blackrat

How long did it take Ford to get out their newest model Mustang from concept to storefront? Just wondering. It seemed to go by pretty quickly, and it's a pretty solid car. I realize that there is the whole thing about having to have the factory ready and all that but just how much has to be done as far as concept to street?

ImportedRoomate

The Mustang concept was shown at the 2003 NAIAS, and then production started for 2005.

They didnt have to make a business case with the Mustang concept. The car was pretty much done by the time the concept was shown. They were just gauging the public's reaction while leaving enough time to make any changes if necessary.

Big Als Z

Exactly.
Do not compare the Mustang's build time to the Camaro. If you want to get into it, it took Ford 25 years to create an ALL new Mustang.
There is a lot more going into this Camaro's business case then just selling a bunch of 400+ V8 sports cars.

ChrisL

GM has no say in what a dealer can charge for a car. That's why it's called Manfacturer's SUGGESTED Retail Price.

Yes, I am sure there are those dealers that will mark up prices at first. Camaro is not going to be a limited production car, so dealer markups shouldn't last long. Once Oshawa production is cranked up there will be plenty of cars available.

Shellhead

Actually, the original plan (internally anyway) of the Rustang team was to have the latest version out as a 2004-1/2 so it aligned with the Rustang anniversary. That timing got bumped out because there were too many issues with the car - despite how production ready the concept looked. They had a lot of issues positioning things around the engine, and kept moving the internals to match the sheet metal (right down to the millimeter).

I was actually on the program at the time and there was a LOT of work being done, but issues weren't being resolved and therefore program timing moved. It was a HUGE scramble to get the car out when they did, to the point where prototype testing got compressed. And if that doesn't sound bad, keep in mind that compressing prototype timing means that lessons you learn with the first prototype do not get applied to the second, or third, but only to production! That's not the way to build a car!

In all fairness, there wasn't a single team member who was happy about it and given those circumstances, the car is very good - but don't kid yourself, that car isn't NEARLY as good as it could have been had the timing not shifted. Keep in mind that it also wasn't an all-new platform like Camaro is. Rustang is not a benchmark for building a car - and if GM is smart, they're not treating it as one.

rray200

This would explain why the build quality on the latest Mustangs is so inconsistent. I shopped around for a Mustang last fall after my RSX got stolen and test drove 3 2006 Mustang GTs. I got three different driving experiences. The first one I drove had terrible brakes, the second one I drove was awesome in everyway but had a cloth interior I didn't want, and the third one I drove felt like complete crap. The third stang was loose, with a bad clutch from the factory. And the salesman tried to convince me that they all drive that way and its nothing to worry about. That's when I walked out the door and bought another RSX. I will never set foot in another Ford Dealership again. If I get a muscle car, it will be a GM built Camaro.

guionM

None of the items you mentioned have anything to do with build quality.

What was terrible about the brakes? You don't specify.

Am I supposed to believe that because a car had a cloth interior you didn't want (even though you freely order leather... assuming there wasn't already one on the lot with that) that's because of Ford compressing the development cycle?

What was bad about the clutch? Mustangs are known to actually have good clutches. Again you didn't specify. Ditto about feeling "loose".

My '97 Z28's factory clutches (as in plural) suck. They were relaitively flimsy, and I ripped 2 of them in normal driving in 5 years of ownership. I brought this up to a friend of mine who works at GM, and he conceeded that some things were made to break (keep the parts department in business). By comparason, I replaced my '85 Mustang's clutch once in 11 years of ownership, and I've never needed to replace a clutch on any of my manual Thunderbird SCs.

The current Mustang actually has compiled a pretty stellar quality & dependability record so far. No recalls, no assembly issues, and the only universal quality complaint (the cheap, hard, interior plastic on the dash, doors, and console) were done as a cost cutting measure, but still holds up very well.


The thing about the Mustang is that Ford is making sizable money on it. They have kept the cost of development and components down low enough that the car will easily survive the next downturn in the coupe market. The program will still make money selling under 75K per year. With the volume of Mustang secure, we'll see Ford spending some change improving the interior and adding a few more costly items to the Mustang within the next couple of years, especially with the upcoming 2010 model.

The 5th gen Camaro is far more expensive to make than the Mustang. As a result, GM is banking on sharing it's chassis, components, and assembly line with a wide range of sedans to weather any future freefall of coupe sales.

rray200

"None of the items you mentioned have anything to do with build quality."

Then what are they? Please specify.

"What was terrible about the brakes? You don't specify."

As far as the brakes were concerned, the stopping distances were frighteningly long and dangerous. If you call that good quality. That's your business. As far as I'm concerned, it dangerous and unacceptable.

"Am I supposed to believe that because a car had a cloth interior you didn't want (even though you freely order leather... assuming there wasn't already one on the lot with that) that's because of Ford compressing the development cycle?"

You're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about the car having a cloth interior and linking it to Ford's compressed development cycle. You said that. Not me. The dealer didn't have any cars with a leather interior and I don't believe in settling for what I don't want on something that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

"What was bad about the clutch? Mustangs are known to actually have good clutches. Again you didn't specify. Ditto about feeling "loose"."

