dke

Rob, I agree with what you said.

One point though -- "they sell 50% of all sportscars" -- but that depends on how you define sport doesn't it. A magnum or a charger may not be defined in that class, as well as a 3 series, or many other cars that are going after the same customers (for similar reasons). A 911 is far more a sportscar than a Mustang (more a pony/muscle car). So you're comparing a high volume low end car with a big motor, to true sportscars, then saying "look how good we're doing in volume". Uh huh. Let's compare apple's to apple's. Marketing has a way of defining segments in ways that make them look like they're doing their job. We're only fools if we buy into without some skepticism.

I'm also not surprised first year sales on such a unique car is good. I believe it will stay up there -- but again, it is good to be cautious/skeptical. Let's see how second or third year sales are before we claim complete success. We also will never know how much better sales and brand recognition would be if Ford had made the investment in their own engineering, or had more upsell opportunities (more options to charge people for). So just because something works, doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked better. Business has many paths to different degrees of success. I doubt they are failing with this car, but that doesn't mean that operations are maximized either.

grabbergreen

I'll agree with you on your first point. But I wasn't referring to ALL who want IRS in a Mustang-- just the ones who throw a tantrum over it, insisting that the car doesn't handle well when they've never driven it. And I find it amusing that you react to my attack with a rather presumptuous attack, since you claim to be so mature. You may step off the soapbox now.

Unfortunately, a live axle also contributes to torsional rigidity. Hau Thai-Tang has been quoted as saying that, without adding 300 lbs of chassis reinforcement, the current platform with the SRA swapped in favor of IRS will have similar torsional rigidity to the Fox platform. I'll gladly take a few bumps from an SRA if it means not having to drive a car with the rigidity of wet pasta.

Your counter-argument is a little weak, seeing as how there are more people criticizing Ford's choice of an SRA than those supporting it (or at least are more vocal in their criticizms). SRA or IRS doesn't really matter to me if the geometry is well-engineered and the car can handle quite well, which, by all reports so far, it can. If they can make the car handle well and handle competently, I don't care if they accomplish that with a solid rear axle. That was my point.

The Mustang, in any incarnation, cannot take the Euros head-on because you can't possibly mistake a Mustang for anything else, and you can't possibly find a car that performs better for the same price. Can you name any cars from Europe that can do 0-60 in the neighborhood of 4 seconds that sell in the range of $40K? I certainly can't.

Ford learned their lesson from the Lincoln LS quite well-- American marques do not have the same prestige as the Europeans. There is very little point in designing a car that can take on a BMW 530i (like the LS did back in 1999) if there is a chance of the consumer purchasing the car getting snubbed in his/her social circle for not splurging the extra thousands for the nameplates like BMW and Mercedes.

So, instead, Ford is starting at the bottom and working their way up. Instead of making a 100% answer to the M3, they start with a car that can match the M3's performance for ten thousand dollars less. So, yeah, you will see cheaper materials and only a few options (options are expensive, in terms of development and manufacturing costs). If it can match the best german sport coupes in performance, then Ford will gain a little prestige, maybe enough to try some more expensive ventures. If those work, then they can keep going upscale in materials, performance, and price. But the fact remains that a Ford GT will not sell for 300 grand because it's not as prestigous as a Ferrari. A Shelby GT-500 will not sell for 50 grand because nobody will spend 50 thousand dollars on a Mustang.

Like you, I'd absolutely love to see Cadillac make a 100K V12 sports coupe (which Lutz is trying to get underway), or Lincoln's 2007 LS take on the Audi A6. But the image of the American marques, as things are now, is maybe one tier above solid human waste. Decades of contentment and lousy build quality have seen to that. If that took 20 years, it could take even longer to make their names sterling again.

So, if you want to see Ford build a 100% answer to the M3, you have to see the GT500 is a stepping stone, a means to an end.

Robert

"Can't possibly..." is a myopic, defeatest attitude, and part of the reason why American brands are still lagging behind the competition.

No, there is no other car at $40K that does 0-60 in 4.0 seconds. How often in the real world do you expect you will need/use that?

Who's fault is that, do you suppose? I can tell you it wasn't always that way. Cadillac used to be "the standard of the world," figuratively AND literally.

