dke

One other thing -- remember how this off topic area is started and where I keep trying to bring it back to. It was about how can American companies compete (or what are the issues in the auto industry).

Americans pension for borrowing means that you can afford much more expensive cars than you should, if you only pay for the depreciation over the duration (lease). Some companies like BMW subsidize all repairs during that time -- resulting in very expensive cars being very affordable because they have higher residuals.

Why do American car companies have lower risiduals and are less-able to play these same games? Because they have fixed amount of production due to Union rules. (They have to pay workers whether working or not -- unlike European/Japese competition). So Ford has to do things like throw their over-capacity to Hertz -- which means Hertz sells off those used cars at radically reduced prices and gutts the secondary markets of the cars (as does over-capacity). Either that or sit and watch factory workers getting paid for doing nothing.

Something like a few thousand dollars of every car is healthcare and pensions. (Probably double or more most other countries). A thousand more so that auto union workers can make double what european or japanese counterparts make, for less work -- and good people can't be given raises, bad people can't be fired. A few thousand more for government regulations, labor costs, liability, and so on. You also have questionable management decisions, and plent of other things going on too. So if you care about American cars, you should care what the auto-unions have done to the industry, as well as government regulators, environmentalists, and other special interests. It's not any one groups fault -- it's many. Special interests controlling our government or our business has undermined our nation in many ways.

But I gotta look at a Corba and think, "if that car could be at least $5K cheaper initially and have $5K more risidual value in 3 years, then Ford would be doing a lot better". (Not only that one car, spread out over the entire product line). I think Mazda makes similar cars in similar places from similar designs and does much better with them, because they don't have Ford's legacy, union contracts, quite same regulations and so on. Makes you think, doesn't it? (If it doesn't, it should).

Robert

What I think is that at the end of the day you pick your poison and live with the choice.

Robert

Remember too that this car has a visceral appeal that few automobiles today can match...unless you want to spend six figures (or more).

I doubt we'll never see a Shelby Mustang again after this production run. So it's also a chance to own a piece of history, and it's hard to put a price tag on that.

Everytime I see a 2005 Mustang GT on the road, I am continually amazed at just how good it looks - much better rolling down the road than in pictures. It doesn't look like any other car, but it DOES look exactly like what a Mustang is supposed to look like, IMHO. It also sounds terrific and accelerates with authority.

The Shelby will ratch it up another couple of notches, and I expect that car will look sensational in the flesh, too. And the truth is, unless you're driving a Porsche 911 GT series, Ferrari, Viper, or Corvette C6 Z06, you're gonna get mauled by this beast. And even the aforementioned cars will probably be just a little nervous when they see the GT500 coming up fast in their rear view mirrors. I think that's well worth the $40K price of admission.

dke

I agree with what you said Robert. My area of concern is that they don't laugh when you hit the first corner. It's way too early to know -- I'll need to drive one. I suspect it will be reasonable -- but there should be enough concerns like weight distro, total weight, high CG, buggy rear-end, etc., to make anyone that wants a drivers car (not just a 1/4 miler) think, "show me the money". But Ford has engineers -- I suspect it will drive well....

Robert

Given the near-universal praise heaped on the new Mustang's overall handling prowess by the automotive press - despite the live rear axle - and given the car's recent victories at the latest Grand Am races, I think its performance capabilities speak for themselves.

As to "[not laughing] when you hit the first corner," remember that most races in the real world take place on either a race track (where again, the Mustang proved its superiority in the recent Grand Am races) or from stoplight to stoplight (where the Shelby will unquestionalby dominate). Not too many mono-a-mono races take place on twisty mountain roadways with poor-quality pavement. And if you're racing someone on that kind of a treacherous road, you ought to have your head examined regardless of whether your car is suspended by an SRA OR an IRS.

Fastbackman

Go ahead and blame everything on the union dke. Meanwhile you probably draw a fat check doing whatever you do. If you bust up the union you'll have people building our cars that make the same as a wal-mart employee. Tell me, would you work for $7. an hour? Sorry, I just get sick of people who blame unions for everything. If it weren't for the unions there wouldn't be any good paying factory jobs. I'm not saying that factory jobs that aren't union, don't pay well. Simply that if unions didn't exist, the non-union jobs that do pay well, wouldn't because they wouldn't have too.

dke

Fastbackman, please learn to read what I say, and don't mis-paraphrase me. And don't make ignorant assumptions. I have worked for $7 an hour, and have been in Unions and worked with Unions. My wife is currently in a union (AFLCIO / Machinist Workers) -- she also belonged to teachers, and I was SAG. I said the problems are complex and not just the Unions fault, but Unions are responsible for many problems as well. Denying Unions do bad as well as good shows complete ignorance.

You are completely ignorant of history and Ford if you think Unions were the only cure for some problems. Many companies paid quite well before the Unions. Ford in fact, went well beyond minimum requirements without Unionization. Some companies/bosses did not. But there are many happy workers, fairly paid without unions. There are many unemployed workers because of unions.

Unions are a labor monopoly/trust. Companies that are too powerful are sort of an employment monopoly. Government is a justice monopoly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any can be bad, all have a place. When Companies are TOO bad, Unions can help. When Unions got too powerful, and used government, what was the counterbalance to bring things back? The answer was sadly, destroying industries/companies, where new Non-Union shops could thrive.

Unions help the worst, and harm the best. They are what they are; socialized labor. In horrible companies this is better. In well run companies, it holds them/people back. Try to give a teacher or other union worker a merit raise in a Union shop. Unions help some workers (short term), but harm companies/industries and workers (long term) -- all at gunpoint. (They get their cut either way). They force workers and companies to do things that are against both their interests. And they take their "protection" money, just like every other mafia/monopoly. But when the mafia was created, it did some good as well.

So I don't see the Unions as ALL bad. But you have to be completely clueless of cause and effect to think they are all good, or that they single handedly helped the poor workers. They are a tool of power, that is sometimes abused. They have historically been as corrupt (or more) than the companies or government. If you think they're so good, try to do a job in many shops/industries without a Union card, and then tell me how this is freedom/tolerance/opportunity.

new22003

:bang:

dke

New2203. Is it relevant to a Ford forum to talk about the History of Ford (it's unionization) and the Auto Industry? I realize it has wandered of the SVTOA event... but still seems relevant to remember that why Ford is having problems right now (and GM is having more) is at least partly because of Unions. (And that Henry used to pay far more than anyone else, long before Ford got organized labor, because he wanted to combat employee turn-over and increase quality).

mr-mstng

This has gone waaaaay off topic.



Please start a new thread in Off- Topic or take to PM please. Thank you.