Mustang vs Camaro yearly sales totals (reference as needed)

Since Mustang & Camaro sales have been brought up alot here lately, here is a historical list of yearly Mustang vs Camaro sales. Whenever needed, use it as a reference, or just cut & paste.

Notes:
1. Cobra production from 1965-1969 is not included (it was counted as a separate line by Ford).
2. Numbers preceded by an asterik (*) designates a redesigned .
3. I didn't include Firebird or Capri figures though they are similar cars. With Ford having only 4000 dealers to Chevrolet's 5000, I don't need to!! http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

Year: Mustang/Camaro
64:*121,583/NA
65: 559,451/NA
66: 607,568/NA
67: 474,121/*220,906
68: 317,404/ 235,147
68: 299,824/ 243,065
69: 299,824/ 243,065
70: 190,727/ 124,901
71:*149,678/*114,630
72: 125,093/ 114,630 (not a typo!)
73: 134,867/ 96,751
74:*385,993/ 151,008
75: 188,575/ 145,770
76: 187,567/ 182,959
77: 153,173/ 218,858
78: 192,410/ 272,631
79:*369,936/ 282,571
80: 271,322/ 152,005
81: 181,552/ 126,139
82: 130,418/*189,747
83: 120,873/ 154,318
84: 135,678/ 261,591
85: 156,514/ 180,018
86: 224,410/ 192,219
87: 159,145/ 137,760
88: 211,225/ 96,275
89: 209,769/ 110,850
90: 128,189/ 35,048
91: 98,737/ 101,316
92: 79,280/ 70,712
93: 114,228/ *39,755
94:*123,198/ 119,934
95: 185,986/ 122,844
96: 126,483/ 66,827
97: 100,254/ 95,812
98: 170,642/ 77,198
99: 126,067/ 42,098
00: 218,525/ 45,417
01: 155,162/ 29,009
(01 production stopped May 2001. 2002 had a lengthy run))
02: (not yet released)

Total 1965-2001: 7,899,556/ 4,821,768

Whenever someone has time to burn, we can add Firebird, Javelin, Barracuda, Challenger, and "fox" Capris.

Amend 2001 to state: "Camaro's 2001 production ended May 2001, with Camaro having a lengthy 2002 year run".

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by guionM:
67: 474,121/*220,906
68: 317,404/ 235,147
68: 299,824/ 243,065
69: 299,824/ 243,065
</font>

guionM,
Fantastic job! I know stuff like this takes time.

I found only 1 problem... we have 2 '68 model years listed. I don't know for the Camaro, but the 317,404 is correct for the Mustang. I think the other was just a copy/paste mishap.

Still - awesome job pulling those numbers together! I will copy/paste them to a folder for reference!

-Proud

I'd be interested to see the numbers adding in the Firebird & Capri/Cougar to the mix. I think even the Ford guys will have to admit that the Camaro's siter car was much more sucessful than the Mustangs Sister? I'm just curious how Fords Pony car stacks up against GM's?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ProudPony:
guionM,
Fantastic job! I know stuff like this takes time.

I found only 1 problem... we have 2 '68 model years listed. I don't know for the Camaro, but the 317,404 is correct for the Mustang. I think the other was just a copy/paste mishap.

Still - awesome job pulling those numbers together! I will copy/paste them to a folder for reference!

-Proud</font>

OOPS! Posted the '69 numbers twice the 68 model year twice. Thanks.

I thought that the Camaro outsold the Mustang in 97?

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983 Z28- 406ci
LT1 intake
AFR 195's

1995 Z28- 350ci
A4, leather, T-tops bone stock for now.
250 RWHP 300 RWT
14.0 @ 99 MPH on a 2.2 60'

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by super83Z:
I thought that the Camaro outsold the Mustang in 97?

</font>

It was the f-body line that outsold the Mustang. That's not a fair way to count, especially with Chevy's advantage in dealers, so I don't do it that way anymore.

Just the same, 95,000 vs 100,000 is nothing to be ashamed of at by a long shot! http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

Wanted to post this on this thread as well for a one stop future reference as well.

Quick Camaro vs Mustang facts:
*Mustang sold 1,291,544 cars before Camaro came out (Ford made alot of money because it was just a reskinned Falcon).

*Between the years of 1967 (the first year of Camaro) and 1998 Camaro sold 4,734,253 to Mustang's 6,108,240

*Camaro's best year was 1979 (282,571)

*Mustang's best year was 1966 (607,568)

*Camaro outsold Mustang in 1977, 1978,1984,1985, and finally in 1991.

*When Camaro came out (1967) Mustang sales dropped 133,000 units over the previous year.

*1st year of the gen2 Camaro, sales dropped by 10,000 cars. The gen3 increased sales by 63,000, gen 4, you can't honestly say because of the artificially low production of the 93's (39,000), but the 94s sold 49,000 more than the 91's.

*Mustang's 2nd gen dropped sales 41,000, MustangII increased sales by 240,000 cars(!), the fox Mustang increased sales by 177,000, the SN95 upped sales by 9,000. The 99 restyle dropped sales by 44,000 cars, but sales jumped by 90,000 the following year.

*Mustang outsold Camaro by over 2 to one in 1967,1974,1988,1996,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002 (I didn't include 1990 &1993 because those were short production runs for Camaro).

*The margins Camaro outsold Mustang in order of size): 1984(126,000), 1977(65,000), 1982(59,000), 1983(30,000), 1991(3,000).

*Ford has about 4,000 dealers. Chevrolet has over 5,000.

