Cost, value and the GT500.
3/31/05, 03:55 PM
#41
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For value, I'd probably rate the Stang GT at an 8 or 9, while the GT500 would fall to a 7 to 8. Still quite good, but the greater bang doesn't quite offset the even greater buck in the same ratio as does the GT or even past SVT Cobra iterations, even though it does readily have the highest overall bang, specifically, straight line. As hugely impressive as the motor itself is, it isn't the whole package by any means and the chassis doesn't offer as much a relative improvement over the GT as did the '99-'04 Cobra over their GT siblings.
The brakes help the ratio a little bit as compared to, say, an '03 Cobra, both being Brembo but with somewhat bigger rotors on the GT500 with four pots up front and still two out back.
The bang for buck ratio is also skewed downward by the much higher relative price premium over the GT at 51%, 15% higher than the next dearest Cobra, the '03.
The brakes help the ratio a little bit as compared to, say, an '03 Cobra, both being Brembo but with somewhat bigger rotors on the GT500 with four pots up front and still two out back.
The bang for buck ratio is also skewed downward by the much higher relative price premium over the GT at 51%, 15% higher than the next dearest Cobra, the '03.
3/31/05, 03:59 PM
#42
Member
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@March 31, 2005, 6:58 PM
For value, I'd probably rate the Stang GT at an 8 or 9, while the GT500 would fall to a 7 to 8. Still quite good, but the greater bang doesn't quite offset the even greater buck in the same ratio as does the GT or even past SVT Cobra iterations, even though it does readily have the highest overall bang, specifically, straight line. As hugely impressive as the motor itself is, it isn't the whole package by any means and the chassis doesn't offer as much a relative improvement over the GT as did the '99-'04 Cobra over their GT siblings.
The brakes help the ratio a little bit as compared to, say, an '03 Cobra, both being Brembo but with somewhat bigger rotors on the GT500 with four pots up front and still two out back.
The bang for buck ratio is also skewed downward by the much higher relative price premium over the GT at 51%, 15% higher than the next dearest Cobra, the '03.
For value, I'd probably rate the Stang GT at an 8 or 9, while the GT500 would fall to a 7 to 8. Still quite good, but the greater bang doesn't quite offset the even greater buck in the same ratio as does the GT or even past SVT Cobra iterations, even though it does readily have the highest overall bang, specifically, straight line. As hugely impressive as the motor itself is, it isn't the whole package by any means and the chassis doesn't offer as much a relative improvement over the GT as did the '99-'04 Cobra over their GT siblings.
The brakes help the ratio a little bit as compared to, say, an '03 Cobra, both being Brembo but with somewhat bigger rotors on the GT500 with four pots up front and still two out back.
The bang for buck ratio is also skewed downward by the much higher relative price premium over the GT at 51%, 15% higher than the next dearest Cobra, the '03.
I think we will agree to disagree....
I think the GT 500 will be and excellent Value. JMHO.
3/31/05, 06:35 PM
#43
Team Mustang Source
I hope there are a lot of Rhumbs out there that won't feel it is a valuable car. Leaves more for the ones that do think it is. Then the craze will die down sooner and the so will the price.
3/31/05, 08:02 PM
#44
Member
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by crazyhorse@March 31, 2005, 9:38 PM
I hope there are a lot of Rhumbs out there that won't feel it is a valuable car. Leaves more for the ones that do think it is. Then the craze will die down sooner and the so will the price.
I hope there are a lot of Rhumbs out there that won't feel it is a valuable car. Leaves more for the ones that do think it is. Then the craze will die down sooner and the so will the price.
I'll meet you at the lot...then we can go SMOKE rhumb in his PROBE GT!!!!!!
3/31/05, 08:27 PM
#45
Legacy TMS Member
rhumb,
Like the analysis...you put some thought and time into it. Aside of material cost, I wonder how much engineering time, especially for testing and certifying for government regulations, goes for these days. I would expect while some amortization of the engine R&D goes across the Ford GT (thanks, rich people, for buying 'em), there is gonna be a lot of time spent to make this thing emissions compliant, given the projected weight of the car.
