The new GTO (Longwinded, but read anyway!)

[markd79ta]

The Supercharged SVT Cobra is $38,460, and the Lightning was $33,310 according to the F.O.R.D. webe site. In other words, the Cobra is no longer an affordable sports car under 35K, and no matter how you look at it, it will never do what the Corvette can do not to mention the Z06. When people look at performance, they need to look at at all disciplines not just straight line drag racing. The C6 design rules on road courses. Remember, you have to look at the CAFE rules along with the requirements of the EPA when looking at the engine and gearing specs on the cars as they roll off the line by its particular manufacturer. It is also important to know that the f-bodies, trucks, and SUVs hurt the Vette in this regard. Anyhow, back to my point, look at its success with the Lemans series, and the C6 design is the best hands down. The f-body was a great value for the money; the best on the market. Unfortunately, that is on hiatus right now, but it will be back someday...there is too much money in the names I don't get the Lightning, but I don't understand the logic behind a fast truck.

The cars that Jay is talking about are definitely coming to market except for the Grand Am concept. GM is doing its best to undo a decade of strictly family oriented grocery getting boring FWD cars that are dull and uninteresting in order to include performance in the mix. Think about it though: Chrysler Corp has the Viper which is pretty much unattainable unless your wealthy, but what else is performance driven except their trucks? F.O.R.D. has made a strong pitch to take hold of the market with the redesign and energy with the Mustang, building the GT, continuing with the Lightning, and Impalafying the Crown Vic as the new Marauder. But, again, look at the rest of their fleet in comparison to GM. They are making some good decisions with these performance cars. I guess the question is do you want to buy one of these cars, or wait for a GM car?

The GTO will do well. It is a limited production car that will sell for 39K. The collectors will snatch them up along with many people in their 50s who remember the car from its glory days. I think a lot of people realized that it wasn't a car designed to compete with an f-body or a Mustang. Like I said, I wished that it was a good four seat, 4000lbs, long, EFI 455 500hp, long coupe that scared people when you drove by. It might not be the fasted thing, but that is OK.

I think we will se a lot more to come...just be patient. If you want to get one of the F.O.R.D.s in the interim, have fun with it...what ever it is that floats your boat. I think if we, the gear head community, is supportive of GM, we will see cars like the GTO, Chevelle, RWD cruiser, and so on emerge. If we are not, we will get a bunch of disposable throw away FWDs that they know sell.

[JL8Jeff]

Like I said, I'm not in the market for a new car since I still have my 69 Z28 being restored. But an affordable performance V8 rear wheel drive car needs to be offered under 35K to compete. The Vette is in another category all its own so you can't bring that into the equation. The Cobra may cost 38K, but the GT is under 35 as well as Lightning. I'm not sure what the Marauder costs, but the GTO at 39 is too high. I'm sure the new Cadillac will be above that number too. Most of the F-body's sold to kids coming right out of school. They definitely can't afford 35-40K plus the 2-3K insurance bill. It sure looks like performance is no longer affordable at GM. I'll wait a couple of years and see what happens.

[Joe 1320]

I hope the following opinion makes it right back to GM headquarters and is read by those that are in controll of marketing:

As a die hard performance enthusiast, I have had countless GM cars over the past few decades. I love my Buick GN and my 96 WS6, I loved my 95 Impala SS, my 40th anniversary convertable Vette, My ZR-1, my 96 Crew Cab Dually, not to mention all the older GM iron I've had the pleasure of owning. I am however, done with the accelerating upward prices. In the past, you brought us performance with style, with careful shopping the prices and value were great. Sadly, this isn't the case anymore. Not too long ago, $25K bought alot of performance and style, now just a few years later the same $25K won't touch a similar vehicle unless it is already 2 years old with 24,000 miles. New performance vehicles are rapidly getting beyond the reach of all but the well off. Fortunately, my job pays well and can afford a new payment quite easily. The difference here is that I refuse to pay the inflated prices. I also refuse to settle for a FWD econobox with a few dress up items that poses as a performance vehicle. You aren't the only manufacturer that has jumped on this bandwagon, you are simply the manufacturer that I WAS loyal to. Therefore, I will simply buy and restore and enjoy the older cars in which you will make no profit on, that is until you rediscover who the performance vehicle buyers really are.


It's sad.... I used to enjoy getting a new car every year or two. Oh well, I'll just invest it and pad my retirement.

