68 fastback

Oh, you wanted official?



<just kiddin'>

StangPro

I'm tired of all of the speculation of Bosses and Machs that are warmed over versions of some past era. I'd like to actually see something bold and new for a change. Screw retro, put some power on the table.

I'm not sure what the exact demographic is of niche Mustang buyers, but drawing off of inspriation from cars built in the 60's and 70's means the buys would be well over 50 years old (minimum driving age+years since built). Yawn.

Leave the Shelby with some yearly or so changes and keep the niche vehicles in the middle.

I'd like to see:

3.5L v6 with AWD an option.
GT with 400hp. 6-Speed auto or 6 speed manual. Anything less is a failure.
Shelby/Cobra at 600 or so.

Special editions:
SVO - 2.3L direct injected turbo from the Mazdaspeed 6 with some better cams and tuning. 325hp. AWD maybe too

LX - Gt's 400hp with LOW weight. Stripper car. Limited production. Let the purist wet themselves as these are torn apart and welded on for racing.

GT-R - for a change, build the car you show us. 450hp-475hp with all track manners.

Honestly who cares what the special editions are as long as they're unique and the content doesn't become standard on the GT in the following year.
More variety equals more OEM parts to pick from for performance, and even more money for Ford.

68 fastback

I don't care so much what you call it either, but the essence of some of the classic Mustangs as enniversary models is a good thing, I think.

When a lot of us old-timers talk about the Boss, we're not getting hung up on yesterday.. it's merely a way to communicate all the attributes it needs to have: consumare handling, great balance, high-revving nat asp oversquare motor, lightweight -- in short, the closest to a road-course racer that a factory can produce within the governing boundaries.

If it's called an LX, that's fine, but a Boss on the 40th in '09 would add another incentive for many.

So it's about the personality of the car, not the nostalgia for its own sake, IMO. The Mach (calll it what you want) was a straight-line drag car; the Boss a consumate road-course racer.

I like your idea of AWD and and a 2.3L 4, but that's not what a mustang is -- put that in an SVT Fusion (nice car!), IMO

.

bob

Not really, most of the people I've met driving Machs are in the 18 to 40 year range, only the terminator guys on average seem to be older (maybe 30 to 50)


Thats not a Mustang

Yes, as we can see, 300hp mustangs are dismal failure

As much as I'd like to see the SVO name revived (it is much nearer and dearer to my heart than the letters SVT) I doubt it will happen, didn't work the first time.

Not gonna happen, remeber the GTS (IIRC) disappeared pretty quick. Decontented performance cars that are part of the regular production are dead and the cost of engineering/producing a stripper car would drive up the average price since you would have to engineer seperate systems to cover the deconteted car.

You can get it right now in 425 to 550hp versions, a bit pricey though

And whats wrong with drawing on heritage? Boss, Mach, Shelby, and now Bullitt are hallowed names that mean something and there is nothing wrong with bits and peices available on niche cars making thier way onto the GT (if your betting your retirement on modern niche mustangs, I would seriously reconsider) Its all about volume which equals success and if niche parts show up on the regular mustang's option sheet, so much the better.

JETSOLVER

The GT500 and its attendant guff are temporarily skewing the age demo. Not to many 30-45 year olds who are inclined to shell out 60k for a 43k car.

The Camaro Z28(GT's DIRECT competitor) is coming with the LS2 at 405 horses.(Underrated just for internet racers) and there are definate plans for an SS version to go against the GT550. As well the next gen GM V6 is hard up against the 260 number that Ford is quoteing for the D35, so its easy to see which has the advantage there.(Good job Ford for finally getting that sucker to market, its a winner if you can push up its additions by a year or so)

To me, the real wild card is the Challenger. If it comes in with 450 horse standard(no V6, remember) that means that any Niche mustang has to be close, trading value for numbers(Traditional Ford trade off, it sometimes works) The catagory may be set however, by the SRT version of the Challenger. I have seen rumours that DCX is thinking about using that car as a showcase in the Mustangs play pen, and that could mean all sorts of things.

Not least that it widens market expectations between the Stang GT and its various SE branding exercises. And changes the value equation that Mustang depends on when it is faced with competition. Played well, brand X could take a hell of a bite out of Fords market. And there is the little matter of Ford being one year behind its own 05 based projections for both the restyle(10 ne09) and the new V8(09 ne08) engine. There is limited growth in personal statement cars, and two direct shots at a three and half year old design and its planning.

If I was on team mustang at Ford, I would be in a cold sweat until New York/08 job 1 and praying that the others are going to be a little late to market. The right pricing at the right time by the "bad"(not my term) guys could make Fords job of juggling very difficult for the next 24 months.

Hollywood_North GT

It's just another reason why waiting another 18 months for a 10 HP increase in the Bullitt is so disgusting. That car SHOULD be Ford's 400 HP interim competition fighter for 2008, not some warmed over "badge & sticker job" that no one will care about when Challenger and Camaro make the scene a few months later.

bob

I dunno, the Challenger is gonna be a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG heavy car. Will it smote a GT, yeah, thats a given. Then again, from what I understand, the Challenger is supposed to be premium offering like the Shelby so cost is gonna be a factor.