Also, I would assume the accounting and marketing people were figuring the target demographic would be more likely to hand over $40K and perceive it as value for a Shelby-badged Mustang.
On a pure hp-per-dollar basis, if it's final, emissions legal, non-guzzler taxed horsepower rating is closer to 500, one might conclude it's a "good value". In my opinion, we lost the IRS because of weight considerations more so than the engineering effort.
I wonder how those things will factor into whatever the final price comes out to be. Thanks for your post.
Like the analysis...you put some thought and time into it. Aside of material cost, I wonder how much engineering time, especially for testing and certifying for government regulations, goes for these days. I would expect while some amortization of the engine R&D goes across the Ford GT (thanks, rich people, for buying 'em), there is gonna be a lot of time spent to make this thing emissions compliant, given the projected weight of the car.
Also, I would assume the accounting and marketing people were figuring the target demographic would be more likely to hand over $40K and perceive it as value for a Shelby-badged Mustang.
On a pure hp-per-dollar basis, if it's final, emissions legal, non-guzzler taxed horsepower rating is closer to 500, one might conclude it's a "good value". In my opinion, we lost the IRS because of weight considerations more so than the engineering effort.
I wonder how those things will factor into whatever the final price comes out to be. Thanks for your post.
3/31/05, 08:45 PM
#46
GT Member
Join Date: December 10, 2004
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@March 31, 2005, 2:58 PM
For value, I'd probably rate the Stang GT at an 8 or 9, while the GT500 would fall to a 7 to 8. Still quite good, but the greater bang doesn't quite offset the even greater buck in the same ratio as does the GT or even past SVT Cobra iterations, even though it does readily have the highest overall bang, specifically, straight line.
For value, I'd probably rate the Stang GT at an 8 or 9, while the GT500 would fall to a 7 to 8. Still quite good, but the greater bang doesn't quite offset the even greater buck in the same ratio as does the GT or even past SVT Cobra iterations, even though it does readily have the highest overall bang, specifically, straight line.
Dave
4/1/05, 07:18 AM
#47
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, for another angle, engine performance. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the GT500 will have 475hp. Quite a jump over the GT's 300, 58% more to be exact. How does that compare to the '03-'04 Cobra? Well, that had 390hp rated (though it was really more like 410-420). This is a 50% jump over the contemporary GT's 260.
So quite simply, Ford is asking for, on the basis of engine performance alone, a 17% more in price premium for only 8% more power. And of course that disregards the supposedly substantial money saved by foregoing an IRS, and an otherwise roughly comparable level of performance and content enhancement elsewhere.
But, as well noted, a lot is perceived value rather than purely an objective weighing of it and if you don't feel Ford is getting enough money, then I'm sure they will only be more than happy to charge that much more than its likely costing them. And there will be many who will be swayed enough by the perception's Ford is of course puffing up, ones that go well beyond the actual increase in performance and content enhancements, so who can blame them if they can pull this off.
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
I find it somewhat remarkable that many of us, the customers, seem to be arguing that they ought to charge significantly more for a certain level of enhancement. The Ford accountants and marketers must all have a huge satisfied grin on their faces that they’ve been able to, apparently, pull this over on so many of us. I’ll continue to try tomake a cogent, reasonable and objective argument to save us money while others may wish to take Ford marketing’s side and support their greater price premium increases.
So quite simply, Ford is asking for, on the basis of engine performance alone, a 17% more in price premium for only 8% more power. And of course that disregards the supposedly substantial money saved by foregoing an IRS, and an otherwise roughly comparable level of performance and content enhancement elsewhere.
But, as well noted, a lot is perceived value rather than purely an objective weighing of it and if you don't feel Ford is getting enough money, then I'm sure they will only be more than happy to charge that much more than its likely costing them. And there will be many who will be swayed enough by the perception's Ford is of course puffing up, ones that go well beyond the actual increase in performance and content enhancements, so who can blame them if they can pull this off.