Calculations show that Ford will be long extinct before this kind of strategy can have any meaningful impact. Ford needs to get it right, RIGHT NOW.

grabbergreen

I dunno. Why would anyone need a car that goes from 0-60 in 5 seconds, like the Mustang GT? Or 0-60 in 6 seconds, like the Chrysler 300C? Do any of us really NEED a car with more than 200hp?

Not likely, but nothing else matches the visceral thrill of a fast car, which is why they sell.

I know very well that it is their own fault, as I said earlier.

That depends on how well their mainstream products do. I'm pretty sure they realize that a lot rides on upcoming products like the Fusion and the '07 C1-based Focus.

With the introduction of the Duratech 35, I think we'll see better opinions on the Five Hundred and Freestyle, both of which are particularly-innovative variants of mainstream cars.

The '05 Mustang is likely part of this strategy. It performs very well, in both power and handling, for a sub-30K car. Considering that they had to increase their production by over half, I think it is pretty safe to say that Ford knows how to make a product with a high "gotta-have-it" factor, which really beefs up the sales numbers, which brings in a higher profit margin, which brings in more money for R&D for products that we know Detroit can produce if they really want to.

You are right in that, as things are, Ford will be run into the ground fairly soon. But I'd wait a few years before sounding the death knell.

dke

Gabbergreen, I don't buy the argument that Ford couldn't have designed a car with more torsional rigidity without SRA (or adding 300+ lbs). The Euro's and the Asians have -- so what you're saying is that the laws of business and physics don't apply to American Auto Companies. That's what's known as an engineering excuse for a marketing decision (obfuscation) by Ford. I've been in tighter and lighter cars with IRS. The 3 series is known for rigidity, it started in the $20K range, and had IRS.

And reread what you'd said -- you broad brushed a bit.

You said it doesn't bother you how they solve the engineering prioblems, if it handles competently, "and it does". Well it does in track conditions, and good road conditions. But it is louder/more-unsprung weight, and going to be hard (impossible?) to tune for both performance and for comfort (on bad / see 2/3rd of the countries roads). Just acknowledge the laws of physics and the argument goes away. People think, "ok, they understand the tradeoffs made". But when you play flat-earther, denying the tradeoffs, people keep bringing up the points under the hope that you will learn and acknowledge their concerns. So I get your point -- engineering technology doesn't matter, results do (that's why I've pointed out that I get that a dozen times). Can you get mine and others point that physics matter, and we have a legitimate concern on real-world roads, technical marketing concerns (it will be seen as cheap), and that platitudes from Ford's marketing don't give us comfort when every other auto maker went a different way because the physics/engineers and marketing told them too. I'll give it the chance, but Ford lost a lot of sales for their decision and broken promise, I hope they made up enough to be worth it.

And I agree with Bob, saying Ford can't take on the Euros or Japanese is defeatist. They used to beat them. So what is inherent in the DNA of a Europeans or those slanty-eyes that is so different that an Caucasoid american just is unable to compete in the auto industry. Yes, there's a lot of things to overcome -- and it will take time, but the lack of effort is what leads to losing a few basis points each and every year for the last couple decades. If you're not going to run the race to win, then just sell the company to someone else, and do something you'll try to be good at.

S197Cobra

And the 3 series is --slow--. Nobody is saying you cannot have a tight, light car with IRS in the sub-$30k price range. But can you have it with 300 horsepower? What does it take to get that BMW with performance that matches a 2005 Mustang GT in every way? Probably more than $30k... (twice even?)

Does Ford look like it's losing in the pony car battle? Is Japan making anything that can compete with the Mustang? Do they even -make- a V8 car (not a truck)? The only thing coming out of Japan that has performance on that level are four door econoboxes with lots of boost. And both of those (Subaru and Mitsu) are known for their subpar quality, even when you compare then with one of the big three...

Dave

AbusiveWombat

Not European but I can name a few Japanese cars that offer better performance for less.

EVO sub 30k:
0-60: 4.9
skidpad: 0.95 g
slalom: ~73 mph

STi sub 35k:
0-60: 4.9
skidpad: 0.95 g
slalom: ~73 mph

BPU'd (< $2k) both are capable of dipping into the 3's for 0-60 and are much more consistent due to traction advantages.

AbusiveWombat

The EVO and STi are just as reliable (if not more) than any of the '03-'04 Cobras.

