| 777 | Date: Saturday, 30 Oct 2010, 14.41 | Message # 1 |
|
Like Sharing
Group: User
User ID: 777
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Messages: 1035
| I nearly spit coffee all over my screen when I saw GM claiming a sales achievement for its new Camaro. In fact, the manufacturer claims that its pony car, the star of the “Transformers” films, has become the nation’s best-selling "sports car," chalking up 99,872 sales in its first full year of production.
Let’s see, how to put this nicely -- what a crock! The claim is marketing spin at its finest; disingenuous at best and misleading for sure.
Read my lips, GM: The Chevrolet Camaro is not, and has never been, a "sports car." We all know what a sports car is: Two seats (or a plus-two layout at most); rear-wheel drive; convertible optional; relatively compact and lightweight. A sports car is a Chevy Corvette. A Mazda Miata is also a sports car, as is a Porsche 911, an MG and a Nissan Z.
Throughout their history, the Camaro, Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger (don't forget the old AMC Javelin!) can be fairly described as many things. Pony cars, muscle cars, sports coupes or plain old "sporty" cars -- but they ain't sports cars. They’re too big and too heavy, built on the weighty platforms of family sedans. The modern Challenger tops 2 tons -- more than a pair of Lotus Elises. These pony cars also hold four adult passengers and have relatively roomy trunks. And don't talk to me about how much horsepower the Camaro has, or how fast it can blast to 60 mph – the definition of a sports car has nothing to do with power or speed. An vintage Austin Healey may produce barely 120 horsepower, but it’s a sports car; the Bentley Continental Supersports coupe of today has more than 600 horsepower, but it’s not a sports car. Even when it’s going 200 mph.
You might ask, why split hairs over some fine point of automotive nomenclature? Here’s why: If the Camaro is a “sports car,” then a Mitsubishi Eclipse is a sports car, or even a Honda Accord coupe, for chrissakes. Broadening the definition would water down the category until everyone could play. The term “sports car” would become as pointless as when “GT” (for gran turismo or grand touring) got slapped on every lame performance wannabe from a Ford Probe to a Pontiac Bonneville.
Don’t take this as a knock on the Camaro. GM and Chevy deserve praise for a successful launch and a bonafide hit. Let’s review: The Camaro looks fabulous, offers a terrific pair of engines and has the strongest brakes in the class. The cons are a claustrophobic interior, the outward visibility of a pickle barrel and somewhat numb steering -- but did I mention how great the Camaro looks?
Yet even the current model’s success is relative. Back in 1979, Americans wrote checks for a record 282,571 Camaros. Surprisingly, that Camaro wasn’t even an all-new model. So selling 100,000 Camaros today is a decidedly lukewarm figure by history's standards. Let’s not even talk about the 386,000 Mustangs that Ford sold in its seminal year of 1964-65, and 1 million in just 18 months (it’s just too depressing in light of current sales).
Sales of genuine sports cars are certainly in the tank: Last year was the worst year for Corvette sales since 1961 -- at just under 14,000 -- and sales are even slower in 2010. Yet the 'Vette remains the nation’s most popular sports car, with 4,950 buyers through May. (The new Nissan 370Z keeps pace at 4,609 sold.) Rivals are faring far worse. Porsche has moved fewer than 2,400 911s through May and BMW has found only 1,500 takers for its stylish new Z4. As for the Audi R8: ouch. The car may be cool enough for Iron Man to drive, but Tony Stark’s about the only guy who can afford the $120,000-$160,000 exotic. Audi has sold just 212 R8s since January.
| HTML code to this post |
|
| BB code to this post |
|
| Direct link to this post |
|
|
| |
| |
Member: 5095 
Forum: 2322
News: 27
Blog: 16
Downloads: 18
Comments: 5