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
I find it somewhat remarkable that many of us, the customers, seem to be arguing that they ought to charge significantly more for a certain level of enhancement. The Ford accountants and marketers must all have a huge satisfied grin on their faces that they’ve been able to, apparently, pull this over on so many of us. I’ll continue to try tomake a cogent, reasonable and objective argument to save us money while others may wish to take Ford marketing’s side and support their greater price premium increases.
4/1/05, 07:45 AM
#48
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 8, 2005
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Crazyhorse.
I'm not as knowledgeable as some on here but, it would seem a car stated to have a production number 7,500 would be more expensive than car that they built 50,000 or so of (GT's that is guess for all you car whiz's). I think in America we call it SUPPLY and DEMAND or maybe the AMERICAN DREAM fits.
Also, I'm not sure what an IRS does for ride and handeling unless you would be racing this car. Who is going to pay 40K for a Shelby and then take it to the local Road Race Course and have some yahoo (in his Probe GT) wipe it out for you. (Sorry RHUMB just tring to be funny)
I had an aquaintance with an IBM repairman once. They had an air actuated sensor that they charged 40.00 bucks each. We used 2 - 3 of these a day. I said it looks like it should cost 10 cents, he replied can you build it for 40.00 bucks. So moral of the story,if you can design , maunfacture and install the IRS for 5000.00 go fot it.
So if the Shelby isn't what you want please don't buy one then maybe there will be 2 available for Crazyhorse and ME.
I'm not as knowledgeable as some on here but, it would seem a car stated to have a production number 7,500 would be more expensive than car that they built 50,000 or so of (GT's that is guess for all you car whiz's). I think in America we call it SUPPLY and DEMAND or maybe the AMERICAN DREAM fits.
Also, I'm not sure what an IRS does for ride and handeling unless you would be racing this car. Who is going to pay 40K for a Shelby and then take it to the local Road Race Course and have some yahoo (in his Probe GT) wipe it out for you. (Sorry RHUMB just tring to be funny)
I had an aquaintance with an IBM repairman once. They had an air actuated sensor that they charged 40.00 bucks each. We used 2 - 3 of these a day. I said it looks like it should cost 10 cents, he replied can you build it for 40.00 bucks. So moral of the story,if you can design , maunfacture and install the IRS for 5000.00 go fot it.
So if the Shelby isn't what you want please don't buy one then maybe there will be 2 available for Crazyhorse and ME.
4/1/05, 10:06 AM
#49
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would argue that the greatest benefits of an IRS would, in fact, be realized on the varied surfaces of street and road driving, more so than generally much smoother race tracks, which are less challenging to any suspension with a smooth drag strip being the least challenging of all. I would imagine at least as many might take it to a race course or auto-X as a drag strip and the former two are more represetative of the actual real-life range of driving conditions, complexities and challenges one might face off track.
As for limited production and costs, of course, but then, all the previous Cobra iteration, including IRS and supercharged models, were themselves just as limited production, if not more so (would they still hand build the 5.4 motors like they used to or are we getting chumped there too?). Thus the cost comparisons I make with the earlier ought to be just as valid on that count.
The GT500 represents a fairly equivelent jump in relative performance and content over its GT stablemate, and in relation to contemporary vehicles too, as did, say, the '03-'04 Cobras in its day. Before going completely ga-ga over the ABSOLUTE power, a very impressive ~475hp, that the GT500 will pump out and suspeneding all critical assessments, do recall that RELATIVE to both its GT kin, and also other performance cars on the market, the '03-'04 exhibits a fairly similar level of relative performance gain, as will the GT500 exhibit, relatively, to its contemporaries. The big difference, again, is just that Ford will be charging a disproportionate amount for this same relative level of increase.
As for limited production and costs, of course, but then, all the previous Cobra iteration, including IRS and supercharged models, were themselves just as limited production, if not more so (would they still hand build the 5.4 motors like they used to or are we getting chumped there too?). Thus the cost comparisons I make with the earlier ought to be just as valid on that count.
