If the truck trick worked, I would have had my car already. My dealer, although small by car standards, is a BIG truck dealer. That has not served him well with trying to obtain Mustangs, which leads me to believe that the "turn and earn" philosophy is specific to models, not to the overall line.

 

If the truck trick worked, I would have had my car already. My dealer, although small by car standards, is a BIG truck dealer. That has not served him well with trying to obtain Mustangs, which leads me to believe that the "turn and earn" philosophy is specific to models, not to the overall line.
[/b][/quote]
It has to be by model, the demand for a Mustang will be more in warmer climates since it is terrible in the snow. 4x4 SUVs will have a high demand in the upper midwest and northeast with their ability to navigate on snowy roads.

 

I thought the same thing, my order went in as a priority 10 in Jan from a dealer who does sell alot of trucks, still C/U as of 4/27/05...oh well..

 

Just because American manufacturers seems to do this porcess: allocation, the same way doesn't mean that it is correct or not in need of a review.

Solutions to these problems are straight forward. It's business 'as usual' that gets in the way. Once an order is submited for a retail customer, then it needs to go in the serialized catagory quickly.
It is unfair for a customer of Galphin Ford (LA) to move to production faster than the customer of Rantoul Ford (Illinois) if they both ordered a car. I guess in the car business, size matters.

 

I've driven my '05 in several snow storms so far with no problems. I believe there's a big difference between the new and previous models in dealing with winter driving. Better weight distribution, etc. I like winter driving about as much as the next guy. :notnice:

However, I am in agreement with all, who are at odds with the allocation system. My dealer got only four '05 Mustangs and can't get anymore until the '06 comes out, he says. The system stinks...doesn't work well...and should be changed for the customer's benefit.

The point about the '65 Mustang production is valid. Ford was using more than one plant to make them - but how did they ramp up production so fast? Is this a lost art?

A multitude of engine choices, paint colors etc. in 1965.

And I'm old enough to remember plenty of Mustang choices on local dealers lots, when the car made its debut in '65. No Mustangs on the same lots now.

Maybe Ford factory statistics would reveal some history, that could be repeated.

Ted

 

The '65 Mustang was nothing more than a reskinned Falcon. The effort required to convert a Falcon production line to produce Mustangs was minimal. Today, no other plant produces a vehicle based on the S197 platform. The conversion effort would be greater. Plus, this rise in demand for the '05 Mustang may only be a 1 or 2 year event. Ford won't lay out that kind of cash to convert another plant for increased Mustang production that it most likely will not need in two years.

 

The '65 Mustang was nothing more than a reskinned Falcon. The effort required to convert a Falcon production line to produce Mustangs was minimal. Today, no other plant produces a vehicle based on the S197 platform. The conversion effort would be greater. Plus, this rise in demand for the '05 Mustang may only be a 1 or 2 year event. Ford won't lay out that kind of cash to convert another plant for increased Mustang production that it most likely will not need in two years.
[/b][/quote]


All of the 65's with the 289 were more, much more than a reskinned Falcon. The 289's were part Falcon part Fairlane, did you ever notice how the inline 6's had four bolts per wheel and the 289's had five bolts per wheel.

 

The original Mustang, whether it had a 289 or not, still borrowed very heavily from the Falcon parts bin.