Most if not all of the competition is gonna be from GM and they've already said the F-bod is gonna do mustang but only better in every catagory for a slightly higher price.

JETSOLVER

Then call it a win for Mustang. The one thing that GM consistantly screw up with in this market war is the fact that they don't see the price/value componant as the key to the catagory. That is what killed Brand X in the past, and will again. The GT500 is not a Mustang in the purist sense. It is like a Saleen, or a Roush car in that it has moved past the reason that the Mustang is 8 and a half million units and climbing. Cheap car, cheap performance.

The part that I think not many yet understand is how Ford may have messed its own pen by taking/letting the GT500 get to where it is being compared with much more focused and refined(and expensive) cars. Suddenly, all follow on varients and SE's have a higher expectation, and engineering wise, the Mustang is as raw as it gets for the money(don't lets argue this please, a truck engine and a more or less truck suspension, well done, but still...). Any less and it would have died a slow death. Suddenly, a prospective buyer of a V6 pony wants to know where exactly is the good stuff they are paying 25k vice the 43k of a GT500 for. A couple of grand for the big engine maybe, but the same suspension? More or less the same interior? (again, from a non-enthusiast conquest sale perspective please)

As BC pointed out, the pricing of any SE's and the content is so critical to maintaining the Mustang market its scary. Especially as there are large yelllow signs suggesting Ford isn't making great choices on this file...

Hollywood_North GT

I do think what killed the previous generation Camaros (and its Firebird cousin) was the butt-ugly body style (big, bloated and hideous), not so much its pricing.

I don't know how the new Camaro will fare in the market. I suspect that if the car offers stunning looks and performance for a reasonable market price - even if that price exceeds the Mustang - it will sell...and sell well. There are plenty of boomers out there who want to relive the glory days of their youths with the cars they remember and love, but also want 21st century quality, technology and reliability. And there are plenty of younger adults with disposable income for sports cars who would gladly give a new Camaro a serious look (in lieu of 350Zs or GT-Rs, etc) if it offered the "goods" in a quality package that cost more than the Mustang but a fair bit less than those aforementioned Japanese competitors.

Conversely, imagine a 400 HP Camaro with state-of-the-art build quality priced about the same as a fully-loaded Nissan 350Z (which is quite a bit more than a premium Mustang GT). You could see GM rack up some conquest sales from Nissan with a package like that.

The cheap equation that the Mustang has always espoused, has not been to pander to the enthusiast base, but because Ford builds all its cars this way: cost-cutting is the number one priority, and it shows. Personally, I think the company needs to move upscale a bit (as its European division has done) - because its competitors are thrashing it and its previous strategy of "'cheap, cheap, cheap' at any cost" clearly hasn't worked, the upshot being that the company has mortgaged its own factories to secure a loan that will only give it another two years of breathing room.

bob

add "engine in a box" syndrome, the previous f-bod was all about bang for the buck performance and everything else was secondary, then there was non-exsistant brand management, they were the redheaded step-children of GM,

V10

I disagree, the styling of the last F Bodies was not that bad.

What killed them was there HORRIBLE ergonomics (like the cat bump in the passenger's floor pan), their HORRIBLE build quality and higher pricing than the competition.

68 fastback

I think GM was sure that the the days of hi-po factory rides were soon to be dead and that Ford would be deadended with mustang (2000-ish thinking). I think they felt 'wise' to phase-out 'first.' So I suspect GM treated Camaro like it had a potentially terminal comunicable disease, banishing it to the painfull backwater decision processes of the long wedge of obsolescence -- milking whatever they could with minimal funding prior to its demise.

Have you noticed that GM has latched onto Leno as the new posterchild person of Hi-po rides. I like Jay and believe he's a very genuine car guy, but since his Toronado rear-drive conversion (cool car) wich GM supplied with an experimental LS7+ motor, have you noticed how Jay's articles in Popular Mechanics have been (of the big 3) GM slanted -- even guests on the Tonight Show lately (a comedian the other night) do what appear to be subtle plugs for the Camaro -- that doesn't exist yet!

Jay's 'angle' seems to be -- check his article in Jan'07 PM on his 1500HP tank-powered roadster ;-) -- that you can be environmentally conscious and have hi-po toys. That 'angle' only got focussed after his loose affiliation/relationship with GM began with the Toranado project. There have been other instances as well. I think it's a stroke of genius for GM to use such a visible, liked and passionate car guy like Jay to 'carry' that message. GM even used Jay to debut at SEMA a hotroded grease-burning "eco-car" that GM built.

I think GM underestimated the durability and demand for hi-po rides even in spite of high gas prices. This loose affiliation with Leno is, IMO, a measured way to manage/shape public opinion in advance of Camaro to make sure the evil forces of 'fast-cars-are-anti-environment' don't get the American public's mindshare and leave GM holding a big bag of re-intro reinvestment into Camaro and more (Chevelle/ElCamino maybe too?).

