Financial Times: GM doesn't need Chevy Camaro success (w/POLL)
2010 Chevy Camaro - Click above for high-res gallery
One of the few bright spots at General Motors is the new 2010 Chevy Camaro, which is being ordered in sufficient numbers that the automaker has added a shift and plans overtime at the plant in Oshawa, Ontario where the car is assembled. While that may seem like excellent news for the beleaguered automaker, Financial Times isn't quite so sure. The more Camaros GM manages to sell, especially those equipped with the V8 engine option, the worse that model's impact on the automaker's cumulative CAFE score will be.
It's no secret that there's a ton of pressure from new car purchasers, environmental groups and, most importantly, the U.S. government to increase the fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions of the current fleet of available automobiles. It's also clear that performance cars like the Camaro – though it's 29 mpg performance in V6 guise is a laudable achievement – don't really fit in that scheme particularly well. So, what do you think?
[Source: Financial Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Matt 10:03AM (5/19/2009)
Honestly, I think they need to do whatever it takes to survive. The media is bashing them from every angle, Volt = far fetched and too expensive, Camaro = gas guzzler. Look, they are a car company, they make cars. They make a variety of cars, in fact, so that you have a choice. If you want a Camaro with a big V8 and a license plate that says FTHWRLD, go for it, but they also make an impressive V6 that burns rubber to the tune of 29 mpg as stated in the post. It's a sweet throwback and people love it. GM needs to sell cars and people need to buy them. This is America, and I'll buy whatever car I darn well please!
Reply
Ignatius 11:12AM (5/19/2009)
Far fetched? Are you retarded?
The Camaro's MSRP is $31,000. The Volt is going to cost right around that price point after the tax rebate, yet it will run on electricity.
Matt 11:16AM (5/19/2009)
hey hey hey... not me, I like the Volt and want to buy one. I'm saying we keep hearing report after report of how everyone thinks it's a bad idea (should I provide sources?). I'm on your side, I was saying that OTHER PEOPLE (the media) think the Volt is far fetched.
Yikes 11:36AM (5/19/2009)
LOL, yes the volt is similar in price after Obama takes money from hard working Americans and funnels it through his newly acquired GM(Government Motors).
Matt 11:46AM (5/19/2009)
Man, this is going in a bad direction. I'm just going to say the Volt should have the same benefits or tax incentives as any other car with the same qualifications (including country of origin, PHEV status, etc). Politics need not be involved, it will still be a hit.
Tim 10:26AM (5/19/2009)
There should be a 5th choice:
YES - GM's survival and FREEDOM of consumer choice is more important than left wing
extremist socialist-fascist central planning. The market wants the new camaro.
Reply
paulwesterberg 11:27AM (5/19/2009)
With fries, and super size it.
Yikes 11:37AM (5/19/2009)
No kidding.
People are lining up to buy the Camaro AT MSRP!!!!!!!!!
Hardworking Americans are going to be required to help Government Motors pay people to buy the Volt.
James 10:32AM (5/19/2009)
"This is America, and I'll buy whatever car I darn well please." Great attitude, and it's the same one that has us fighting a war in Iraq. The guys that drive V8 Camaros are the flag-waving patriots who don't seem to understand gas comes from oil, and most oil comes from the middle east. Ironic that electric cars end up being more patriotic than a V8 Camaro.
Reply
Matt 11:13AM (5/19/2009)
I think you missed the point. Freedom of choice is the basis of our nation, without it America isn't so great. You can't demonize someone for driving a muscle car when you yourself also burn oil every day in your own auto. Do they burn 25% more than necessary per mile, yes they do, but you yourself are burning 100% more than you would if you made the sacrifice to ride a bike (props if you do). Is the V8 smart or reasonable? No. Will I defend to the death your right to buy it? Yes. Should we tax the #3!! out of them? Yes. If you can afford it, and you want to ship your money over seas, go for it. If people want them GM should make them, or someone else will.
Yikes 11:39AM (5/19/2009)
James, I invite you to leave the USA where we have freedoms. You might like living in North Korea!!!
Have a happy trip!
Mike!!ekiM 10:23PM (5/19/2009)
Freedom of Choice? Don't make me laugh.
