Repair-It

I would say that options in '93 for the Impala SS versus the Z-28 are close to the differences in the Gen 5 Camaro Vs the SS.

So the Impala SS had some better/more luxurious options for the time than the Z-28 of the time, so the relative pricing still fits. The Impala SS and Caprice with the 350 were not stripped down to match the price of the Z-28 of the time.

I am not sure why this is a stipulation now.

billgiacheri wrote:I would say that options in '93 for the Impala SS versus the Z-28 are close to the differences in the Gen 5 Camaro Vs the SS.

So the Impala SS had some better/more luxurious options for the time than the Z-28 of the time, so the relative pricing still fits. The Impala SS and Caprice with the 350 were not stripped down to match the price of the Z-28 of the time.

First of all, I don't think anyone owes you current market pricing that matches some past version of something that you accepted.

Second, the Impala SS didn't have any luxury features that the F-body didn't have. That's because the Impala SS didn't have any real luxury features. Both cars had:
- Leather
- Power seats, mirrors, locks
- A/C
- Limited slip differentials
- Keyless entry
- ABS
- 4 wheel disc brakes

The Impala SS had no available sunroof while the F-body had the convertible and T-tops models. The F-body also had better upmarket audio options - GM discontinued the BOSE system after 1993 in the B-bodies. The F-body also offered traction control. That was not offered on any B-body (had to buy a Fleetwood if you wanted that).

The only thing luxurious about the Impala SS was the space and general comfort, which is a very old school approach to luxury and was already well in decline in the 90s. People were clamoring for a lot more than that.

It is also worth mentioning that GM happily discontinued the B-body so they could make real profits on selling GMT-400 SUVs. The B-body was not high margin.

Wake me up when the SS is ~$5000.

First of all, I don't think anyone owes you current market pricing that matches some past version of something that you accepted.

Nope, never said that, but the market doesn't owe GM more than a car is worth either. Which is partly why nobody is buying it at 50K.


Both cars today are very much representative of the common options offered for the time today, just like the 2 cars compared in 1993.

This all goes back to my argument about it being total bs that GM can make a truck with a V8 for 28K but can't make a car with a V8 for at this point almost 40K (Gen 6 Camaro base price).
There is no justification for a car that hasn't had real styling dollars spent, or tuning time like the Camaro had to cost more just because it has 4 doors a little more room and some options that really don't amount to much more than the Camaro comes with.

billgiacheri wrote: Both cars today are very much representative of the common options offered for the time today, just like the 2 cars compared in 1993.

The SS comes with what it should for its price range and has above average performance. It is also far nicer than any Gen 5 Camaro so watch out making price comparisons. The Impala SS wasn't far nicer than an F-body. The Impala SS was probably a better value than the F-body and obviously I much prefer it to an F-body.

Find me a nicer, bigger car with better total performance for less than the SS costs. Doesn't exist.

This doesn't mean the SS is the best car ever but it does mean that it is Pareto optimal.

I just don't have much sensitivity to new car MSRPs so I really don't care - I don't think it is a big deal. The "epidemic" of high new car MSRPs is balanced by available loans and leases. Adjustments will be made to reach equilibrium. And the SS has sold in the volume they planned. There was zero marketing. They did not try to sell big volumes. How many times can I explain this?

Adam wrote:Wake me up when the SS is ~$5000.

It will be a while. You still can't get a 2004 CTS-V for that and those cars have been on the road for like 13 years.

I would be willing to make a bet that the SS never reaches $5k due to the rarity of the car and the enthusiast following. Also, there is a pretty good likelihood that this may be the last RWD V8 sedan with a Chevy badge (of course people may have said this about the 94-96 SS too).

These might.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2011-Chevrolet- ... 2319771046

I guess that'll have to do.

How many times can I explain this?

Just because you explained it, and I disagree, doesn't mean I don't understand your explanation.

So they set out to not sell a lot of cars. Good plan. You succeeded. Maybe they need a better business model since their entire goal is to make and sell cars.

I guess I can make a gigantic car with no style, only make 5 and price them at 100K and it is cool because I didn't want to sell a lot anyway.

Why do you think they are so averse to selling this car? Because you think it is so awesome they want to inject false rarity by not making a lot and pricing them high enough to not sell in quantity? This make no sense to me.

I just disagree, which is fine.

My theory is that GM wants to sell cars, and if this car was priced right, it would sell a lot more than it is, which would also be good for us on the used market. I don't understand why that opinion is so inflammatory.

They have the version you want in Australia. The pricing here must be related to making it in left hand drive and shipping it. To make up for that, they add some options so buyers won't feel bad about buying a stripped down model for $50k. I feel like we've had this conversation before.

MCM was taking about an ADM replacement for the Commodore being a FWD/AWD based Opel with a turbo. I wonder what platform that is. Also, from what they were saying, the local Commodore fans will not appreciate that. I guess they are like our Camaro fans here.