We might have more dealers but the M*****g is also a cheaper car, which works for them. You might get more power and everything with a Camaro, but its not as affordable.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by IZ28:
We might have more dealers but the M*****g is also a cheaper car, which works for them. You might get more power and everything with a Camaro, but its not as affordable.</font>

Compare list prices, then come back & let me know what you found. http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by IZ28:
We might have more dealers but the M*****g is also a cheaper car, which works for them. You might get more power and everything with a Camaro, but its not as affordable.</font>

Can't agree or disagree on this one because your use of the word "cheaper" is too vague. Base V6 cars - option-for-option... Maybe the Mustang has @ $1000 edge. It has volume too.

As far as power/dollar - LS1's have it all the way home. As long as we don't go throwing all the bells and whistles on it - just base V8 cars. Go to this (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=87c88877c9597b06dbb2d9c735087632&threadid=207260) thread and count down to the 16th post - and enjoy the roasting that Mustang guys put on a Mustang owner about who had the best "performance value"!

Depends on the individuals POV, doesn't it? http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

I've had these around (Capri & Firebird production numbers) so I incorperated them into the Camaro/Mustang list.
Notes:
1. Cobra production from 1965-1969 is not included (it was counted as a separate line by Ford).
2. Numbers preceded by an asterik (*) designates a redesigned version.

Year: Mustang ("fox" Capri)/Camaro (Firebird)/AMC Javelin
64:*121,583/NA
65: 559,451/NA
66: 607,568/NA
67: 474,121/ *220,906(82,560)
68: 317,404/ 235,147(107,112) 63,169
69: 299,824/ 243,065(87,708) 48,968
70: 190,727/ 124,901(48,739) --------
71:*149,678/ *114,630(53,124) 27,554
72: 125,093/ 114,630..not a typo!(29,951) 26,184
73: 134,867/ 96,751(46,313) 27,536
74:*385,993/ 151,008(73,729) 29,536
75: 188,575/ 145,770(84,063)
76: 187,567/ 182,959(110,775)
77: 153,173/ 218,858(155,736!)
78: 192,410/ 272,631(187,285!!)
79:*369,936(110,144 Capri)/ 282,571(211,455! :eek: )
80: 271,322(79,984 Capri)/ 152,005(191,340)
81: 181,552(58,946 Capri)/ 126,139(70,899)
82: 130,418(36,134 Capri)/ *189,747(116,362)
83: 120,873(25,376 Capri)/ 154,318(74,884)
84: 135,678(20,642 Capri)/ 261,591(128,304)
85: 156,514(18,657 Capri)/ 180,018(95,880)
86: 224,410(20,869 Capri)/ 192,219(110,463)
87: 159,145/ 137,760(88,612)
88: 211,225/ 96,275(62,467)
89: 209,769/ 110,850(64,406)
90: 128,189/ 35,048(20,553)
91: 98,737/ 101,316(50,247)
92: 79,280/ 70,712(27,567)
93: 114,228/ *39,755(14,313)
94:*123,198/ 119,934(45,615)
95: 185,986/ 122,844(51,730)
96: 126,483/ 66,827(31,023)
97: 100,254/ 95,812(30,754)
98: 170,642/ 77,198(32,157)
99: 126,067/ 42,098(36,219)
00: 218,525/ 45,417(?)
01: 155,162/ 29,009 (?)
(01 production stopped May 2001. 2002 had a lengthy run))
02: (not yet released)
[/QUOTE]

I'll post Barracuda/Challenger later.

Here's the correct Third Gen numbers against just the M*****g.

Production 82-92

Camaro
1982: 189,747- beats M*****g without needing Firebirds sales
1983: 154,831- beats M*****g without needing Firebirds sales
1984: 261,591- beats M*****g without needing Firebirds sales
1985: 180,018- beats M*****g without needing Firebirds sales
1986: 192,219
1987: 137,760
1988: 96,275
1989: 110,739
1990: 34,896
1991: 100,838- beats M*****g without needing Firebirds sales
1992: 70,007

Firebird
1982: 116,364
1983: 74,884
1984: 128,304
1985: 95,880
1986: 110,465
1987: 88,612
1988: 62,445
1989: 64,409
1990: 20,553
1991: 51,184
1992: 27,569

F-Body Total
1982: 306,111- Beats M*****g
1983: 229,715- Beats M*****g
1984: 389,895- Beats M*****g
1985: 275,898- Beats M*****g
1986: 302,684- Beats M*****g
1987: 226,372- Beats M*****g
1988: 158,720
1989: 175,148
1990: 55,422
1991: 152,022- Beats M*****g
1992: 97,576- Beats M*****g

M*****g Totals
1982: 130,418
1983: 120,873
1984: 141,482
1985: 156,514
1986: 224,410
1987: 159,145
1988: 211,225- F-Body lost
1989: 209,769- F-Body lost
1990: 128,189- F-Body lost
1991: 98,737
1992: 79,280

Also the 80 Firebird or any year Firebird did not outsell the Camaro. The number is 107,340 for that year.

minor detail: the mustang was redesigned in 1969, not 1971.

just a couple of notes for those who are counting:

during the years the f-bodies and the mustang/capri were both in production (67-02), there have been more total f-bodies built than mustangs/capris. surprising, but true.

f-body won in year-to-year production 20 times; lost 16 times. HALF of those 16 losses were in the 4th gen. what a surprise! (sarcasm) :rolleyes:

2nd gen and 3rd gen easily outsold same-era mustang/capri by a wide margin; 1st gen came agonizingly close but fell just short. 4th gen was WAY behind in sales compared to same-era mustang. what a surprise (sarcasm again)

opinions are opinions but hard facts are hard to argue with re: f-body demise.

