Found a new pic of the 2010 stang
11/3/06, 10:33 PM
#41
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It takes about two seconds of just sitting in the car to notice the interior.
The present mustang interior is even cheaper feeling then the late Neon a 12-14K car. Previous mustangs as old as my 72 mach and recent as my 00 Roush have soft touch plastic or polyfoam(not sure the exact name, but similar to vinyl covered foam) wrapped interior pieces. My 05 is cheap inside. You do not need to pay out the rear or own a BMW to have a decent interior. My brother has an 06 AT, and I swear I am going to break the shift lever off evertime I shift out of park. Good design poor execution. I would be happy to pay an additional grand or so to get better interior pieces. In five years I promise you these cars will rattle like no other. The (not directed at you comment but at the general acceptance) "not a luxury car" excuse is getting old.
The present mustang interior is even cheaper feeling then the late Neon a 12-14K car. Previous mustangs as old as my 72 mach and recent as my 00 Roush have soft touch plastic or polyfoam(not sure the exact name, but similar to vinyl covered foam) wrapped interior pieces. My 05 is cheap inside. You do not need to pay out the rear or own a BMW to have a decent interior. My brother has an 06 AT, and I swear I am going to break the shift lever off evertime I shift out of park. Good design poor execution. I would be happy to pay an additional grand or so to get better interior pieces. In five years I promise you these cars will rattle like no other. The (not directed at you comment but at the general acceptance) "not a luxury car" excuse is getting old.
I, too, am growing sick of the argument that the car would cost too much money if they improved interior materials and added expected content. I think the fact that other manufacturers somehow manage it and are able to retain or grow their market share, while Ford chooses to go the cheap route all the time (compromising both quality - and often safety), and watches its market share dwindle, is proof enough that people are willing to pay a LITTLE more for improved quality throughout the vehicle.
Moreover, too many people here labor under the delusion that those cut costs are somehow keeping the price of the car down, when in all likelihood, the savings incurred are merely ending up in the coffers of Ford, not being passed on to the consumer.
And by the way, it's not just the plastics. The cost-cutting is evident throughout the car. Why is there no auto slide forward for the front passenger seat when accessing the rear of the car (like most $30K vehicles); why is there no grab handle above the passenger seat (like most $30K vehicles); why doesn't the fuel filler door lock from inside (like most $30K vehicles); why are the carpets so flimsy that many people are reporting that they wear out in just a few months...?
I could go on, but it's pointless, really. I'll simply be labelled as a Ford hater for pointing out the truth.
11/4/06, 02:18 AM
#42
Team Mustang Source
Good job Doug! If the next one looks anything close to that I'm gonna have a hard time not trading up. Cheap interior and all.
I'm not sure what the carpet wearer outers are doing in their cars but, my carpet is just fine after a year and 9 months as a daily driver.
I'm not sure what the carpet wearer outers are doing in their cars but, my carpet is just fine after a year and 9 months as a daily driver.
11/4/06, 03:10 PM
#43
Bullitt Member
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets play a game. Lets name 5 cars in the same class and base price range of a Mustang GT that have the same power, performance or styling, foreign or domestic.
In that, does anyone think that the materials used in those cars are luxurious or higher quality than that of the Mustang?
The theory that Ford execs are lining their pockets with money saved in materials is a little rediculous. Even if their is some remote truth to that, they wouldn't be filling their pockets with a whole heck of a lot now would they?
The real fact of the matter is that people such as yourself believe that with a little more money the materials would be so much better. When you really know nothing about mass production vehicle manufacturing and the costs incurred.
For a little more you can get yourself some "soft touch" plastics on the interior, but who cares, it's still plastic (and scars easily at that).
11/4/06, 07:32 PM
#45
Fact is, they just don't want to hear it. There's no question that the interior plastics of the new Stang are bargain basement: hard, brittle; more akin to what you'd find in the Rubbermaid aisle than in most cars in its price range.
I, too, am growing sick of the argument that the car would cost too much money if they improved interior materials and added expected content. I think the fact that other manufacturers somehow manage it and are able to retain or grow their market share, while Ford chooses to go the cheap route all the time (compromising both quality - and often safety), and watches its market share dwindle, is proof enough that people are willing to pay a LITTLE more for improved quality throughout the vehicle.
Moreover, too many people here labor under the delusion that those cut costs are somehow keeping the price of the car down, when in all likelihood, the savings incurred are merely ending up in the coffers of Ford, not being passed on to the consumer.
