Yes, Camaro sales figures. They’re not attractive, not what General Motors was accustomed to achieving when the reborn Camaro returned in 2009 as a fifth-generation Ford Mustang fighter. Not for the first time, we told you that story yesterday. Much as we all expected that the Camaro, in its final year, would be outsold by the high-production sixth-gen Mustang in its first year, 2015 is over. This is 2016. The Camaro is the new car. The Mustang could be resigned to Yesterday’s News status.
Instead, the Mustang is outselling the Camaro by huge margins, the Dodge Challenger has outsold the Camaro in each of the last three months, and Camaro volume is down 37 percent since May, year-over-year.
What’s an automaker to do?
“After @GoodCarBadCar posted Camaro sales figures on TTAC today, I received an email for 10% off MSRP all 2016 Camaros,” Chad Kirchner tweeted last night.
Despite in-house claims that GM isn’t concerned with market share and seeks only shareholder-pleasing profits, GM has decided the company needs to sell more Camaros. So the prices on remaining 2016 Camaros, of which there are roughly 17,000 in stock, have been chopped by 10 percent. (Screenshots from the email Kirchner received and from Chevrolet.com are included here.)
We suggested yesterday that much of the blame for the Camaro’s rapid downturn lies at the feet of the design department. To the casual eye, the 2016 Camaro looks exactly like the 2015 Camaro. Evolutionary styling changes were not the formula for GM used when launching all-new Camaros in the past, it shouldn’t be the formula now, either.
Poor visibility, a cramped interior, and early inventory which emphasized high-performance models for the Camaro faithful are negative factors, as well — factors which are clearly standing in the way despite the new Camaro’s performance credentials. GM, on the other hand, told us in the past that much of the Camaro’s volume decline can be traced back to GM’s fleet de-emphasis.
Regardless, the 2016 Camaro’s pricing scheme stands in the way of success. The Camaro’s $27,300 base price is 7 percent higher than the Mustang’s. The cheapest V8-engined Camaro costs $37,900, or $4,355 more than the base price of a Mustang GT.
Is a 10-percent cash back offer sufficient to clear out 2016 Camaros? Not surprisingly, there’s fine print. The deal, Chevrolet says, is “limited to 18% of select vehicles in dealer stock,” and is, “not available with special finance, lease or some other offers.”
Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.
Competent the Camaro may be… but hardly a worthy descendant of the great-looking 60’s and early 70’s Camaro’s. The present Mustang is (a worthy descendant). The latest Camaro is like watching Len Wiseman’s Total Recall – spectacular, but pointless compared to the original movie by Paul Verhoeven.
We can remember it for you wholesale
(I *hate* the renaming of Philip K. Stories when made into movies. Isn’t “Do androids dream of electric sheep” a better title than “Blade Runner”?)
That is sooo funny that you mention Philip K. Dick. I was reading about him 2 hours ago. The guy was a visionary. What I hated about Wiseman, is that he didn’t even try to fit in (probably because of lack of understanding) “Because I haven’t implanted it yet”.
PKD is one the finest writers America has ever produced. He wrote novel after novel that explored the loneliness of the human condition, stealthily disguising them as cheap, sensationalist SF.
Both versions of Total Recall fail, in my opinion, to explore the real meaning of memory and existence in the way that PKD really meant. Blade Runner managed to do a great job with that. Amazon’s Man in the High Castle is *definitely* worth watching. It also really sticks to the spirit of the book and the idea that memory is reality, but that everyone has different memories and, hence, different realities.
Speaking of coincidence, I’m at work, writing code and listening to Vangelis’ masterful soundtrack from Blade Runner.
Coincidence #2. I was reading about that TV series. I hope they will air it where I live (Netherlands) sometime next year. See if I can get the book.
PKD short stories are incredible and numerous too. They show up (frequently un-credited) all over Hollywood.
I could see original title as subtitle, but movies need one-liners for titles in popular discourse. Dr. Strangelove’s full copy is good example of this contraction.
