stangsimon

TX, By the looks of this picture, the steering wheel is the same as the 2005 with a different horse badge in the middle. I don't see any audio controls, just cruise.

2010 spy shot:
http://images.leftlanenews.com/conte...rior-spy-2.jpg

Current Mustang wheel:
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/time...05/0914-36.jpg

While I agree w/ you 100% that driver distraction is a problem, human factors research has shown that steering wheel mounted audio controls actually reduce distraction and accidents, because your hands stay on the wheel, and you don't need to look to find the up/down audio or seek button ( the two controls used most when driving. )

Okay, now for the long part of the post:

As for the cost, I undertstand your point, but it actually costs more to make two versions of one thing. For example, if you wanted a car without power windows, and a power window option, you'd need to manufacture two different doors, one with the buttons, and one with a crank. This means two plastic moulds, as well as mechanical differences in the uo-down mechanicals of being hand-cranked or powered. Therefore, your investment in the doors has just doubled. Whether the mould has a hole for a crank or a hole for a power window switches, it still costs the same. Often, the cost of the extra moulds ( are usually $50K-$100K ), cranks, etc etc cannot be covered by the price people would be willing to pay for the option.

Let's say the extra mold costs $75K x 2 doors is $150K. Now the extra mould for the crank costs $25Kx 2doors is $50K, for a total of $200K.

The cost of the crank is $1.00 per car x 2 cranks= $2.00 per car.

In the assembly plant, you have to differentiate between the doors, so they need tagged and sorted. The tags cost 50 cents, x 2 doors= $1.00 per car. They also need sorted on the production line, so this adds two workers, and without getting complicated, their extra salary divided by the production numbers totals an extra hypothetical $2.00 per car.

If you're making 100,000 cars a year, add $2 + $1 + $2 = $5 x 100,000 cars. You have just added $500,000 to the cost of producing the car. Now add the $200,000 in extra moulds from above. The total extra production cost of having hand crank and power windows option is now $700,000 vs. $0 extra cost if you do power windows on all the cars. Save this for later.

Now let's say the company figures we'll make the power windows standard on the GT, and the hand cranks standard on the V6 with no option for power windows. Now the GT costs $5,000 more for than the V6, out of which comes engine, leather, bigger wheels and tires, upgraded suspension, and of course, profit. ( I won't make it too complicated and talk about operating costs, like plant, salaries, health insurance, etc., but that is in there too )The portion of the $5000 allocated for the power windows is $5 per car.

Now, for the sake of argument, the let's say the split of V6s and GTs is equal, so 50,000 units of each per year. If $5 per GT covers the cost of the power windows, then:Remember, the extra added production cost of having power and hand crank windows is $700,000. So now, with $250,000 accounted for in the GT markup, there is $450,000 left divided by 100,000 cars= $4.50. So now the production cost of each car V6 and GT included has gone up about 5 bucks, costing the company almost half a million dollars in profit.

I know it seems complicated, and it is. It gets even more complicated from here as to why don't you raise the price of the car $5 bucks, or the GT alone $10 bucks. That I cannot answer. I didn't believe it at first, but its true.

By eliminating the hand crank, and going back to power windows on all cars, even though some people might not want them ( weight, electronic reliability, whatever ), the company now gains back $700,000. That is nothing to sneeze at. So it begs the question, if you can keep $700,000, and not have to raise the price of the car, and give most of the customers something standard instead of making it optional, why wouldn't you?

You will notice that Honda, Toyota and now Hyundai really limit their options, and this is where the whole idea of option packages came from. It reduces the number of combinations and therefore the cost.

****BTW, this is a hypothetical, simplified business model example, and in no way represents any actual costs or "inside info". I used V6 and GT just for the sake of discussion here on TMS**** I hope I don't set off a firestorm of everyone trying to figure out the cost of everything on their cars. Please, save yourself the trouble, and just enjoy your Mustang!

