Slims00ls1z28

How many were V6? Probably just under the difference between the GTO and Mustang sales with the maybe 1-2K base model V8's sold to cover what was left.

Eights

97GT03SVT: Great reply, and thanks for replying so promptly. I could never have typed fast enough to equal your reply without the effin' time-out wasting every syllable of it.

It's not how well the "Hemi" (NOT!) of today performs compared to the real Hemis of the late-'Sixties/early-'Seventies--but how the original Hemi performed compared to the comparable engines of its day. The original Hemis were phenomenal powerhouses in their day--the current "Hemis" are powerful, but not the King Kongs that the real Hemis were back in the day. And yet the Challenger disappeared in near-record time even with the most famous engine of its era and an equally powerful (in strictly street form) 440 for those who could "not afford/not get insured for" the real Hemi. Clearly, the Challenger wasn't ignored for its lack of power like the Javelin was--it was ignored because the Challenger looked like a JC Whitney-customized Barracuda (which looked like a first gen Camaro). And today's Challenger looks essentially identical to the one that fizzled forty years ago...

I'm racing time-out here:

The resurrected GTO was a rebadged import, which really peased off a lot of potiential customers (admirers of the real GTOs of yesteryear) at Pontiac--the marketing fork-up of the decade.

Yes, it was a dated chassis that Holden was discontinuing in '06 because of its obsolescence, and came off to many as TOO MUCH like the original--and as a result only marginally more modern than its namesake of forty years earlier. Look how much a 1964 GTO was advanced over a 1924 Pontiac, to give you a feel for the difference forty years COULD have made in the eyes of those who might have bought 'em but bought something else instead.

Then, too, the S197 Mustang concepts were already on the autoshow rotundas and the covers of car mags worldwide before the GTOs hit the dealerships. They offered the great looks of the early Mustangs, modernized
hugely for 2005. Coming to market against the S197 was like stepping into the ring to face a young Mohammed Ali with a bad attitude about you! And the Mustang GT V8 started at under $25,000 whereas the GTO started at $32,000, maybe more. Anyone know the MSRP of a base GTO in 2004? Anyway, obviously no one at GM paid attention to what had happened to the overpriced SSR...Luckily for Pontiac, while Ford spent millions engineering the S197 Mustang, Pontiac only spent pocket change to engineer "GTO" badges and a re-routing of the exhaust for the Holden Monaro. And potential customers were very aware of that. Forty years earlier, dropping a big-block into a coupe could sell thousands upon thousands of units, but customers are waaaayyy more savvy than that today with all the automobile and consumer publications available cheaply to anyone who can locate a newsstand or bookstore.

This is greatly abbreviated, but time-out is coming like an avalanche...

Greg "Eights" Ates

ScottyBoy302

Im sorry, but did you just compare the GTO to the SSR? I dont see how they had anything to do with one another... unless youre just talking about the fact that you think both of them are overpriced? And to that id tell you to try to find another large coupe where you can get the content and performance of a GTO for anywhere near the price. Im not intending to be an *** now, but i just dont see your logic.

Eights

Slims00ls1z28: 'Can't find any published figures on the www for Mustang GTs (which are all V8s) sold in 2006, and I'll update this with GT500s (which are all V8s, too) sold in 2006 when I get the chance to look it up. Total Mustang sales in 2006 were 166,530 per media.ford.

I am assuming that the multitude of tuner Mustangs sold in 2006 are part of the 166,530 total, since they were sold to the tuners by Ford before the tuner Mustangs were then sold to the public. The Shelby GT500s are different since they are built start-to-finish by Ford in Ann Arbor and do not go to Las Vegas for the Shelby treatment. Their sales are separate from the Mustangs and Mustang GTs.

On the sites I found, the figures of Mustang sales and Mustang GT sales are never separated, unfortunately. At one point in 2006, demand for V8s far exceeded production so there was a delay in the deliveries of customer-ordered Mustang GTs. An unpublished number of customers chose to purchase V6s rather than wait for the delivery of the Mustang GTs they had ordered, so that skews the results in favor of the V6s more than would have been the case had Mustang GTs been plentiful. 63,281 2006 Mustang GTs were either purchased or ordered, but during the Spring of 2006 there was some amount of cancelled Mustang GT orders by customers who purchased V6 Mustangs rather than wait for the Mustang GTs they had ordered.