The GT500 represents a fairly equivelent jump in relative performance and content over its GT stablemate, and in relation to contemporary vehicles too, as did, say, the '03-'04 Cobras in its day. Before going completely ga-ga over the ABSOLUTE power, a very impressive ~475hp, that the GT500 will pump out and suspeneding all critical assessments, do recall that RELATIVE to both its GT kin, and also other performance cars on the market, the '03-'04 exhibits a fairly similar level of relative performance gain, as will the GT500 exhibit, relatively, to its contemporaries. The big difference, again, is just that Ford will be charging a disproportionate amount for this same relative level of increase.
4/1/05, 10:30 AM
#50
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by rhumb@April 1, 2005, 8:21 AM
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
Why not send a letter to SVT or Hau Thai-Tang directly?? It's worth a shot to package up your assertions and open a formal communication channel. I assume Brad would be willing to assist with contact information.
I'd help you proofread it and make content suggestions.
I did this when Ford was about to make the Mach 1, talking about the price/performance value and comparing to the Nissan 350Z which was then coming out. I did get a response back from the Mustang chief engineer at the time (Art Hyde).
Let me know if you would like to collaborate.
4/1/05, 10:56 AM
#51
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Location: Hurricane,wv/Cinn,OH,Mooresville,NC
Posts: 2,508
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally posted by Tony Alonso+April 1, 2005, 11:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tony Alonso @ April 1, 2005, 11:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-rhumb@April 1, 2005, 8:21 AM
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
I'll at least try to call them on that and let everyone decide for him or herself how much hard earned money they want to pay. But hey, in the end, I'm trying to argue to lobby for us, the consumer, and in a quite factual way, that perhaps Ford might be overcharging in their price premium vs. the performance and content premium gained in the GT500 as compared to their own earlier Cobras as a reference. So perhaps while the hard numbers don't gibe, perhaps Ford marketing has gotten cleverer or its customer’s wallets more pliable since '04?
Why not send a letter to SVT or Hau Thai-Tang directly?? It's worth a shot to package up your assertions and open a formal communication channel. I assume Brad would be willing to assist with contact information.
I'd help you proofread it and make content suggestions.
I did this when Ford was about to make the Mach 1, talking about the price/performance value and comparing to the Nissan 350Z which was then coming out. I did get a response back from the Mustang chief engineer at the time (Art Hyde).
Let me know if you would like to collaborate.
[/b][/quote]
Tony is right it is best way to do it , back 2001 I talk with Scott Hoag at time head designer of Mach1 I ask if they could auto. in Mach1 and he we see and Ford did.
4/1/05, 10:57 AM
#52
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
I have considered this, for as much as I enjoy and benefit from discussing this topic on this board, as it forces me to sharpen and hone my thinking and arguments, it is, at best, an indirect approach to raising this concern to those who can actually affect it. I probably won't have time this weekend, got a Safety at Sea seminar to attend. But I will try to next week and would greatly welcome yours, and other, input.
I have considered this, for as much as I enjoy and benefit from discussing this topic on this board, as it forces me to sharpen and hone my thinking and arguments, it is, at best, an indirect approach to raising this concern to those who can actually affect it. I probably won't have time this weekend, got a Safety at Sea seminar to attend. But I will try to next week and would greatly welcome yours, and other, input.
4/1/05, 12:12 PM
#53
Member
Join Date: December 28, 2004
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole debate is kind of pointless without an actual figure to debate with. Until we know what it costs, there's no way to say what kind of "value" it is...
That said, if it comes out at the same price, or even a couple grand above, where the old one hit, I'll take one for sure. IRS/SRA aside, everything else is sure to be superior, just like it is between the SN95 and S197 GTs. You're getting a stiffer chassis, a smoother ride, a better interior, and when the people involved say that the handling on this thing is good enough without the IRS... I say we should wait until they post some numbers before jumping on them for not having one.
