I sincerely hope that HTT and a few choice Ford engineers (oops, can't forget the marketers) are watching the evolution of this post, it's been a fascinating ride so far.

Those of us in favour of an auto being made optional should someday band together and form a debating team - we'd be WHIPPIN' those other guys (oh yeah, and that Gisarm guy's sister with the 5 sp. Mach AND her dress).

This gets better every day!

 

Try debating down shifting at high speeds with an A/T, Mr. Einstein.
Just make sure you've got good brakes... and a low deductible.

 

Try debating down shifting at high speeds with an A/T, Mr. Einstein.
Just make sure you've got good brakes... and a low deductible.



[/b][/quote]

Have an SMG (a' la BMW...) and you can choose all the time when to downshift...it even blips the throttle in the best possible way when downshifting, better than any human can do...try debating this...

 

I was referring to the marketing of the GT500....the image they want to present is one of a stripped down "true" muscle car with its roots seated 4 decades ago. I said nothing about it being historically accurate.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah they might try to present it as a "stripped down "true" muscle car" and I believe it's a good marketing strategy for sure as basically everybody likes muscle cars (not to mention it also suits PERFECTLY the new Mustang, thanks to the wonderful retro looks it has...), but still no one will forget that we are in the 21st century...
Sure keeping the price low will be a great advantage in beating the competition, but people are accustomed to have a certain degree of technology, safety and comfort in any car today (factors that are even more important in a car that will have 450+ HP...) and by not keeping up with what the competition can offer, can be a big setback for Ford...Not that the Cobra won't sell, heck no: it's still a gorgeous looking car and great value for money...but I feel that many possible buyers will be turned away...

 

About the "car not for everyone" concept, I would like to say my opinion:
1) this "skill" (=being able to operate a manual transmission) is not such an elite kind of ... skill. Let me explain it: I am european, lived most of my life, at least over 3 decades, there. Well, over there EVERYBODY drives manual, from a young kid to a 90 year old grandmother... and so did I of course... and no one, I repeat no one, considers the ability to use a stickshift anything particular as everybody does it. And you might say "Well, we are in the USA, here it's different": well sure, no problem...but still, learning how to use a manual tranny is no feat that only a rocket scientist can achieve, if an entire continent (actually two: I have been both for work and holidays in South America as well and seen that cars had, for the vaste majority, manual trannys) can do it, therefore IMHO it can't be considered anything that would make you or anybody else some sort of elite driver.
2) If you look around in the world re. the top sport cars of today, you will see that a great deal of them (Ferraris, Porsches, BMW M's, Audi RS's, Mercedes AMG's, etc. etc.) not only employ manuals but as well (or sometimes only) very highly sofisticated transmissions that are either auto or semiauto or both. Do you think they missed the point and only Ford, if they will stick with only offering a manual for the new Cobra, has found the truth (=only a sport car with a manual tranny is a real sports car) ? I personally don't think so.
3) For me, a true sports car is a car that is used for racing. And then, the competition with the highest level of racing obviously has the best sport cars, closest to the definition of what a perfect sport car should be. And IMHO, the highest level of racing is found in Formula 1. In Formula 1, all teams have semiauto trannys, NO manuals. If these cars have semiauto trannys and they are the best of the best like I believe, I don't see why a Ford Mustang Cobra can't have anything quite similar to it...IMHO, it OUGHT to be the ONLY transmission, if you wanna talk about real sport cars...Anybody can slap a 6 speed manual in a car, all makers have one, more or less...another thing is having a 6 speed auto or even better, an SMG type...now that's technology that a great car like the new Cobra deserves...

And finally, about what "type of driver this car deserves", I say that this car deserves someone that can appreciate how good this car is and therefore let's give this driver something that goes along with the package (450+ HP): a nice, great performing, SMG style transmission !

 

Weird, it seems almost like you read my mind !
You couldn't have said it better, I subscribe to all you said !
PS: I still loved to double clutch in my good ol' M3, felt good.

