Perhaps you should look at the reason why they still make the Mustang, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. The Mustang has survived because Ford has traditionally been merciless in starving its development budget, keeping the car cheap to buy and cheap to manufacture. Cost was reason why the MN-12 Mustang was killed off in favor of the SN95. Cost was also the reason why the 2005 SN197 chassis bears little resemblance to the original DEW98 - no irs on mainstream models, no double wishbone front suspension.

The Mustang has also survived because of sales to rental fleets and the elimination of internal competition, but more than anything, low cost has always saved the day. Now that the Mustang is the "last man standing," it is truly the most performance car for the dollar.

It is also true that the 'Stang has heritage and "appeal, " not to mention extreme conventionality. Many people have made light of the aftermarket available for the Mustang, and no doubt this is selling point for some "enthusists." Who can argue with the logic of saving $3,000 on the initial finance amount, and then shelling out thousands in cash to obtain the performance of a more complete vehicle. I don't care very much for this "work-in-progress" approach to buying a new car.

The 2003 Cobra should be the answer to this car's greatest faults, but it just magnifies the problem with the Mustang. The drivetrain and IRS are great, but the underlying cheapness of the basic car makes it a joke. The next generation holds out some hope in that regard, but I'm not holding my breath. It seem that the Mustang will be the perpetual "Jack of all trades, master of none."

 

To say the Mustang's name isn;t a selling point is pure crap...it is a huge factor in sales. I bet when someone gets a rental car they are much happier to get a V6 Mustang than a V6 Grand Am though the Grand Am is a much more usable rental car. Mustang IMO has a public image as THE american sporty car....and no one can deny that. Untill you get to the Mach I and Cobra where power overwhealm the equation the Mustang is not remarkably better than any car in it's competition. In fact it lags behind in areas like usability and fit and finish. Another factor is as mentioned before that i think will effect the GT and V6 models soon is the rise of 240HP family sedans. The reasons people are willing to deal with a Mustang's shortcomings is two fold...image...and power...meaning these cars have signifigantly more power than you average car. Now say a customer comes in to test drive a GT after having driven a few other cars like say the Altima or such. The GT will be faster....but is it fast enough to justify the shortcomings. There will be a good chunk who will buy the car on image alone...however there are some who will consider this. The Cobra almost strikes me as a caricature of the Mustang....overdone and exaggerated. It also proves that people are looking more at total package than overall power now. If I am not mistaken..Mustang sales were off liek 10% last year?

 

The MN12s were expensive to manufacture for the profit they made per car. Given Ford's production development times in the late 90s, it's obvious that Ford planned to replace th MN12s with the 2 passenger Thunderbird even before the last 12s came off the line. Ford also viewed killing the big bird as a way to increase sales of the Lincoln Mark VIII.

Meanwhile the Mustang's around only because of former Ford CEO Donald Peterson & the massive Mustang write-in campaign of the late 80s. If it wasn't for those 2 things, Mustang would have been toast by now.

Mustang has alot of supporters inside Ford today, but after Mustang avoided becoming the Probe, Ford was intent on killing it off as sales dwindled. Peterson quietly formed a Mustang "skunkworks" (later becomming Team Mustang) that pulled together the SN95 with next to no money, and mostly under the radar of pretty much everyone who would have derailed it (CEOs have a vote, but NOT a final say on what gets made).

As for Cobra being a "carature" of itself, you are WAY off base on that one. I'll give you one guess as to which is the quickest & fastest Mustang ever made, and which year it is. And as far as sales being off, I think most of us here wish Camaro's sales had only dropped 10%.

I know some of you guys REALLY hate Mustangs, but geeez! Ford won the pony car wars, and right now is the ONLY RWD performance game in town (that is affordable)regardless as to how they did it. If the tables were turned, I'm sure most of ya'all wouldn't be so dismissive. The 2005 LS6 GTO will be here soon enough.

Be consistant, damn it!

 

Sorry but I actually do have to agree with Branden here for once. The "image" that Mustang carries does pull a lot of people in, no question. Mustang is not a bad car but the V6 Mustang does not offer anything that a car like, say, Monte Carlo doesn't. It's not a bad car but it certainly is NOT light-years better than anything else in its class. If you don't believe the Mustang nameplate alone sells cars just ask my sister. When I asked why she wanted one, she said "I dunno, because it's a Mustang!"

