2019 Chevy Camaro Turbo 1LE: More of what matters

[Frosty]

A quick spin in Chevrolet's new 2.0-liter Camaro 1LE provides a reminder that power isn’t everything.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevrolet-camaro-turbo-1le-prototype-first-drive-review/

[Ringo64]

4cyl Camaro that starts at $30k? There's a market for that?

[Frosty]

A turbocharged 275 HP 4 Cylinder Camaro 1LE please Ringo. Clearly Chevrolet thinks so.

Of course I am the wrong guy to ask that question to. I've always thought GM's pricing and marketing people have had a chronic case of cranial rectal inversion for quite some time now - especially when it comes to pricing and value. I could be bias, I will admit!

[Last Indian]

1 hour ago, Frosty said:

A turbocharged 275 HP 4 Cylinder Camaro 1LE please Ringo. Clearly Chevrolet thinks so.

Of course I am the wrong guy to ask that question to. I've always thought GM's pricing and marketing people have had a chronic case of cranial rectal inversion for quite some time now - especially when it comes to pricing and value. I could be bias, I will admit!

No! You’re dead on! In 1969 when I bought my Z I was 17, had a job that I made enough money to make payments on and thus got to buy the car. My parents sure couldn’t afford to buy it for me. What 17 year old in that position could buy any Camaro today let alone a Z? 

[Frosty]

I struggle with the price of modern cars in general, and V8-powered, RWD vehicles in particular. Generally speaking, most begin at $40K and go north from there. I've always had to purchase my daily drivers, I've always commuted too many miles for a lease to be remotely feasible. Today, I see a plethora of new trucks, Yukons, and Suburbans pass me going to work. I wonder how these people afford them when my wife and I can't (and we make decent money).

I think its insane for even a low cubic inch V8 RWD vehicle to be price near $40k. Even adjusted for inflation, I don't think a '69 Camaro costing $4,000 in 1969 dollars would cost that much. 

I realize that most people are leasing and not buying because their payments are significantly lower but at the end of the lease, they walk away with nothing. I fail to appreciate that logic. The monthly car payment is quickly approaching the monthly mortgage payment (assuming someone actually finances a car loan). I truly wonder if the car geniuses as the Big Three understand they are slowly pricing themselves out of business to the average worker? That's why cars that are 1-3 years old are being snatched up left and right. They are a heckuva lot cheaper! Someone else has already taken the significant depreciation hit too. Why would I ever buy a new car again - save wanting something truly special - a Corvette or a Dodge Hellcat perhaps?

A $30K 2.0T 1LE Camaro? Why not? It's just not my cup of tea. However, some schmuck will buy or lease it. The question GM wants to know the answer to is how many?

 

[TWO LANE BLACK TOP]

Times have changed...21 years ago when I special ordered my 1LE Firebird..The option was so  obscure and unknown that all the Pontiac dealers within 50 miles of here...Had no Idea that such a package even existed....They didn't even to bother look..Wanted to sell me loaded Ws6 TAs that were on the lot...Finally went thru a friend of a friend of a friend who owned a Pontiac dealership Who also had never heard of it either...But sorted thru all there literature and talked to someone (maybe a GM executive??)..Was able and did order it for me...with all the deleted creature comforts..(Was forced to have A.C. couldn't be deleted after 1996) and the added performance enhancements..mostly suspension and brakes...Was 5 grand less than the price of a loaded TA...Although it does have a very Harsh and unpleasant ride..Especially now that I am not 35 anymore..It is definitely a blast to drive...Even though it is outdated...Can still hold it's own against almost anything (Porsche..NSX..Corvette..Jaguar..Mustang Cobra R..LS1 cars etc..) On a nice curvy road like the Blue Ridge Pkwy...Or the Tail of the Dragon..Among others...Where the extra horsepower is not as big an advantage.. Can only carry so much speed thru the tight curves and survive it..(Knowing how to drive helps too) Like it is stoplight to stoplight or on long straight stretches...

If GM would offer a "heritage" version 1LE as a stripper package with no unnecessary creature comforts and electronic gadgetry to help knock the price down to an acceptable level..With a V8...They might actually sell thousands of them..

1LE 20 years ago..Economically Viable and obscure....

1LE Today... Heavily promoted and Economically Unviable....

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by TWO LANE BLACK TOP

[Frosty]

Well put, Two Lane, well put!

[Frosty]

In case anyone has forgotten, this is not the first time the Camaro has had a 4 cylinder as the base engine. The early 3rd gen Camaros also had a 4 cylinder, the infamous Pontiac Iron Duke. Probably the only time in history where  Chevys came with a Pontiac engine from the factory!

