Repair-It

Was pulling out of the transfer station to get rid of oil (just changed the oil in the CTS-V after 13 months) and this drove by.

I instantly had a "I want that" feeling as it drove by. I remembered the deep cuts off MSRP. Now, side note, I do think there is a chance this thing will head back up in value, though that depends on how all-out and ridiculous the next Z/28 is. But the bigger discussion is that I think values are determined by equal parts style and performance. I think that is why the Mustang has been doing better, and why the GT350R is on everyone's must-have list.

For the regular Mustang, I think the style to performance to price ratio is just more favorable to more people than the 6th gen Camaro. The Camaro offers more performance at almost every trim level, but the prices are little higher and the car has more conservative styling.

For the GT350R, I think the extra styling plus the engine (the carbon fiber wheels I think are a HUGE part of what makes the car good and I don't think the regular person understands that so I am not counting this as something people commonly value) make it more desirable than something like a 5th gen Z/28.

I am curious about GT350 sales as I think the R is going to have a serious halo effect on the GT350 (same engine and you still get MR shocks).

All that said, the GT350R is kind of pointless at this point, unless it goes the way of the 5th gen Z/28 and becomes available for serious discounts (commonly available for MSRP would be a huge start). I don't see that happening. And consider that a Camaro SS probably has a similar performance envelope to a GT350. The 1LE probably splits the difference between the GT350 and GT350R. At the very least, the 1LE is probably not losing any track days to the GT350.

I also think in general, as I was hypothesizing to Bob the other day, Ford has some kind of perceived motorsport/performance credibility (perhaps including the Shelby name) that GM just doesn't have. Naturally I find this perplexing because GM has probably done more significant and higher numbers of performance cars in the past 15 years than Ford.

Let me name some Fords from the top of my head.
- 2000-ish Mustang Cobra R
- 2003-2004 Mustang SVT Cobra (Terminator)
- F150 Lightning pickup (the supercharged one)
- Marauder (a tepid and late as hell response to the 94-96 Impala SS)
- A pretty lame SVT Focus
- A very lame run of regular Mustangs until 2011.
- There was the GT500 Mustang though. However this was more of a Hellcat before its time than a road course monster, but in a pony car footprint (or think of it as midway between a Hellcat and a high power GTO). Still, the later ones had 662 hp so this car gets full credit for existing.
- Ford GT

Of those, the SVT Cobra "terminator" Mustang was pretty high performance for the time, right after the F-body left the planet, too.
The Ford GT is a special car and deserves credit though something like the Corvette is a much more relevant car (in terms of production numbers, price, and performance) regardless of how special a mid-engine supercar is on paper.
There was no answer to the GT500 until the 2012 Camaro ZL1 but with a variety of Corvettes available, GM had nothing to worry about in terms of performance capability.

From GM:
- 2001-2004 C5 Z06 (made the Cobra R look really silly with better performance, a lower price, packaged into a real car - for the Cobra R, think of a Viper ACR but with mediocre performance)
- Last 4th gen F-Bodies (it took the SVT Cobra to finally get the performance crown back - GM basically won the 90s for performance with the LT1, LT4, LT5 and LS1)
- 2004-2007 CTS-V (Ford was a no show here and STILL IS, unbelievably)
- 2004-2006 GTO (I believe the 05-06 was superior performing to the Mustang of the time but it was at least faster, in a laid back GT-car state of tune)
- Cobalt SS but especially the 2008 Turbo (Ford had nothing for this - even the supercharged Cobalt was higher performing than the SVT Focus)
- HHR SS (you can say no one wants this but objectively it is a useful car with good performance for a good price and is enjoyable to drive)
- Silverado SS
- Trailblazer SS (nothing from Ford)
- SSR (nothing from Ford for this oddity)
- Corvette C6 Z06 (LS7 - instant credibility, imo)
- Corvette C6 ZR1
- Pontiac G8 GT and GXP
- Chevy SS
- CTS-V2 and V3
- CTS Vsport
- ATS-V
- Corvette C7, Z51, Z06, Grand Sport (all very good cars)
- Camaro 1LE, ZL1, Z/28 (all very, very good)
- I could throw the Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, Lacrosse Super and Bonneville SSEi in here but this list doesn't need any help from lame FWD-based cars even if Ford had nothing here and even if they all had V8s.
- How about Corvette racing? C5-R, C6.R and C7.R. Pretty good legacy of winning.
- On that note, how about the LS engines, both in terms of engineering and hot rod/junkyard capabilities, tunable factory computers - Ford is in the distance here.

