Route 66

Nice info. Hope it's accurate.
:rock:

new22003

My cousins, doctors, nurses, mail man, heard from an SVT rep that people who speculate wildly about the 2005+ mustang are complete morons.

So many armchair speculators that think they have the inside line and then someone else takes it as fact. I swear some people just want to lie as it makes them feel special.

Its always the worst possible senario/negative too. Geez its like the darn weather. You never hear anyone say its going to be the nicest winter or summer ever. Its always the worst.

All these unsubstantiated comments about the 2005+ mustang have been proven wrong 90% of the time. If it starts with "I heard it from an annonymous source" or everyones favorite "I heard from my local SVT dealer/salesman" it moves up to 99% wrong. Even someone just guessing should be right more than that.

If a rumour without any proof at all pops up on stangnet or svt board then it pops up here as FACT and vice versa.

MrDrezzUp

The posts in this thread regarding "Price Increase VS Technology Provided" are quite valid. I guess it is important to realize Ford's goal (as with any business) is to maximize profit. The greater the distance between cost of product and selling price the better (for a company).

Let us not forget the Corvette has "leaf spring" suspension yet the handling is stated as being superb.

Robert

I, too, think there's precedent for this argument. Look at Luxman's employment of vaccum tubes (an antiquated technology) in modern stereo amplifiers to improve the "warmth" of the sound. Sometimes old tech can be reengineered to work very well along with other contemporary components.

A very well designed SRA may indeed offer better levels of performance than a run-of-the-mill IRS.

Case in point: I drove the new Acura RL with its IRS and its SH-AWD (Super Handling All Wheel Drive), and that thing was a squealing novocainemobile under hard cornering. I was not impressed, despite its "high tech" moniker.

I'm less concerned about the GT500s SRA and more concerned that Ford put proper rubber on all four wheels. This vehicle needs 275 tires minimum, not those puny 255s we saw on the show car.

Mystic_Cobra

Your point is well taken. I think we all agree. I guess they'll find out if they can make more money with more profit on fewer cars or less profit on more cars. Less profit on more cars makes more customers happy. Seems like a simple choice even for someone without an MBA.

Robert

Except, of course, that the more cars made, the less the exclusivity factor.

Still, 7500 cars a year for two to three years ought to be enough for anyone who's truly determined to have one - without seeing them on every streetcorner, which is the only thing I hate about the GT, since one out of every two sports cars sold in North America right now is a new Mustang.

By the same token, here in Vancouver, M3s are a dime a dozen. It's nice to know that the Shelby will be significantly rarer than an M3. And the Shelby will still be able to spank the upcoming M3 (now called the M4 coupe) since it only has a 400 hp V8.

dke

Bob, don't make that assumption. (the Shelby will spank the M3/M4). Look, I want the shelby, and I hope you are right -- but realistically, the BMW's have traditionally had better weight, better balance, better transmissions, better suspensions, better brakes (by default) and weaker motors -- and would still compete in a 1/4, and beat on the track. (Unless you're talking saleen, etc.)..... there's a lot more to driving/racing than HP, unless you're only talking from a stoplight -- even then gearing and tranny matter.

So the new bimmers are going to be lighter, better made, better interiors, larger, have a better transmission, and better suspension (unless Ford pulls a rabbit out of the hat). That leaves motors and gearing. BMW usually gears taller for the autobahn and have never been quarter milers. The suspensions of the bimmers use variable camber to dig in on corners and get better lateral G's, as will the better balance (and less weight). Braking is hard to say, but weight is working against the Cobra. But in acceleration, I'm betting the Cobra will win (even with more weight and worse balance). So I'm guessing it is far from a spanking. I think the Cobra will probably be 1/3rd less in dollars, and probably what I'll get. But I'm not naive enough to think that I'll be driving the baddest thing on the road (just a good price/performance balance and style for me).

Robert

All of which begs the question: As a current BMW owner and enthusiast, if the Shelby is as inferior as you assert, why oh why would you buy one over the Bimmer?