Boomer

I can't believe you typed all that out

Although it may take a week for him to respond

TXBLUOVAL

You know, I like this. It absolutely coincides with my point that NO V-6 cars should be made and the 5.4 should've also been offered in the new BULLITT ... this way you make the 5.4 cheaper for more people.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I am tired of them doing stupid silly options on Mustangs instead of offering more perfomance options like they did in the 60(s). More performance will sell more Mustangs ... if folks want the silly MAXWELL SMART - HERMAN MUNSTER gadgets then they should get a T-bird, or FWD Taurus, a tricycle, or some other bubblegum form of transportation.

Before I say you're 100% correct ... I'll remind you and everyone else ... that you can't always go by what all these studies say ... because statistics can be manipulated any way you want.

AWmustang

I will agree 100% with you on the statistics. I used to work for a market research firm and I will never again believe one of those "4 out of 5 people" claims ever again.

However, the simple fact remains that without the V6, Ford could not make a business case to build any Mustang at all. So while you don't want to buy a V6 and you've made that very clear, without other people buying them there wouldn't be a V8 at all. And I think that situation is far worse than having to put up with radio controls on the steering wheel.

No car will ever be EXACTLY the way you want it down to the very last detail, unless you spend several hundred grand and get a Rolls Royce or a Maybach. In the mass market it's about compromise. Heck that's why the aftermarket exists.

WaltM

As much as it pains me to read that, It's a fact.

stangsimon

At the risk of this discussion getting waaayyy ; I feel I must set the record straight, since as some others have pointed out, it's the reason Mustang exists.

These are not statistics, it's a simple business equation- how do you price your product to cover your overhead and make a profit, and can you do it based on what the market is willing to pay?

Statistics can be played with, so let's look at some hard numbers I found on 2006 Mustang production:

http://www.americanmuscle.com/06.html

This shows roughly 87,000 V6s were built versus 78000 GTs. Let's assume by your argument that everybody wants a GT and therefore no V6s should be made. Why did 87,000 people buy V6s? If your argument is correct, but they still bought a V6, they could not afford the GT's price or insurance (or both). What other reason is there? I'd have a Ford GT if I had $180,000.

OK, so Ford decides to eliminate the V6 and go with the GT only. If the 87,000 V6 customers can't afford a GT, what happens? Maybe they will buy a Taurus, or a Fusion, or an Eclipse, Genesis coupe, V6 or 4 cyl Camaro or a even a used Mustang GT. It doesn't matter. The fact is, now Ford would have to cover all the costs to produce and manufacture the Mustang with only 78,000 GT sales. Now the price of a GT just went up.

Remember, engineers get paid the same to develop the car whether its a 50,000 unit T Bird or an 800,000 unit F-150. Factory workers get the same salary regardless of how many cars come down the line or whether its a $15K Focus or $60K Navigator ( I believe both are built in Wayne, MI ). TV ads costs the same regardless of how many cars you sell. The plant costs the same to run whether its doing 50,000 or 150,000 cars. All these things figure into the equation of every manufactured product.

The problem with your desire to eliminate V6s is assuming that all your V6 customers can and will buy GTs, and your sales revenue will stay the same. Assuming an average transaction price of $20,000 invoice for V6s and $24,000 invoice for GT, the 2006 sales amount to:

$20,000 x 87,000 V6s = $1,740,000,000
+ $24,000 x 78,000 GTs= $1,872,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
= Total gross sales $3,612,000,000

If you eliminate the V6s, Ford would only have $1.7B /yr to pay for all the operating costs, instead of the $3.6B/yr as shown above. That's a huge difference.

So right now, the business case exists where $3.6B covers all Mustang R&D, operating and manufacturing, distribution and sales, and profit. If $1.7B is lost in revenue, then the price of the GTs must go up, otherwise, you'll be operating at a loss. So,

$ 3,612,000,000 needed Mustang revenue divided by 78,000 GT sales= $46,307 as the new invoice price of a GT. Sure, maybe some V6 vert owners would migrate to a base GT coupe, but enough to cover half the revenue? Not likely.