If that were to happen it would cost GM dearly. Ford, the incumbent leader in pony cars, would not be as severely damaged because the cost of Fords investment is mustang is already "sunk" in the S197 which is likely already life-of-program profitable on the basic R&D. Ford could back out of hi-po mustangs without losses (less volume and profit for sure but no losses). GM, especially if Camaro will be hi-po only (no V6 -- dunno), would be a financial bloodbath by comparison, IMO.

One thing is for sure, GM and DCX's guns are loaded and the turkey-shoot is on for MY'09 it would seem. Big stakes are at play.

Can't wait! ;-)

Knight

The camaro was not that much different in pricing...mayb their base model price is what killed them since the base model is what keeps the car going. But a z28 to GT the Z28 was always close and the Z28 was cheaper from 1999-2002.

1998.
a 150hp V6 mustang MSRP was $16,150
a 225hp mustang GT MSRP was $20,150

a 200hp v6 camaro MSRP was $16,625
a 305hp Z28 camaro MSRP was $20,470

2002.
a 193hp V6 mustang MSRP was $17,475
a 260hp mustang GT MSRP was $23,220

a 200hp v6 camaro MSRP was $18,415
a 310hp Z28 camaro MSRP was $22,830

Hollywood_North GT

No bloodbath for GM, either, as the Camaro is being engineered on the world-class Zeta platform, designed in Australia and set to underpin a variety of vehicles globally. They have most of what they need on the shelf already. Throw in a choice of historically-proven Chevy small block variants, and all that's left is getting the body style, interior, supension and packaging right.

Hollywood_North GT

What killed them was that they grew progressively bigger and uglier, with more scoops, pollups and crustations adorned to the surface than a rice rocket, frankly.

That, and the crappy ergonomics and build quality, as someone else mentioned.

Price was NOT the issue, IMHO.

JETSOLVER

Pirce is ALWAYS an issue. If prospective customers don't see what they percieve as value, they don't shop it.

And as for your other theory, I hope Ford understands that with the Mustang. There is a balance to be achieved between frag style marketing with no real content, and a product mix. Supported with real increased quality and performance.

Performance is not just under the hood, but in all area's of the car and its sales and service. They are about to come under attack, and need to remain active, which has been a Ford shortcoming in the recent past.

Of course, enthusiasts know this, which is why we have to keep on Ford about it. They have alzheimers when it comes to basic lessons.

Performance, apply directly to the bottom line, Performance, apply directly to the bottom line, ....

V10

Huh? The last Camaro was a pretty clean design. The Firebird was always loaded up with junk, that what FB customers wanted.

It was primarily crappy ergonomics and horrendous build quality that killed the F bodies. Price was a factor but far less important.

68 fastback

I think you missed my point... regardless of the lineage of a particular vehicle, if the Camaro enters as a hi-po only offering and the political climate chages (that was the premise) such that hi-po rides are forced out of production (admitedly a big if, but big stakes are at play), GM would be hurt far more than Ford, since Ford's investment is "sunk" and already largely recovered and the V6 would still pay it's way. GM, on the other hand, would either have to write off all expense or could attempt to backtrack into a V6 version of the Camaro, but it would likely never prosper and certainly would not make the hurdles to pay back the sizeable investment for Camaro in toto.

Regardless of existing parts-bin/chassis pieces, the majority of the expense on new models is all of the business, planning, engineering, packaging, etc expense that goes on well in advance. The actual "product cost" (just the raw materials and manufacuring costs alone -- with NO profit, R&D, engineering, business overhead, advertising, planning, etc, etc. -- i.e. just the true cost to 'cookie-cutter' one more copy of the product down the line) is a tiny portion of MSRP! All the other expenses plus profit are the big chunk that GM would likely never recover and that Ford has already recovered.

Nevertheless, your point that many of pieces are already in the GM parts bin is very true -- and their parts bin is extensive. However, a fundamental and cataclysmic political shift in the bedrock of the horsepower wars (though that seems unlikely) would only hurt GM a bit less in a relative sense, but hi-po-only Camaro program would be a finanacial bloodbath nonetheless under those circumstances, IMO.

.

Hollywood_North GT

WRONG.

If it were, nobody would buy a vehicle over $50K. It simply isn't necessary to spend more than that in this day and age to get a stylish, state-of-the-art vehicle with strong performance and a certain amount of cachet.

Yet there's a whole marketplace out there for vehicles over $50K...over $75K...over $100K - and so on. For those who purchase vehicles like that, price isn't much of an issue. If price were an issue for everyone, Ford dealerships wouldn't be able to command $10 - 25K premiums for Shelby GT500s, would they?

Now, if you're talking about the average blue collar joe, well, then that's a different story. But the average blue collar joe ain't able to single-handedly keep Ford Motor Co. alive any more either.

Hollywood_North GT

You mean this thing >>



I guess beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.