Having no authentic figure, let's go low ball and say that 55,000 or so Mustang GTs were sold in 2006 (roughly one of every three). In any case, many more V8 Mustangs (and I haven't included the GT500s) were sold in 2006 than GTOs were sold in 2004, 2005, and 2006 combined. Up to as many as 111,530 Mustang V6s were sold in 2006 if 55,000 is reasonably correct for the number of Mustang GTs sold in 2006.

Does that jive with your quoted statement?

Greg "Eights" Ates

bob

I couldn't see the G8 chopping into F5 sales if the F5 had the L76 as a base V8, and I could see GM making a butt load of money off of the LS3 since the the L76 and LS3 probably cost the same to make since it would make since to offer the LS3 as part of an overall performance increasing package (bigger wheels/brakes/tires - different suspension tuning, can only be had with certain options, ect.)

Eights

ScottyBoy302: Not exactly--my point, as you noted, was what happens when you overprice your product for the target market. But the SSR was GM's immediately preceding offering of a big V8 in a RWD vehicle with sporting aspirations--and had a lot more genuine engineering in it than did the badges-and-exhaust engineering of the GTO--or maybe I should be more truthful and say more attempted engineering in it. The GTO's engineering had already been established with the Holden Monaro. The SSR's lack of sales shoulda tipped off someone somewhere that maybe they oughtta re-assess just how much they could charge for a car whose outstanding features are basically displacement and RWD.

It isn't really relevant how much content and performance a vehicle has if it is too costly for the customers who would be most likely to buy it. Why do you think the Mustang does not offer IRS, a V12, a paddle-shift six-speed, a two-speed differential, and an active suspension? (Hint: legal tender) To make an extreme example: I can assure you that the Veyron was not designed to sell to you and me--no way, no time, no how. But IIRC, the GTO was intended to sell 18,000 units/year, give or take. For those with GTO money (not me) to spend on a performance car, most of them evidently spent that money on something else...

future9er24

Aintcha never heard "Dead Man's Curve"?

Slims00ls1z28

Kind of but not quite there. Tuners are a tad different case but we can still use them as they combined haven't sold as many per year as the GTO's did. And so far a touch over 8K GT500's have been produced in total for all years combined.

I have yet to see 2006 stats but some 2005 stats are here. http://www.mustangheaven.com/Product...197Mustang.htm

Of the 2005 stang coupes there were 47,449 Produced. Which also includes the base ones sent to tuners. Remember I said no V6 or verts. Now the undisputed most popular choice (ask any sales rep or cruise any want add to tally up more exact numbers) is the deluxe model (non leather) not the premium model (leather) but to give the benefit of the doubt we will halve the 47,449 so that leaves us with roughly 23K mustangs that vaguely fit the profile of the GTO with a difference of about 5K units which is generous towards the mustang side. Option a mustang to the equivalent of a GTO and you have about the same price.

Clamor all you want about wanted cars not bought but the simple fact remains if the Mustang came in only the options the GTO did with the same price tag (MSRP 32K for a 6.0 and theres really no way to go higher with no options and most bought under MSRP) there is not much of a difference at all in the two and the mustang is instantly recognizable and not "sedated" or "mudane" as the GTO. Once again I say I see no failure in that. A "pregnant" Caviler was just barely outsold by its equivalent and its actual numbers are probably even closer than the highball I gave you.

97GT03SVT

I'd like to join in on this GTO debate. I have always owned Mustangs and yes I do favor the Mustang GT over the GTO, but having driven one I gotta tell you the GTO is an awesome car. I have driven the better looking 05' Model and being very familiar with both cars this is what I can say may have hurt the GTO's chances.

The GTO reminds me of a luxury sport coupe, while the Mustang is a classic pony car. I think Pontiac should have marketed this car more to the possible BMW 3 series buyers. This car is not a true competitor to the Mustang like the Camaro will be but it was a cool car and a lot of people were able to score these cars for chump change. Perhaps not giving it the famed "GTO" name would have been better for GM. Like the Charger people have a certain image of a GTO and this was not it. I think the GTO should have just been the next gen Grand Prix while the G8 becomes the 4 door version of it. Like slim said GTOs were all optioned the same kinda like a high end coupe from BMW or Mercedes ...........just my .02 on this debate.

boduke0220

then what is it about?