As to the Bimmer's superiority - I agree with you that on paper, the BMW (along with many of the Japanese makes) looks more sophisticated than the Mustang.

But consider the following:

1) I have three problems with Bimmers...

- They're overpriced; plain and simple
- They're not particularly reliable
- In this neck of the woods they're driven by everyone who thinks they've "arrived" as a status symbol, and most of those people don't have the automotive savvy to be able to tell the difference on the road between IRS and SRA, never mind gearing, camber or balance equations.

Now, my friend has a 2001 740i sport, and that's a beautiful sedan, I'll admit. It's built bank-vault solid and loaded with technological gizmos like a heated steering wheel. Still, in the year-and-a-half since he bought it, it's been in for two major warranty issues. Good thing he got the extended warranty. (Apparently, most people ditch them once the warranty is up because of the exorbitant cost of repairs.)

2) It may surprise you to know that last year's generation of Mustang was ranked by Consumer Reports as the MOST reliable North American vehicle made. It came in at 5 problems per 100 vehicles - which makes it as dependable as the most dependable Hondas and Toyotas produced. And the new Stang is significantly better built than that. So for reliability, I expect the Mustang to be well ahead of any Bimmer.

3) Finally, despite some of the "old tech" being used in this Shelby, you must evaluate the automobile as a piece, rather than as the sum of its parts. The Mustang GT's SRA is panned on paper by automotive elitists, yet in the real world it performs exceptionally well, due to it's advanced evolution and incorporation into an exceptionally well designed new chassis. You can be sure that SVT - along with Carroll Shelby's years of racing and engineering experience - have been put to good use to significantly evolve this already well designed new Mustang. We should drive it first, before assuming that the Bimmer will be a better car.

4) As to the quality of the interior - I don't believe that BMW use leather on the dash or door surfaces of any of their cars.

dke

I'm not really an enthusiast per say. I like it (and MANY other cars as well). I don't buy BMW's because they are BMW's (my wife bought hers more for the cachet), nor would I buy Ford because it is the blue oval. I buy the car that is the right car for me at the right time. (And hop brands without a problem -- I think most can make good models).

Cars are about balances. Balances that include style, nostalgia, PRICE and other issues, that may make the Mustang or Cobra a better car for me now. But I have no illusions. A Vette will eat it's lunch on the track. The M3 is nicer in many ways too. But that doesn't mean it is right for me now.

I can bash what I don't like about the new bimmer: Can't stand bangle design or iDrive -- and am not much PERSONALLY for the newer interior, etc., etc. and am just plain tired of the car, so replacing it with the same thing doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus the cost. But I don't go, "I've got more ponies so this is a better car" -- it's broader than that. I'd rather have an Austin Martin -- but you know what, a well tuned stang may beat it on the track -- that doesn't make it a better car. And I doubt I'd call it a "spanking". I can be happy with Cobra, and know my neighbors Maybach is a better car (just not right for me).

Price: generally agree. Especially in repairs. (I've considered getting rid of mine for that reason).

Reliability: um, I sort of agree -- but we are talking about Ford. Let's not get too over the top. All cars are sort of crap shoots. (Vary by models, run, and day made). I'd put Ford against BMW and about equal on different things. BMW seldom has mechanical problems (Ford does), BMW often has electrical problems (Ford rarely does). If you want reliability, buy a Camry. ;-) I am happy to hear you #2 point. That's good news for Ford and for Mustang buyers. But we're 1 year in to a new model. Give it a few more. (But I'm with you -- and hope it holds). And Cobra will be made by SVT; have you read anything on the GT? They've got a lot of fixing to do before the Cobra goes into production.