Perhaps ‘Do Androids Dream?’ would have been a better and more natural contraction though, now that I think about it.
So, good point.
Why hate? Are YOU Philip K, or just a dick?
STEP 1: Price buyers out of the market on Alpha platforms in order to recoup sunk costs.
STEP 2: Sales never meet expectations.
STEP 3: Sell reduced price model through MSRP or incentives.
STEP 4: Declare, there I fixed it without actually addressing any real problems.
Since the Alpha platform was supposed to be a Pontiac, until Cadillac inherited it and piled on extra costs, didn’t GM have the original more basic Alpha plans around that they could’ve used on the Camaro?
One would think. My guess is the platform development costs ballooned for some reason and even if they were using the “cheaper” spec plans for Camaro they are still out a bunch of money on enhancing the platform for Cadillac (and V6/V8) usage. From what I remember reading, the platform was supposed to be I4 only and its size and geometry had to be altered to accept a Cadillac V6/V8.
The Mustang is a better car. Compared to the Camaro, it has a nicer interior and, in convertible form, a usable trunk. You can also see out of it.
Ford has real nailed interior design lately. Not only that, on a recent trip a Ford dealer, I noticed that they do a great job on panel gaps…something GM has yet to learn. GM…Greatly Mediocre.
Despite not being a fan of the new Camaro, let’s not get carried away on this one. This is standard manufacturer end-of-model-year clearance pricing. They were offering up to 20% off trucks in a similar fashion.
They have always done that with trucks, trucks sells 10x the units as either Camaro or Mustang, and can therefore afford it. 20% off on a Camaro or Mustang means they are taking a loss, not true for trucks were 700,000+ plus are sold each by Ford and GM.
I sat in a Camaro in the showroom. I wouldn’t drive one if it was free. I’d probably have 17 crashes in the first six months. There is no outward visibility.
It is horrible. It was horrible in the 5th gen, and its still horrible in the new gen. Do all the executives at GM get their water piped in from Flint? I want to know.
“The cheapest V8-engined Camaro costs $37,900, or $4,355 more than the base price of a Mustang GT.”
To me, that’s just insane.
I know the new 6 cylinders are probably quicker than most V8 models of the past, but still, a Camaro deserves a V8 and the price of this blue-collar “affordable” muscle car is basically the same price as a new BMW or Mercedes.
Also, I really do think the “Transformers” tie in when this body style first hit was probably a big mistake long term for GM, because that’s the first thing I associate with that model. Just has a very cheesy vibe about it.
Yeah, Transformers *5* will be out in a year or so and the Camaro still looks like the car in the first one.
The Camaro SS is the objective equal of an M4 and subjectively superior. How much does that M4 cost again?
Maybe if you think the superiority of a car is purely measured on a dyno.
Most people do more with a car than just drag race at stoplights. Even Camaro owners.
When you’re getting to over $40k for a well optioned V8 Camaro, I can find much better alternatives even if they won’t win the all important drag race.
But that’s just me.
@jacob_coulter,
“Maybe if you think the superiority of a car is purely measured on a dyno.
Most people do more with a car than just drag race at stoplights. Even Camaro owners.
When you’re getting to over $40k for a well optioned V8 Camaro, I can find much better alternatives even if they won’t win the all important drag race.
But that’s just me.”
I don’t think you’re very educated on what the new Camaro V8 is capable of. It is NOT a dragstrip queen (that’d be the Hellcat); its a world class sports car that’s very good at doing more than drag racing. Please watch/read MT’s comparison of the Camaro SS and a BMW M4. They found that the Camaro is the M4’s equal by the numbers but its a far more engaging car to drive and easier to drive fast in the real world. Find me a much better alternative that will beat it around a track and at the drag strip for the same (or similar) money.
Link to MT: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/
I haven’t personally driven it yet but I can’t wait to try it out. I think its funny that here we have a real high performance driver’s car; an affordable M4 that drives/feels better and we’re picking nits with it. If I were to buy a car to drive for pleasure the Camaro SS would be it. Its fast in a straight line, fast in the twisties, engaging, easy to drive, and sounds amazing all for the price of a typical CUV.