Eights

Slim, thank you for the prompt and informative reply! Your contention that the GTO sold well against Mustang coupes that sold for the GTO's base MSRP or higher is interesting conjecture! Usually, only Mustang convertibles (excluded from consideration by you since the GTO only came in a coupe--plenty fair, I guess) get up into the $30k range unless you're talking about GT500s or tuner vehicles. It is fair to exclude tuners, I guess. GT500s must be included, since they ARE built entirely in a Ford factory by Ford employees. There is the problem that they still sell for well over their MSRPs, whereas many/most GTOs sold for below theirs so I have no clue whatsoever as to what adjustment to the figures that requires--I guess it means that GT500s alone would outsell GTOs every single year if GT500s sold for the MSRPs of GTOs.

But that's a tangential issue--back to the case you propose, which is that GTOs sold competitively with non-tuner Mustang GT coupes that cost $32,000 (or whatever the base MSRPs of GTOs were) or more. Are there any actual sales figures available for Mustang GT coupes which have sold for $32,000 or more? Anyone? If you can google up those figures, we have some meat to put between the slices of bread in this discussion! An interesting point for those who have optioned their Mustang GTs to that rather excessive price.

Slim, if you or anyone can find those figures, post 'em and let's see what they tell us! Although we should also compare the sales of Mustang GTs at lower prices since many/most GTOs sold for under their MSRPs--some of them for thousands less than their MSRPs. For example, then we could see how many Mustang GTs were sold at $28,300, say, compared to GTOs that were sold at $28,300. When you get it down to what people really PAID for the two cars, I expect that the Mustang GTs outsold the GTOs roughly ten-to-one where final sales prices were within, say, $1,000 of each other. Am I wording this so that readers know what I'm trying to say? It's complicated, since MSRPs don't really mean squat with dealer mark-ups, rebates, sales, factory incentives, yada yada yada... But actual sign-on-the-dotted-line, you-pay-us-this-and-then-we'll-let-you-take-it-home prices tell the true story. In my example, what I'm saying is that for every customer who bought a new 2006 GTO for a drive-it-home price of $28,300 (or $29,300, or $30,300...), roughly ten Mustang GT customers bought new 2006 Mustang GTs for the same drive-it-home price. Now, once you get $1,000 or more above the highest drive-it-home price of 2006 Mustang GTs, then only 2006 GTOs will be sold at those prices and the comparison no longer has much relevance. The same is true once you get $1,000 below the lowest drive-it-home price of 2006 GTOs, since only 2006 Mustang GTs will be sold at those prices.

Slims00ls1z28

That is not exactly what I am saying. Like you said MSRP is going to vary on the two automobiles greatly. I know some who bought their GTO for under 30K and a friend who bought his CS/GT for like 26. The GTO nowhere near outsold the Mustang nor am I arguing that point. But reguardless of how they are optioned Mustang V8 coupes
Totaled 47K for 2005. That is every V8 coupe made including GT's, those bought by tuners, and the specials such as the CS/GT's, Hertz, etc. The GTO's numbers for the same year was about 17K.

That is not even 3 to one combining every V8 Mustang Coupe ranging from the all cloth interior base package GT to the Fully loaded CS/GT. At the absolute most you have not quite 3 to 1 and that includes all tuner cars. So it is not even possible for a 5 to 1 sales difference combining all GT coupes much less trying to compare comparable priced cars. The only way to get a 10 to 1 sales figure is to use the entire lineup including all convertibles and V6 models even they you come up about 10K short. If you can find a number based on price I can garuntee the sales will be in the 1 to 1 range even with the marginal tuner sales which is approximately 5,000 combined at most and that is generous. My figures included the Tuners which rarely sell more than 1500 a year each and that is a good year. They do more sales in parts or after purchase modding than they do actually selling built vehicles.

The GT 500 is not included in that 47K number as it has it's own production numbers and the fact that it was built after the GTO was already off the table. "IF" the GT 500 sold for the price of a GTO then they would sell like hotcakes at a jenny craig convention. Thats a 50K car for 30K. That is unrational. A 30K GT is very feasible and not that hard to achieve and quite relevant to the argument.

