Repair-It

Bob wrote:If the SS ran mid-12s at 115, would GM need to worry about ATS-V sales?

No. The ATS-V is a smaller, better handling car. If the SS competes with a Cadillac, it would be the CTS V-sport, imo. But there again, the mission of each brand is clear in each product. The SS is a nice car but is not a luxury car in refinement, even though it does have some luxury features standard.

I think the real conversation is, the SS was not intended to be a high volume competitor to the Charger. GM needs to decide it wants to compete, and then figure out a manufacturing strategy to allow that to happen. It is mainly a marketing decision.

I'd hate to look like a hipster, but Dodge made almost 1 million Chargers since model year 2005. When I see one, the first thing I think is either rental car, or cop car. I don't think "awesome Hellcat," "awesome Scat Pack" or even "awesome muscle car."

billgiacheri wrote:If they continue to pretend that the SS is a semi luxury car.

I think the SS is fine for a top market Chevrolet option. The issue is, there should be lower priced options and that has everything to do with how/where the SS is currently made. They need to fix that, but only if they decide they want to compete here.

billgiacheri wrote:If the SS looked like a muscle car, and rough around the edges, I would say no.

Yeah I mean the SS should probably look like a 4 door Camaro. And it doesn't, because it's just a Holden VF. They need to make the marketing decision to change what the SS is. It's not like the current SS was their closest attempt at Camaro styling, or their best attempt at selling 300,000 of them a year. That's the point.

billgiacheri wrote:Currently there are a lot of similarities between the new Camaro and the ATS-V, and I really want the Camaro, and don't really care about the ATS-V. Not that the ATS-V is bad, it is just a different class of car. I want a fast sports/muscle car, and don't care about luxury ride or badge. That is just my opinion.

If I wanted a coupe, I think I'd have a hard time choosing the ATS-V over the Camaro SS. But in a sedan, there is no choice. And in a sedan, the Chevrolet SS enters the picture for me. For that matter, so does a used CTS V-sport which apparently is dipping into new Chevrolet SS territory.

billgiacheri wrote:I would also argue that that is how Dodge/Chrysler gets away with it. The 300 is for "luxury" people and the Charger/Challenger is for the muscle crowd.

Alex on Autos explained that the 300 is in a unique position. Because that is FCA's top US brand, the 300 has to cover a lot of the market (large pricing range), and it does that by offering cheaper versions all the way to fancy leather-dash versions. But yes I agree.

billgiacheri wrote:I would also argue the ATS is too small compared to the SS. The SS would be closer in size to the CTS, and that is way more expensive, especially the CTS-V.

Yes. In fact, I think it is quite possible that the SS is actually larger than the CTS. But size is not the biggest factor in selling expensive cars, so that's fine. Remember, if you don't need the luxury stuff and fancy badge, a Chevrolet should do just fine. If you don't need the performance stuff or fancy badge, a Buick should do just fine. Only if you want everything do you need to step up to Cadillac. This continues to make sense to me.

billgiacheri wrote:Also once they get the SS off the Australian platform, it should be a lot cheaper. They can sell a base HD Truck for 33K. There is no reason that they couldn't sell an SS for low 30's. One problem they do have is that there isn't an everyday car (Impala) to share the platform from.

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-2500 ... rucks.html

They could, but not the current car. Again, they need to make the marketing decision to essentially go after Charger customers. Maybe there are other conquest markets they could pursue.

I think they (maybe rightly?) figure that the Impala is a better fullsize car to normals. The Impala is actually a highly regarded car in its segment. By the way, that segment is dying, which may also explain why the SS came to us the way it did. Only if you need performance does any of that RWD chassis stuff matter. Now I guess the point is, why can't they offer an SS without all of the features/toys for under $40k? I think they should. If it was fully updated with the LT1 and 8L90, it would be unfair for it to start under Camaro 1SS pricing though, so maybe $40k. $35k with the old LS3.

But it won't work on the current car. I don't know what their plans are. I do know that if they do nothing, the SS, like the G8 cars, will annoyingly retain their value.

kevm14 wrote:I think they (maybe rightly?) figure that the Impala is a better fullsize car to normals. The Impala is actually a highly regarded car in its segment.

Guess what. The Impala was redesigned for MY2014 so let's compare sales to the Charger. The years are calendar years which don't overlap perfectly with model years.

Charger sales
2014 94,099
2015 94,725

Impala sales
2014 140,280 <-- includes some MY2013 W-bodies
2015 116,825

Why does GM need to do anything again?

For the hell of it, let's look at the old W-body version, for kicks.

Charger sales
2010 75,397
2011 70,089
2012 82,592
2013 98,336

Impala sales
2010 172,078
2011 171,434
2012 169,351
2013 156,797 <-- includes some Epsilon II Impalas

Even the awful W-body outsold the Charger. And the Charger sales include ALL variants (SRT, AWD, V6, Hemi, etc.).

kevm14 wrote:If it was fully updated with the LT1 and 8L90, it would be unfair for it to start under Camaro 1SS pricing though, so maybe $40k. $35k with the old LS3.

