2011 Ford Mustang Gets New 305 HP V6, 30 MPG
11-30-2009, 02:21 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
Threxx,
Totally understand your position here. And please go back and read in my first post in this thread where I said..."I'm not asking if this is a good deal or not.
I'm not comparing the performance of these cars to the performance of the LT1 or the last 5.0 produced. I'm not whining about the gadgets and doo-dads that are becoming so prevailent in these cars as options or standard equipment. I am speaking in absolutes of the market."
Didn't say that mid-$20's was a bad deal for a 300hp V6 stang with lots of goodies. What I AM SAYING is that there are better deals out there for basic transportation... the kind of transportation that the 1988 4-cylinder you referred to (with 90hp) was providing masses of buyers back then. In fact - MOST buyers were opting for it.
I simply hate to see every Mustang buyer being forced to pay for performance and "goodies" that they may not want, and/or will never use. Why can't Ford keep the recipe simple and offer the basics for those that only want the basics? History indicates that more people wanted a basic car that had cool styling than wanted a land missile - both in the Mustang and the Camaro. So why are we now going to great lengths and pains to option-up these ponycars and make them something they were never intended to be?
Likewise, why are we letting the younger crowds be wooed away from the traditional cars of passion for new import offerings? This is the travesty and mismanagement of these two models in my opinion. And that's all it is - my opinion. Just wanted to share it because I feel that the recent trends with these two models are very troublesome. I am seriously concerned about the longevity of either one, and if we don't discuss it, what good does it do?
So cool to see new developments and performance for those of us who want it and might use it. Sux to see everyone else having to pay for it whether they want it or not. Bad call IMO.
BTW - when this 300hp V6 becomes the entry level base engine, you pretty much don't have a choice in getting it or not. The track-pak maybe because it's an option box to check, but the engine and tranny are your entry level choices. You go up on power AND cost from there. Hence my "everyone must take it or leave it" attitude.
Totally understand your position here. And please go back and read in my first post in this thread where I said..."I'm not asking if this is a good deal or not.
I'm not comparing the performance of these cars to the performance of the LT1 or the last 5.0 produced. I'm not whining about the gadgets and doo-dads that are becoming so prevailent in these cars as options or standard equipment. I am speaking in absolutes of the market."
Didn't say that mid-$20's was a bad deal for a 300hp V6 stang with lots of goodies. What I AM SAYING is that there are better deals out there for basic transportation... the kind of transportation that the 1988 4-cylinder you referred to (with 90hp) was providing masses of buyers back then. In fact - MOST buyers were opting for it.
I simply hate to see every Mustang buyer being forced to pay for performance and "goodies" that they may not want, and/or will never use. Why can't Ford keep the recipe simple and offer the basics for those that only want the basics? History indicates that more people wanted a basic car that had cool styling than wanted a land missile - both in the Mustang and the Camaro. So why are we now going to great lengths and pains to option-up these ponycars and make them something they were never intended to be?
Likewise, why are we letting the younger crowds be wooed away from the traditional cars of passion for new import offerings? This is the travesty and mismanagement of these two models in my opinion. And that's all it is - my opinion. Just wanted to share it because I feel that the recent trends with these two models are very troublesome. I am seriously concerned about the longevity of either one, and if we don't discuss it, what good does it do?
So cool to see new developments and performance for those of us who want it and might use it. Sux to see everyone else having to pay for it whether they want it or not. Bad call IMO.
BTW - when this 300hp V6 becomes the entry level base engine, you pretty much don't have a choice in getting it or not. The track-pak maybe because it's an option box to check, but the engine and tranny are your entry level choices. You go up on power AND cost from there. Hence my "everyone must take it or leave it" attitude.
I could be misunderstanding you but that seems to be sort of what you're saying.
If so I honestly believe they've reached the point where:
-Not that many people would go for those lack of options
-Because of the above fact, economies of scale in the design/engineering phase, production/assembly phase, the support (repairs, troubleshooting, etc) phase, etc add too much cost to include those 'lesser' options.
-In the case of safety equipment I'll bet the increase in premiums and decrease in crash safety ratings would hurt them more than help them.