Only when we see the actual final performance numbers and the price will we be able to truly evaluate the "value" of this car compared to the previous Cobra.
But honestly, I'm buying it for the looks, and it don't matter how much cheaper the '04 was, there's just no comparison there
That said, if it comes out at the same price, or even a couple grand above, where the old one hit, I'll take one for sure. IRS/SRA aside, everything else is sure to be superior, just like it is between the SN95 and S197 GTs. You're getting a stiffer chassis, a smoother ride, a better interior, and when the people involved say that the handling on this thing is good enough without the IRS... I say we should wait until they post some numbers before jumping on them for not having one.
Only when we see the actual final performance numbers and the price will we be able to truly evaluate the "value" of this car compared to the previous Cobra.
But honestly, I'm buying it for the looks, and it don't matter how much cheaper the '04 was, there's just no comparison there
4/1/05, 12:35 PM
#54
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 11, 2004
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The $ per hp cost is close, if not less expensive for the GT500 vs. the Mustang GT using factory rated hp levels, depending on which costs you use.
I say the car is worth every penny of the MSRP and is a performance bargin. I don't think you can build a 2005 GT that will compete with GT500 for difference in the costs and still be completely reliable.
I say the car is worth every penny of the MSRP and is a performance bargin. I don't think you can build a 2005 GT that will compete with GT500 for difference in the costs and still be completely reliable.
4/1/05, 01:46 PM
#55
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by matic@March 31, 2005, 9:14 AM
This is a Corvette beater, an M3 destroyer ...
This is a Corvette beater, an M3 destroyer ...
4/1/05, 01:51 PM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What numbers are the C6 putting up? I know it's 400 hp and 400 ft. lbs but what's the weight on the Bow Tie? I think SVT could/would give the C6 a run for its money if not beat the poo out of it. This is based on speculation, not facts.
4/1/05, 01:58 PM
#57
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@April 1, 2005, 11:09 AM
I would argue that the greatest benefits of an IRS would, in fact, be realized on the varied surfaces of street and road driving, more so than generally much smoother race tracks, which are less challenging to any suspension with a smooth drag strip being the least challenging of all. I would imagine at least as many might take it to a race course or auto-X as a drag strip and the former two are more represetative of the actual real-life range of driving conditions, complexities and challenges one might face off track.
As for limited production and costs, of course, but then, all the previous Cobra iteration, including IRS and supercharged models, were themselves just as limited production, if not more so (would they still hand build the 5.4 motors like they used to or are we getting chumped there too?). Thus the cost comparisons I make with the earlier ought to be just as valid on that count.
The GT500 represents a fairly equivelent jump in relative performance and content over its GT stablemate, and in relation to contemporary vehicles too, as did, say, the '03-'04 Cobras in its day. Before going completely ga-ga over the ABSOLUTE power, a very impressive ~475hp, that the GT500 will pump out and suspeneding all critical assessments, do recall that RELATIVE to both its GT kin, and also other performance cars on the market, the '03-'04 exhibits a fairly similar level of relative performance gain, as will the GT500 exhibit, relatively, to its contemporaries. The big difference, again, is just that Ford will be charging a disproportionate amount for this same relative level of increase.
I would argue that the greatest benefits of an IRS would, in fact, be realized on the varied surfaces of street and road driving, more so than generally much smoother race tracks, which are less challenging to any suspension with a smooth drag strip being the least challenging of all. I would imagine at least as many might take it to a race course or auto-X as a drag strip and the former two are more represetative of the actual real-life range of driving conditions, complexities and challenges one might face off track.
As for limited production and costs, of course, but then, all the previous Cobra iteration, including IRS and supercharged models, were themselves just as limited production, if not more so (would they still hand build the 5.4 motors like they used to or are we getting chumped there too?). Thus the cost comparisons I make with the earlier ought to be just as valid on that count.