EDIT: By the way, why are the Mustang guys here so defensive when it is said that Mustang has the image that sells? I think it's something to be proud of. We're not saying it's a bad car and that it ONLY sells because of image....at least I'm not, honestly!

 

Originally posted by redzed

Perhaps you should look at the reason why they still make the Mustang, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. The Mustang has survived because Ford has traditionally been merciless in starving its development budget, keeping the car cheap to buy and cheap to manufacture. Cost was reason why the MN-12 Mustang was killed off in favor of the SN95. Cost was also the reason why the 2005 SN197 chassis bears little resemblance to the original DEW98 - no irs on mainstream models, no double wishbone front suspension.

The fact that Mustang GT looked different than the base car and was thousands of dollars cheaper than the loaded SS's and WS6's that most GM dealers were pushing has a lot to do with sales. I'm glad it's still affordable.


It is also true that the 'Stang has heritage and "appeal, " not to mention extreme conventionality.

Because low cost RWD V6, V8 and supercharged V8 performance cars are extremely conventional...

Many people have made light of the aftermarket available for the Mustang, and no doubt this is selling point for some "enthusists." Who can argue with the logic of saving $3,000 on the initial finance amount, and then shelling out thousands in cash to obtain the performance of a more complete vehicle. I don't care very much for this "work-in-progress" approach to buying a new car.

What are the "more complete vehicles" and how much do they cost? BTW, I don't think my car is "incomplete" and it cost me less than a Z28.

It seem that the Mustang will be the perpetual "Jack of all trades, master of none."

That's all it's ever been. However, it still manages to be better at most trades than most other cars, while being affordable and easy to live with. We all know what happened to the "Jack of a couple trades, master of all" 4th Gen Camaro...

It's okay that you don't like Mustangs, but I think it deserves more than being called a "cheap rental car that isn't good at anything and only sells because of it's name and lack of internal competion."

 

I think the real problems with the Mustang started when it was taken out of the MN-12 program. Sure, it would have been a more expensive and more substantial vehicle, and maybe it wouldn't have survived. At very least, the short-wheelbase
MN-12 Mustang would have had a world class chassis. As it is, the el cheapo mentality seem to be present in the new SN197.

 

Oddly enough, for some people a Mustang Bullitt is not a hot ride. Sure, I liked the rims, but a 5hp power upgrade wasn't nearly enough to put a grin on my face. I also wasn't amused by the fact that Ford paid homage to the Steve McQueen movie by deleting the foglights? Somebody at Ford was really concerned about cutting costs. (Don't say that 60s muscle cars didn't have foglamps, because the '68 Charger R/T did. Ford is just plain stingy.)

For me, an LS-1 Z28 was a "complete" car. I didn't buy it because of heritage, the history or the brand. Heck, I just wanted the fastest open topped car for the money. At less than $26k loaded, it was an inexpensive car, but not a "cheap" one. As a half-priced, but more convenient, Corvette substitute you can't beat it.

On the other hand, every Mustang model has enough "teeth griting" features to leave me cold. Some of the design and material choices leave me to conclude that the Mustang design team is composed of sadists and simpletons. Why does a $13,000 Focus ZX3 have comfortable velour seats when a $18K Mustang has miserable deck chairs covered in donkey blanket material? Why is the shifter located too far forward? Why does the V6 motor idle above 1000rpms? Why do I have to scrape my knuckles every time I adjust the power seat? Why? Because this is a wickedly cheap car, engineered on the cheap, from the cheapskates at the Ford Motor Company.

I wouldn't call the Mustang a rental car, at least not one that I'd like to rent. If confronted with this choice at a rental counter, I'd upgrade to a Taurus. There again, I might just walk over to the Alamo counter.

 

tell us how you really feel.

when you said this "Heck, I just wanted the fastest open topped car for the money"

You lost all respect for what you posted.Because you are going to be biased just because the Camaro was faster.And you will sit there and be blind to all the short comings of the camaro.Im not saying the Mustang doesnt have short comings,But one thing the Mustang has is comfort.No fish tank glass equipped windshield,STUPID hump in the floor.C'mon just as you read this and see how stupid this post is you might realize how your post almost a mirror image.

 

for thought.

1)Would a car rental company buy thousands of a car that nobody wanted to rent? The fact that rental agencies buy Mustangs demonstrates that the car is a "desireable ride" for many, if they weren't, they would just sit on the aisles at the airports, accumulate low activity status, and have their inventories adjusted down as well as future model purchases reduced. On a recent trip to Florida, I couldn't GET a Mustang - they were all gone (like 14 of 'em!), so I get the DOHC Taurus and pound a little fun out.