Now despite what the article says, this motor was not half of a Pontiac 301 V8 engine, like the Trophy/Indy 4 engine was half of the 389. It was a purpose built 4-cylinder.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/05/junkyard-gem-1984-chevrolet-camaro/

 

[Last Indian]

17 hours ago, Frosty said:

I struggle with the price of modern cars in general, and V8-powered, RWD vehicles in particular. Generally speaking, most begin at $40K and go north from there. I've always had to purchase my daily drivers, I've always commuted too many miles for a lease to be remotely feasible. Today, I see a plethora of new trucks, Yukons, and Suburbans pass me going to work. I wonder how these people afford them when my wife and I can't (and we make decent money).

I think its insane for even a low cubic inch V8 RWD vehicle to be price near $40k. Even adjusted for inflation, I don't think a '69 Camaro costing $4,000 in 1969 dollars would cost that much. 

I realize that most people are leasing and not buying because their payments are significantly lower but at the end of the lease, they walk away with nothing. I fail to appreciate that logic. The monthly car payment is quickly approaching the monthly mortgage payment (assuming someone actually finances a car loan). I truly wonder if the car geniuses as the Big Three understand they are slowly pricing themselves out of business to the average worker? That's why cars that are 1-3 years old are being snatched up left and right. They are a heckuva lot cheaper! Someone else has already taken the significant depreciation hit too. Why would I ever buy a new car again - save wanting something truly special - a Corvette or a Dodge Hellcat perhaps?

A $30K 2.0T 1LE Camaro? Why not? It's just not my cup of tea. However, some schmuck will buy or lease it. The question GM wants to know the answer to is how many?

 

It is a quandary no doubt! The actual price of my Z before tax was $3300. Basically a buck a pound. Which is what cars used to cost from the model A era into the 1970s. Then it started to change, but so did everything! It became a whatever the market can bare system and has only gotten worse. 

Today a Z costs at least $17 dollars a pound. That might not seem bad to so folks, but do the math. That rate of inflation out paces nearly everything else we buy except drugs and we all know that story!

We are screwed!

[Ringo64]

On the whole, cars have come a long way since the 70s. Safer, more reliable, better quality and more tech. That isn't cheap.

There is but to that and I think sports cars are that. The going rate for any relative sporty car is at least $30k recently. That really bugs me. Like this Camaro, would have been pretty awesome for low $20k. $30k you're dangerously close to the V8's which displaces many people who buy sporty cars as obviously you want the V8 for the money.

[Frosty]

2 hours ago, Last Indian said:

It is a quandary no doubt! The actual price of my Z before tax was $3300. Basically a buck a pound. Which is what cars used to cost from the model A era into the 1970s. Then it started to change, but so did everything! It became a whatever the market can bare system and has only gotten worse. 

Today a Z costs at least $17 dollars a pound. That might not seem bad to so folks, but do the math. That rate of inflation out paces nearly everything else we buy except drugs and we all know that story!

We are screwed!

Okay, so adjusting for inflation, a $3000 car today should cost $20,833 according to the inflation calculator I found online. Let's face it, these cars did one thing really well back in the day, go fast in a straight line. Braking, cornering,  longevity or decent radios were not its strong points.

1 hour ago, Ringo64 said:

On the whole, cars have come a long way since the 70s. Safer, more reliable, better quality and more tech. That isn't cheap.

There is but to that and I think sports cars are that. The going rate for any relative sporty car is at least $30k recently. That really bugs me. Like this Camaro, would have been pretty awesome for low $20k. $30k you're dangerously close to the V8's which displaces many people who buy sporty cars as obviously you want the V8 for the money.

Granted, new technology has a price to it. However, I don't think any of us would agree that its worth nearly doubling the price of the car. Also, how much of this new technology should be consider the cost of entry into the market and therefore be free? Another thing GM (and the others) has done is to force us into certain option packages and higher starting vehicle content. You can't buy a striped down car these days like you could back in '69 (e.g.  try to buy a Camaro without air conditioning). This drives up the vehicle content and therefore the price. Lastly, I grant you that GM has to make a profit on the car, the question becomes is how much is fair? 

Still I'm with Last Indian and Two Lane, a $20K Camaro should do well in the market place. However, GM does not want to play in that space. I suspect they feel they will loose money.

[Last Indian]

7 hours ago, Ringo64 said:

On the whole, cars have come a long way since the 70s. Safer, more reliable, better quality and more tech. That isn't cheap.

There is but to that and I think sports cars are that. The going rate for any relative sporty car is at least $30k recently. That really bugs me. Like this Camaro, would have been pretty awesome for low $20k. $30k you're dangerously close to the V8's which displaces many people who buy sporty cars as obviously you want the V8 for the money.

 

5 hours ago, Frosty said:

Okay, so adjusting for inflation, a $3000 car today should cost $20,833 according to the inflation calculator I found online. Let's face it, these cars did one thing really well back in the day, go fast in a straight line. Braking, cornering,  longevity or decent radios were not its strong points.