@energetik9,
“Subjective yes. These are two different classes of car. The Camaro might be great value wise, but I’d take the M4. Better yet, I’d rather take the M2 or a Cayman S over the Camaro. That’s just my opinion. I haven’t driven a SS, but I have yet to be impressed with any Camaro I have driven. It’s the holistic package, not the collection of performance figures.”
Everything I’ve read about the Camaro SS is that it IS a holistic package; more so than a BMW. MT’s reviewers preferred the Camaro to the M4 even with price removed from the equation.
Again, 99% of most people’s driving doesn’t involve a track or dragstrip. Probably why the track stat is not bringing in sales.
So I could show you several “used” purpose built weekend track cars that handle a track MUCH better than a new Camaro off a showroom floor for far less, that doesn’t mean I want it for my everyday car.
YMMV
That’s your problem. You’re reading about the car, and not living with it. There’s a reason the Mustang is crushing the Camaro in sales, and it’s not because the Camaro is too awesome for anyone to wrap their heads around.
The vast majority of muscle car buyers don’t want an M-killer. The American muscle car is supposed to be an affordable way for the average American to get their hands on V8 power, which is mostly going to be used to go in a straight line.
The Camaro screws this up by including as standard many high-cost items designed for track use, like 6-piston Brembo brakes, that the Mustang wisely makes part of its optional performance package.
Look GM and forum posters get too caught up in performance numbers. A car is transportation first and foremost, for most. I have a large people hauler, wanted something fun to drive yet still could haul around 4 people I care about as much or more so than myself. Sure there are some that bought a Camaro SS 1LE and only take it to the track, however most of us use them as every day drivers. I went to the Chevy lot first and thought the .16 Camaro too expensive and way too small, a V6 Camaro with Cloth seats cost more that Mustang GT with cloth seats, that’s an easy decision to make. I get into the back seat of every vehicle before I purchase it, and if I am not comfortable – I don’t buy it. I tried to get in the back of the Camaro – despite the Chevy sales guy advising me not too. I could not hold my head up straight, unless the driver seat simply could not be put back so long as I have legs attached to my body. In contrast I sit comfortably in the back of a Mustang GT. What is why I have a premium Mustang GT. Regardless of the price the Camaro is simply too small for me, I would never buy one. In this segment the only purchasable cars are the Mustang and the Challenger – and hey guess what, the market shows that to be the conclusion most are coming up with as well.
“The Camaro SS is the objective equal of an M4 and subjectively superior. How much does that M4 cost again?”
Subjective yes. These are two different classes of car. The Camaro might be great value wise, but I’d take the M4. Better yet, I’d rather take the M2 or a Cayman S over the Camaro. That’s just my opinion. I haven’t driven a SS, but I have yet to be impressed with any Camaro I have driven. It’s the holistic package, not the collection of performance figures.
The difference is one can actually fit an adult into the back seats of the M4.
Not going to be able to do that with the Camaro SS.
GM will be better off when they move on from the Alpha platform – which allows for poor packaging when it comes to passenger and trunk space (which is the reason why the ATS lags behind the competition being one of the top handling in its segment).
The Camaro SS is really comparable to the Mustang GT equipped with Performance Pack (a ~$3000 option), which starts at ~$36,500, so the pricing isn’t as out of line as it first seems.
The problem, however, is that many buyers (who want the V8) just want the V8 and don’t really care about the all out performance. Chevy really needs a less performance/track focused V8 Camaro to compete with the base Mustang GT.
When you adjust for inflation the Mustang GT’s base price hasn’t actually changed all that much, especially considering how much better todays V8 is compared to past V8s in the car. The V8 was never as cheap/blue collar as people like to remember.
“When you adjust for inflation the Mustang GT’s base price hasn’t actually changed all that much, especially considering how much better todays V8 is compared to past V8s in the car. The V8 was never as cheap/blue collar as people like to remember.”