And by the way, it's not just the plastics. The cost-cutting is evident throughout the car. Why is there no auto slide forward for the front passenger seat when accessing the rear of the car (like most $30K vehicles); why is there no grab handle above the passenger seat (like most $30K vehicles); why doesn't the fuel filler door lock from inside (like most $30K vehicles); why are the carpets so flimsy that many people are reporting that they wear out in just a few months...?
I could go on, but it's pointless, really. I'll simply be labelled as a Ford hater for pointing out the truth.
I, too, am growing sick of the argument that the car would cost too much money if they improved interior materials and added expected content. I think the fact that other manufacturers somehow manage it and are able to retain or grow their market share, while Ford chooses to go the cheap route all the time (compromising both quality - and often safety), and watches its market share dwindle, is proof enough that people are willing to pay a LITTLE more for improved quality throughout the vehicle.
Moreover, too many people here labor under the delusion that those cut costs are somehow keeping the price of the car down, when in all likelihood, the savings incurred are merely ending up in the coffers of Ford, not being passed on to the consumer.
And by the way, it's not just the plastics. The cost-cutting is evident throughout the car. Why is there no auto slide forward for the front passenger seat when accessing the rear of the car (like most $30K vehicles); why is there no grab handle above the passenger seat (like most $30K vehicles); why doesn't the fuel filler door lock from inside (like most $30K vehicles); why are the carpets so flimsy that many people are reporting that they wear out in just a few months...?
I could go on, but it's pointless, really. I'll simply be labelled as a Ford hater for pointing out the truth.
The V6 Mustang starts @ under $20K. That $20K price point determines much of the materials used in all Mustangs.
You will always get more vehicle for your $$ by buying the base model of an expensive car rather than a heavily optioned top model of a cheap car.
11/6/06, 08:16 AM
#46
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that Ford went a little too far on the cheap route with materials and features. And I also agree that, in this day and age, and at the Mustang's price, better materials and standard features should have been included. My '94 Probe GT, also built at Flatrock, has (slightly) better materials overall and certainly more little standard features (aforementioned seat slide-forward, interior fuel and trunk releases, and carpeting and seat cloth that wears like iron for example). The PGT listed around $15K back in the day, which is probably still less than a Stang GT factoring in inflation. This, and the slew of affordable and considerably cheaper cars that do offer noticably better material quality and standard features belies the affordability argument.
Another take on the affordability question is long term resale value. If the Stang ends up being a worn out rattle trap in 4-6 years, resale values will, of course reflect that in a very negative way and that loss in value will show up in the car's long term cost of ownership. To often, I think the affordability question has been rather narrow and short sighted, ignoring overall value (as distinct from simply a cheap sticker price) and long term costs of ownership to get a cheap initial purchase price. If a cheap sticker was all that mattered, never mind the quality, Yugo would rule the automotive market. But purchase price is but one aspect of ownership costs and scrimping here can result in much higher costs down the line that more than offset what was saved on purchase day.
I think Ford needs to move the balance slightly in the direction of better content, materials and craftsmanship to achieve a better overall value -- an extra $500-$1,000 in base price would, I think, have been readily understood, aprreciated and absorbed by the buying public for the far bigger gain in overall value.
Much could be said about the Vette -- excellent car let down by a comparitively low-rent interior -- and it was a lack of focus on materials and craftsmanship that doomed the GM F-Cars, despite their objectively greater performance (not that the Stang is anywhere near as dreadful as they were in that regard). Detroit is slowly getting better about "getting it" in regard to high quality interiors, regardless of a cars other traits (truck, econocar, performance car) but still are suseptible to the old crutch of chintzing it here "cause nobody will notice" to save a few bucks. People do notice these days and are buying accordingly.
Another take on the affordability question is long term resale value. If the Stang ends up being a worn out rattle trap in 4-6 years, resale values will, of course reflect that in a very negative way and that loss in value will show up in the car's long term cost of ownership. To often, I think the affordability question has been rather narrow and short sighted, ignoring overall value (as distinct from simply a cheap sticker price) and long term costs of ownership to get a cheap initial purchase price. If a cheap sticker was all that mattered, never mind the quality, Yugo would rule the automotive market. But purchase price is but one aspect of ownership costs and scrimping here can result in much higher costs down the line that more than offset what was saved on purchase day.
I think Ford needs to move the balance slightly in the direction of better content, materials and craftsmanship to achieve a better overall value -- an extra $500-$1,000 in base price would, I think, have been readily understood, aprreciated and absorbed by the buying public for the far bigger gain in overall value.