Seriously, that list is complete domination (many lines have multiple cars!). Some of those cars are better than others but they were all performance-oriented and almost all RWD-based. And they were either better than the Ford offering (sometimes better than the European competitors), or Ford had no competitor. So...Ford's motorsport/performance credibility must be based on something made up. Or something very old and imo, irrelevant. Does anyone have anything to add?

I will continue the discussion on the basis that there are two main considerations for enthusiast vehicles: performance and intangibles.

Performance is straight forward. Acceleration, braking, grip, and how usable and durable it is on the track. Capability in objective terms.

Intangibles are: steering feel, shifter feel, brake feel, throttle response, seats, "good NVH," high redlines, exhaust note, styling, or anything that makes you feel good while driving the car that can't be measured very easily (or at all). Some of these may allow you the confidence or even inspiration to access more of the car's performance but they won't really change the actual maximum performance.

I'd argue that GM's record on performance is pretty good, and has gotten REALLY good lately.

However, they are more hit and miss on intangibles, or I should say, certain intangibles, especially on the older offerings. Is this the key to everything? Are these MORE important than performance? Less? Same? More importantly, how is their record compared to Ford on intangibles?

Filtering the GM list I posted for cars with decent to good intangibles:
- 2001-2004 C5 Z06 for its rawness and response. Chassis was a little numb for the performance though.
- 2004-2007 CTS-V. I am biased but it may be noteworthy that it is easier to access this car's performance, especially in a street setting, than the aforementioned C5 Z06. Naturally part of this can be attributed to the lower performance envelope.
- Cobalt SS but especially the 2008 Turbo. All reviews seemed to praise this car for being as good as FWD can get. It was not just a numbers car. It did suffer the indignity of being a Cobalt, however.
- Corvette C6 ZR1. I put this in there because I think it was actually easier to drive than the C6 Z06s, especially if you look at the early non-MR models.
- Pontiac G8 GT and GXP. Holden VE chassis is good.
- Chevy SS. Holden VF chassis is even better.
- CTS-V2 and V3. Definitely.
- CTS Vsport. Yup.
- ATS-V. Yup again.
- Corvette C7, Z51, Z06, Grand Sport (all very good cars). Yeah pretty much all.
- Camaro 1LE, ZL1, Z/28 (all very, very good). Same.

So...that's not a bad record. More cars on this list with good intangibles than on the Ford list entirely.

The thing Ford has now is: Sporty models.

GM has 3. Camaro, Corvette, and SS. It says so on their website that that is it, they advertise 3 performance vehicles..

According to Ford, they have the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Taurus, Mustang, Raptor, and GT for performance vehicles. You can say they all suck, but their marketing is better. They get more press on more cars because they make a sporty, enthusiast version of everything. They are also all cheaper than GM. Attainability goes really far in the real world.

Also, Ford doesn't need to make a competitor to the CTS-V because if they stole 50% of that market, that would be like 4 cars that they just sold... LOL.

Otherwise, Ford is clinging to the Fox Body success...

Ok but in terms of full line comparisons:

Ford | GM
Fiesta ST | (no entry)
Focus ST and RS | (no entry - imagine how good a Cruze SS would be based on how good the Cobalt SS was)
Fusion Sport | (no entry - no performance versions of Malibu)
Taurus SHO | Chevrolet SS (wins on performance, space, soul)
Mustang | Camaro (wins for performance, sales numbers say otherwise)
Raptor | (no entry - GM had an entire Hummer lineup and all they got was shit for it - now they have to build a Baja truck for pavement bros to be considered competitive?)
GT | depends. Will a mid-engine Corvette be required to take this car on? We will see soon I think. I think Corvette spanks this anyway as the availability, price and overall performance of the line of Corvettes is proven by sales and testing.
(no entry) | Entire Cadillac performance lineup, which is like four cars (ATS-V, CTS Vsport, CTS-V, CT6 twin turbo)

If we stick to affordable cars, you are really just talking about the Fiesta, Focus and Fusion. The Fusion Sport I think does not matter. The industry has seen "performance midsize FWD sedans" for decades and again, for the price, you are into Maxima SR territory (not that the Maxima is automatically better, but this is a dwindling segment). Most people would rather lease a BMW 3-series with fake leather seats than pay $34k for a turbo AWD Fusion.