 

But what would anyway be the problem in offering AS AN OPTION a navigation system (uuhmmm I just bought a Garmin C330 for my Mustang GT...I wish Ford offered a nav.sys. in the first place...), a satellite radio like XM or Sirius, a sunroof, heated seats or whatever else people could want (in a reasonable manner) ?
It would not impact the base price, it would make people able to tailor the car to suit their needs (come to MA, where I live, in the mid of winter and then tell me you wouldn't want to have heated seats in your car... ...), what is wrong with it ?
You haven't seen any of these in the GT500 but let's not forget it's not the final production car. Some of those might be included in the option list...
And if they don't, at least those I mentioned, I believe Ford would be making a mistake.

I believe the reason why Ford introduced the GT500 without tons of possible options, it's because 1) as said above, it's just a concept car, even though very close to what the final product will be and 2) because they are anyway giving a hint to the people that the new Cobra will definitely be a very affordable car compared to similar cars made by everyone else.
A fact that will remain so if they decide to increase their option list, as everyone could go either for a very bare Cobra at a reasonable price or for a very complete Cobra and every shade in between these two points...
PS: I also don't see where is the problem with comfort...who said that a sport car should be uncomfortable ?

 

Legion, glad you enjoy my posts... what is that they say about great minds thinking alike? ;-)

 

You misunderstand me. It is one thing to simply operate a manual transmission, it is something totally different to operate a manual transmission well. Obviously it allows for more control than a standard "set it and forget it" AT, and by feathering the clutch, matching revs, using the transmission for engine braking etc takes more skill.

Quote:

Originally posted by Legion681@April 26, 2005, 2:29 AM
2) If you look around in the world re. the top sport cars of today, you will see that a great deal of them (Ferraris, Porsches, BMW M's, Audi RS's, Mercedes AMG's, etc. etc.) not only employ manuals but as well (or sometimes only) very highly sofisticated transmissions that are either auto or semiauto or both. Do you think they missed the point and only Ford, if they will stick with only offering a manual for the new Cobra, has found the truth (=only a sport car with a manual tranny is a real sports car) ? I personally don't think so.

I'm not disputing the cars mentioned above offer an AT option, or at the very least semiauto, however I think they are in a different class. The cars you mentioned are true sports cars or sports coupes/sedans....the Mustang is a muscle car, so I don't think it is accurate to compare it to a Porsche or Ferrari by any means.

Quote:

Originally posted by Legion681@April 26, 2005, 2:29 AM
3) For me, a true sports car is a car that is used for racing. [snip]

Again, I think we are looking at two different classes of cars. A Mustang is far from a Formula 1 racer, and has never attempted to compete in any such class.

<!--QuoteBegin-Legion681@April 26, 2005, 2:29 AM
And finally, about what "type of driver this car deserves", I say that this car deserves someone that can appreciate how good this car is and therefore let's give this driver something that goes along with the package (450+ HP): a nice, great performing, SMG style transmission ![/quote]

Point taken, but honestly I don't think anyone thinks for a second that Ford is going to offer such a beast. I can see us logically debating the merits of a true AT (5 or even 6 speed) but to suggest an SMG style....I think that is a stretch.

Could Ford do it? Possibly, but like I said before - with the image they are trying to present with this car, I don't think it would fit their mindset.

 

This is a prime example of what is wrong with this topic. It is not a matter of "whippin'" someone that you disagree with. It should be about presenting your opinion without having to attack or berate those who may disagree with you.

Don't play that game about "they started it" either, because you could have taken the high road but instead had to resort to comments like this which add nothing of value to the topic at hand.

 

Apples and oranges. Nice side stepping, but don't light up the cigar just yet.

The question remains, and is still the same: "... DOWN SHIFTING @ HIGH SPEEDS WITH A/Ts". Perhaps you might like to post an obscure quote from racing pros endorsing the A/T over a stick shift. Who knows? If your argument is good enough you might even be able to convince NASCAR to follow your lead.

 

Truthfully Ford can offer whatever they want, but I keep coming back to their marketing of this vehicle. I don't believe they want the image of a creature comfort enabled vehicle. I don't think they want anyone to think this car is about comfort, but rather about pure raw unteathered power from an old style V8 that burns enough petrol to put you on the OPEC Christmas card list.