[TimeLord]

JL8Jeff/Joe !!! Dead on,,,,,,,,

[markd79ta]

It is absolutely ridiculous that cars cost as much as they do, and it is relative no matter which vehicle you look at. Shoot, my mom bought Hondas in the 80s because they were inexpensive and dependable. I think the last one she bought was $8,800 in '85, and she thought that was outrageous (which it is). Her first '78 was less then 4k, and her '81 was about 6K. Now, the cheap little tin can Accord sedans cost 16K for a completely stripped down version and 27K for a loaded version. What is up with paying close to 30K for a Honda? My mom was even appalled. During the '90s she bought loaded Buick Lesabres or Park Avenues at the same cost as the Honda Accords. Trucks were a few thousand dollars in the 70s and now they sell in the 30K-40K range(?), and some of the luxury trucks even higher. My dad bought our '69 1 ton Chevy 4X4 for $1,800, and my sister still has it to pull her horses. The Mustang is still in the price range of the f-body, but that won't last long, and REALLY, close to 30K for a Mustang? Or, even an f-body for that matter is ridiculous. It is all ridiculous and we have the government to thank for it, I was upset with paying 24K for my '97. Really, even 35K is outrageous. My '79 T/A with the 400 4sp option as well as the WS6 option as well as the special ordered interior was delivered for less then 10K. The GTAs in the 80s were selling for 20K, and they sold from 27K-35K in the 90s. It is unfortunate, but all of the cars are going upward. Shoot, a new 1 ton dually Duramax diesel is over 40K along with the Dodge and the F.O.R.D. counterparts. Look at the Mitsubishi Eclipse which is popular with the 20 somethings. The 2003 Eclipse GTS MT rated at 210Hp is 25K (starting price.) Back in the 80s, thirty thousand was the luxury car threshold, now it is mid-size. I remember when my dad bought his '88 Lincoln Town Car Special Edition for 31K. The Corvettes may be expensive, but compared to the market, it is a world class sports car delivered at the same price as a 1 ton pickup...I think that says something. So, put in this context, the price of the limited production, LS1, RWD, GTO with the stronger six speed and far more advanced chassis then our f-body is not bad in the mid to upper 30s. I think it is just cars in general that are ridiculous, and we are paying out the *** for a bunch of technological BS.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Jeff, Joe, Mark, TimeLord...

I am sure I risk ENFURIATING many people here when I say this... but how affordable can you make cars when UAW workers are paid $24 an hour?

I'm not even going to SUGGEST that they shouldn't be paid that much, as this is not an argument I want to be involved in - especially on this site. All I am saying is, you can't have your cake and eat it too... expensive labor = expensive cars.

[markd79ta]

Jay, I agree with you to a certain extent. The cost of labor has definitely driven up the price of cars, but so has governmental mandates and regulations. There comes a time when things are just ridiculous. I would prefer to buy a car without all of the junk like, airbags, ABS, traction control, and all of the electronic cr*p designed to make cars idiot proof and so-called "environmentally friendly". We as a society try to control inanimate objects instead of are own foibles. Problems on the road can't be technologically solved as long as people are driving. However, people, and their skills along with weeding out stupid people through proper skill testing and consequence for reckless behavior can be achieved. My dad's life was saved by a '78 Lincoln Mark V when he was hit head on by a '74 station wagon doing 75mph...my dad was doing 45 mph. The ferocity of the collision shattered the front end of my dad's Mark V, but he was untouched and not wearing a seat belt. If GM could still sell a basic K5 or truck with the necessary EFI 350, and nothing else for 10K, I would buy it...same with an f-body... But, unfortunately, we have to buy all of the junk our government feels important. The cars and trucks of today are nothing but overpriced techno boxes on wheels. I mean...things like that ridiculous skip shift in our f-bodies. They do nothing, but annoy the heck out of us, but GM had to do it to comply with CAFE rules. That thing just about sent me through the t-top when it snowed...getting locked out of second in a low throttle condition (it has the eliminator now.) Just think about it, every time you buy a car, half of the costs is governmental garbage mandated on you in order to purchase that car. I love driving my '77 K5 in protest. It is funny too in that it is emissions exempt being over 6000lbs GVW. I take it in once a year for a sniffer test. It always comes back a third of the allowance. Basically, it would pass 1990 standards...I just have the square bore double pump tuned well along with the HEI; there is nothing else on the motor...not cats, air, egr, nothing at all except a power steering pump and an alternator. What is even more funny about this is that I need to rebuild the motor desperately. The cylinders are all sitting around 86-89psi. It gets maybe 3-4 mpg less then a new full size truck. If the government wasn't so restrictive, cars could be produced with a basic EFI motor, a frame, a body, and four wheels. I don't mind having these techno boxes for the rank and file who want to pay for it, but it would be nice to produce some trucks and muscle cars that are not so restricted to all of this. Look at our f-body, in order for them to keep building it, they needed to redesign it for side impact bags...what is up with that. If somebody wants side impact bags, then they should look at a car with them. I could personally care less about that junk, and why is the government forcing it?