S197Cobra

I have a few friends that would disagree. Two of them drive STi's, one an Evo . Quality is something you -can- get from a Japanese import, but it is by no means a guarantee. The two Japanese car manufacturers that consistently get above average quality ratings (thinking Honda & Toyota) do not offer any high performance cars in an affordable price range (and please, please do not try to call the S2000 high performance ). The imports that -are- available in a high performance version all have quality issues. So perhaps there is a correlation there. You can choose from quality, performance, and price -- pick two.

Dave

dke

S197.... My point was just that other car companies can come out with IRS cars that have very stiff torsional rigidity. So the claim that they went to SRA because it's too expensive (in weight+money) to do the alternative is bogus.

I agree that Ford is known for making excellent trucks, and muscle cars that have a ton of power and still handle like a pickup truck. OK... that was more for effect than real -- but you get the point... other than the GT40, Ford is not known for much that performs/handles. I want Ford to change the perception; and I think a front heavy monster, with SRA, will be wicked in the 1/4, and make a lot of old schoolers happy -- but do little to penetrate new markets or change the perception. And as mentioned, the STi and EVO do compete (if not whoop) the stang. I suspect the M3 will slaughter the Cobra in the corners (just paper wars because all we have are specs right now). So Ford is playing catchup, and hasn't completely figured out the race has started. (They claim they're running their own race and don't have to compete with everyone else. But they do).

You call the 3 series slow, but generally I haven't had much problems up to about 60 -- after that, it starts to fall back on some more powerful cars. But it's still excellent for autocross and most twistey roads, and is a joy to drive daily. And I've taken it up to the limiter, which is a lot faster than I'm going to drive anyways. Sure, if you want a stop-light car, it isn't it. But I'm not 16, or want to blow the cost in tires regularly anyways.

Technically, I would love a car that drives well in the 1/4, in the bumpy turns, on real roads, and daily. With the 3 series, I get a firm car (maybe too much), but that works for all but the first one. If the Mustang/Cobras only claim to fame is the first one -- which is a shame. I wanted more for Fords sake.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Mustang is bad on the other areas. It just is far from world class or in some ways competitive (at least on paper). I drove a GT, and it certainly didn't handle poorly like the old classics... and it had gobs of power. (Actually, my M3 and it felt pretty comparable in acceleration, but unless you're side-by-side it is hard to tell). It was louder, and not nearly as many amenities. (Misses on the luxury, but good on price). On the one corner I started to step on it on, it didn't feel as good as the M3 (and the Cobra may be worse) -- but that was not a fair or complete test. I also hit some bumps, but wasn't paying enough attention, and not in a corner, but it didn't like it absorbed the bump as well. But I'm not sure.

The point is that while I like the mustang, I want it to be world class and Ford to do better. (Right now it is a good hit, but isn't out of the park). I think that for sunny places, the SRA is more than adequate. But I want Ford to broaden the geographic+demographic appeal. Not narrow it. Right now BMW and many competitors can make a platform, and leverage those costs to appeal to as many people as possible. They have the 3 series doing entry, small luxury, sport, wagon, mini-SUV, and they retain the brand identity and move a lot of cars, and you can get the options you want. Ford is targeting one area the mustang -- smaller entry with less luxury but more power. The only major option is larger, larger, or largest motor.

I'd like to see Ford offer things that BMW or others don't. Targa would capture a few other people -- it doesn't even offer a sunroof (and the frame is designed to take that). Put an IRS option for those that care. Make one that is not only muscle, but sport (better balance, etc.). Offer a cruiser version (Mercury Cougar, with a fastback/hatch). I want Ford to do well with the car. But other than nice retro look, and big motor, what's the appeal? That's sort of a one trick pony, when all the competitors manage a few. Heck, 90% of the people on the board seem to only care what motor options the next car comes with. And every time someone mentions it is less than perfect, or should broaden the appeal, there's the usual defensiveness instead of people realizing that it could be better.

jsaylor

I simply disagree with the majority of what you said. First of all I wouldn't have thrown rocks at an IRS setup by any means, but having driven the GT I can say the car is very well composed and handles very well indeed. You talk about the GT's live axle rear and then say the car is not world class, but for the money world class is exactly what it is.