_
_
_
I disagree, a 1965 Mustang with a V8 was around $2,500 back then, today that equals around $19,000.
A 1985 Mustang LX with the 5.0 was around $9,000, or around $21,000 in today’s dollars.
I get that all sorts of mandated equipment options is going to make a car more expensive in todays market, but a new Mustang V8 for around $20k is quite a bit cheaper than what they are going for today.
I agree with this; maybe offer the LT1 as a standalone option on an LT? Kinda like how Dodge does the R/T Scat Pack with the SRT8’s 6.4L.
The Scat Pack is more of a decontented SRT (which only comes fully loaded), rather than an R/T with a big engine. And it also starts at $40K, making it costlier than the Camaro, and far costlier than the Mustang GT.
But you get a usable trunk with the Challenger, you also get reasonably usable rear seats. The car doesn’t look bad, like the Camaro. I drove an SS recently, and it drives great, best of the 3 in my opinion, but it’s not a practical car in any way at all. I can’t afford 2 vehicles unless the “useful one” is a beater, so the Camaro is out. I need a trunk, I don’t care about the rear seats, I don’t have dogs any more, or kids. I’m not prone to claustrophobia, but the new Camaro has me a little bit uncomfortable when I sit in it. It’s another Challenger, a Scat Pack, in just about 2 years for me.
LOL, I just came across this thread and I was off about a month. I bought my ’18 Challenger Scatpack in July or 2018.
I agree with your point about equal trim levels. Some people just want the V8, and will never take their car to a curvy track. But Chevy makes you pay for all those track bits, and Ford doesn’t.
Off topic, the Flash ads on this site are just killing me. I’ve watched the pages crash a dozen times today. It’s getting to be too much. I can’t scroll, comment, or even read anything half the time. No, Adblocker isn’t an option on this computer.
Could we have some due diligence here? Please. A visit to chevorlet.com shows that discounts on models sitting the longest on the dealer floor have MSRP rebates of up to 16% on them.
http://www.chevrolet.com/sales.html
The ad copy you linked to as proof as an across the board price cut on Camaro of 10% even says, “select models,” in big bold letters in the banner ad.
The 10% discount on Camaros is limited to 18% of vehicles in current stock, 3,060 units if we use the 17,000 unit number in the article above.
The small print also says no special finance, no special leases, and most additional incentives do not apply.
It’s marketing — and the incentive program is portrayed entirely inaccurately.
No defense for the Camaro — I hate the vehicle (previous gen, haven’t driven a new one) and wrote a blistering review on it last year. Jack’s observations of the V6 convertible were the same as mine — if anything Jack was more generous.
It’s almost like you stole that fine print right from the final paragraph of the article itself.
Don’t most American cars actual transaction prices work out to roughly 10% off the inflated MSRP already after the wheel and deal? Or does it mean that in-stock Camaros are 10% off MSRP as a jumping off point with even more off after negotiation?
Go in knowing the incentives and haggle even more is the usual way. Maybe the 10% off already makes haggling more difficult, but if the dealer needs to move cars, you can but try and get a bargain.
It won’t matter.
The Camaros problems go beyond the price sticker. What GM lost sight of is the first directive of these cars is to be FUN, with the secondary one being PRACTICAL.
Not FAST.
Ford moved legions of SN95 and New Edge Mustangs, even though a secretary’s A32 Maxima could beat them. Because they sounded and looked fun. The V6 Mustangs of the day would lose to a school bus in the 1/4, but that’s totally irrelevant to folks looking for a fun and practical car on the cheap.
Despite that generation Camaro being literally the fastest thing middle class money could buy for over a decade, it wasn’t enough to make up for the old school 70’s design and its foibles to the driving public.
That’s another reason why the advocates of GM making a 70s Camaro redux are flippin nuts. The upright, three box design already has serious practicality issues as it is; a 1970s V2 low slung shark of a Camaro would be Fbody 2.0 . We saw how well that turned out for GM back in the 00’s.