They want this to be the quintesential muscle car with no equals. Will they succeed? That is to be determined, but I honestly beleive they will do what they can to ensure they are the lone player in this category. They aren't trying to be something they aren't, and to a degree I feel that honors the heritage of the Mustang much more than by offering heated seats and/or a satellite navigation system.

However, I do think offering options does increase the price of the vehicle. I know Jeep several years back realized if they cut down the number of options on their Grand Cherokee and simply made some things standard, it reduced the cost for the average vehicle due to having less combinations available. This in turn makes the ordering process simpler, requires fewer vehicles to be retained in stock (due to the abundance of option combinations required), takes fewer man hours to assemble, simplifies the build process, and reduces the amount of part numbers available.

While we like to think the options are only costing the person paying for them, in reality that simply is not true. Think of something as simple as an upgraded sound system. The car has to have the speaker locations engineered to accept them, it has to have extra wiring to allow for the units to be connected, it has to have a place in the build process which indicates which sound system this particular car gets, and logistically that all has to be carried out without causing any delays to any other vehicle in the line. Now think if Ford only offered one stereo option.....pretty easy to figure out what goes where isn't it?

Now obviously I am oversimplying things here, and we know Ford offers multiple sound system options, but the point is they draw the line somewhere, and cannot be all things to all people. They can try, and they can offer dozens of options to accomodate the masses, but in the end I don't think that helps the bottom line. Generally an automobile maker has to follow the 80/20 rule, and in this case when they factor in their target market and core consumer, I think they are safe in keeping this a stripped down "meat and potatos" type of ride. I mean honestly....as much hype as this thing has gotten already - they could offer a cassette player with a 2 speaker stereo and I don't think it would hurt sales much.

 

Wait, matching revs for downshifting at high speeds, engine braking- that is all sports car lingo for using a sports car at the track-

Then you say no the Shelby is not a sports car, a muscle car-


A muscle car has one purpose in life- go fast straight-

In which case you dont have to worry about engine breaking or matching revs- just going fast straight-

in which case an auto will work just fine- in fact better if built right

When you have this much power, it is not exactly "easy" to get a car to hook up- and launch well- even with an auto-

Persoanlly I would buy a 6 speed car over an auto- but I dont think autos are as bad as some are making them out to be- I dont think one is better then the other-

it is all preference-

As I said- I know several people that will buy one only if it has an auto- 1 because of medical reasons- 1 because they sit in too much traffic driving to work-

The auto guys arent asking for an auto only- they want both

but the stick shift guys want stick shift only-


So stick shift guys-

Why cant the auto guys have an auto- you say its wrong-

but real muscle cars come with automatics- and the Shelby is a muscle car

 

I agree complete in the 80/20 rule, and that they shouldn't try to be all things to all people. But do you know what the 80/20 rule is? Either 20% of the people do 80% of the work, or in this case, 20% of the functions/features meet 80% of the users needs/desires. I agree -- it is just blind stinking obvious that Auto Transmission is one of the 20%, as nearly 2/3rd of the people say they want some form of it as an option. It isn't called the 40/60 rule (where 40% of the users should be able to take away options that 60% of the people want) -- remember?

Ford can certainly do whatever they want. They can put a buggie axle on the hiney-end of car. They can not offer options that cars a fraction of their price have. They can not offer Auto's. But the point is, that if they keep taking away options that customers want, eventually they will reach the utopia of having a few very happy customers, and a non-profitable halo-car that has the perfect image for Ford, but few actually buy. It would combine the best of the GTO the SSR all in one.

 

In marketing terms, the 80/20 rule implies that 80% of the purchases for this particular model stem from their "target consumer" while the remaining 20% fall outside of that.

Volkswagen for instance realized that the bulk of Jetta owners are women (probably at least 80%), but that doesn't mean they don't want men buying the car, it just means they include certain features and options which make the car more attractive to their core consumer.

Thus, generally car makers design their cars with the 80% in mind. Now if the target consumer for a GT500 prefers an auto....well guess what - we will get an auto. If that target consumer could care less....maybe it will be an option. If that target consumer hates the idea of putting an auto in a powerful stripped down muscle car....well, then maybe we won't see it.