Status: it varies. I've heard the "elitist ******" stuff. Some are. In truth, many bimmer drivers I knew bought them because they wanted a balance between luxury and performance (and didn't care about price), and BMW tends to kick bootie in that area (for a price). Others are posers or "look at me types" -- but then how many moronic teenagers or rednecks in their first V8 do you know driving Stangs? Usually, stereotyping reflects on the stereotypers as well as the stereotype. And the anti-BMW driver stuff is mostly a case of ***** envy. A friend saved up and bought himself one, and someone keyed the length of it, just because they hated bimmer drivers or resented others (assumed). Who does that say more about to you?

You didn't mention dealers. Ford dealers I've been to have been fairly eager to sell me a car. BMW dealers I've been to (except the one's I bought/serviced the car in San Diego in), have driven me away from the car. (Pun intended). Seriously -- I don't like the "higher than thou" attitude, and I didn't get that from Ford dealers.

The parts are the whole. If all the competition has a better designed part, except one car, that should count against that car -- but in balance to everything else. Yes, it drives fine -- unless you're on the bumpies in a corner. And I'm not stupid -- I'll give the car a chance. But I'll take it onto a bumpy corner (uneven road) and push it hard, and see how it does (for me). That's a tradeoff I'll consider in the balance of the whole. Just like I count a pushrod design against Chevy. It's something to look at, and know a tradeoff made, and know it was made more for dollars than best design.

I agree to drive before judging. But never forget that a track is not the real world. I don't doubt on a smooth track it is reasonable. But that doesn't make it the best daily driver, or sport driver, in the real world.

And in my post, try to remember the context (your post first). You said, the shelby will spank the M3/M4. Hardly. I can think it beats it some ways and falls short in others. That's NOT a spanking.

Yea, BMW uses simulated leather on part (some of the finest vinyl on the planet ;-), but it was quite a while before I found that out. The Cobras interior looks nicer than the GT's -- both are reasonable. The bimmers is nicer still and has more amenities, but there are tradeoffs. I want a power sunroof and heated seats; can I get that in the Cobra (ding against it), I would rather have cloth seats than leather (neither will give me that option). I love the retro+modern look (one bonus point for cobra), I prefer the better trunk of the M3 and better back seat (bimmer), I like the better power of the Cobra and macho rumble. I like more aluminum and suspension and balance of the M3 (mine is awesome in those areas), but I like the cost of parts (aftermarket and customization options as well as repair) of the stang, and so on. I'm not bashing the Cobra -- I'm trying to be fair to it, without acting like a kid or saying, "Everything else stinks, my car rules" kinda stuff.

So you talked smack, and I called you on it. I was NOT badmouthing the stang -- at worst I was calling you on badmouthing the bimmer. You will probably be able to buy 2 GT's for the price of one M3. (It's a better car, but not twice as good). The same with the difference between a cobra and a M3. I can think they are both good and different cars, and understand that not everyone else will make the same decisions I will. That doesn't make them wrong, or mean their car stink, even if the car I buy is the right one for me. Right now, the deciding factor for me, is probably auto. If I can't get Auto in the Cobra, I'll probably get something else. (There are a few strikes against it, and that is more the final straw). That doesn't make it a bad car -- just not the right car for me, right now.

wakerider017

Is it spelled Bimmer or Beamer?

Robert

I'll start with your last point, first. I wouldn't count on an automatic in the Shelby. In fact, I would say it's almost certain it won't be offered with an automatic.

Which makes everything else in your post academic, since you won't be buying one.

When I say "spank," I meant purely in the stoplight to stoplight war, which is where most Mustang enthusiasts like to demonstrate their prowess. And in this war, I stand by my statement - the Shelby will be a *****-to-the-wall torque monster and WILL spank the M3/M4...quite handily, I suspect. Remember, this is a detuned variant of the GT supercar engine.

As to the twisty, bumpy roads? I'll automatically give the Bimmer the nod in this competition - even though we haven't seen the two cars neck and neck under these conditions.

A word on "the better car": What criteria are you using to define better? Better fit and finish? More advanced technology? Greater reliability? More brand cachet? More bang for the buck? Greater dollops of heritage? The Bimmer wins on points one, two and four. The Mustang wins on points three, five and six. So which is the "better" car depends largely on your point of view.