If I were the boss, I’d make the Camaro into a modern Monte Carlo redux. Upright styling, longer wheelbase ,basically a poor mans Eldorado.
Wanna go fast? Here’s a Corvette.
The Camaro of that era were no doubt faster than the Mustang (displacement FTW) but if you ever knew anyone with that era of Camaro, they really were junk. I knew two people who bought them new and the amount of problems they had could have easily sparked a lemon lawsuit if they had wanted it. I remember Consumer Reports giving it a really poor review on the reliability front. They just seemed junky and cheap, panel fitting, paint quality, cheap plastic interior, etc.
The Mustang was not up to the import standards, but it seemed all around a higher quality product.
“If I were the boss, I’d make the Camaro into a modern Monte Carlo redux. Upright styling, longer wheelbase ,basically a poor mans Eldorado.”
I actually think that’s a decent idea. I know I would want something like that.
Junk? No. The F body was never made in Britian.
Bare bones in terms of features? Yes . It’s 1970s packaging isn’t palatable to the Corolla crowd, for sure. Someone who needs their cars to have Planck-scale sized interior panel gaps is advised to run far away from anything with a Camaro or Firebird badge.
But I’ll let the haters in on a little secret; these cars are fun, and not just in a straight line.
I’ve little doubt the 2016 Camaro is similarly awesome, in that single minded way. Too bad Joe Public could care less about any of that.
The new Camaro is such a better car than the old one, but not recognizably different from the old one to a casual observer; making it like an unintended sleeper. These cars are so much about the social signaling and GM made it invisible. Sitting next to new Mustang, Camaro looks every bit the old one that much more.
If GM had left Camaro functionally identical, and only made the bodywork vividly different somehow – even maintaining the cartoon-motif – this ride would be getting more buzz and action off the lot.
Its August, time to start moving the “old model year” (16) to make room for the new.
The individual that wants a Camaro does not want a Mustang, and vice versa. Similar to the individual that wants an F-150 does not want a Silverado.
Styling sells, and the styling on the new Mustang makes the Camaro look dated and not refreshed. While keeping in mind that Mustang always had a fastback which never existed on a Camaro.
These cars are popular since they look like the original from decades ago, its a case of modern nostalgia.
As for visibility, rear view mirrors, back up camera, parking sensors, and whoever has one gets used to the visibility provided by the car.
I can’t imagine ever getting used to the lack of visibility in the Camaro, which is even worse than the last one. I had no idea what was happening in my right blind spot during the test drive, and was totally dependent on the monitoring system. Which is only available on the “2” trim as an extra cost option, despite being an absolute necessity. Hence, a V8 Camaro that I could “see” out of had a sticker of $48K. At that price, I might as well have asked how much the cheapest ‘Vette on the lot costs.
GM forgot who it is that’s supposed to be buying Camaros. Meanwhile, if I turn my head in my new Mustang, I see glass instead of C-pillar.
another fine car squashed my ineffective marketing. GM is whacked when it comes to merchandising and they’re getting worse. same old story. at GM the results don’t change, just the excuses. so easy to fix but not with the people they have.
What’s interesting about the Camaro’s sales dip is that they somewhat followed Ford’s formula with the revamp of the Mustang. Make solid and steady improvements on what they had, but not make it so obviously different as to mess with the success of the previous model. Yet, Ford’s plan increased sales and GM’s didn’t.
It’s easy to blame visibility or trunk/interior space or quality of materials, but that’s not it. The Gen 5 had the same shortcomings and was a sales blowout, so people can deal with that stuff.
Personally, I had an opportunity to drive an SS and it was fantastic. However, I could barely tell the new model from the outgoing on approach. Only when the old and the new are next to each other are the differences plainly obvious. Appearance is the number one reason customers buy. I believe the new didn’t go far enough to set itself apart from the old. When it was under development, I was hoping for a gen 1 to 2 type of revolution. GM played it safe on styling instead and didn’t give existing Camaro customers enough reason to re-up. The Mustang’s improvements were more evident and visible.