Granted, new technology has a price to it. However, I don't think any of us would agree that its worth nearly doubling the price of the car. Also, how much of this new technology should be consider the cost of entry into the market and therefore be free? Another thing GM (and the others) has done is to force us into certain option packages and higher starting vehicle content. You can't buy a striped down car these days like you could back in '69 (e.g.  try to buy a Camaro without air conditioning). This drives up the vehicle content and therefore the price. Lastly, I grant you that GM has to make a profit on the car, the question becomes is how much is fair? 

Still I'm with Last Indian and Two Lane, a $20K Camaro should do well in the market place. However, GM does not want to play in that space. I suspect they feel they will loose money.

Thanks Frosty! To further expound!

First I would have to say as a car goes, which is to function as a device to transport things. All of the electronic crap they’ve put in cars in the last 20 years or so serves no purpose to that degree. Cars are a mechanical engineering school house as are planes, trains, ships and the like, but of all those it was the one lone piece that needed no communication with the outside world while in it! To get in and drive, to enjoy solitude while experiencing that joy of the open road or any road without any outside influence; well I think most here know what I mean. 

If you gave me the choice of any car, to have it without all the crap on it, just a drivetrain, a great suspension that handled, a comfortable interior that was semi quiet and a great looking body design, I would take it in a heartbeat. If you can’t read a map or swallow your pride to ask for directions you don’t belong on the road. If you want to talk on the phone watch tv or peruse the internet, stay home! 

People need backup cameras and side cameras and crash avoidance alert today or they can’t drive! Sad really sad! I bought a 2012 Lacrosse new in the convenience package, because it was the only way I could get one without all that crap! No backup, no crash avoidance, no leather, no navigation. People can’t believe I drive it that way. Well guess what I don’t need a camera! I have three mirrors and a head that swivels. I also can judge distance even if I can’t see the rear bumper or deck lid!

My point here is this, the manufacturer knows 80 to 90% of the public is clueless as to what the actual cost is of most of those things cost, but they are dirt cheap, not expensive. Yet they charge an arm and a leg for them. Plus they purposely bundle certain option together to force you to pay more. The single reason, profit margin! The profit margin on the items is five times higher than mechanical add ons. 

Are cars better machines today than 1969, yes! Still the the 69 Z I ended up building was every bit the machines are today and then some. But it didn’t cost an additional $60,000 dollars to make it that way!

[Ringo64]

7 hours ago, Frosty said:

Also, how much of this new technology should be consider the cost of entry into the market and therefore be free?

Don't let the automakers here you talk. They'd lock you up in an asylum and throw away the key  

I'm you all with the packages, just for giggles I built a new Vette and a Silverado as two respective cars I'd like to own but can't afford. The options available to the Silverado are crazy, however, you have to have package xyz and can't mix/match. Drove me nuts!

[TWO LANE BLACK TOP]

3 hours ago, Last Indian said:

 

Thanks Frosty! To further expound!

First I would have to say as a car goes, which is to function as a device to transport things. All of the electronic crap they’ve put in cars in the last 20 years or so serves no purpose to that degree. Cars are a mechanical engineering school house as are planes, trains, ships and the like, but of all those it was the one lone piece that needed no communication with the outside world while in it! To get in and drive, to enjoy solitude while experiencing that joy of the open road or any road without any outside influence; well I think most here know what I mean. 

If you gave me the choice of any car, to have it without all the crap on it, just a drivetrain, a great suspension that handled, a comfortable interior that was semi quiet and a great looking body design, I would take it in a heartbeat. If you can’t read a map or swallow your pride to ask for directions you don’t belong on the road. If you want to talk on the phone watch tv or peruse the internet, stay home! 

People need backup cameras and side cameras and crash avoidance alert today or they can’t drive! Sad really sad! I bought a 2012 Lacrosse new in the convenience package, because it was the only way I could get one without all that crap! No backup, no crash avoidance, no leather, no navigation. People can’t believe I drive it that way. Well guess what I don’t need a camera! I have three mirrors and a head that swivels. I also can judge distance even if I can’t see the rear bumper or deck lid!

My point here is this, the manufacturer knows 80 to 90% of the public is clueless as to what the actual cost is of most of those things cost, but they are dirt cheap, not expensive. Yet they charge an arm and a leg for them. Plus they purposely bundle certain option together to force you to pay more. The single reason, profit margin! The profit margin on the items is five times higher than mechanical add ons. 

Are cars better machines today than 1969, yes! Still the the 69 Z I ended up building was every bit the machines are today and then some. But it didn’t cost an additional $60,000 dollars to make it that way!

Have a thing for basic stripper cars....

It's about man and machine interacting in unison....A well tuned engine of anykind...Is almost like a Stradivariuos Violin.....In some sort of Zen kinda way or something......

Edited April 11, 2018 by TWO LANE BLACK TOP

[Frosty]

11 hours ago, TWO LANE BLACK TOP said:

Have a thing for basic stripper cars....

It's about man and machine interacting in unison....A well tuned engine of anykind...Is almost like a Stradivariuos Violin.....In some sort of Zen kinda way or something......