And yes, every car has it's requisite stereotypes. In my experience, BMW's are de rigueur for social climbing snobs in much of North America, which is ironic, because in Germany and much of Europe, they're considered quite "common."

Mustangs - on the other hand - are often considered the sports car for redneck Middle America (a point all too often proven true on this board). Which, again, is ironic, considering that the original 1964 Mustang was designed as a freedom of expression for America's younger generation, who were tired of mom and pop's dreary, driveway dinosaur.

jsaylor

I agree wholeheartedly. Items like a telescoping steering wheel, wider rubber, and possibly a slightly better executed rearend (referring to the valence and trunk), and the availability of a sunroof are all items that I would rather see addressed than the IRS. Why? because the live axle can be made to deliver preference aside. But, the steering wheel either telescopes or it doesn't. The car either offers a sunroof or it doesn't.

dke

As you said, the point may be moot. If I can't get an automatic, there's a greater than 75% chance, I won't be getting the shelby. Just one too many features adding up to make it not the better choice for me. It's also sad that they will lose up to half their customer base (based on other similar cars numbers), and will influence those customers to opt for other cars -- and fail to meet their target goals of "going after the germans".

I'm not trying to get into pedantic wars. Fine, the Cobra will "spank" an M3 in the 1/4 (assuming they put decent rubber on the car). I agree. Yawn; that's not my thing -- I drive cars. The M3 will probably be better on a real road course (with bumpies and twisties together, and be smoother feeling on bumpy roads in general. (You can't tune SRA to be good in both bad roads and track). If I lived in So Cal, or moved to warmer climate, I might pick one up as a 3rd car or even daily-driver -- but it makes it less practical as my primary driver in the northern 2/3rds of the nation. I'm just more cautious with saying "spank". I think the Cobra will beat a lot of better cars in the quarter; and if that's all you want a car for, you'll be happy.

As for better. I think engineering/technology first (style, cachet, etc. as minor criteria). We've kind of beaten the dead horse. Better is many things. A porsche is a better car than a stang. That doesn't make it better for everyone. As you said, fit and finish, advanced technology, brand heritage (a little), comfort, styling, performance, balance, features, reliability (a bit), braking ("brakes win races"), safety, etc. all add up. That makes the car better in pure technology/engineering (price is not an issue).

For users, price should be an issue, as well as value, repair costs, insurance, etc., and makes the car the better choice for them (but not better). As does personal preference, the style they want at the time, emotion, etc. So I can think the 911S (or the Austin Martin -- my fav) is a better car than Cobra, yet still think the Cobra is the far better value, better choice for me, and better in at least a few myopic criteria.

The simplest way I could describe it, is if you had $100M, and could have any car but you could only drive one car, every day, which would be better? Now wake up, and with your budget and goals, choose one car for every day. That's just my opinion on better versus better for me.

AbusiveWombat

There's a big difference between the leaf springs on a full-size truck and the transverse leaf springs on the vette. The transverse leaf springs are lighter than 2 coiled springs and have the added benefit of doing double duty as a sway bar. The only reason the C6R doesn't use them is because it needs the adjustablility of coilovers.

Tony Alonso

My theories (just unscientific speculation)

1) they lost money on the previous '99-'04 Cobras over the model run and want to make sure it's made up on this one; creative accounting to pay for the SVT engineering has caught up with Ford; SVT is now being aligned more closely with other parts of Ford product development to ensure that budgetary considerations are managed in with the total product lifecycle

2) the cost of raw materials is up enough in the last 2 years to make a difference in price, despite the "dumbing down" of the rear suspension

3) the engineering costs on the Ford GT parts going into the engine are STILL being re-couped with this model run

4) Shelby royalties per car are STILL under negotiation

Any reactions?

rhumb

1. May very well be plausible, though I haven't heard any leaked comments to this effect (Ford certainly wouldn't come right out and say that, though perhaps they should as that would give a viable reason beyond simple greed for the huge price differential increase).