The Gen 5 is much roomier inside, as it’s a bigger car. That matters to Joe and Jane Public a lot more then skidpad times.
What makes things interesting is that V6 trims aren’t sleepy secretary cars anymore. While the dudebros beat their chests about whether the ZL1 stomps a Shelby , pleny of smart shoppers are driving the V6s and reaspnably deciding that’s quite enough power for their needs.
That’s why making your muscle car as an upright, boxy 2 door is vital to sales success. A V6 Mustang makes for a reasonably quick and practical two door. Ditto a Challenger .
A 2016 Camaro V6 is a throughly unappealing proposition. You get all the horrid drawbacks , without the fun stuff that balances the negatives. Worse- and this is Fords marketing genius at work- the V6 Camaro doesn’t look like the V8.
I can’t tell a GT from a V6 Mustang made after 2013 unless I’m close to the badges.
That matters when most folks just want the show, and don’t want the costs of having the “go”. Chevy may as well make the Camaro SS and discontinue the other trim levels, because it’s the only model that makes sense to buy given the drawbacks.
The Gen 5 Camaro was no more a practical car than a Gen 6. Interior and cargo space on the 5 were still dismal, yet it was a best seller. The Mustang isn’t more practical in any real way. The Challenger sells on it’s merits but practicality is much lower on the list than style.
Buyers in this segment tend to be loyal. If they’re given a good reason to re-up, they will. If they don’t perceive a big enough jump to roll that negative equity, they won’t.
When I heard the visibility was the same or worse than before, I immediately scratched it off my list, despite stellar reviews on handling. It makes one tense to drive around half-blind.
It´s easy; Ugly don´t sell cars. The drivers view is like sitting inside a tank. While some people thinks that this is cool, it´s not practical.
I tried a new Mustang Gt and thought it was pure shite. Throttle respons eand the autpo were so bad it was a con. Yeah if you floored it, waited a few seconds for the transmssion and drive by wire to figure it out you got fast accleration, seconds after you wanted it. As a car to drive the coboost one was betetr, and it was pretty crappy. But yes you could fit 4 people in it.
the Camaor, the back seats are vestigal, so its really a two seater, and therin lays the problem.
People who buy these cars, well on ocasiont hey wnat to take their friends somewhere.The Gen 5 was a bigger car, it had presence.
So its basically invoice price or a bit nmore or a bit less depending on model.
A friend of mine bought a Gen 5 Camaro SS 1LE, and I got to spend some time in it. Awesome car! A blast to drive and it has a lot of “personality” – the exhaust sounds are simply amazing and even make a trip to Kroger seem like a special event. After a couple of years, it’s still a blast to drive, and he’s had no problems with the car. So I went out and bought a Gen 6 Camaro SS. I didn’t think it was overpriced compared to a Mustang, but I was comparing to Mustangs equipped with the Track Pack. The car has been great. About the only downside is, it looks pretty similar to the previous gen Camaro. The interior is much nicer, beautiful design and high quality materials. The visibility issue is interesting… When you first get into the car it feels a little claustrophobic, and it takes 2-3 days to get used to the feeling. Afterward, it is completely a non issue. After a few days, I never again felt a lack of outward visibility or a confined feeling. You just kind of get used to it. My friend’s experience was the same with the Gen 5 car. As an unexpected bonus, when you are not driving it hard, the fuel economy is pretty incredible. I see 24 mpg in town/country driving and 26-27 on the highway, with a 450 hp 0-60 in 4 second muscle car. Overall I have been extremely pleased with the purchase and would do it again.
Good to read comments from owners, especially one that indicates they would buy one again. Congrats on getting that awesome V8, the sound alone is great. Have heard that the visibility issues is something that you get used to. I think having tried your friends car helps tip the balance though – if all you have is a quick dealer drive, then a potential buyer may go by first impressions, not good in this case. Maybe extended test drives would help them sell more as a driver gets used to the short glass house – pushing them to test one with the tech (blind spot, cross traffic etc.), would also be a smart move.