Look at the coupes in the GT's price range and compare. The 350Z is down on power, more expensive, and rides far worse than the GT in spite of it's IRS. (older models are just stupid harsh and the Track model is still no wonder of comfort) Unfortunately for Nissan this should mean the car handles much better than the GT but in reality it is nearly a wash verses the still more expensive standard 350Z. Sure, on the really bumpy stuff the GT skips a bit and tosses you around, but suprisingly, thanks to that ultra-stiff IRS setup, the 350Z does too in my experience! And while the Z does post slightly higher slalom and skidpad numbers it is also much trickier (not in a rewarding way) and not as much fun as the Mustang GT. I suspect the 18" wheel option on the GT would likely yield standard 350Z handling numbers and still ride better than the harsh Nissan.

The RX8 is sort of a coupe but while it offers ridiculous handling it also brings a laughable amount of hp to the table and is more expensie too. I would also argue that the Mustang GT rides better than this car just like the Z comparo, but the RX8 has out of this world handling so that point is easily offset. The GTO handles a bit worse and rides about on par with the GT. The other coupes in this price range are simply no comparison and wear names like Acura RSX and Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Ford delivered the goods with a live axle on the GT and I see no reason to believe they wont do the same with the GT500. I find it ironic that you defend the M3 as world class for the money in spite of it's soon to be glaring hp shortage when you deride the GT500 for an as yet untested suspension setup on a thus far very successful basic design. My one banzai ride in a current generation M3 left me impressed dynamically, but saying to myself "For 50k+ this car is down on grunt and just does not accelerate fast enough". Would I still refer to the car world class? As a whole yes, the car is easily world class. But, in this one area it absolutely falls down IMO and speed is what these cars are about.

Unlike what you indicate being 16 has nothing to do with it as I could just as easily say mature individuals shouldn't be driving like maniacs down the bumpy roads where the Mustangs live axle is going to skip around a bit. You are giving your reasons for why the M3's shortcomings are okay and the Mustangs are not which is fine, but then you affix world class tags by your standards as though everyone else agrees with your measuring stick and whoever does not must not care about handling or wether a car competes against the best. With respect, I do not subscribe to your standards.

AbusiveWombat

I have a few friends that would disagree. Two of them drive STi's, one an Evo . Quality is something you -can- get from a Japanese import, but it is by no means a guarantee. The two Japanese car manufacturers that consistently get above average quality ratings (thinking Honda & Toyota) do not offer any high performance cars in an affordable price range (and please, please do not try to call the S2000 high performance ). The imports that -are- available in a high performance version all have quality issues. So perhaps there is a correlation there. You can choose from quality, performance, and price -- pick two.

Dave
[/b][/quote]

I completely agree with your last statement and IMO the EVO, STi, and Cobra all subscribe to it. There's been plenty of documented problems on all three.

grabbergreen

So, you don't believe the lead engineer of the 05 Mustang? I'm sure he would know his own chassis design much better than you.

Having driven a V6 Mustang (it pays to be a designated driver!), I'd have to say that it handled bumps better than a BMW 330i with the Sport package (which I have also driven)... now THAT stinker rode really stiff... and it had an IRS. Again, yeah, I know that an independent rear suspension does have its benefits-- but it's not the only way to get them. With good suspension geometry, an SRA can be tuned to handle well and smooth out the bumps, though it will take more engineering and design skill to do so.

That was also a time when the Japanese were extremely well-built also-rans, and BMW didn't exist yet. When Big 3 design and build quality suffered in the '70's and '80's, they dragged their own names through the mud. The Japanese, on the other hand, made cars that were reliable, with superior fit and finish. Thus, they earned their good reputation. The Europeans made cars that can handle curves with utter competence, while Detroit made poorly-balanced chassis with overly-soft, sloppy suspensions. Thus, the Europeans earned their good reputation, until very recently...

Point being, public perception counts for more than you are giving it credit for. American cars don't sell without enormous incentives, or are picked up by rental car agencies. Meanwhile, Accords and Camry's are selling for thousands over their MSRP's, despite the fact that American build quality has caught up. Why? Public perception.

I don't call the Five Hundred, Freestyle, Fusion, or Mustang a lack of effort. They're innovative cars sporting excellent engineering and design. These cars are selling without huge incentives, and Hertz has only managed to buy a few Five Hundreds (whereas they have the vast majority of Taurus's). Within just a few years, public perception may change in Ford's favor-- offering exciting exterior design, useful features, decent quality, and competent chassis, for thousands less than a ho-hum Accord or Camry.