2. I doubt this, or we would have seen the price of the base Stang go up to and the relative (vs. absolute) price premium should remain about the same. And the GT500 uses less of the expensive materials (aluminum primarily, than did the more AL intensive IRS). The GT500 actually seems rather conservative in its use of more expensive lightweight materials.

3. Beyond the heads, the motor is actually closer to being a tall block version of the 4.6 SC Cobra motor with a Whipple than the much more unique and pricy Ford GT engine. And the heads seem to be a fairly basic variation of general Mod motor 4V heads with some bigger valves (I think) and ports, but nother particularly exotic (no titanium, magnesium, carbon or specialized machining or treatments) here either. Correct me if I've missed something however.

4. If it costs more than $10/car to have Shelby's name grace this car, I'd be happy just to call it the Cobra GT500 or just Cobra. A rose is a rose if by any other name...

jwenger

Good theories Tony, but I don't like them, however true. Jay I disagree with you saying the speculation relative to the 05 Stang was 90% wrong. Most everything I read or heard about it materialized. Guys even were putting out pictures of it that were dead on to what the production car looked like at least 1 year before production. Were these guys psychic, good guessers or simply privy to inside information??? :scratch:

new22003

The problem I have is with people who use "anonymous" or unverifiable sources and have no physical proof to back it up. So many people have gotten up in arms over information that has been totally false. Search through some older topics on here, stangnet, or svtperfomance to see the things people have started arguments about or that people have threatened to write ford about. If it starts with “My local dealer said”, :My svt person said”, “I heard from my friend at my dealer”, “I heard from an anonymous source” then it will be total BS.

The speculation was wrong. There is a big difference between speculation and facts and information. Speculation is when someone’s best link or source is another message board or a friend at the local ford dealer in podunk Arkansas. I.E. the no svt speculation, the under $20,000 GT speculation, the 6 speed gt speculation, the irs gt speculation, the gt cant be supercharged speculation, and 100 others.

Speculation that the gt would be v8, rear drive, and look like a classic mustang could be done by a 5 year old. Saying it would have a 5 speed and solid axle is a good bet also. It’s the fact that someone wakes up and gets an idea and posts it as fact that is the problem.

Robert

My point is that better almost always = "better for you" (or me, or him, or her, etc.). It's a subjective thing.

The fit & finish on the Bimmer is superior to the Mustang. Does that make the Bimmer better. I suppose so.

The Mustang's reliability rating last year was better than ANY Bimmer. Does that make the Mustang better. I suppose so.

Most Bimmers are more balanced performers. Does that make them better? I suppose so.

The Mustang offers more bang for the buck in the real world where most of us who aren't erudite snobs live. Does that make it better? I suppose so.

Bimmers are ridiculously expensive to maintain and repair. Does that make the Mustang better? I suppose so.

So check off your assets and liabilities, add up the balance sheet and see what you've got. For each of us, the answer is subjective. And once again, BMW is not considered a prestige brand in England and Germany. (Incidentally, in Germany, Mercedes is now considered the worst of their brand marques.) The new Mustang would likely get far more attention in these countries.

Finally, I don't think either Detroit or Stuttgart need to worry too much about each other. It's the vehicles from the land of the rising sun that we should be collectively concerned about, because Toyota is taking over.

I see this discussion is quickly decaying into sophism, so I'll just end by adding that it's spelled "Aston" Martin not Austin Martin.

dke

Careful on some of your assumptions. Remember, a bimmer is actually cheaper to maintain for the first 3/4 years. (Warranty -- which even covers road side assistance and oil changes). So if you're leasing cars, like many people do, bimmers can be cheaper (especially if you have a car allowance, etc.).

That's one thing that many people don't think about. Those "snobs" may get a discount lease that makes their car cheaper than yours.

Thanks for the correction on Aston. (seriously)...