GT

Originally posted by kizz
minor detail: the mustang was redesigned in 1969, not 1971.


Mustang was redesigned in both 1969 and 1971.

Originally posted by kizz
minor detail: the mustang was redesigned in 1969, not 1971.

just a couple of notes for those who are counting:

during the years the f-bodies and the mustang/capri were both in production (67-02), there have been more total f-bodies built than mustangs/capris. surprising, but true.

f-body won in year-to-year production 20 times; lost 16 times. HALF of those 16 losses were in the 4th gen. what a surprise! (sarcasm) :rolleyes:

2nd gen and 3rd gen easily outsold same-era mustang/capri by a wide margin; 1st gen came agonizingly close but fell just short. 4th gen was WAY behind in sales compared to same-era mustang. what a surprise (sarcasm again)

opinions are opinions but hard facts are hard to argue with re: f-body demise.

GT

OK, here goes:

1) Mustang in 1969 was a redesign on a carryover chassis. The 1971 while also a redesign, was far more extensive. In short, Mustang was redesigned both years.

2) Between Chevrolet's 5,000 dealers plus Pontiac's, it would be humiliating if GM hadn't sold more F-bodies than Ford did Mustangs & Capris. It's bad enough that those 5000 Chevrolet dealers couldnt push as many Camaros as the 3800-4000 Ford dealers did with Mustang and 1500 Mercury dealers with Capri.

3) The Mustang beat Camaro & Firebird combined in 1967, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1989, & 1990. None of these years was the victim the 4th gen f-body. All except 1981 (with Capri) was done by Mustang singlehandedly.

4) Throughout the 1980s, the relatively old Mustang and the newer Camaro were engaged in a horserace (no pun intended) that was both close & seesawed throughout the decade. If it makes you feel any better, Firebird beat Capri in the years it was made.

5) Camaro sales spiked in 1997, corresponding to a new interior & taillights, & Mustang's in 98, the year of Camaro's new nose. Make your own opinions there.

6) Can't really argue the 4th gen's overall performance compared to the 3rd gen, so you got me there.

Selective memory, anyone? :cool:

You forgot that the f-body also lost in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. That's 8 out of 10 4th gen years trailing to the mustang. 80% loss, while no other generation did worse than 36% loss. Your 4th gen performance claim is true, but irrelevant, since apparently buyers put their money where their mouth is, and the lower-performance mustang somehow managed to dominate the higher-performance 4th gen.

1st gen lost by a pretty close margin of 976498 to 1091349; 2nd gen won 3162262 to 2779967; 3rd gen won by the biggest margin of 2369599 to 1775916; and as of 1999, 4th gen was behind 806279 to 946858, and only getting worse as you can see yourself from the dismal 2000 - 2001 camaro numbers. If you can dispute any of those numbers, be my guest.

Might I add that the oil crisis cars, the late 2nd gen and early 3rd gen; the ones that always have their motors and wheels swapped and spraypainted flat black and 3 shades of grey, the cars nobody wants anymore, were some of the best selling f-bodies ever, relative to the economy and the mustang. Pretty ironic, isn't it? the olds 403, turbo 301, L69, crossfire, iron duke, pretty much *anything* pre-TPI, those are the ones frowned upon now but in their time they were the very same ones that sold like hotcakes and helped to cement the f-body and ensure it wouldn't turn into a FWD Citation like some people wanted. How quickly we forget. The LS1 is not anyone's saviour, as evidenced by the 2003 camaro.. the non-existent one.

GT

The mustang may have gotten a refresh job in 71 or somewhere there about, but 69-73 is the 2nd gen. Only reason I pointed it out at all is to show that the asterisk on that list should be next to 69 not 71. Like I said, just a trivial detail, no big deal.

This IS my forte, so I must pipe in here... let's get Mustang evolution straight once and for all.

As far a Mustang generation evolution goes, it's like this...

1st gen (Falcon/Torino cars) -- 64.5 thru 73
2nd gen (Ghia/Pinto cars) -- 74 thru 78
3rd gen (Fairmont/Futura Fox bodies) -- 79 thru 93
4th gen (SN - stand alone platform) -- 94 thru present.
5th gen (DEW-lite platform) -- 04 thru ???

There seems to be an issue with '69 and '71 updates, so lets clear those up too. The refresh in '69 was pretty much skin/interior only, but the body dimensions DID increase slightly - the 428 CJ engines had been installed since '68, the 427SOHC and 390GT motors had been going in since '67 - so with these powerplants, there were no issues with engine bay space. The '71 had both skin and engine bay driven changes, but the main unibody did not change much otherwise and it remained on the same platform and assembly lines. It continued to share platform with the Torino, Cougar, and Montego. Ford wanted to facilitate the 429SCJ Drag-Pac into the '71 Mustangs but it has a much wider deck than the FE-blocks (390, 428, etc) or small blocks (302, 351W, 351C) Ford had previously been using . The engine bay was widened by @ 3" between shock towers, ALL '71-'73 Mustangs got export bracing between shock towers and firewalls, and the length of the engine bay was opened about 3-4" from firewall to radiator support.

I would also like to point out 2 bizarre points that are linked to the "fattening of the Mustangs" from '69-'73...

