Delivery (sales) Stats:

Mustang December 2011 Deliveries (actual sales): 5,057

Compared to Competition:

Camaro sold 6,754 units in December 2011.
Challenger sold 3,284 units in December 2011.

 

Camaro does good business, congrats to GM.
But Mustang still is my favorite.

 

If you like butt ugly, buy the Camaro (apparently there where 6,754 that did). I prefer the Mustangs beauty.

 

I'll give it to Camaro that it looks cool from the side. The front is just ok but, the back looks horrible. I'll still take my Mustang. If I bought a Camaro, I would be cringing every time I saw a Mustang go by. Wishing I had bought the Mustang instead. I bet a lot of Camaro owners think that.

 

Given the sales number differences, I would say "no, they don't". Classic rivalry generates the "boy, the <other guy> has a butt ugly car."

 

Considering my local Ford dealers never seem to have any Mustangs on their lot, this doesn't surprise me. The only one my local dealer has is a leftover 2010 they have been trying to sell.

Every Chevrolet dealer I pass has at least 4-5 Camaro's sitting on the front row.

 

Truth spoken here.

 

GM did an outstanding job on the outer styling of the Camaro. I have to hand it to them, the Camaro is a beautiful car from the outside. With that said the Mustang is also a beautiful car as well. Now GM did an awful awful job on the interior of the Camaro. I say this not to knock the Camaro or be a hater. I was actually all ready to buy a Camaro until I sat inside it and drove it.

I was not spending my driving time looking at the cheap garbage looking interior of the Camaro. I didn't care how nice the outside looked. I had to look at the car from the inside and it looked down right cheap and ugly. Not to mention the horrible blind spots the car has because of the roof line.

The GM cars of the 80's and 90's were complete junk and one was lucky to get 100k without the engine or transmission blowing up. My own family had GM cars growing up and they all fell apart.

People can buy there government motors cars all they want. Ford didn't take any bailout money. Right after GM went bankrupted in 2009 and took 700 billion or so of tax payers dollars, my wife and I went looking at the 2010 Camaro which hit the market the summer of 2009. There were dealerships out there that were charging 3 to 5 k over MSRP for the Camaro.

I said to the sales person, your dealership you work for and GM must of lost your minds. GM goes bankrupted, takes my tax money to bail them out then they want to price guage me over MSRP and this was the new GM and want to win customers back over. Punk GM. I will never buy a GM product as long as I live.

 

I think the general public is tired of the current styling of the Mustang. Once the new generation comes out the table is going to turn.

 

Why is the "One Year Delivery" number different than the "YTD"?

It's obvious that the annual production of the Mustang is down significantly since 2007. It could be the economy, it could be the competition, or it could be something else.

Mustang (the numbers in my notes, not official):
2011 79,983
2010 73,716
2009 66,623
2008 91,251
2007 134,626
2006 165,762
2005 160,412

2004 141,907
2003 153,134
2002 142,404
2001 none
2000 173,676
1999 166,915
1998 175,522

1989 209,769
1988 211,225 (highest number in my records of recent models)

I wonder how long Ford can live with these lower numbers? I guess it's profitable in the ~70K+ annual range?

Oh, here is one for the Camaro guys (the last ten years):
2002-2011 Camaro = 231,166
2002-2011 Mustang = 1,182,268

At the Camaro's current sales level advantage, it will only take 63,000 years to catch-up.

 

700 billion? really?

 

or

 

Gm is walking the Mustang. Mt 82 anyone? Just throwing it out there. Its not been good. Im a bit surprised by the results but Mustang is the better car in a million ways minus the trans. Throw me under the bus but the Mt82 has just plaged the Mustang. What a shame. Made in china does not cut it Ford.

 

It is, in my opinion "butt ugly" as in having an ugly rear design. A large black piece of plastic going up to the rear bumper? Yuk.

 

Once a model becomes aged, it is in Ford's best interest to cut production. According to Detroit Times, Flatrock's output capacity with one working shift is about 75,000 Mustang's a year. In retrospect, Ford is selling exactly the same amount that they produce. This is done to maximize profits as the model slowly is phased out and a lot of money comes from service on those cars... On the other hand, GM chose to prematurely saturate the market in hopes to win some market share... and they did. However, you will notice the large amount of unsold models (52,000) to date, and I bet that some of those are 2010's.

Going strictly off of a new product stats, the 2 year old Camaro really isn't doing that well.. in fact, they are doing slightly better than the 8 year old Mustang... Somewhere nobody wants a new product to be... Slightly ahead of an outgoing model. At this rate, there will still be new 5th Gens available well into the 6th Gens life.

 

I disagree. The 2010 Mustang GT did not have this transmission, and yet numbers were lower. The new powertrains might have been one factor in this.

I believe Ford is sending LESS Mustangs to rental agencies and more matching production with demand. Clearly the market can only tolerate so many $30,000 RWD sport coupes in the "pony car" class.

I would be very curious to see how many Camaros are windup at rental agencies and sitting on lots in this market.

 

One thing to keep in mind - IIRC - is 09 was only a partial year production of Job 1 so they could retool for the 10. Bullitt's were 08 Job 2, got extended into 09 Job 1, and then production wound down for all the original styled S197's.

 

Okay. Maybe 600 billion. I loose track after the first 100 billion or so. Silly me.

 

I'm compelled to point out that Ford got lucky (confirmed by Mulally of all people) when it mortgaged everything right on up to the blue oval sign on the building. Had they not done so by pure happenstance, Ford would have been right in there with GM and Chrysler on the government graveytrain since the feds were the only guys with any money (the banks certainly had none).

 

Not really. Prudent managers are... prudent. They were doing the right thing for the future - regardless of the next few years.

I've hocked to the gills at locked in rates, used that money prudently as I hunkered down expense wise, then when the gains hit pay off the loans; time and time again.