This is going way over your head. I am not talking about the Mustang, nor SRA vs IRS. What I was referring to is the whole attitude that Ford is taking. Re-read my posts and you will notice that I was referring to how many posting here and Ford are saying the SRA works "good enough". Good enough won't help your sales figures(and ultimately profit). Ford can keep letting import companies eat away at their market share. A 200 hp engine works good enough, but the competition's standard is 260. The competition offers this option, but Ford doesn't....etc etc.

 

Actually I just tried to build a 350Z and it's not giving me an option for heated seats. It's not listed under standard equipment either.

 

Adding a new feature...ie model, would therefore increase the price. An optional item doesn't increase the base MSRP, if it did then it wouldn't be optional and consumers wouldn't have to shell out extra money.

 

To answer your post below, you have to get the "touring" model to get leather and heated seats.

As for handling, I noticed a lot of people on this forum posting this misinformation. The 350Z is a better handling car than the Stang GT. I know you are going to point out the skidpad number.

 

I take that back, you can get heated seats, you just have to get the Touring edition which has a MSRP of $34,280, how exactly did this justify your argument??

 

I said option, how many times do I have to say it, the Cobra is not an option, it's an entirely different car. By adding more options, the base MSRP of a vehicle rises as well as the additional cost of the option itself. I had thought this was common knowledge, I guess not.

 

Technically, the Cobra is an option. Is it not a Mustang?

I have never heard of a Optional feature adding to the cost of the base MSRP. You pay for the added expenses of options out of your pocket...

 

Honestly, this is like talking to a wall. The 350Z is a competitor of the Mustang. The competition offers heated seats. Consumers cross shop competitive models, mainly comparing featurer/content. I hope you understand where I am going.

 

Okay let me explain this to you. When you add an option to a vehicle, the manufacturer has to have additional people on the assembly line, additional machinery on the line, additional space on the line, and typically the more options you have on a particular vehicle it slows down the production line to a certain extent. All of the above things cost money. Rather than lump all those costs into just the option as well having a built in profit for it, which would typically push the price of that option out of reach for what someone is willing to pay for it, they spread it out over the entire line and bump up the MSRP. This way they can keep the price of the option lower and entice more to purchase it. Also by doing this, if the popularity of the option is less than expected, it's not a total loss since part of the cost has already been covered by the car itself.

 

Holder, I wouldn't waste the effort of arguing this with max200jp, he wants IRS and doesn't care that the SRA may be a great handling piece of equipment. And no, I'm not saying its "good enough", I'm saying it will handle great. Why don't you just not buy the Cobra when it comes out and really voice your dissatisfaction. And the Cobra is not an option. It is a different vehicle that shares the same platform.

 

I know exactly what you're saying, I just disagree with it. The 200HP engines are there because it's what they had on the shelf at the time. They're developing new, more powerful engines to replace them. Thus your "good enough" argument falls flat since the plan is to improve on that weak spot. The new Mustang is far and away better than it's predecessor (even you agree with that) and yet still retains many of the characteristics that are associated with a Mustang and the sales figures reflect that fact. Again, your "good enough" argument falls flat since they provided a vastly improved Mustang when they could have just offered us another rendition of the Fox platform with a new skin. The GT500 has more power and will likely outhandle the previous gen Cobra. Once again, the argument...well, I guess I don't need to repeat it again.

 

Okay, here are your exact words:

In order to get heated seats in a 350Z, you have to pay a base price of $34,280. A fully equipped Mustang GT sans an auto transmission is ~$29k. That's a $5k difference, that is not in the same price range.

 

And yet the 350Z doesn't sell in the same numbers that the Mustang sells.

For once, I agree with you. It is like talking to a wall. :bang:

 

I understand this....Do you have any proof of this? Again, I have always been told that the price of the option will cover all of the factors you explained.

 

As it is proposed, there is a $13K difference between the GT and GT500 which presently is not warranted but would be more than sufficient to integrate the IRS. A $18K difference can't be justified and would be a ripoff. It's understandable for the GT500 to have a price increase so long as the IRS stayed otherwise there should not have been one having the IRS deleted.

This might be a good time for you to stop apologizing for Ford and their lying POS cronnies.

 

Who cares, the Z was never meant to be produced in Mustang numbers. Again, want to compare sales, look at how well Nissan is doing. In fact, look back 5 years and see how the whole company has changed.

 

Do you have proof that the GT500's SRA is affecting Ford's overall sales? I will have to dig around for the thing on the options, remember reading it somewhere.

 

First you compare the Mustang to the 350Z because people cross-shop them and now it's "who cares about the 350Z specifically, let's look at overall sales"? Is it possible for you keep a consistent argument? I don't disagree that Nissan is doing well with it's overall lineup. Ford neglected their car line for too long and are just now starting to address it. It wasn't that long ago that Nissan was a bottom feeder among Japanese automakers and they turned it around. Ford is trying to do the same thing but I guess that's not "good enough" for you.

 

This is pointless trying to explain this to you. You don't understand the automotive market. You can argue all you want, but please take a look at the overall sales figures. I proves my "good enough" point. I guess only the Ford blinded don't get it. Every professional automotive review I have read mentioned it, regarding the 500.

The last gen Mustang sat on a platform designed in the late 70s, am I supposed to be suprised it was an improvement.

Maybe I am a bit spoiled beause I am used to high end cars. I love my GT and wouldn't have bought another car in its price range. Ford has a lot of potential to make great products, as well as GM, but it pisses me off that they haven't gotten a clue yet.

 

Nope, just like you probably don't have internal documentation that options add to the Mustangs base price.