[Joe 1320]

I do believe people should be paid fairly. I do not believe that labor is driving up the price of the vehicles. I believe the manufacturers are forcing people to take options that they do not want in order to pad their profits. I know people in the car sales industry. They are making more profit than you realize. Dealer "fair market adjustments" and other inflated charges are driving the cost up dramatically, the same goes for government taxes on gas guzzlers, etc. Here is an example of a few questions to ponder:

How can a Corvette with a $7000 markup over cost be adjusted upward another $5000 for fair market adjustment? How can one Corvette cost 10,000 more for a few simple modifications than an almost identical model sitting right next to it? Does it really cost more to build? No. There is a term used in high ticket retail sales called "Apparent Value". That is a perceived value of a particular product. The manufacturers price their products according to the perceived value, not the actual cost to build. This is why the prices of trucks and SUVs shot up dramatically years back. You used to be able to get a fully loaded truck for a substantial amount less than a car. No longer. It's all about getting what the market will bear, not based on actual cost.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Well, with that comment Mark, an answer can come down to simple marketing. The OVERWHELMING majority of people DO want those features (except for skipshift, which is retarded altogether). I don't think the government is mandating side impact airbags or traction control, or even ABS or power steering for that matter. 99% of people today woudn't consider a car without airbags... while you may, you are a very small exception.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by Joe 1320
I do believe people should be paid fairly...

As do I. $24/hour for 6 days a week, 9 hours a day, with 4 weeks paid vacation when the Christmas week is included... that = $75K a year. We should all be paid that fairly.

[00 Ragtop Z]

Sorry folks, but it is not teh cost of labor that is driving car prices up--it's teh cost of healthcare and teh cost of unfunded pensions. I saw an article that said teh average cost of teh healthcare and pensions related to each new car was on teh order of $3,000 to $5,000. While it sounds like a lot to pay an auto worker $XX an hours (whatever it actually is) consider that most auto workers have the most boring jobs in teh world. Imagine your job being putting front fenders on car after car after car all day, day in, day out, year in, year out. Sorry, they could not pay me enough.

And there is a simple solution. FInd those pre-owned Corvettes and Camaros and Firebirds that have been babied and buy them instead of teh newest thing off teh production line. You can buy a 2000 Corvette with the LS-6 for anywhere from $28,000 to $35,000 right now with relatively low mileage. You can buy a 2000 Camaro Z-28 for the mid teens. You can buy plenty of aftermarket goodies to make them compete with anything being sold today, at a fraction of teh cost. You can buy the old muscle cars (well they called them muscle cars though they were pretty skimpy on muscle in all honesty) for anywhere form $5,000 up.

And, just as an afterthought to toss in my $.02 worth, I think teh new GTO is GREAT!! Just as it looks and runs (or will look and run in a couple months!!)

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by 00 Ragtop Z
Sorry folks, but it is not teh cost of labor that is driving car prices up--it's teh cost of healthcare and teh cost of unfunded pensions.

Good point... that too. But that factors in to the workers' wages ON TOP of their hourly rate.

Originally posted by 00 Ragtop Z
While it sounds like a lot to pay an auto worker $XX an hours (whatever it actually is)

$24 is a good estimate. Higher seniority and more specialized workers can earn closer to $30.

Originally posted by 00 Ragtop Z
consider that most auto workers have the most boring jobs in teh world. Imagine your job being putting front fenders on car after car after car all day, day in, day out, year in, year out. Sorry, they could not pay me enough.

Consider that MANY (certainly not all) are working in a plant because they do not have the capability to hold a professional, business, or office job. Many lack the education and communicative skills to succeed in that environment and ended up where they were because they had nowhere else to turn. Ending up with $75K a year to do a mindless (and in some cases unskilled) task because it was your last resort is... well... very fortunate. The only reason you think you couldn't be aid enough to do those tasks, is because you are capable of doing much more than that... some people are not.