1) '71 was the ONLY time that the Mustang was "designed around the engine", and it was a flop in most opinions. MORE bizarre is that only 1865 of the 429SCJ (RamAir or not) equipped 71 Mach I's (http://www.mach1mustang.com/71mustang/71Mach/71mach1.htm) were produced, and the engine was dropped in '72 alltogether, leaving the R-code 351 Cleveland as the biggest engine available with 335hp... Talk about changing philosophy!! Perhaps it was dropped because the '71 BOSS 351 was faster in the 1/4, lighter, and handled better, all with better economy too?!?! While the bigger, heavier cars with wider wheel-tracking made them handle great and ride great, it made the car very cumbersome and unattractive to many, not to mention visibilty over the longer hood and almost NO rear-view with the fastbacks - ergo the sales drops thru '71, '72, and '73 over the '69-'70 models.

2) It was GM's own "Bunkie" Knudsen that defected to ford in the '60s and drove the design of the '69 thru '73 Mustangs (http://www.cherokee.k12.ga.us/sequoyah-hs/FORD%20MUSTANG%20WEB/history_from_1969-73.htm) to be so large. Bunkie was the driving force behind ALL Ford products getting mammoth proportions in the early '70s - the T-bird, the LTDs, the Torinos... everything except the Pinto and Maverick balloned under his authoritative signature. The cool thing about Knudsen was that he was performance oriented too - he had much to do with creating the Mach I back in '69 which ran all the way thru the '73 models under his eye. He also authorised Shinoda to develop the BOSS 429 (http://www.amclassics.com/Archives/69maroonbosspics.html) , BOSS 302 (http://www.mach1mustang.com/69-70boss302/69boss302.htm) , and BOSS 351 (http://www.mach1mustang.com/71mustang/71Boss/71boss.htm) . (I love pics... :D)

I have yet to decide whether Bunkie was a sacrificial "plant" at Ford, put there to run things in the ground - or if he was actually a good thing... He sure made big fat ugly cars, but he liked to put power in them. He also authorized the development of Mach I and BOSS Mustangs, which are still legendary to this day. How many of you guys knew the Mach I was actually a concept largely thought up and promoted by a GM guy that couldn't sell it in the General's house?

OK - 'nuf history for 1 day... :cool:

Originally posted by kizz
The mustang may have gotten a refresh job in 71 or somewhere there about, but 69-73 is the 2nd gen. Only reason I pointed it out at all is to show that the asterisk on that list should be next to 69 not 71. Like I said, just a trivial detail, no big deal.

Mustang owners & historians would strongly disagree & I can't say I blame them. The 69 was a rebody, while the 71 was much along the same lines as our 4th gen, but even moreso because the dimensions changed greatly & the styling changed directions. The '69 is what the S197 is stylistically based on. The '71 is the blunt nose version with the flatback:

1968: http://www.geocities.com/~mustangs68/
1969: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1517/Mach1.html
1971: http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/rob/models/mustan01.htm

As you see, the 68 & 69 were much the same, while the "71-73 were radically different. Mustang tends to go through many more updates than Camaro does.

Also, no selective memory (not yet anyway :) ), I simply wanted to show that Mustang did win the sales race before the 4th gen came out. You had me on the sales performance of the 4th gen....it has been disappointing. It's a shame too. The 4th gen is certainly the best built and quickest Camaros ever made.

As far as the 70s & 80s Camaro, of course they aren't desireable. There were so many of them. I remember in the late 70s, mid 60s Mustangs were still a dime a dozen. It's usually the rare cars that are sought after. That's why I think LS1 F-Bodies will be pretty valuable in about 10-15 years unless we have economy sedans that are as fast, which isn't all that unlikely considering there are a few FWD sedans today that are LT1 quick. :(

On the '69 Mustang link, you'll have to scroll down a bit to see it.

EEK! Sorry but I had forgotten just how nasty the early 70's Mustangs were...that '71 is..well....:barf:

Originally posted by ProudPony
This IS my forte, so I must pipe in here... let's get Mustang evolution straight once and for all.

As far a Mustang generation evolution goes, it's like this...

1st gen (Falcon/Torino cars) -- 64.5 thru 73
2nd gen (Ghia/Pinto cars) -- 74 thru 78
3rd gen (Fairmont/Futura Fox bodies) -- 79 thru 93
4th gen (SN - stand alone platform) -- 94 thru present.
5th gen (DEW-lite platform) -- 04 thru ???

There seems to be an issue with '69 and '71 updates, so lets clear those up too. The refresh in '69 was pretty much skin/interior only, but the body dimensions DID increase slightly - the 428 CJ engines had been installed since '68, the 427SOHC and 390GT motors had been going in since '67 - so with these powerplants, there were no issues with engine bay space. The '71 had both skin and engine bay driven changes, but the main unibody did not change much otherwise and it remained on the same platform and assembly lines. It continued to share platform with the Torino, Cougar, and Montego. Ford wanted to facilitate the 429SCJ Drag-Pac into the '71 Mustangs but it has a much wider deck than the FE-blocks (390, 428, etc) or small blocks (302, 351W, 351C) Ford had previously been using . The engine bay was widened by @ 3" between shock towers, ALL '71-'73 Mustangs got export bracing between shock towers and firewalls, and the length of the engine bay was opened about 3-4" from firewall to radiator support.

Seems to me the 71-73 had enough changes to qualify it as a new generation. That is certainly far more changes than the 4th gen Camaro had over the 3rd.

I would also like to point out 2 bizarre points that are linked to the "fattening of the Mustangs" from '69-'73...