Of course it is anyone's guess as to who Ford believes their target consumer to be - I have my ideas, but since I'm not privy to the marketing studies for the GT500, it is really all just fancy guesswork.

 

The problem with marketing is that it is often guesswork. I could define my target demographic as white-men with rythm, or hispanic basketball players, and get stellar capture rates of that market. I could do things like exclude a popular option (like Auto) and then claim I have excellent capture rate of my target segment -- ignoring how much bigger the segment would be if I offered it. Basically, if American Auto Companies marketing was good, then we would be a lot less likely to have sold one of the big to the germans (the only one that is doing any good now), and have the other two struggling. I think Ford is doing better -- but still has many issues. But having marketing telling you to yank away features that customers can get from all their competitors doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Having other watchers say that's a good idea, is outright myopic. Compound this with Ford have stated what their targets are: the Germans and the low end Vette, and this borders on moronic to even be considering not offering an auto, when Auto's are over half their competitions sales!

 

Ford has the fastest auto. Mustang it is the 1994 429 Boss over 855hp it has auto. 0-60mph 1.9 sec here's info.

If Ford can put auto. in the Boss429 they can put one the in GT500.

 

This is a prime example of what is wrong with this topic. It is not a matter of "whippin'" someone that you disagree with. It should be about presenting your opinion without having to attack or berate those who may disagree with you.

Don't play that game about "they started it" either, because you could have taken the high road but instead had to resort to comments like this which add nothing of value to the topic at hand.
[/b][/quote]

Point taken Seven but I meant "whippin" in terms of debating (as written), more specifically the excellent points that those reasoning on behalf of the "choice" for an automatic are making - versus the incredibly uneducated/unresearched comments that some have posted related to "why man should drive a manual alone".

Most contributors to this string (yourself included) have obviously researched their thoughts, considered the history (and future) of the car, considered the demographics, put themselves in place of the marketers, and in most if not all posts agreed that manuals are a wonderful thing - along with auto's if that's what people want as a choice.

As for staying on the high road - as was intended with my very first post - you're right, I've become almost as bad as some of the others. There's a limit to my tolerance about such issues though. Again, you'll notice that the majority of the posts, both pro and con the auto option, are written very intelligently and with a great deal of thought. Ford would do themselves a favour by putting the forum contributors (minus a couple of exceptions) into a focus group. I'm sure they'd get an earful, even more than has been posted thus far.

But there's a big difference between intelligent debate and outright ignorance - which a number of people have displayed by repeatedly berating the auto-shift crowd with comments having absolutely nothing to do with fact, the GT500 or anything else common sensical. In my opinion, THOSE are the type of comments adding nothing of value to the topic. But, as you point out, I've digresssed to "their" level a couple of times so I'll be careful in the future.

Done for now, Regards - Mark.

 

:banana2:

<!--QuoteBegin-Original Sin@April 26, 2005, 10:34 AM
Done for now, Regards - Mark.

Quoted post

[/quote]



What about the down shifting?

 

What about the downshifting??? What a stupid, irresponsib.....ooops, sorry, promised I wasn't going to that again

Just kidding Bullitt. You might have a little bit of a point there - for track-style racing (not the straight 1/4 mile, I mean Trans Am style), yes a manual will give you better down-shifting capabilities aka better control. But - for the majority of us whose only race is "to work" everyday, it's not a big deal - honest! I've downshifted mine (an auto) manually to save brake wear once in awhile and I do miss the ability to feather a clutch, bring the revs up or let them drop, or whatever I need to do to make the transition seamless. What I don't miss is having to drive through Toronto traffic - feathering a clutch, bringing the revs up, down, etc etc....you get the picture I'm sure. A manual in bumper to bumper traffic is h.e.l.l. Thus, my decision for an auto. IMO it's the way to go.

But the bottom line is that when I went to my dealership last December to put my money where my mouth was, there were 2 check boxes right beside each other in the order book. One for manual. One for automatic.

Mark