The GT500 represents a fairly equivelent jump in relative performance and content over its GT stablemate, and in relation to contemporary vehicles too, as did, say, the '03-'04 Cobras in its day. Before going completely ga-ga over the ABSOLUTE power, a very impressive ~475hp, that the GT500 will pump out and suspeneding all critical assessments, do recall that RELATIVE to both its GT kin, and also other performance cars on the market, the '03-'04 exhibits a fairly similar level of relative performance gain, as will the GT500 exhibit, relatively, to its contemporaries. The big difference, again, is just that Ford will be charging a disproportionate amount for this same relative level of increase.
The IRS vs. SRA debate is - for most drivers - an academic one. Ford has demonstrated that the chassis on the new Mustang is so well "dialed in" that the SRA doesn't hamper its performance too terribly much. Most drivers will run out of raw ability before overtaxing the car's limit. IRS is widely touted as the holy grail of handling, but there are many other factors that contribute equally to a car's overall prowess on the road, and the new Mustang GT will easily dispatch last year's IRS Cobra in the twisties, simply because the chassis and overall design is vastly superior.
Now, if we're talking about ride COMFORT on rough roads, that's a different discussion and I would agree with you.
Regarding this car's overall cost increase? I think someone said it aptly: "Supply and demand." If people are willing to pay it - which they likely are - then Ford will have no trouble selling them. Is there $40K worth of engineering, design, materials and labor in this car? There probably is. As someone else pointed out, show me any other car in the world with this level of performance and specification for anything near $40K. Doesn't exist. Period.
Your arguments could be made about a number of vehicles. I personally think that BMWs are over-priced. Is the M3 worth $20K more than this new Cobra. Doubt it.
Finally, Ford is in business to make money. Particularly now when North American automakers are losing so much money year after year as Honda and Toyota gain an increasingly larger percentage of the market and continue to profit.
4/1/05, 02:01 PM
#58
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by slavehand@April 1, 2005, 2:54 PM
What numbers are the C6 putting up? I know it's 400 hp and 400 ft. lbs but what's the weight on the Bow Tie? I think SVT could/would give the C6 a run for its money if not beat the poo out of it. This is based on speculation, not facts.
What numbers are the C6 putting up? I know it's 400 hp and 400 ft. lbs but what's the weight on the Bow Tie? I think SVT could/would give the C6 a run for its money if not beat the poo out of it. This is based on speculation, not facts.
Also, the suspension setup on the C6 is significantly more advanced, so it will handle anything other than a straightaway with greater aplomb than the Cobra.
4/1/05, 02:08 PM
#59
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Robert@April 1, 2005, 4:01 PM
...I personally think that BMWs are over-priced. Is the M3 worth $20K more than this new Cobra. Doubt it.
...I personally think that BMWs are over-priced. Is the M3 worth $20K more than this new Cobra. Doubt it.
4/1/05, 02:18 PM
#60
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by slavehand+April 1, 2005, 3:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(slavehand @ April 1, 2005, 3:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Robert@April 1, 2005, 4:01 PM
...I personally think that BMWs are over-priced. Is the M3 worth $20K more than this new Cobra. Doubt it.
...I personally think that BMWs are over-priced. Is the M3 worth $20K more than this new Cobra. Doubt it.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, their reputation for reliability leaves a lot to be desired. A friend of mine bought a 2001 740i Sport two years ago, and I will say that those things are built like a bank vault though; very solid. But once they're out of warranty, a lot of people sell them to avoid the high maintenance costs.
Sorry about the rant on the other thread, by the way. It's just sad to see so much outsourcing of jobs and technology on the part of the US. I have many friends and relatives south of the border, and they're all getting worried. Now Delta airlines has outsourced its aircraft maintenance to Air Canada. Good for us, but how many US jobs have been lost as a result?
And IBM choosing to build all its PCs in China from now on?! Bad enough that Americans are losing jobs and that the middle class is getting squeezed, but now we're giving technology away to a country that refuses to abide by WTO rules, even though it's a member. Unfreakinbelieveable.
But I'm ranting again.