as a matter of routine. Yes, for small parts now, and of course extremely expensive, but the prices are falling. A centered metal 3D printer can be had for under a million, or 3D molds for castings can be made for a few dollars each.
It can be done. It has been proven to work. Now it’s iterative refinement and cost reduction. Difference between battery tech and small manufacturing is that the 3D printers aren’t limited by chemistry in the same way lithium is.
“Otherwise what is that computer-controlled, robotic production line for?”
“Is the ability to generate an order-based build sheet and run it through the production line really so terribly challenging?” Jim H
I respectfully suggest you go on an automotive plant tour – then you’ll have have an answer to your question.
[ Is the ability to generate an order-based build sheet and run it through the production line really so terribly challenging? ]
Yes. Today’s education system negates the possibility. They wouldn’t know what a build sheet is and likely couldn’t read it. This is why Lord Trump may have trouble bringing back manufacturing.
Actually, the demographic for Camaro (and Corvette) has become 65 year old retired men. The interior design of the current Camaro is just plain freakish/childish. Whenever I got in it I felt like shit and I don’t know why. GM never did restyle the interior. If they used classier/symetical lines and smoother shapes I might have bought one.
Ditto, that –
The car is also freakishly fat. I have owned several ’70s and ’80s Camaros and several same-era Firebirds. I still have my ’76 Trans-Am. I have a picture of it parked next to a new Camaro. My TA looks like it’s the size of a ’77 Mustang II next to that pig!