I think if such engine modifications were to be available on the Shelby GT, we'd have heard all about it by now. There's too much info out already about the Shelby GT.

 

You are part of the exceptions. The Shelby GT has clean, appealing look, and would likely be my choice as well. My point was adding the FRPP performance package to the GT/CS would set both are on equal grounds.

 

I know this is heresy, but the look of the Bullitt is what matters most to me: the plain grille, DHG paint, the right wheels, black leather interior, etc. If Ford nails the look, I can always make more power with mods. Granted, both power and the look together in the same package would be great. But if I had to choose only one of the two, I'd want the look.

 

Raises the interesting question of what an S/E for a limited market does for overall sales. I would suggest that the Cali spec. pkg. did nothing for overall sales last year, as those buyers would have bought a manual GT if the C/S had not been available and GT manuals were available(that is a problem due to CAFE numbers) So what does it mean to Ford to have a Bullitt done with special paint vs. one that makes significant and real performance upgrades? Does either actually increase sales?

I ask because I suspect that Ford has forgetten again how much keeping the performance market happy means in terms of other than direct sales.

The recent heavy influence of FRPP advertising leads me to believe that they do not understand how few people will pay twice the price for a few Ford aftermarket parts when they are available through the aftermarket cheaper. Somebody may have tried to convince them that this is cheaper for Ford than baking the good stuff in. And as for who, I believe their constituancy centers on Las Vegas...I also submit that the quick and dirty solution of the Shelby GT has put a serious dent in Fords desire to do any kind of in-house performance.

Current market trends show that people will pay some premium for the L.V. flyby, even though I personally can not see the sustainability of this trend and any body can see that the bottom is falling pretty fast out of the GT500 market. It has dropped 10-15k in one quarter. The pretty much production Challenger is ready for showing in the next 100 days or so, and pre-prototype Camaro's are already on the streets of Australia. I wonder aloud if Ford has even thought about the next summer(07) and how much of the market for their one shot wonder(Shelby and all the varients of) is going to just dissappear.

And anybody who thinks Ford has put a total on how much they missed out on with the GT500 may be suprised at how little performance is on the radar in Dearborn. I know for a fact that former SVT team members are.....

 

Personally, I don't think the CS helped Mustang sales any. I would have to say that the number of buyers that bought a CS *just* to have a CS is probably small. But the marketing wizards at FoMoCo have to come up with something to justify their existence, and the CS was easy to cobble together. The only thing about the CS is that it added an incremental amount of profit to Ford's coffers for each one sold, and gave them a little more exposure in the buff magazines.

On the other hand, (and I may be in the minority here), I will buy a Bullitt simply because it is a Bullitt. I'm not really in the market for a car, since I just bought a Charger Daytona, but the Bullitt trips my trigger enough that I want one. This is the kind of extra sales that Ford is counting on with the SE variants. They hope to snag someone that may not buy a Mustang otherwise.

Dodge did this with the Charger. I really was not a big fan of the Charger until they came out with the Daytona. It's the Dodge equivalent of a Bullitt: 10 more hp, some flashy paint and graphics, and a few changes to the interior. And limited production numbers. But those were enough changes to make me want one. The hot SRT8 Charger has 425 hp compared to my Daytona's 350 hp, but the SRT8 is a $5000 premium over the Daytona, and to me, that wasn't worth it considering how I intend to use the car.

I think if Ford was smart, they'd offer several appearance packages and several engine options, and let the buyer mix and match as he desired. You want a stripper with a 385 hp engine? No problem. You want a Mach 1 with the base 300 hp V8? No problem, either. You want a Boss with leather and navi and 450 hp? Great, order it. This type of scenario dates back to the '70s, when you actually sat down and spec'd out the car you wanted. Yes, it adds to assembly line complexity and cost, and the UAW will not like it, but I think Ford needs to pioneer a movement back to this concept, at least with perfomance cars. If they could pull this off with the Mustang, I think they would be much better off in the long run, would sell more cars, make more money off of stand-alone options, and could show the rest of the manufacturers that they are the King of the assembly line once again.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

You kind of answered your own question there as to why it won't happen. It isn't cost effective or logistically feasible for a niche vehicle. Sure, the Mustang is a popular car, but taken as part of the overall marketplace, it's a drop in the bucket, and would never warrant the implementations you suggest, much as we all might like to see them.

Personally, I'm not convinced the whole musclecar craze will last more than a decade, at the outside. There are too many enviromental sustainability issues quickly rising to the forefront of the global stage - and people's minds - and I think eventually world governments, Big Oil, and ALL the automakers will be mandated to pay heed in a much more prominent way.

 

You don't have to look too far to find a beancounter lurking behind the scenes.

They're like cockroaches.