Let's make it even more simple. I see you have a web design company, and you do logo designs as well. I used to do this as well in my former life. So you've invested in computers, servers, software, etc to do the website business. Adding the logo/graphic side is easy because you already have the computers set up. Yes, you may have to get Adobe Creative Suite and Flash for about $1000, but you make back your return on investment (ROI ) quickly and begin to make a profit. If you ditch the website business and do logo design only, you'll have to raise the price for the logos and graphics to cover what you'd lose from the website business. The big question is, if you doubled or tripled your price for the logos, would people still buy?

I guess the bigger question is, would you be willing to pay $40,000+ your GT to cover the loss of V6 sales? Exclusivity always comes at a price.

This isn't statistics. It's simple arithmetic. You can either sell 1 thing for $100,000 or 100,000 things for $1. It works out the same. This is why Henry Ford invented the assembly line... more volume= lower prices. The price of a model T dropped from about 800 bucks when it first came out to about $250 once the assembly lines got going and he made more and more.

Now that gas is almost $4 a gallon, I wouldn't double the price of Mustang GTs, and eliminate the cheaper to buy, insure and operate V6s, especially with Camaro and Challenger coming online w/ 6 cylinders and even maybe a 4 in the Camaro. I've driven every version of the current Mustang: V6, GT, Shelby GT500 and Bullitt ( sorry, no Shelby GT ) and while my favorite is a Bullitt, I could easily be happy with a V6. 87,000 people a year seem to agree. Ford needs every sale it can get, so why eliminate them? ( And trust me, the Bullitt is so balanced, the 5.4 would overdo it. Maybe the 5.0???? )

Anyway, instead of deriding the V6 Mustang, we should be thanking them for making our GTs so affordable!!!

Ice Hawk

Wow. Wow again. First off, I'm impressed that someone spent the time to help furture my knowledge about how money is spent. Kudos. Secondly, I used to respect TXBLUOVAL's responses. In this entire thread however, all he's seemed to do is act like a kid who was stuck in the 60's like an old man. He's got knowledge, no doubt, but this whole argument over whether or not the audio buttons should or should not be there is completely pointless. You (TX) are making yourself look childish and loosing a potentially good reputation on here that I've noticed. I make a general assumption when I say that I believe we all understand you are more adapted and appreciative of the older days. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE THE OLD STANGS. They created my passion for the addictive fanatic that I have become. However, technology and advancing times dictate that things change and adapt for the environment. That includes cars and technology in cars. I think it's completely ludacrious to think that you shouldn't have to pay for the whole development of the entire Mustang. Who else is going to do it but us Mustang lovers? That's the cost of keeping a passion alive. Literally. If for whatever reason the Mustang came standard with radio controls on the left side and CC on the right, then don't use the left buttons. So what. Reach across and touch the ***** with your fingers. Big deal. Get over it. You can't decide where your money goes once you hand it over to Ford. If they want to use it to make golden pony steering wheel caps, they will. And your money will help develop that. So what. Enjoy you passion. You only have one life. Why worry about what you are and aren't paying for when you buy something that makes you happy.

stangsimon

First, thanks for the kudos. Second, I am not trying to make anyone look childish and I hope people don't attack TX. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just wanted to shed some light on why the V6 is necessary. This isn't just because of new technology. As I said, the assembly was created for the same purpose. Ford got rich off selling lots of cheap cars, and there were many people that have gone broke selling a few expensive cars. And having base versions of products is nothing new either ( look at iPods. ) If there were no 6 cyl Grande coupes in the 60s, there would have been no Boss 429s or GT 350s. This is the muscle car formula for affordable performance- use the base 'foundation' you already have, and create a performance car for cheap by just developing or dropping in a hotter engine. Hell, its the hot rod formula in use since the 50s!

I respect and appreciate TXs and everyone's passion for the Mustang. If not for everyone's passion keeping the flame alive, we may be on a Ford Probe forum. But it is equally true that without the V6, we'd have an expensive, purpose-built 500-hp performance car, and would have to pay a premium BMW/Corvette money for it.