Much could be said about the Vette -- excellent car let down by a comparitively low-rent interior -- and it was a lack of focus on materials and craftsmanship that doomed the GM F-Cars, despite their objectively greater performance (not that the Stang is anywhere near as dreadful as they were in that regard). Detroit is slowly getting better about "getting it" in regard to high quality interiors, regardless of a cars other traits (truck, econocar, performance car) but still are suseptible to the old crutch of chintzing it here "cause nobody will notice" to save a few bucks. People do notice these days and are buying accordingly.
11/6/06, 08:53 AM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The real fact of the matter is that people such as yourself believe that with a little more money the materials would be so much better. When you really know nothing about mass production vehicle manufacturing and the costs incurred.
For a little more you can get yourself some "soft touch" plastics on the interior, but who cares, it's still plastic (and scars easily at that).
It sounds more to me that you don't have the experience necessary to dish the stuff you're dishing, because he is pretty correct. Panel quality is relatively cheap per vehicle as Manufactures buy the plastic beads by the ton. Unfortunately most manufactures look at the cost over the life of the model. thus a $2 saving on 200,000 vehicles over 5 years is a $2,000,000 savings; However the average buyer would not mind an additional $500 as it makes little difference in a 60-72mos. loan. (experience from 3 years as auto salesman).
I like Rhumbs comments about residual valude. Right now 2006 V6s A/Ts (10-15k miles) are selling wholesale for $12000 at dealer actions (went to one last wednesday). Why pay 20K for a new one when you can buy one a year old for 3/4 the cost or less? What does that do to new car sales??
11/6/06, 10:16 AM
#48
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why pay 20K for a new one when you can buy one a year old for 3/4 the cost or less? What does that do to new car sales??
11/6/06, 11:27 AM
#49
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 16, 2006
Location: NV
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Ford needs to move the balance slightly in the direction of better content, materials and craftsmanship to achieve a better overall value -- an extra $500-$1,000 in base price would, I think, have been readily understood, aprreciated and absorbed by the buying public for the far bigger gain in overall value.
Order these options for a total of $855 which has to be combined with the leather seating option which is $695, for a total of $1550 over the base price, if "soft touch" pieces are important to you.
11/6/06, 03:06 PM
#50
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 8, 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, nice photochop. That would be nice if that's our new Mustang! Secondly, what's all this about the cheap interior? It's not that bad! I had a base V6 until recently when I traded for a GT premium. The V6 was grey interior and I admit it did feel pretty cheap inside but it didn't bother me that bad. I think that the improvement of my GT with black leather and the ICAP package (leather inserts on the doors) is a vast improvement to the look ad feel of the interior over the base V6 (or GT). The IUP paackage also adds a big improvement over the base models with the rubber steering wheel etc. Maybe I'm just young (24), but the GT premium's interior suits me fine. The only thing I would like is a leather wrapped console lid. Besides, the best thing about this car is the engine and the way it drives. That pretty much takes my mind off the interior!
11/8/06, 01:42 PM
#53
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Or your own wallet, if you're concerned about affordability and saving money? That $500 dollars saved at purchase time by dint of a cheaper interior may end up a $2,500 dollar loss when you trade in that worn out rattletrap a few years later. This disregards the negative long-term ownership experience after the new-car honeymoon turns into a long-term relationship.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=55973
In one of the posts they wonder why ford has not been able to fix this after three years. The answer is simple...It cannot be fixed because the sound is caused by hard plastic vibrating. They would have to felt line every surface where two pieces of plastic touch. This is why we have pointed out the flaw in execution.
11/8/06, 03:50 PM
#54
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's what I call the difference between low price and high value, the former does not necessarily equate to the latter and quite often is its demise, especially long-term. Sadly, American manufacturers still find it hard to fully shake their short-term, planned obsolescence mentality.
In the end, long term, I think both consumer interests (product reliability and longevity, retained and resale value) and manufacturer interests (decreased warranty costs, increased consumer loyalty) would be better served by spending a little more up front in terms of design and quality rather than spending a whole lot more at the back end in terms of repairs, unreliability, owner dissatisfaction and low resale values.
In the end, long term, I think both consumer interests (product reliability and longevity, retained and resale value) and manufacturer interests (decreased warranty costs, increased consumer loyalty) would be better served by spending a little more up front in terms of design and quality rather than spending a whole lot more at the back end in terms of repairs, unreliability, owner dissatisfaction and low resale values.
11/8/06, 05:46 PM
#55
Rhumb, in case you haven't been reading all the articles about Ford's new CEO and the problems he faces, there has been lots written on how the bean counters control everything @ Ford. The engineers put together a plan to significantly improve the Panther platform, (Town Car, Crown Vic, Grand Marquis). But the bean counters killed the entire project because they said the new doors were too expensive to manufacture.