My point remains the same. Had a cheaper base model V8 or even a V6 coupe been offered in the GTO the sales would have been alot more comparable to other cars and would not be this "Failure" they are made out to be. They never were intended to be a high volume car. Making a premium only V8 coupe the only option was a gamble and one that did reasonably well for what it was.

97GT03SVT

I'm not trying to pick a fight here but I don't think the GTO would have competed that well with the Mustang even with a cheaper base model. I, unlike most of the people in these forums like the GTO. One of my best friend's has one and it's a great car, but in my area nobody bought GTOs. About 2 or 3 months ago a local dealership had a brand new GTO from 06' that never sold. My friend actually wanted a Mustang originally but got such a good deal on the GTO that he just went for it. It seems that almost everyone who bought these got them at huge discounts. This can also be seen in the used car market. A used 05-06 GT will usually sell for more than the GTO, even though the GTO was the more expensive and exclusive car. (there is an 06' for just $18,000 here) I think the styling never caught on with many of the intended buyers. Like I said before I personally think this should have been marketed to the Luxury coupe market (your M3 or AMG buyer). I think perhaps even badging it as a Cadillac to identify it as such would have helped too. I think people wanted a retro GTO.... I think thats why Chevy is going retro with the new Camaro

Eights

What a splendid reply, Slim! Your points are excellent, your research is thorough, and your documentation is comprehensive! Your presentation makes excellent sense to me--too bad Pontiac wasn't listening to you back in the day! Good work, Slim! Very, very good work!

I had a better response, but time-out killed it.

Now back to the thread topic, which may have to terminate periodically for a "Submit Reply" and another "Edit" afterwards.

The critical issue for Mustangs and the coming imitations--and probably for lots of models in other types of vehicles--is pricing. What we have here are two-door, front-engined, RWD coupes or convertibles with 2+2 seating and sporting aspirations. To cover a lot of ground quickly, the Mustang has clearly established that it has hit the sweet spot--or maybe even came in somewhat under it--on pricing. The SSR was far above the sweet spot and the GTO was considerably above the sweet spot. Will the Challenger and eventually the Camaro hit the sweet spot? If you miss it, you can't sell enough units to produce enough profits to make it worthwhile--miss it often enough and you're out of business! And The Bush Years have created a dark market--everything costs more, and more and more people are finding themselves up the financial creek without the proverbial paddle. Many of those unfortunate people would have been in the market for new affordable performance cars--now, those people will have to look for affordable used performance cars instead of new ones, and that may mean that the sweet spot will become even lower than it is right now...

Mustang has three huge advantages already--it has never been out of production so it does not have to recover the costs of starting up an assembly line, a subcontractor train, worker training, an advertising program, NHTSA certification, issuing tons of specifications to those who need/require them, and God knows what else in the Red Tape Age.
The second huge advantage is that Ford has never gouged (individual dealers are an exception) its Mustang customers, even though it had a red hot product on its hands (as I said above, it may be priced under the sweet spot for this market). Chrysler and GM face both problems: recovering their start-up costs while forced to compete with the Mustang's low price that dictates just what this market will bear. They hate Ford for not taking advantage of its sole ownership of this market--if Ford had jacked the price of the Mustang way up, there would be very comfortable profits to be made on Challengers and Camaros. But Ford didn't so the competition will have to accept thin profits to stay competitive. Another "Save" here to keep from losing input to this point.
The third huge advantage is that the Mustang is a damned good car and has a long reputation for being one. Just dropping a big pushrodder into a small coupe ain't gonna sell cars like it did forty years ago. The car has to be really, really good--because there are lots and lots of really, really good imports out there in this price range and one really, really good domestic that's the icon of affordable performance in a really good car. If your car ain't splendid, you'll only sell it to the brand diehards after the initial two halo years--and brand diehards weren't enough to save the SSR or the GTO, now were they? There aren't enough of them anymore, and cars are better because of it. Another "Save" here to keep form losing input to this point.

So can Chrysler and GM build Mustangs at a Mustang price that are as good as Mustangs? Mustang--as it did over four decades ago--has a huge lead, an impressive reputation, an excellent product that just keeps getting better even when there is no competition out there, and commands the market in every way. So the answer is "No", and history agrees with me...

