Vermillion06

I agree... The '03-'04 Mach 1 was a pretty complete upgrade package -- it had the "steak" (320hp , 340ft-lbs torque,suspension) to go along with the "sizzle" (interior and exterior styling ugrades). Ford put a lot of effort into it.

crazyhorse

Don't get me wrong, I love the old Mach 1s, but, in all honesty, his was put together very poorly. At 8 years old the seats were cracking, the body was rusting, the doors shut with a thud, one of the windows would not roll down correctly, one of the hood pins (more of a spring loaded ****) would not stay down, the engine blew (no mods, maybe a little rough teenage driving) and it shifted poorly.

He ended up replacing the motor with a 351W, built it up with cams and headers and drove it for a while. Eventually he ended up selling it for what he paid for it even thought the numbers did not match.

GTH395

Ford has to make $$$ and return to profitability. That means a SIMPLIFIED product lineup. The cost of goods on these silly nostalgic editions would quickly eat up margins. The issue for Ford is what's the plus? Are we talking about simply moving a purchase from one to another. Not very effective. If a person was going to buy a mustang anyway what's the plus? Incremental revenue from a few people that just had to see "mach 1' on the side? Again, how will that justify the development costs. What happens if soon we have 6-1- different versions of the car! How will a customer decide? Will we only confuse them? Our dealers? What car should appeal to what part of the addressable market or demographic? I can get VERY VERY confusing and VERY VERY costly. We need to focus and provide compelling product to as broad a customer as possible. I would have voted against the california edition and simple said that should be the 2007 GT without the various restrictions. The Shelby's are a different story and since we offload the production of the areas of differentiation it's not an issue and actually is a plus! That allows us to have niche market editions that don't add to our fixed costs.

I mean...I'm just sayin if i worked in Mustang Product Marketing.

mjbarnet

I agree with a lot of your post, but as I've mentioned before, Mustang does not have a 400HP $35,000 car to compete with the upcoming Challenger and Camaro. I don't see how introducing a car and this price-performance point would be a bad marketing decision.
just my 2 cents

black sunshine

Ford will bring back the Mach One after they bring back the Boss and the Bullitt so all you guys who traded in your paid off GT's to buy the above will then trade those in for the mach......Let the good times roll!!!!!!!!

Tony Alonso

Given the limited $ Ford probably has to invest right now, that's why I think we have only seen the GT500 and then what I call "boutique" Mustangs that use a lot of what is already in the aftermarket to make them distinct. There's a lot of pricing room between a $30,000 GT and a $43,000 GT550.

Personalization is the trick for this iteration of the Mustang. Ford seemed to really open up the coffers prior to its introduction so we could have lots of nice goodies. No doubt the marketing and product planners saw the enthuiasm and said "Ford Racing Parts, meet S197". Boom - profitability! In the meantime, marketing arrangement with Shelby to make a GT-H and GT, Steeda to make their Mustangs, Saleen so they could continue their semi-manufacturing of those vehicles, etc. For an emotional car like this, the more they can be one-offed, the more desirable they will be.

That's what I think is there now with the V6 but with GT more so.

Actually, I think it was a smart way to introduce the GT/CS - make a run with certain option and color combinations, along with the parts available for aftermaket conversions immediately. Again, it goes to taking advantage of the personalization fever for this current Mustang.

Agree...

Me as well...I'd be fighting tooth and nail to take advantage of the SVT and Ford Racing resources to help provide products for the niche markets!