Bill commented that they should use something less than the LS3. Ok, but the LS3 is old, and probably cheap to make. There is currently no car version of the Gen V that isn't the LT1. The truck version is the L86, and that has 420 hp, or 5 more than the LS3.

The only Gen V that would make sense for a G8 GT-like version of the SS would be one of the 5.3L engines. The 5.3L is the L83 and it makes 355 hp and 383 lb-ft - almost identical to the old L76 6.0L in the G8 GT. But there is no car version. In fact, I don't think even Holden is using any of the Gen V engines other than the LT1. I could double check. But there is currently not a full line of Gen Vs. Gen III/IV had a very wide variety of engine options through the years (including the transverse LS4).

Now that I am looking up the Gen IV, I have learned that the L76 was used in both cars and trucks. I find that a little suspicious, because the car L76 did not receive variable cam phasing, while the truck version did. But the point is, they would have to do this for a Gen V, and I think given the power levels of the L86, a 5.3L would make sense.

What about a 3.6L version with the powertrain out of the Camaro V6? Is that too confusing to buyers with the Impala also in the lineup?

kevm14 wrote:In fact, I don't think even Holden is using any of the Gen V engines other than the LT1. I could double check. But there is currently not a full line of Gen Vs. Gen III/IV had a very wide variety of engine options through the years (including the transverse LS4).

Commodore engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Co ... owertrains
Just the L77, same as the Caprice PPV. This is Gen IV, and a slightly updated L76 that dates back to the 2008 G8 GT. The LS3, by the way, is just as old. An SS with the L77 is....a Caprice PPV. Well, that's WN, but I guess the point is Holden already sells (sold?) a VF with the L77.

http://www.holden.com.au/cars/caprice
http://www.holden.com.au/cars/commodore

Nope, no Gen Vs.

Bob wrote:What about a 3.6L version with the powertrain out of the Camaro V6? Is that too confusing to buyers with the Impala also in the lineup?

I think it is confusing. GM could also decide to do an AWD Impala w/ 3.6L TT and compete directly with the Taurus SHO. But I don't see why they would even bother.

billgiacheri wrote:

I liked many things about the Charger including the presence the SS just does not have to the observer on the street. It is also quicker, and behaves more like a muscle car when punched. You can also have the opportunity to take less options, making it cheaper.

This is a big point that you are ignoring. I know you don't care about this but a lot of people do.

Another perspective that kind of sums up each car's strengths and weaknesses:
http://www.powernationtv.com/post/charg ... uscle-cars

It starts by dismissing the whole "4 doors can't be muscle cars" thing, which I didn't think intelligent people still said. It disproves that statement by explaining that plenty of 4 door muscle cars were offered in the 60s.

Then the article goes on to state how good of a value the Charger Scat Pack is. True.

The SS is about $6,000 extra, but it’s a more refined, luxurious vehicle, not to mention it’s now offered with a six-speed manual gearbox and GM’s fabulous magnetic ride suspension. Not just a rebadged Pontiac G8 GT, it’s got aluminum suspension components, and a 415-horsepower (SAE net) LS3 V-8 (among other revisions). Its production is limited to about 2,500 units a year in the U.S., which is a shame because it may be the best sedan GM’s ever offered—and that includes the Cadillac CTS-V. You have to drive one to appreciate just how good it is. The fact that it’s quicker bone-stock than a ’70 LS-6 Chevelle (12.9 at 111) is than more than some can take.

Where the SS falls short is in the styling department. Where the Charger really looks the part of a street brawler (without being cartoonish), the Chevy has a design only Avis could love. Not unattractive, just antiseptic up front and in the rear. Looks too much like a big Cruze or previous generation Impala for my tastes. But once you’re behind the wheel you wouldn’t care if it resembled an AMC Pacer. It’s that good. No, it’s world class.

It comes down to ideology or something. I'd rather drive something like an SS than something like the Plymouth Prowler. Looking at it only matters when I am walking up to it in a parking lot. I'm not saying someone is wrong for preferring the Prowler (or similar) but that I don't understand it at all.

It starts by dismissing the whole "4 doors can't be muscle cars" thing, which I didn't think intelligent people still said.

I don't disagree, I just prefer the styling of 2 door cars. There are 4 door cars that look ok, but the majority of sport version of cars look better with 2 doors.


Also, I want to get out there another thing we talked about today:

GM should make a cheap RWD sports car with the truck block 5.3. The after market would go nuts with a cheap V8 that can readily accept a turbo. This would really get the internet praising GM again. Don't get me wrong, the LS swap into everything is great press already, but they would be basically be serving up cars ready to mod. You could argue that this might cut into the Camaro, but the Camaro is more of a full package.