97GT03SVT

I think it is a little cocky to dismiss the new Camaro before it even comes out. Keep in mind the Mustang was not always the best car. I'm a die hard Mustang guy but i'd take a Camaro over a Mustang during the 72-81 years! In the 60s these two cars went back and forth in performance battles. Chevy owned the 70s, Ford owned the 80s and Chevy's forth gen destroyed the 94-02 Mustangs! If not for the Camaro, Ford would have never built the 390HP Terminator! Though I agree the Challenger will be a small nitch car, GM has greater resources than Ford at this time and don't forget that the Camaro also has the benefit of having the Corvette as a halo car with parts that can trickle down to the Camaro. Even our top Mustang got trickle down engine components from the Ford GT halo car.

The Camaro, even in the forth gen years 93-02 was still a fairly successful car and a much better pure performer than the Mustang. The base V8 Z28 was more on par with the SVT Cobra than the GT. Though i'm a performance nut, I hated the ride and seating position of the F-body, cheaper quality materials etc..... I doubt the next gen will have these same problems that scared many potential buyers away.

I think GM will look at what makes the Mustang successful and apply that to the new Camaro. I'm thinking more along the lines of keeping the car priced close to the Mustang, Making it a more comfortible car to use on a daily basis and keep the designs fresh (more than a new front fascia like the 97 to 98' update).

Bottom line only time will tell but I hope i'm right. Without the Camaro, Ford has less reason to consistantly make the car better to try to fend off competiton. Personally I feel that Ford needs to make more cosmetic updates to the car from year to year like the old days. I'd love to have a 5th gen car but i'm not gonna spend $30,000 for an 08 when I can get an 05' for under $20,000 that looks and performs the same! I know this is off subject but I think small tweaks like different grilles, spoilers, hoods, headlight and taillights would be a great and cheap way to keep the car looking fresh every year.....just my .02 what do you guys think?

n8rfastback

wow we got quite a debate going here....

i just wanna say thanks for keeping it friendly guys, and not turning it into a pissing match

Slims00ls1z28

True, however in the GTO and the SSR's defense neither were ever market intended to be direct competition to the mustang. Both were sort of a stop gap inbetween the vette and your average Malibu. We scoffed at GM when we were told the SSR was the "inbetween". It was limited edition from jump street and especially at the start a underachiever in the performance category. Trucks were big sellers which is where GM shifted it's focus thinking maybe they could capitilize with a sport truck that had little sport to it.

The GTO is alot more of a true comparison than the SSR but is still not a 2+2 like the Mustang. It is a true 4 seater car more akin to a touring sedan. It is not a Camaro replacement nor was supposed to be. It was a Niche car, just like the Monaro was in Austrailia. Yet pound for pound it did do well and as I pointed out it was never really a "This or That" between the Mustang and the GTO. Even if the GTO was offered in V6, convertible, and non decked out form it would not have equalled the mustang's sales, nor have or will I imply that it would. I do believe it would have outsold the Camaro but thats conjecture at best when comparing the apples to apples as I have tried with the Mustang. But It definately would have sold quite a bit more and been more recognizable.

People still to this day have no clue what a GTO is now or then (heyday) which is to me a huge reason, aside from its status as a car, It's sales are destined to remain small. It is argueable whether or not more would have sold if it stood out more maybe in 2-5K range but being limited in options is going to shoot high sales numbers down everytime. The biggest reply I get when saying I have a GTO is "I thought Ford Made that" or some inferance to a Ford. Hell talking the other day about antennae issue in a radio shop after I told him it was a GTO he said, "Mustangs antennae......". The Mustang never suffered that fate. Even back in the day more people knew what a tempest was than a GTO.

Given all the above, a fairly high price tag, only 3 real options (color, 17 or 18 wheels, and of course stick or auto), 17K sounds pretty good to me.

Now of course the Mustang has maintained a huge sales advantage the last several years and it is as cocky to think that a Camaro or Challenger is going to just unseat it like it were a leaf in a storm. However it is also the same to discount the Upcomming Camaro or even use the later Camaros as a yardstick to compete with. The 5th gen is a huge departure from the last couple of generations of Camaros with the #1 difference being user friendly. Example. You are a "respectible" lady with a modest skirt on. Which would you feel more comfortable getting out of a 00 Mustang or 00 Camaro? You step into the mustang and fall into the Camaro. Has been like that since the 3rd gen and that is where the mustang started cementing a sales lead.