The bean counters have a point, the last 2 platforms that the engineers got a free reign on, MN-12 (T-Bird, Cougar, MK-VIII) & D/EW-98 (LS, 2 seat T-Bird) were some of Ford's best vehicles but neither were profitable.
Sounds like we're lucky to have gotten as much as we did with the Mustang. Hope Mulally can find the right balance between the bean counters & engineers. Otherwise Ford will go down the tubes for once and for all.
The bean counters have a point, the last 2 platforms that the engineers got a free reign on, MN-12 (T-Bird, Cougar, MK-VIII) & D/EW-98 (LS, 2 seat T-Bird) were some of Ford's best vehicles but neither were profitable.
Sounds like we're lucky to have gotten as much as we did with the Mustang. Hope Mulally can find the right balance between the bean counters & engineers. Otherwise Ford will go down the tubes for once and for all.
11/25/06, 10:21 AM
#59
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: December 23, 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may get lots of flame for this, but the rendering reminds me alot more of the late 60's camaros than a mustang. Just my opinion. Burningman is obviously highly skilled.
Also, I concur that "beancounters" tend to be pretty short sighted about the impression a car will leave with it's owner after years of ownership. Lets face it, though...many people do not keep cars for years and years. Whether new or used, many people (myself included...I've had 8 mustangs) tend to cycle through cars as they tire of them. We live in a consumer society, so we have to keep buying and using up stuff to keep it going. So, in a way, the beancounters have it right. In another way, though, they have it wrong because when you really cheapen a highly visible car like the mustang, you cement people's impression of the overall value available from a manufacturer. Fortunately, for Ford, I feel the mustang offers great value for the money and appropriate materials for the kind of car it is.
As for rattles, I had an Audi A8 whose heating vents rattled much worse than anything I've experienced in my mustang. Finally, my wife just reminded me about the first time I sat in a Cadillac CTS at the auto show...talk about a cheap feeling interior! My $.02.
Also, I concur that "beancounters" tend to be pretty short sighted about the impression a car will leave with it's owner after years of ownership. Lets face it, though...many people do not keep cars for years and years. Whether new or used, many people (myself included...I've had 8 mustangs) tend to cycle through cars as they tire of them. We live in a consumer society, so we have to keep buying and using up stuff to keep it going. So, in a way, the beancounters have it right. In another way, though, they have it wrong because when you really cheapen a highly visible car like the mustang, you cement people's impression of the overall value available from a manufacturer. Fortunately, for Ford, I feel the mustang offers great value for the money and appropriate materials for the kind of car it is.
As for rattles, I had an Audi A8 whose heating vents rattled much worse than anything I've experienced in my mustang. Finally, my wife just reminded me about the first time I sat in a Cadillac CTS at the auto show...talk about a cheap feeling interior! My $.02.
11/25/06, 05:00 PM
#60
Shelby GT500 Member
I may get lots of flame for this, but the rendering reminds me alot more of the late 60's camaros than a mustang. Just my opinion. Burningman is obviously highly skilled.
Also, I concur that "beancounters" tend to be pretty short sighted about the impression a car will leave with it's owner after years of ownership. Lets face it, though...many people do not keep cars for years and years. Whether new or used, many people (myself included...I've had 8 mustangs) tend to cycle through cars as they tire of them. We live in a consumer society, so we have to keep buying and using up stuff to keep it going. So, in a way, the beancounters have it right. In another way, though, they have it wrong because when you really cheapen a highly visible car like the mustang, you cement people's impression of the overall value available from a manufacturer. Fortunately, for Ford, I feel the mustang offers great value for the money and appropriate materials for the kind of car it is.
As for rattles, I had an Audi A8 whose heating vents rattled much worse than anything I've experienced in my mustang. Finally, my wife just reminded me about the first time I sat in a Cadillac CTS at the auto show...talk about a cheap feeling interior! My $.02.
Also, I concur that "beancounters" tend to be pretty short sighted about the impression a car will leave with it's owner after years of ownership. Lets face it, though...many people do not keep cars for years and years. Whether new or used, many people (myself included...I've had 8 mustangs) tend to cycle through cars as they tire of them. We live in a consumer society, so we have to keep buying and using up stuff to keep it going. So, in a way, the beancounters have it right. In another way, though, they have it wrong because when you really cheapen a highly visible car like the mustang, you cement people's impression of the overall value available from a manufacturer. Fortunately, for Ford, I feel the mustang offers great value for the money and appropriate materials for the kind of car it is.
As for rattles, I had an Audi A8 whose heating vents rattled much worse than anything I've experienced in my mustang. Finally, my wife just reminded me about the first time I sat in a Cadillac CTS at the auto show...talk about a cheap feeling interior! My $.02.