The sad part of all this is that the odds are 1 of the big 3 will go bankrupt by next year .By bankrupt i don't mean liqudate ...they will still be there but in protection... now with a slow down in world economies it not looking good for any of them . You can only cut so many jobs and shut down so many factories before there is nothing left ,you need a good product that the market wants and needs and the old boys management club has got to go if they want to make it.

I'm just glad for now the big 3 have the muscle car lineup back ...lots to see and choose from is good

 

Ok, it costs $3000 more. Though it has that cost it has many standard features that are optional or not available in the Mustang. As far as the interior goes, I don't see the issue it is no worse than the interior of the Mustang. To be honest I think it is a little better than the Mustang's interior.

 

Are you kidding me?! The interior is sooooo bland. At least the Mustang's has originality.

Think of it this way: If you saw ONLY the inside of the Mustang and nothing else to tell you what kind of car it was, you would be able to tell it was a sporty car. The interior has performance cues and accents, and things that make it interesting. On the other hand, if you ONLY saw the interior of the Challenger and didn't know what car it was, do you think you would guess it to be the interior of a performance car? It could be the inside of anything from a minivan to a subcompact. It's not that it's ugly, it's fine, but it has no character to it at all, or anything that makes it look like the inside of a muscle/performance car.

 

What exactly does Challenger have standard that's an option or not available on a Mustang? I really don't know.

If you like Challenger's interior better, that's your personal opinion and I respect that. However, I'm not a fan of Challenger's interior, not just Challenger's interior, but in my personal opinion most of new Dodges have a really crappy and cheap interior.

I like Mustang's interior a lot more.

 

^^^^

+15.5

 

First of all, I'm fully aware of what ADM stands for. Whenever I refer to Chevy, Ford or Dodge adding ADM markups, I'm actually referring to their dealers, and not the manufacturer itself.

On the other hand, to prevent any future misinterpretations. I'll make certain to clarify ADM markups more accurately !

 

If certain Chevy dealers decide to add ADM markups, I wouldn't be surprised to expect a fully loaded Camaro SS, for any less than $40k !

 

I don't think a base SS will cost $40k either, however if there's a top dog Z-28 in the works. Then be prepared to see over $40k for a base Z-28 !

 

I am very interest to see what Ford is going to do with the interior. From the spy pictures, the basic design will be the same. The instrument cluster and HVAC/Radio will be updated. My only beefs with the current interior is the hard plastics and poor seat bolstering.

 

Ok the opinion of the interiors doesn't matter. Yes the Mustang's is more retro but I think the Challenger's is luxurious.... First off let me say I still do prefer the Mustang but this is what I found about the Challenger R/T
base price is $29,995 The base price of the Mustang is up to $26,425 according to Ford's website so the difference in price is really less than $3000

It has an IRS, heated seats 18' wheels, cylinder deactivation, leather wheel and shifter all standard on the R/T model. That is a lot of extra stuff for about $2500.

 

$29,995 - $26,425 = $3,570.

 

oops my bad I forgot to add the destination charge on the Mustang so its $29,995 vs $27220 so that makes it a difference of $2775. So anyways I feel the Challenger offers a lot of extras for the money. Now getting back to the 10' model, I think that this bump in price for this added content to the Mustang would be justified. What do you guys think? Should Ford add more content and raise the MSRP by 2-3K?

 

Agreed. It would be very nice indeed if the 2010+ adopted the current gen GT500/Bullitt seats as standard GT fare and the GT500 migrated on to an even better set of seats.

 

Thats something I never understood about the Mustang. Even in the 3rd and 4th gen cars the GT models had different seats than the base models. Is there any money saved in such a move? How much more would it have cost Ford to put Mach1 seats in the 03-04 GT? These seats are still comfy but offer much better support like the Bullitt and GT500........... I understand making the car more exclusive but that is something that the whole model line can benefit from.

 

Every Penny counts!

Why do you think it took so long (decades) for front disc brakes to become standard? You can still buy new cars with DRUM rear brakes. That is simply RETARDED, but is saves something on the order of $1.50 per car...

Sooo... if the better seats cost $3 more than the lesser seats, they will still use the lesser seats...

 

In most cases, there really isn't much difference between a 'good' set of seats and a lesser set in terms of cost. But until recently even ten dollars per car held a lot of sway despite what it could do to the cars appeal because a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there can easily add up to many millions of dollars over an entire production run. That said, you would probably be surprised at just how expensive some of the mediocre seats can actually be. The issue here being that you have to being quality engineering, materials, and manufacturing to every stage of seat construction if you want a truly great end product. Instead, we often have seats with great frame design, but poor execution in the areas of covering and foam. And on the flip side I have seen very well designed foam support and excellent skins rendered nearly pointless by a cheap, flat frame design. Put simply there are a lot of ways you can screw up an otherwise promising design.

Strangely, the best of the best when it comes to great seats across the lineup is, IMHO, Volvo....and by no small margin. And the recipe was no surprise, they just did it right. They designed one basic frame around the needs of the human body getting the most basic parts of the design, beginning with the frame, right from the outset. That made certain that the design would be flexible enough to be practical in every kind of application with relatively minor changes to the design. The seat itself can be made slightly smaller or larger, or given greater bolstering and more supportive foam for sportier rides or softer cushioning and a wider beam for luxury cars, with minimal fuss. Great idea, and one so obvious that I cannot understand why everybody doesn't do it. Best of all the fact that one basic seat design can accommodate so many different kinds of vehicle means economies of scale are phenomenal and long term they have actually saved money by spending the money necessary to design a great seat on the front end.

I particularly like how their seat design does such a terrific job of melding sport and luxury in the right application. For example, the seats in the S60R were perhaps the best aspect of that car. Supportive in all the right ways without being overkill for what is basically a luxury car, they were also incredibly comfortable even for long distance drives due to a great basic design and some clever tricks here and there with materials.

 

The Vette had a one year hiatus: 1983. That was when the Mustang was in its 2nd year as America's baddest car.

 

reason i aint all in on softer plastics is cuz they scuff a heck of a lot more than harder plastics like we got in the stang; you look at soft plastics the wrong way and it'll scuff and scratch up

 

$2775 before rebates. I dont think the Challenger has any and in my area there are over $1500 on the 2009s already!

 

Although the Vette had a one year hiatus in 83, it's still been around 9 years longer than the Mustang. As the Corvette was born in 1953/54, whereas the Mustang wasn't born until 1964, as a 65 model !