Unless you want to be like Britney with upskirt shots all over the web, the Mustang was the obvious choice. I think the target group of the Camaro was askew wheras the Mustangs has always been spot on. Build a car that is user friendly and affordable first, then figure how to make it faster. Trying to build a "mustang" is not as important as that. No matter what the car can do on a track if it can't do better with Granny looking for a comfortable V6 ride at an affordable price you won't be around long enough to gloat on a track even if performance margins are 2 miles long. This Camaro has one of those up to par with the mustang so far, you don't fall into this one. If the price is right it will do quite well against the Mustang on what matters, sales.

Eights

Slim, thank you for another thoughtful, serious-car-talk reply! It IS appreciated!

The GTO was considered absolutely awesome in 1964, and no one ever mistook them for something other than a Pontiac, either! I maintain that the GTO singlehandedly ended the long, long reign of the "hotrod" (typically a 'Thirties Ford with anybody's engine) as the premier American performance car. The very day that the first GTO rolled into a Pontiac showroom, the Hotrod Era ended, dethroned by the musclecar. Overnight, the early Ford with a late-model V8 seemed quaint, and the crown passed to the factory performance car epitomized by the GTO. Earlier factory performance jobs--the Impala Super Sport 409, the Galaxie 406/427, The Merc Marauder 410, any Chrysler wedge 426, any Pontiac 421 et al existed, but they made only a small impact upon the market that was ruled by the hotrod. It was the GTO's size and price that created the musclecar phenomenom--it's smaller size meant it had scalding performance for its day without having to have the expensive and hugely-difficult-to-insure engines of the hot full-sized cars. Essentially, the GTO was a ready-made hotrod that young men with jobs--or well-to-do parents--could afford without having to have all the tools and skills and cash reserves it took to build a classic hotrod.

The "intermediates" (as they were called back in the day) with big-blocks started crawling out of the woodwork from everydamnedbodyandhisbrother by 1966, but none had the stature of the GTO. It wasn't until big-blocks showed up in Mustangs and Mustang imitations that the GTO and the rest of the intermediates began to decline as THE hot performance cars amongst young single men. Then the Oil Embargo of 1973 and increasingly stricter emissions controls did 'em all in...It was the end of The Glory Days, When Big-Blocks Ruled the Earth. No one really wants that era to come back, when the braking and handling were inversely proportional to the displacement.

The Mustang survived because it offered affordable performance in a genuinely good car. And after all the musclecars and all the Mustang imitations became extinct, Ford still went to the effort to make the Mustang an even better car. And with not one competitor in production or on the drawing boards, Ford went ahead and made the best Mustang of all time! Imitations are cropping up like dandelions on a cow pattie, and they'll pass into the dusty annals of history just like the imitations that preceded them.
Why? Because there is just no substitute for the genuine item. Period. "Profit Through Imitation" may fool some, but don't let it fool you...

Greg "Eights" Ates

Black GT500

Eights

You do know you could type your reply into notepad or some other editor then paste the finished reply into your browser here. That way you would not have to deal with loosing your reply before you hit send...

exgto

I don't see much correlation between the success and demise of the 70's Challenger and the new Challenger, which I happen to think Chrysler did a stellar job on overall. CAFE and emissions may spell the end of the LX platform, but that's really speculation.

You mention the original having the 440 and "real" hemi as somhow being an advantage. First, putting two squish pads at the top of a hemispherical combustion chamber to improve the eficiency hardly prohibits it from having hemispherical combustion chambers, but I digress. The new engines are so vastly superior to the old 426 hemi it almost silly to compare them. Moreover the new 5.7 real hemi will be putting out 375 hp, and again vastly superior to the old 440. I have to swallow hard when I say that because I loved my 440 Road Runner.

As far as the interior goes, it's basically standard LX fair, which isn't bad (I own a Magnum), but it could be better. The newer LX interiors use softer plastics here and there, but all that aside who cares? with regard to weight, again so what if it's 4100lbs...ever take an SRT8 for a ride?

Kudos to Dodge for listening to it's target audience and delivering what looks like a great car. I do think these days of modern musclecars will wind to a close soon in spite of some really great cars from the big 3.