I just think it is completely unfair to General Motors to expect them to compete in that price range, and then getmad at them when they want to take jobs and build plants in Mexico.

Think about it... $50K per year is quite a handsome sum to live on. That is 1/3 less than what they are currently paid. If GM reduced their worldwide labor cost by 1/3... we'd be having quite a bit of fun in our $33K Corvettes.

[markd79ta]

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
I don't think the government is mandating side impact airbags or traction control, or even ABS or power steering for that matter.

Read these two articles http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3428 ; http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3428

Airbags and side airbags are a requirement based on a phase in period. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...PRM/Index.html We have these rules because cars are increasing becoming unsafe due to weight and materials to meet CAFE requirements. I mentioned my father's accident in the '78 Mark V for a reason. That car has nothing of what is required today, but his life was saved because he was in a big, heavy, beast with a 460 in front of him. The cars of today are not designed to take that kind of a collision. Instead, we are forced now to buy lightweight vehicles that small women or children may or may not survive a major impact...the airbags do nothing but hurt them.

I understand that marketing propagates things like traction control, ABS, FWD, and the like, but hey...it comes with a price. Cars are becoming techno boxes. And governmental mandate will control more and more of what we have available to us. In not so distant of a future, we will have fuel cell, self navigated vehicles.

A lot of info can be found at these two sites. It is interesting/scary

NHTSA
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

EPA
http://www.epa.gov/

[markd79ta]

A couple more thoughts on vehicle cost and the GTO

With regard to Traction Control and ABS. Both are idiot controls designed for people who don't have the skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle effectively. It is the assumption that the computer knows more then the driver which is probably true given the state of most American drivers, but it doesn't account for the condition and the skill set of each individual driver. I don't care if it is a marketing ploy that results in the illusion of safety leading to regulation or the converse, it is still driving up the price of motor vehicles while at the same time giving the illusion that roads are safer. Safety without skilled drivers is an illusion. When I got my license in '87, I drove around the block...no skills testing at all. What does a driver need to do or be capable of doing to get a license...basically, breathe air and see. Also, what does a risky driver need to stay on the road?

Joe mentioned something about the rising costs of trucks and SUVS. It was in part market driven, but it was also in part features and mandates driven. Look at trucks prior to the early 90s. They didn't have all of the features and technology of the ones today, and they were much less expensive. Now, everybody wants one whether they need it or not, they are full of technology and amenities and they are twice as expensive. There is a lot of regulation coming down on vehicles from now until 2012, and the trucks/SUVs will be hit the hardest. The costs of cars will skyrocket yet again over the next 10 years as they have with each passing decade since the 70s with the advent of the Clean Air Act. The markups we pay past MSRP are the decisions of the consumer. If the consumer wants the vehicle bad enough they will pay it...that is just simple supply and demand. Shoot, we have a consumer base who wants the interior of a Caddy in a full-size 4X4 equipped with On-Star so that undoubtedly is going to drive up cost. The MSRP is based on the cost/profit margin of the manufacturer to bring the vehicle to market. If you do your homework, you can get the factory invoice, and see how much it does cost to bring the vehicle to market.

Basically, whether we like it or not, we are going to be paying for it. I think there are three factors that have been discussed here which include consumer demand and market pressures, labor costs, and regulation costs. The GTO is built in Australia that must comply with all three forces, and all of the taxes and fees associated with bringing in those 18,000 vehicles. Personally, I will stick with the existing stuff for the cars I enjoy, and buy cheap disposable junk like my fiancee's '98 Concorde for daily transportation. Although, I still think the GTO would be a fun daily driver that I could use when driving with my toddler.

[JL8Jeff]

I disagree with the cost of the vehicles being in line with cost to produce it. I have a co-worker that bought a brand new 2002 Chevy S-10 pickup last year. It's a base model 4 cyl, 5 speed with AC and he paid under $10K for the truck. That's a brand new vehicle with a fuel injected engine and standard 5/50 warranty. GM is making a huge profit on these SUV's and extended cab pickups so they don't care about the performance vehicles. I thought the 93 Z28's were overpriced when they came out at $16,700 base price. Now I look back and see that you got a 6 speed, LT1 275hp engine and AC for $16,700. That's a bargain! Manufacturers should have no problem producing a 300hp V8 car for under $30K.