The clutch had literally no resistance and the car had trouble engaging in 1st gear. The shocks felt like something out of the 1980s as the body roll was way too much for a performance car, unlike the cloth interior car I drove. Call it what you want. Bottom line is that that does not equate into good, consistent build quality.

"The 5th gen Camaro is far more expensive to make than the Mustang. As a result, GM is banking on sharing it's chassis, components, and assembly line with a wide range of sedans to weather any future freefall of coupe sales."

Time will tell. But GM is taking alot more time and being much more careful testing it. That will result in a more production ready car.


"My '97 Z28's factory clutches (as in plural) suck. They were relaitively flimsy, and I ripped 2 of them in normal driving in 5 years of ownership. I brought this up to a friend of mine who works at GM, and he conceeded that some things were made to break (keep the parts department in business). By comparason, I replaced my '85 Mustang's clutch once in 11 years of ownership, and I've never needed to replace a clutch on any of my manual Thunderbird SCs."

There's a big difference between 1985 and 2006. 21 years to be exact. And the new s197 Mustang does not share any components or technology with the Fox bodies. I have to ask, what are you doing on this forum? Sounds to me like you should be at www.mustangforums.com instead of www.camaroz28.com.

Big Als Z

I dont think that Guy was saying that the car has good quality, but it has nothing to do with build quality. Ok, so the brakes sucked, or it had cloth seats...that doesnt mean that the build quality sucked, it means the brakes sucked. Having cloth doesnt mean its bad, but if the quality of cloth sucked, or that they tore easily, or the seats moved and were not tight to the floor...that is a sign of build quality. You seem to have expanded on your intital "bad build qualty" statements with a more discriptive idea of what you are talking about.

rray200

The fact is I test drove 3 Mustangs with less than 20 miles on them and two of them had serious mechanical issues. Let me ask you this, if you drove with a clutch that made clucking noises and had literally no resistance, would you buy it? If a car has brakes don't allow the car to stop within a reasonable distance, would you buy it? Does that qualify as a car with good build quality, that has attention paid to detail? Would you buy it? There's a reason why Ford stands for Fixed Or Repaired Daily, or Found On the Road Dead. And with the Stangs I test drove, that certainly is a strong possibility.

As for the cloth seats, where did I ever make reference to cloth seats equalling poor build quality? I didn't, you did. Had that car had leather which I preferred, I would have more than likely bought the car at the time, since it drove extremely well. I'm not saying all Mustangs are bad (obviously they are not, since 170,000 a year get sold). But the fact is there are alot of these cars that come from the factory with major defects. Go to mustangforums.com and see all the new owners that have had problems with their rear differentials, gas guages, various leaks, etc. Just wait until the Camaro and Challenger come to market. Alot of S197 Mustang owners will be switching.

jg95z28

Wow! A lot of hatred toward the blue oval I see. For what it's worth, I used to be the same way. I hated Ford's and everything they stood for; especially Mustangs. But then I took a 12-step program if you will, and purchased a '96 Mustang GT for my stepson and worked on it together as his daily driver.

Here is what I learned:

• It really is a fun car to drive... when its running
• Its just as difficult to work on as a newer Camaro
• It has just as much hp as a Camaro... when you add a supercharger
• You can make all kinds of mods to improve its performance just like a Camaro
• Even with all those mods, it is still slower than a Camaro of the same era... a DEAD STOCK Camaro!
• Chicks dig 'em!

After 2 years of dumping more money into the car than I had paid for the purchase price of $7500, I sold it for about what I paid for it.

Still I miss the little Mustang, as it was a fun car to drive. (But not as fun as my son's M3 that replaced it. )

One thing I also noted. I signed up for one of those mustang boards to get help on some repair issues. Although I was welcomed warmly, inspite of my screen name (Same one I have here) they really weren't too helpful. At least not like the Camaro enthusiasts I encounter here and on other "Camaro" sites. Perhaps that's why we draw a lot of open minded Ford enthusiasts to this site.

Lastly, to address your most recent post, while some Mustang enthusiasts may jumpship for Camaro or Challenger, most Mustang enthusiasts are a fairly loyal bunch. (Not unlike Camaro and Corvette enthusiasts.) They're not going to fall in love with the next pretty face out of Detroit. (Or Ottawa.) They're more than likely to stay true to the end, even if it means sacrificing a few things with their beloved Mustangs.

rray200

I don't hate the Blue Oval necessarily. Mostly, the Ford dealers and their unethical tactics and patronizing attitude. I do like the new Mustang alot. Its a hot looking retro styled car with great performance, a great exhaust note, and extremely fun to drive, if you get your hands on a good one. That's where the problem lies. You have to shop extensively for one and its wise to ****** up a good driving one on the lot that matches your buying criteria. Ordering one from the factory IMO, is very risky, as you're not sure if its going to come off the assembly well put together.