1) '71 was the ONLY time that the Mustang was "designed around the engine", and it was a flop in most opinions. MORE bizarre is that only 1865 of the 429SCJ (RamAir or not) equipped 71 Mach I's (http://www.mach1mustang.com/71mustang/71Mach/71mach1.htm) were produced, and the engine was dropped in '72 alltogether, leaving the R-code 351 Cleveland as the biggest engine available with 335hp... Talk about changing philosophy!! Perhaps it was dropped because the '71 BOSS 351 was faster in the 1/4, lighter, and handled better, all with better economy too?!?! While the bigger, heavier cars with wider wheel-tracking made them handle great and ride great, it made the car very cumbersome and unattractive to many, not to mention visibilty over the longer hood and almost NO rear-view with the fastbacks - ergo the sales drops thru '71, '72, and '73 over the '69-'70 models.[/B]

Chrysler's partially to blame for that. The Barracuda/Challenger was designed for the big 440. Ford (and GM as well) believed this to be the direction the market was heading (remember, the planning for these cars was before insurence & strict emissions were issues, & before the ponycar market began to disintergrate).

2) It was GM's own "Bunkie" Knudsen that defected to ford in the '60s and drove the design of the '69 thru '73 Mustangs (http://www.cherokee.k12.ga.us/sequoyah-hs/FORD%20MUSTANG%20WEB/history_from_1969-73.htm) to be so large. Bunkie was the driving force behind ALL Ford products getting mammoth proportions in the early '70s - the T-bird, the LTDs, the Torinos... everything except the Pinto and Maverick balloned under his authoritative signature. The cool thing about Knudsen was that he was performance oriented too - he had much to do with creating the Mach I back in '69 which ran all the way thru the '73 models under his eye. He also authorised Shinoda to develop the BOSS 429 (http://www.amclassics.com/Archives/69maroonbosspics.html) , BOSS 302 (http://www.mach1mustang.com/69-70boss302/69boss302.htm) , and BOSS 351 (http://www.mach1mustang.com/71mustang/71Boss/71boss.htm) . (I love pics... :D)

I have yet to decide whether Bunkie was a sacrificial "plant" at Ford, put there to run things in the ground - or if he was actually a good thing... He sure made big fat ugly cars, but he liked to put power in them. He also authorized the development of Mach I and BOSS Mustangs, which are still legendary to this day. How many of you guys knew the Mach I was actually a concept largely thought up and promoted by a GM guy that couldn't sell it in the General's house?

OK - 'nuf history for 1 day... :cool: [/B]

You are 100% correct about Bunkie Knudsen. He & Iacocca had a royal conflict over Mustang, with Iacocca felling Mustang was leaving it's market & no longer attracting youthful buyers. He actually started the MustangII's "Arizona project" in 1969 (yes, BEFORE the '71 even came out. The Mustang's sales drop in '71 pretty much gave Iacocca all the ammo he needed. Ironcally, it was purely dumb luck (and nothing more) that the Mustang II came out at the begining of a major fuel shortage.

As strange as it sounds today, Mustang II saved the Mustang. It surely would have died (at least till the fox cars) if it wasn't for that car.

68 & 69 were similar, pretty much identical on the front, but from the door back I don't see any similarity. I see more similarity between the 69 & 71 than I do between the 68 & 69. If I stand corrected, so be it. mustangs aren't my area of expertise by any means. I just know that whatever they did in 69 caused a brand new look which looked bloated and too big and the look remained till 73, and I can't justify calling 64.5 - 73 the 1st gen. The 64.5/68's are the original looking ones which are pretty common and decent looking that they're still daily drivers for lots of people around here anyway. Even see a fastback now and then, just being driven daily.

Originally posted by guionM
Seems to me the 71-73 had enough changes to qualify it as a new generation. That is certainly far more changes than the 4th gen Camaro had over the 3rd.


Point well made. I don't disagree that there were alot of changes that year to be sure, but if you look at the MCA show classes, talk to the owners, or even look at the catalog (http://www.npdlink.com/flash/new-mustang.html) offerings, you will see a decided majority choose to use 65-73 as the "originals", or the 1st generation delimiters. I didn't make the rules, I just learn to play by them. :rolleyes:

Interestingly, the Mustang had interior and/or exterior changes every year from 64.5 thru 71. The 72 was the first year that there was no discernable changes to the car. Impending doom to blame there, with the M-II being developed. So change has always been a constant in the Mustang.

kizz - I hear your side, and agree about the '69 looking very similar to the'71. As for the '68 and the '69, well I can't say you are wrong at all because taste and impressions are personal things, not facts. But I politely disagree about the '68-'69 front end likenesses. The '68 had 2 headlamps, the '69 has 4. The '68 grill has a pony-in-corral, the '69 has pony across tri-bars. '69 has different running lamps and turn signals too. Also, if '69 coupe (not Mach 1) is optioned with side scoops behind the doors, they all appear to be fat and upside-down, pushing air out, not scooping it in! The '68 side scoops really appear to be scoops and are very slender. This is really goofy stuff to someone who doesn't collect them like I do, and I realize that, but to me the '68 and '69 look ALOT different. As for body/interior likenesses, they "pair" like this... 64.5-66 (same), 67-68 (same), 69-70 (same), 71-73, 74-78, 79-86, 87-93, 94-98, 99-now.


Also, the '71 - '73 Mustangs (http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/gallery_1.htm) were styled largely after the '69 Shelby (http://www.thecarsource.com/shelby/1969-70/69pics.html) version of the Mustang - from grill opening to fog lamps and even hood scoops. Funny (not-funny actually) how they made the last big original Mustang look just like the last Original Shelby... :confused: hmmm...