Your politicians are bought and paid for by Big Oil. Big Oil get's huge tax breaks at every stage of production. The real cost of Oil is 10$ a gallon. Remove those tax breaks and No One would be buying a V8 ANYTHING.
Big Oil gets Free Military Assistance to Expand into Foreign Countries.
Big Oil gets Free Navy Assistance for shipping lane protection.
Big Oil gets Coast Guard Assistance at port of entry.
Big Oil has Blocked Global Warming Legislation and is Killing US Farmland.
Freedom to be Dominated by the Oil Monopoly and believe the BS.
Priceless.
PeterG 10:44AM (5/19/2009)
IMO GM needs to build these cars for mindshare if nothing else. I'll never buy a Camaro or a Vette, but GM without these, loses even more luster.
Similar for the Volt. GM bet too big on Volt. Even if it makes economic sense to shutter the Volt program, it would be suicide in the public opinion space.
GM may never make an actual final profit on the Volt or Camaro programs, but GM without them sinks even faster into irrelevance.
Reply
damion 10:57AM (5/19/2009)
The More they sell wont effect the CAFE standards...CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, this is based on the sum total car types offered NOT the sum total average of those sold.
the person writing the article should have done his homework
Reply
Matt 11:53AM (5/19/2009)
word
Damion 1, Financial Times, 0
lne937s 12:01PM (5/19/2009)
Damion,
Actually it is the total fleet average with seperate categories for cars and trucks:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
The more cars sold that make low MPG, the lower the average for cars. If the fleet average makes less than 27.5 mpg (based on old rating scheme), the penalty is $55 per mpg under on average multiplied by the total number of cars sold. If you break it down on an individual car basis, for example, the impact of a car that gets 5 mpg under on the average is offset if the car makes $275 in profit. Many foriegn luxury car makers with relatively small fleets (Porsche, Mercedes, Ferrari) don't even try too reach CAFE standards and just pay the penalty. Presumably, Camaro profits would offset any penalty associated with the impact their sales will have on CAFE.
GoodCheer 3:35PM (5/19/2009)
Mind if I jump in here? Thanks.
Actually damien, you're right, but not for the reasons you think. As Ine935s points out, each car does count, but what nobody has yet pointed out is that according to Chevy's estimated mileage numbers, 4 of the 6 trim levels of the Camero will IMPROVE GMs CAFE numbers (combined NHTSA fuel economy of about 28.5mpg). Sales of the V8 will do some damage (combined of about 25), but not all that much.. about $137 per car, which is almost certainly less than the profit they make on a $31k vehicle.
If anything, this example illustrates to me just how phenomenally unambitious the current rules are.
Carney 11:35AM (5/19/2009)
Once again, CAFE, MPGs, fuel efficiency, and fuel economy are irrelevant.
Average MPGs went from 13 to 20 from 1976 to 1990 but gasoline usage went UP from 89 to 103 billion barrels per year. Yes, they MAY slow down the rate of increase but that's still a formula for failure.
What's relevant is to switch fuels. If the Camaro were fully flex-fueled it could run, as easily as on gasoline, on any alcohol fuel, including ethanol or methanol.
Ethanol is made from growing plants which cools the planet and the CO2 from which is from the current carbon cycle.
Methanol can be made from trash, sewage, weeds, etc. and is an especially exciting fuel.
Both drastically slash gasoline use around 70-85% in the form of E85 or M85, FAR more than any gain in efficiency.
Camaro drivers would also appreciate this option because M85 has an octane rating of about 102 and E85 around 105, far higher than even premium gasoline's rating of 93 or so.
A shame GM had and continues to have such a failure of vision and not made this relatively trivial change ($130 per car) in all its vehicles.
Reply
Yikes 11:42AM (5/19/2009)
Sorry, tax payers sending money to farmers to produce E85 is such a scam.
Carney 11:51AM (5/19/2009)
How so, Yikes?
Every First World country heavily subsidizes its own agriculture sector, including with direct taxpayer funding.
Hard to think of a better use for that than getting off terror-funding, economy-trashing, planet-fouling oil and onto a plant-based renewable fuel that is non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic, non-toxic, and water-soluble and biodegradable into harmless components if spilled and which produces NO soot, smoke, or particulate matter when burned.