The new Camaro, it appears, is a car that GM is taking very, very seriously, by taking their time testing it, choosing the best factory in the company to build it, and with their best engineers working on it. It will be more expensive than a Mustang, but well worth it in the end. The 4th gen F-bodies were serious fire breathers that in their last couple of years, were mechanically pretty solid cars. If the 5th gen is an improvement on that, we'll all be very happy in 2009.

Silverado C-10

I'm not going to worry about the new Camaro's build quality. In fact, I plan on buying a first year model (of course, it will probably be 6 months or so after the release so I have a good array of colors/options/motor/tranny to choose from).

The car is going to be built as OSHAWA, typically one of the top plants in quality throughout the world. The "Zeta" platform on which the car is derived has undergone much development and is already (and has been for a year or so?) on the roads of Australia, so 3 years to work out kinks before the Camaro and Impala is plenty of time. The engines will be typical durable GM. Not worried about those. Electrical gremlens and rattles with be dealt with as they come, if any.

My Z71 was built in Canada, great truck. Just hit 100K. I've only changed the oil, plugs, wires, air filter, and fuel filter. Our friends north of the border are doing a great job of keeping GM reliability up When you go to buy a GM vehicle, look for the "2" at the start of the VIN, that's Canada.

guionM

It seems your issues with the Mustang are more of personal taste than any "quality" issues.

Using a single source as a yardstick for comparison (in this case, Car & Driver Magazine..... hardly the lap dog of anything that isn't Japanese or BMW):

The 2007 Mustang stops in 170 feet from 70 mph (a mere 8 feet more than they got from the Z06 (162 feet).

Hardly dangerous.... or long.

C&D Re: Mustang's clutch:
"And even the clutch effort is reduced. You still won't want to depress the clutch for the duration of an entire red light, but you could if you had to. Like if you were up against a GTO."

C&D Re: Mustang's Handling:
"Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it. Pitched hard into corners, the Mustang is initially neutral, then tends toward understeer.

...In fact, every C/D tester peered at least once under our GT's rump to ensure there weren't a couple of pricey half-shafts whizzing around in there"

So... you wanted to go there?

In the over 6 years (unlike others who have been here less than 6 months) I've come to appriciate the diverse backgrounds of owners here. Many previously and currently owning Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, and even Japanese cars as their main transportation. I also appriciate the fact that more than many other sites, we all can talk honestly (more or less) about the good and the bad of all cars, and not simply be a unpaid (insert unflattering term here) for whatever brand is in the website's name who doesn't even know the person exists.

I have a good and honest appriciation for Ford Mustangs. I've owned qute a few 5.0s. I also have a love for Ford Thunderbird Super Coupes, again, owning a few. Although I've never owned one, I also like the SRT cars from Chrysler, including the SRT-4 Neon.

I have also owned 3 4th gen Camaros. I had a '93 Z28, a '97 Z28, and now a 2002 B4C Camaro. And you've own how many?.......

I appriciate the car's power and what you get for the price. At the same time, I'm not so much of a flunky that I won't slam GM for not being able to make a 4th gen with a power window motor with a lifespan of more than a couple of years, a factory clutch that doesn't self destruct in normal use, a rear differential that doesn't think it's a hand grenade when you add grippier tires, an forged engine internals that I don't have to worry about if I want to up power..... all things that the Mustang has down pat.

On the flip side, the new Mustang's OHC V8 is a $100 answer to a $10 question. The interior plastic is hard and cheap feeling. That mechinism that drops and raises the window when you open & close the door makes closing the door resemble a 70s era door rattling, and the car's height (55 frigging inches tall) makes the Mustang seem H-U-G-E!

When I talk about my '85 Mustang, I'm not surprized that your response would be as defensive as it was. It's utterly embarresing that the original power windows in my '89 and '93 SC still work, but both motors in my 2002 are out.... and these aren't even the 1st set (my '93 & '97 also had this issue). It's a shame that my LS1 sounds like a diesel till it warms up, and GM didn't even think this was an issue when they OK'd the engine for production. Having owned 3 4th gens, I can go on and on about common problems about the car.

But at the same time, I can appriciate the Camaro for what it is. A cheap (arguably VERY cheap) 4 passenger Corvette, that has phenominal roadholding ability and bang for the buck. It's a car best enjoyed as a 2nd car, and is at it's best as a weekend car or something you use only occasionally. And the last couple of points is why GM has gotten as far away as possible from the 4th gen in creating the 5th. They even seem to be dead serious about making it tops in quality (GM is planning to make it the 1st car with a new long term quality warranty!).

Hope that answers why I'm here.

......BTW: I do also post on Mustang sites as well.

Silverado C-10

Motor Trend has done a lot of testing and they love the new mustangs, as do I. If it wasn't for the release of the camaro, I was lurking around Ford lots checking out options/pricing. The GT's are very affordable. I could have gotten a 4.6L 5 speed, coth interior, "base rims" (the "free" ones) for right at 26K without negotiations.