Peace. :cool:

I would just like to point out that the 68 and 69 Mustangs share no exterior sheetmetal. Aside from perhaps the carpet, the interior was entirely different as well. Sounds like a new car to me.

Well good, the last 2 posts just go to prove my original point that the 68 was the last year of the original sheet metal and the original overall style, and that 69 was a whole new ball game with major updates. Then after I got replies suggesting I was a lunatic, I conceded to guionM that OK yeah, the 69 front is similar to the 68 front and maybe 64-73 are all related or based on the same platform. Well who knows. I don't know what year is the technical generation and what isn't, but I do know that what my eye likes is the 65-68, and what it dislikes is the 69-73 (69-infinity, for that matter), so in order for there to be such high contrast of opinions between the two, they must've done something major in 69 to make it the first year of some new style that seemed to have lasted till 73. Who knows. I'm going back to my firebirds :p

rtt

Here this tid bit will bust your balls.
Since you guys had leaned to putting the F-body against the Mustang (dual cars to basicly one) Why not add up every car Ford made running on the FOX body.Heck throw in every car that ran on the Mustang platform over the years,That (other then guionM keeping it even,Good job BTW) would be such a beating IZ28 would :cry: .

Lets see Ill do a list.It might not be all of them but the point will be made.

Late 60's
Falcon,Torino, Cougar, and Montego.

70's
Pinto.

FOX body.
Capri,Cougar,T-Bird,Mark 7,LTD II,Fairmont,Zeypher.

So when you want to add a chassis to chassis regaurding a certain chassis lets do it RIGHT!:p

(guionM good job on trying to keep this even,But I figured I'd chime in and make the game EVEN once more,Well er sorta.Acctually it isnt even at all anymore!:eek: )

Proud Pony Im sure you notice some I missed,But I think what I put is enough to shut this combined sales :bs: down.
Oh yeah,I get to put this one in :Owned: :metal:

MPFAROUT-----------THIS POST IS FOR YOU!!!!!! :D ;)

I wouldn't care, because its Camaro and Firebird vs. M*stang and no other car. Its against the cars that are in the same class and market. If you don't wanna put in the Firebird, fine. The Third Gen Camaro beat the cheapS*ang itself for 5 years 82-92 and that is saying alot since its the only time it ever happened. ;)

Originally posted by IZ28
I wouldn't care, because its Camaro and Firebird vs. M*stang and no other car. Its against the cars that are in the same class and market. If you don't wanna put in the Firebird, fine. The Third Gen Camaro beat the cheapS*ang itself for 5 years 82-92 and that is saying alot since its the only time it ever happened. ;)


Acctually your wrong,This THREAD is Mustang vs." C*M*R* " yearly sales you nit wit.
The point I was making was it is STUPID to compare a chassis vs. a chassis.Which your saying F-body as the whole shi-bang F-bird and C*m*r*.So I tossed in my BS and said ALL the cars that "SHARED" the same chassis with the MUSTANG :p.Take your "same class and market" and shove it where the sun dont shine because it is pointless with the topic of this thread.:bs: :rolleyes: :think:

Maybe I should make a Camaro/Firebird vs Barracuda/Challenger vs Mustang/Cougar & Mustang/Capri thread instead? ;)

This IS a Mustang vs Camaro thread. I know, because I started it!

MY thread, MY rules! :p :p :D

Yup Guion!! :D But technically the Firebird should be included in a sales comparison and I wasn't the 1st to bring it up in this Camaro and M*stang (only!!) post. *Doh*

BTW guess who, get lost and do me a favor and don't mention me in your posts anymore. I do my best to ignore you and people like you who act like a little kid, and name call. :rolleyes:

I can see why GM cancelled the Camaro. In 1967, when the population was alot less, they sold ahelluva lot more Camaros. The same can be said for the mustang. Their target audience is the younger generation, but both cars are priced well out of their range.I can see why kids are flocking to $16k imports.

Egad!!

It's "Night of the Living Dead (Threads)":eek:

I thought we'd seen the last of this one!

Originally posted by IZ28
Yup Guion!! :D But technically the Firebird should be included in a sales comparison and I wasn't the 1st to bring it up in this Camaro and M*stang (only!!) post. *Doh*

Um,Yes you were the first to bring it up.
Remember this?

F-Body Total
1982: 306,111- Beats M*****g
1983: 229,715- Beats M*****g
1984: 389,895- Beats M*****g
1985: 275,898- Beats M*****g
1986: 302,684- Beats M*****g
1987: 226,372- Beats M*****g
1988: 158,720
1989: 175,148
1990: 55,422
1991: 152,022- Beats M*****g
1992: 97,576- Beats M*****



Originally posted by IZ28

BTW guess who, get lost and do me a favor and don't mention me in your posts anymore. I do my best to ignore you and people like you who act like a little kid, and name call. :rolleyes:

The funny part of your post is you fail to realize people saythe same thing about you?.

Originally posted by guionM
Maybe I should make a Camaro/Firebird vs Barracuda/Challenger vs Mustang/Cougar & Mustang/Capri thread instead? ;)

This IS a Mustang vs Camaro thread. I know, because I started it!

MY thread, MY rules! :p :p :D

Sorry I took this off course guionM,This thread is very interesting.And I wont be a pud and further make this some kiddie game.:usa:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guess who
Um, Yes you were the first to bring it up.
Remember this?

Wrong again. :) It was GuionM who posted the Camaro and Firebird numbers 1st, I just posted corrections. And some1 else was interested in seeing the F-Body total. Go back and read. ;)

The funny part of your post is you fail to realize people saythe same thing about you?.