So, Fiesta and Focus. GM has no hot hatch. Are hot hatches of critical importance? What about my comparison of the past 15 years? Why is the 2016 lineup the only way to determine which brand has a better performance image? So now the past only matters when the car is bad, but not when it is good? What the hell sense does that make?

Cadillac bitch slaps Lincoln for performance but I guess that doesn't matter?

I agree with all of that except:
The SS spanks the SHO, but the SHO is 40K and if you click "Build and Price" the SS it starts at 48,870. 8500 is not negligible, and 40K is like a highly optioned Impala (The Impala might be a little less than 40K), which this would destroy.

This is almost not worth discussing since Ford and GM sell about 10 of these each...

Camaro wins performance, Mustang wins GT pricing and seems to have more followers of this gen styling, although I am not a Camaro Gen 6 hater(remember, for 45K you can have the performance of a 75K Z-28, It is on record). Short lived, Mustang wins 350R

GT is tough. Is it an exotic, competing with the Viper ACR, and NSX and Lambo, Ferrari, etc.? If so, Corvette I think must be mid-engine to be considered "exotic". Not because you need a mid-engine to be exotic, but in it's current terms they have branded the Corvette as "cheap" which clashes with true "exotic".

I would say Ford has nothing for the Corvette except maybe a GT500 which really still isn't the same, there should be a Camaro to face that car, and Chevy has nothing for the GT.

Cadillac bitch slaps Lincoln for performance but I guess that doesn't matter?

Correct on all points until GM has a "cheap" car for these halo cars. Normally that would mean a Alpha Chevy car (not Camaro). Reason being sales.

A Cruze SS would be awesome, but nobody will be excited about a FWD car in the performance list.

Even worse for the SS, I just noticed there is no lease option. So all you need is 4757 down and 729 a month. No big deal...

This does not make any sense when car makers know that nobody is buying vehicles this expensive.

You can lease a SHO for 339 a month.

Ford's business model of being worse for less money seems to be working. Again, they have the halo GT350R for $Unattainable, and the cheap GT everyone ends up with.

billgiacheri wrote: GT is tough. Is it an exotic, competing with the Viper ACR, and NSX and Lambo, Ferrari, etc.? If so, Corvette I think must be mid-engine to be considered "exotic". Not because you need a mid-engine to be exotic, but in it's current terms they have branded the Corvette as "cheap" which clashes with true "exotic".

Disagree the cheap branding. Value and in a very real, non-marketing spin sense. It is true, the Corvette isn't for showing off your money (except perhaps in the trailer park) but as an enthusiast car (where performance and intangibles both matter tremendously) it is a very, very strong brand.

billgiacheri wrote:Correct on all points until GM has a "cheap" car for these halo cars. Normally that would mean a Alpha Chevy car (not Camaro). Reason being sales.

Right, an Alpha Chevy car would be epic. Really, you'd be looking at a de-contented Chevrolet ATS. But is there a market for this?

billgiacheri wrote:A Cruze SS would be awesome, but nobody will be excited about a FWD car in the performance list.

Well the Fiesta ST and Focus ST are both FWD...and a 2008 Cobalt SS still owns the FWD VIR record at the C/D Lightning Laps. 4.6 second lead over a 2014 Focus ST in fact. In 2008, when tires have improved so much. That is just insane.

billgiacheri wrote:Even worse for the SS, I just noticed there is no lease option. So all you need is 4757 down and 729 a month. No big deal...

This does not make any sense when car makers know that nobody is buying vehicles this expensive.

I think it proves that GM isn't BSing when it says the SS is meeting sales targets. Zero marketing, zero affordable leases. Which is why the car isn't a failure.

I'd like to see the price difference when comparably equipped. The gap may shrink.

Also, if you are buying a car like that, you probably have way more to put down than $4750 (even if that is just the trade).

Actually I think the gap closes down to almost zero when you factor real transaction prices.

kevm14 wrote: I'd like to see the price difference when comparably equipped. The gap may shrink.

$45,255. That is the MSRP of the SHO with similar features.