The mainstream auto market is where the Big 2.5 have to win the minds and hearts of the public. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan didn't bother with luxury cars until their mainstream cars were winning critical acclaim. Now Detroit has to follow suit.

Lalo

HTT in the newest issue of Motor Trend says that the GT500 was not made only for the straight line. He said that they have been working very hard to make the balance the way they want it.

Joes66Pony

He also said in Motor Trend way back when that the new Cobra was definitely going to have IRS.

I'm not saying that HTT is lying or anything. But I'm sure he also knows the questions people are having as to why change to SRA when the previous gen Cobra had IRS, so he's going to say what he has to say to paint the SRA in the best possible light.

On paper, it doesn't look good. It may handle as well or slightly better than the previous gen Cobra/Terminator, but I don't believe it will be the leap in handling performance that franly the S197 deserves.

Lalo

I guess we shall see when some numbers come out

grabbergreen

I do wish they'd quit using the name "Cobra." A Cobra is a two-seat roadster with a monster of an engine under the hood.

It's also worth noting that the word "Cobra" doesn't appear anywhere on the badging of the car, and Motor Trend's cover article simply calls it the "Shelby GT-500" (which is less of a mouthful and works far better anyway), despite the fact that the article on Ford's website inserts the word "Cobra" in there.

The possibility (though however unlikely) does exist that this effort from SVT and Shelby is not the next "Cobra," since I'm getting the feeling that HTT would love to do an SVT-only Mustang...

Also, in Motor Trend's article, HTT is quoted as saying that SVT was considering doing another "SVT 'Cobra'" with IRS, but would have pushed the pricetag just south of 50 grand, and would have added extra weight to the chassis.

So, if it turns out he stayed true to his word and the Shelby GT-500 really isn't the next SVT "Cobra"...

Exciting prospect, isn't it?

dke

And he has a much larger vested interest to lie/spin about it. It is called bias. He probably had SRA crammed down his throat by the bean counters, and had to rationalize the decision. And it isn't about me versus what he said -- but the entire industry. The fact that every other car company can do what he says can't be done, makes what he said less than trustworthy, and something people should look at with skepticism.

I don't find you to be trustworthy or unbiased either. I trust magazine reviewers (and myself) more, and they would have been all over it if that was the case. I've generally heard things like the SRA "isn't nearly as bad as they thought it would be -- but it still isn't a 3 series" or stuff like that.

So I asked, "Can you [understand my point] and others point that physics matter, and we have a legitimate concern on real-world roads, technical marketing concerns (it will be seen as cheap), and that platitudes from Ford's marketing don't give us comfort when every other auto maker went a different way because the physics/engineers and marketing told them too.".... and your answer is "Nope", I'm going to respond like any teenage advocate, ignore your point, and only rant and rave about one side of the coin, without accepting the other side even exists. Got it.

I don't get your point as you disagree with what I was saying by parroting it.

Sadly, when you're "coming back", you have to do more for less, just to be seen as even. And Five Hundred was drab design (nice interior, good functionality). Freestyle was good, but a couple years late (compared to competition like Chrysler Pacifica) -- but good car. We could argue same about Fusion. Mustang, has some design tradeoffs meant to cater to purists rather than new markets. Not bad efforts -- I think they should pay off.

But part of the problem is they have to offer incentives and sell certain volumes, because of Union contracts, etc. But that's a whole 'nother thread somewhere else (or was supposed to be).

My point was that if you look at the Mustang as a product (not as a blue-oval man), you find there are many more nimble cars, there are many cars that handle better, almost any car in it's class (or the ones it is going after) have more amenities/options, and they made engineering tradeoffs like SRA that make it harder to sell. The mustang has style and a big motor going for it (and lousy milage for its class) -- that's about it. We'll see about reliability, etc., in a couple years. I like the car -- but name a competitors in it's class that you can't get a sunroof for.

Lalo

Actually, It's been rumored that SVT was going to take over making special editions.

SigMachi

[/quote]
But part of the problem is they have to offer incentives and sell certain volumes, because of Union contracts, etc. But that's a whole 'nother thread somewhere else (or was supposed to be).
[/quote]

If they paid children in Indonesia to build cars they could make more money. They'd only have to pay them 5 cents a day. American workers should just eat bread and water and live in shacks down by the river. Who needs electricity, running water and sanitation anyway. The kids in Indonesia seem to make a pretty good Nike tennis shoe without those conveniences.