I must've missed that. :rolleyes: Sometimes I can get a mixed response because of comments about F*rd, the M*stang, new cars, or 4th Gens, (:D) but I never make a personal or a rude remark towards any1, we're here to discuss cars. Grow up. I have nothing left to say to you so I really hope this is it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IZ28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by guess who
[B]Um, Yes you were the first to bring it up.
Remember this?

Wrong again. :) It was GuionM who posted the Camaro and Firebird numbers 1st, I just posted corrections. And some1 else was interested in seeing the F-Body total. Go back and read. ;)

Dang it!You got me :D ;)

(For the record,I was just bustin ur balls when I called you out.I know how big of a c*m*r* guy you are:p :D )

When bored, it's fun to see what happens when an old beaten to death subject, is brought back to the top again. :p

Seriously though, in another thread someone made an reference to Mustang sales, and it reminded me of this, so I bought it back for reference before it dropped off the archives like my 'sigma notes' did.

Still, it's intresting seeing the same debate resurface. Proves some things never are truly resolved. :)

Originally posted by guess who
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IZ28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by guess who
[B]Um, Yes you were the first to bring it up.
Remember this?

Wrong again. :) It was GuionM who posted the Camaro and Firebird numbers 1st, I just posted corrections. And some1 else was interested in seeing the F-Body total. Go back and read. ;)

Dang it!You got me :D ;)

(For the record,I was just bustin ur balls when I called you out.I know how big of a c*m*r* guy you are:p :D )

See. :D Be cool. :cool:

Guess who; I have a feeling you wouldn't be calling people nitwits and calling them outright stupid if you were standing face to face with them. You can pass it off as a joke online and hope the other person shares your sense of humor, but some people's sense of humor also includes giving black eyes, so you never know what to expect, which is why it's best to maintain humility and mutual respect on here. Put the crayons away and lose the "my opinion is fact! when will everyone wake up and realize this!?" attitude.

Go ahead and explain it away now as having meant something else. You're not fooling anyone.

Like I've said before.. good thing I'm not the admin.

gt

Originally posted by kizz
Guess who; I have a feeling you wouldn't be calling people nitwits and calling them outright stupid if you were standing face to face with them. You can pass it off as a joke online and hope the other person shares your sense of humor, but some people's sense of humor also includes giving black eyes, so you never know what to expect, which is why it's best to maintain humility and mutual respect on here. Put the crayons away and lose the "my opinion is fact! when will everyone wake up and realize this!?" attitude.

Go ahead and explain it away now as having meant something else. You're not fooling anyone.

Like I've said before.. good thing I'm not the admin.

gt :cry: :cry: :cry:

Dude,He knows I mess with him from time to time.I know he is one that can handle it,He just missed the joke.Now you on the other hand are going off the deep end with your post.I didnt see anyone call your name out?But your calling mine like we are in bed together or something.IZ28 doesnt need a daddy on this forum,The reason (why Im telling you I dont have the slightest) why I messed with him is because he is a "DIE HARD" Camaro guy.Im more of a "DIE HARD" Ford guy so he is one I can see having some comical jokes on this forum with out other people dipping in "our" conversations.................

Me and IZ28 are cool,Why dont you be cool and leave my name out of your posts.

Originally posted by kizz
Guess who; I have a feeling you wouldn't be calling people nitwits and calling them outright stupid if you were standing face to face with them.

Why would I be affraid of someone who breaths the same air as I do?

Hi there,

I found your post in this forum very interesting and I'm actually doing a marketing project on the history of the ford Mustang. I was wondering if you were able to tell me where to get the sale numbers for 2000 until 2008. Where did you find this information?

You would be very nice to help me out here. I've been searching the internet for this a lot and your post was the only thing that really helped me out.

Thanks a lot!!!

-G

Hi there,

I found your post in this forum very interesting and I'm actually doing a marketing project on the history of the ford Mustang. I was wondering if you were able to tell me where to get the sale numbers for 2000 until 2008. Where did you find this information?

You would be very nice to help me out here. I've been searching the internet for this a lot and your post was the only thing that really helped me out.

Thanks a lot!!!

-G

I normally get my information directly from the media services of each car company (GM Ford & Chrysler).

You should also be able to type in "Mustang Production Numbers" Or "Mustang Sales Numbers" and the appropriate year into Google or Yahoo, and get a number of sources.

If you want to get int breakdowns and specifics, contact "Proudpony" on this site. While I have to jog my memory and often look things up, this person can recite any Mustang trivia or source off the top of his head.

Good Luck. :)

Holy old post batman, I was reading it and it didn't make sense that the 2002 Camaro numbers haven't been released yet... :lol:

Since this is back on top, should be said that if you haven't ordered a 2009 Mustang by now, you can probably forget about it. Ford's only making 45,000 this year, and then they are going to switch over to the new 2010s.

The 2 door Challenger is outselling the supposedly volume making Dodge Avenger. Dodge is still selling about 2 Chargers for each Challenger, but the fact that Chrysler supposedly only expected to sell about 30,000 Challengers annually and save for the factory shutdown, they are on target to easily sell 32,000 this model year making the Challenger a pretty big success at Chrysler (in December, it's sales were within 500 cars of the Chrysler 300).

In December, Ford sold 4,027 Mustangs.
Dodge sold 2,602 Challengers.