Let's consider this... in the 90s most car manufacturers were offering mid sized family sedans (Camry, Taurus, Accord, etc) without power windows and locks. From what I heard they didn't make much money on these cars but they were often times the ones that got people in the door to buy more expensive models. These days ALL cars in this class (though I haven't verified) have standard power locks and windows. Heck the class below where Civic/Corolla/Cruze hang out now offers leather and nav almost universally and have power locks/windows in all but their most discounted trims. I wouldn't be surprised if in another 5-10 years this class doesn't offer manual locks/windows either and wouldn't even be surprised if by then almost all new cars came standard with LCD touch screens.
11-30-2009, 02:28 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
11-30-2009, 03:33 PM
#48
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
11-30-2009, 03:44 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
regular, and I agree
11-30-2009, 03:52 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
http://media.ford.com/mini%5Fsites/10031/2011Mustang/
Click on "Technical Specifications." Look for "BASE CURB WEIGHT" on page 3.
You know, I read on one of the Mustang sites that the 2010 Mustang did not meet 2012 crash standards (what changes? roof crush? side impact?) while the 2010 Camaro and Challenger do. There was speculation as to how much weight that would add and whether the 2011 would meet those standards.
Click on "Technical Specifications." Look for "BASE CURB WEIGHT" on page 3.
You know, I read on one of the Mustang sites that the 2010 Mustang did not meet 2012 crash standards (what changes? roof crush? side impact?) while the 2010 Camaro and Challenger do. There was speculation as to how much weight that would add and whether the 2011 would meet those standards.
11-30-2009, 03:54 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 1,448
ProudPony,
I don't think there was ever a day where 16-18 year olds would go out and buy new Mustangs and Camaros. I also don't think this is where Ford or GM needs to market these vehicles. As long as they look cool, people are going to want them, including that 16-18 market. The problem is, the 16-18 market can't afford new cars.
Ford needs to have the Euro Focus here to attract more youthful buyers. GM needs the Cruze to be a hit, but also the Fiesta, Spark, and Aveo need to be big hits to attract the younger buyers for something they might actually have a shot at buying, used.
I don't think there was ever a day where 16-18 year olds would go out and buy new Mustangs and Camaros. I also don't think this is where Ford or GM needs to market these vehicles. As long as they look cool, people are going to want them, including that 16-18 market. The problem is, the 16-18 market can't afford new cars.
Ford needs to have the Euro Focus here to attract more youthful buyers. GM needs the Cruze to be a hit, but also the Fiesta, Spark, and Aveo need to be big hits to attract the younger buyers for something they might actually have a shot at buying, used.
11-30-2009, 04:06 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Using Charlie's signature as a definition, the Pony Cars of tomorrow be based on vehicles like the Cruze, Fiesta/Focus, Civic, etc.
It would be a mistake to try to market a RWD car for that market for a lot of reasons. It's better to leave RWD for aspirational cars with more content, higher performance, and unfortunately, higher costs.
I saw Ford Mustang V6s advertised for $15K in last weekend's newspaper, but at the volume of that platform and its components, I doubt that Ford makes money on them, but it certainly could on a highly-styled Fiesta.
It would be a mistake to try to market a RWD car for that market for a lot of reasons. It's better to leave RWD for aspirational cars with more content, higher performance, and unfortunately, higher costs.
I saw Ford Mustang V6s advertised for $15K in last weekend's newspaper, but at the volume of that platform and its components, I doubt that Ford makes money on them, but it certainly could on a highly-styled Fiesta.
11-30-2009, 04:06 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
--->edit<--- It'd certianly be better than the psycho mom who bought her 17 year old son a GT500, who promptly totaled it, then replaced the one he smashed up with another GT500.
Last edited by bossco; 11-30-2009 at 04:09 PM.
11-30-2009, 04:07 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
ProudPony,
I don't think there was ever a day where 16-18 year olds would go out and buy new Mustangs and Camaros. I also don't think this is where Ford or GM needs to market these vehicles. As long as they look cool, people are going to want them, including that 16-18 market. The problem is, the 16-18 market can't afford new cars.
Ford needs to have the Euro Focus here to attract more youthful buyers. GM needs the Cruze to be a hit, but also the Fiesta, Spark, and Aveo need to be big hits to attract the younger buyers for something they might actually have a shot at buying, used.