Unrelated comparisons for a bit of perspective:

*VW sold 1600 Beetles
*Hyundai sold 601 Tiburons
*Infiniti sold 1,053 G35/37 coupes
*Scion sold 1,794 Xb
*Chevy sold 1,324 Corvettes & 2,257 Aveos
*Pontiac sold 2,464 G5s & 1,479 G8s

I haven't gotten the breakdowns for Cobalt and Honda's Accord, but barring those 2 vehicles, seems the Challenger is the 2nd best selling sports coupe in the US... at the moment.

The way it stacks up against that offbeat collection of cars is also very good considering save the Corvette, G35/37 and maybe the G8, the Challenger likely brings in more money per car than the others.

Not bad at all.

so pretty much every year there was never a shortage of mustangs for camaros to take down.

All I see driving mustangs now is a bunch of old white trash women or over the hill men.

LOL. Nothing like an informative thread going down the tubes.

so pretty much every year there was never a shortage of mustangs for camaros to take down.

All I see driving mustangs now is a bunch of old white trash women or over the hill men.

Looking at Mustang's demographics, the average age of a Mustang buyer is 35 years old.

55% of all Mustang buyers are men, but that jumps up for the GT to over 65% (roughly 4th gen Camaro's level). That goes to about 90%+ for men for the Cobra and GT500 (the only model with a key demographic above 40....which by the way was the 4th gen Camaro's buyer median age).

In 2002, a far higher percentage of Mustang GTs went out as manuals than Camaro LS1s.... alot higher.

If you are seeing nothing but old white trash women and over the hill men driving Mustangs, you might consider getting out of Jacksonville Florida a bit more often. ;)

Here's the correct Third Gen numbers against just the M*****g.

Hey I noticed something about your keyboard, I bet its aggrevating as hell the U - S - T - A - N keys dont work correctly all the time?

Hey I noticed something about your keyboard, I bet its aggrevating as hell the U - S - T - A - N keys dont work correctly all the time?

Wow, 7 y/o post. Definetly, these days it looks more like this though: M*stang. ;) This is, after all, enemy territory! (more like competitive territory, and it should stay that way I think, good for business :think:)

:D

10chars

Since this is back on top, should be said that if you haven't ordered a 2009 Mustang by now, you can probably forget about it. Ford's only making 45,000 this year, and then they are going to switch over to the new 2010s.

Nice post. :bow:

Funny you picked-up on this Guy. You are into the numbers as usual! :bow:
Some other poster(s) on this site would probably think Ford was throwing in the towel on the '09 Mustang because the new Challenger is faster than the GT. ;)
But I'm boubting that myself.

So here we have another totally freakish accident that nobody can explain from Ford... they are making 45,000 units in 6 months, and that's it.
Oh, and some retard put this unique, never-before used "horseshoe" with the numbers "4" and "5" across it on this short-run of cars too.
Something about a birthday or anniversary... I don't recall.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/05/mustang-45.jpg

Could this be some kind of marketing strategy...
hmmm. :think:

Bumporama. Great thread :D

And Mustang only outsold Challenger by a couple hundred units in January 09 (2,944 to 2,757). That's pretty amazing for Dodge considering the overall state of the market.

Bumporama. Great thread :D

And Mustang only outsold Challenger by a couple hundred units in January 09 (2,944 to 2,757). That's pretty amazing for Dodge considering the overall state of the market.

But think about it - Challenger is totally fresh, new offering. It';; NEVER get a better demand than it has now. Those who have been waiting years for it.. now have it.

Nowhere to go but...

Bumporama. Great thread :D

And Mustang only outsold Challenger by a couple hundred units in January 09 (2,944 to 2,757). That's pretty amazing for Dodge considering the overall state of the market.

Every since Challenger went to a full line, it's sales have been almost exactly what the Monte Carlo was it's last few years.

I think that the appeal with the Challenger is exactly what appeals to me on a practical sense: It's the only full sized coupe on the market that doesn't have a BMW or Mercedes Benz name on the front or price tag on the window!

On a person sense, having RWD a big but not-so-thirsty V8, and an avalable manual for the price of what a Monte Carlo SS or Grand Prix GXP would cost today with a few years of inflation is a much bigger pull than the detractors of it classic looks and proportions might think.

I was never "waiting" for another Dodge Challenger. I doubt very many people were. Chrysler is actually bringing in new buyers with the Challenger. It's simply a good car.... and the only vehicle of it's kind (including price) in the US if not the world.



A sidenote on the idea that high auction prices on old Challengers mean that they are in high demand:

The reason why they are astronomically priced in Barrett Jackson auctions is because they are extremely, extremely rare (much how certain 69 Camaros are worth 25 grand while others...ie: ZR1 versions... bring up to 500K.

First, Challengers came out just when pony car sales went into a nosedive, and were around only a few years. Then, if that didn't make them rare enough, there is the fact that 70s era Dodge Challengers had an issue with rust. Any that lasted into the 80s (let alone into the new century) a matter of luck dry humidless air, and a few very skilled welders and replacement body parts more than anything else.

You all are comparing a brand new (1/2 model year old) to a 4 year old design? Challenger's bubble will pop just like the other LX's. Granted it will probably pop back to where Chrysler projected volumes, so that is a good thing for them.

You all are comparing a brand new (1/2 model year old) to a 4 year old design? Challenger's bubble will pop just like the other LX's. Granted it will probably pop back to where Chrysler projected volumes, so that is a good thing for them.

What I was trying to convey as well.

I don't dislike it at all, and don't wish sales to drop - just saying that demand will never be more for this design, this model, this exact car than it is right now... it can only go down until an MCE or other freshening/offering is put in place. THEN, who knows... it may get even better (which we hope it does!).

what the hell happened from 99-01 it just sucked in sales to previous years