I don't think there was ever a day where 16-18 year olds would go out and buy new Mustangs and Camaros. I also don't think this is where Ford or GM needs to market these vehicles. As long as they look cool, people are going to want them, including that 16-18 market. The problem is, the 16-18 market can't afford new cars.
Ford needs to have the Euro Focus here to attract more youthful buyers. GM needs the Cruze to be a hit, but also the Fiesta, Spark, and Aveo need to be big hits to attract the younger buyers for something they might actually have a shot at buying, used.
What age group?
What income sector?
What is the intended use of the car, and who should be buying it?
And to take it one step further... if the younger generation starts in a Focus or Fiesta, when do they step-up to the Mustang in your plan? When they start a family, they are looking at the Taurus or Fusion, Escape or Explorer. If they are suburban, they may go for teh F150 or 250 in a crew cab - especially if they are into outdoor activity like boating or 4-wheelers.
So help me understand when and why someone would buy a V6 stang if they start in a Focus...
(I am being totally serious here - no sarcasm whatsoever.)
11-30-2009, 04:12 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Even with traction control and all the "electronic driving assistance", a car can get going WAY faster than an inexperienced driver can get it stopped. Driving into a situation can take very little time in any car... even less in a fast one.
11-30-2009, 04:13 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
So I'm curious... in your opinion, WHAT is the target market for the Mustang today?
What age group?
What income sector?
What is the intended use of the car, and who should be buying it?
And to take it one step further... if the younger generation starts in a Focus or Fiesta, when do they step-up to the Mustang in your plan? When they start a family, they are looking at the Taurus or Fusion, Escape or Explorer. If they are suburban, they may go for teh F150 or 250 in a crew cab - especially if they are into outdoor activity like boating or 4-wheelers.
So help me understand when and why someone would buy a V6 stang if they start in a Focus...
(I am being totally serious here - no sarcasm whatsoever.)
What age group?
What income sector?
What is the intended use of the car, and who should be buying it?
And to take it one step further... if the younger generation starts in a Focus or Fiesta, when do they step-up to the Mustang in your plan? When they start a family, they are looking at the Taurus or Fusion, Escape or Explorer. If they are suburban, they may go for teh F150 or 250 in a crew cab - especially if they are into outdoor activity like boating or 4-wheelers.
So help me understand when and why someone would buy a V6 stang if they start in a Focus...
(I am being totally serious here - no sarcasm whatsoever.)
If we look at the 64-73 Mustang as an example, I'd say that the Focus (or a Focus/Fiesta coupe) would appeal to those who would have bought an I6 or small V8 Mustang, and the Mustang would appeal to those who bought a high performance small V8 or any of the larger V8 Mustangs (289 hi-po, Boss 302/351, 390, 428, etc.).
The Mustang also competes with BMW 3-series coupes, offering a lower price point and better acceleration for a similar type of car.
11-30-2009, 04:17 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,217
Looks like the Ford V6 produces 280 ft-lbs at 4,250rpm and the Chevy V6 produces 273 ft-lbs. at 5200rpm. That's a pretty good advantage to the Mustang, especially considering its lighter weight. Good job Ford.
11-30-2009, 04:28 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
But according to the spec sheets, the 2011 V6 Mustang is not lighter than the V6 Camaro. Time will tell how accurate the Mustang spec sheet is (we know by now that Camaro's is pretty much spot on).
11-30-2009, 04:34 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
http://media.ford.com/mini%5Fsites/10031/2011Mustang/
Click on "Technical Specifications." Look for "BASE CURB WEIGHT" on page 3.
You know, I read on one of the Mustang sites that the 2010 Mustang did not meet 2012 crash standards (what changes? roof crush? side impact?) while the 2010 Camaro and Challenger do. There was speculation as to how much weight that would add and whether the 2011 would meet those standards.
Click on "Technical Specifications." Look for "BASE CURB WEIGHT" on page 3.
You know, I read on one of the Mustang sites that the 2010 Mustang did not meet 2012 crash standards (what changes? roof crush? side impact?) while the 2010 Camaro and Challenger do. There was speculation as to how much weight that would add and whether the 2011 would meet those standards.
That's kind of a confusing table in that it estimates 3750 and 4000 for the A6 and then M6 and then states TBD for both.
The "under 3500" for the perf pkg V6 as stated in the other release makes more sense to me.
Last edited by Z284ever; 11-30-2009 at 04:36 PM.