2)As far as the Mustang being "cheap", you d@mn-bippy!! I LIKE IT THAT WAY... it seems to have some impact on the common working stiff (read that as "the MASSES") being able to afford it. It also allows the rare individual the opportunity to strip the car and make a dedicated racer out of it without stacking $12k in leather seats, fancy audio, and perfect-fit dash components outside the garage door. DON'T FORGET, from day one, Iacocca MANDATED that the car be saleable at the ratio of $1/pound. This was done at that time to ensure the car was designed as a light, lean little coupe that shaved all the unwanted weight, and was financially appealing and obtainable by the masses, not the upper-middle class only. Cheap is a HUGE part of what Mustang is all about. The Mercury Cougar and other cars should be the perfect-fit, best materials available, totally sound-deadened, amphitheater audio system, refined-ride "world-class" vehicles you think Mustang falls short of. I, personally, don't think it falls short of it's target class whatsoever.

3)against a family sedan? C'mon? There's one issue there, speed. Yes, the Altima and Maxima are getting super-quick. But I don't see cruise night at the local drive in clogged with the 4-door imports just yet.
Offer the Mustang (or Camaro) to ANY high school teenager, then offer them their choice of an Altima or Maxima. Likewise, offer a 50-something guy who grew up around Mustangs, Camaros, Chargers and such a "new" Mustang or a new Maxima for his weekend "golf cart" toy... Granted, some may choose the rice, but the majority of guys/gals in their mid-to-late years want a throwback to their youth, a car that they wanted then, but could not afford. I am ever-more amazed at te gray-heads I see driving GT's, Cobras, and the likes today, and just go to a classic Mustang show... Sheez, over 60% of the folks there are retirees!

The family sedans are just that - family sedans. Folks in their 30's with new kids and groceries to get will need 4-door practicality before "mystique", car clubs, bracket racing, and cruise nights.

4)As for this "work in progress thing"...
So you tellin' me you haven't done A THING to your car since you got it? No lid, pulleys, nothin'? I've got news for you... most guys DO mod their cars, and even enjoy doing so.
The aftermarket alone has brought MANY car-guys into the 5.0 Mustang fold, and is now growing furiously in the 4.6 arena. It IS significant.
ALSO, if you want the "ultimate" car for exclusivity, fit and finish, body work, glove-leather seats and shifters, etc - go look for the Saleens. Roushes. Browns. Belles. Steedas. You can spend all you want there, and they can take the so-hated MacPhersons and 4-links completely away for you - giving you a completely new suspension capable of 1g lat - no problem. You didn't have to touch any of those God-forsaken dirty wrenches and you still get a warranty!!! There, all better now!!!

 

Lol, the Camaro I owned screamed "Cheap" not with it's performance but it's dozens of engineering shortcomings - like the mechanical problems, the leaky roof (it was a hardtop), the interior trim pieces tha broke and fell off, the gigantic panel gaps, the clunky doors, the top dash panel that vibrated over bumps.....

It's clear we're dealing with someone very biased. For most of us, though - both of these cars have been relatively inexpensive (more so Mustang) such that most of us can afford one. That's where most of the appeal lies. There are plenty of sports cars I can't afford, and IMHO, it's not that impressive to be able to build an expensive sports car. Anyone can do that.

And in regards to the comments about my Car - the Bullitt didn't have foglights because the car in the movie didn't. The fact that it some Mopar did is irrelevant. (BTW, they put fogs on the V6 models - they must be cheap bastards!) I know its a misunderstood car and lot's of people don't like it because they see "only 5 more horsepower" and immediately dismiss it. What is dismissed is that for only ~$1500 more than a premium GT, I got the best handling Mustang GT ever made - a car that was Lowered, with an upgraded suspension, brakes, UD pullies, Intake, throttle body, seats and interior and the loudest exhaust I've ever heard on a stock new car, plus LOTS of other stuff. I got it for the same price as a low end Z28. And it does make more than 5 extra HP - especially now

 

FWIW, I had the fortune of driving my kid's supercharged 96 GT yesterday. Man is that car a kick-in-the-pants to drive!

This is coming from someone who historically hates Mustangs.

 

I looked at pictures of you Bullitt and it kinda lookd like a V6 with a GT hood and green paint...especially with no spoiler. I hope they did alot inside to thaat car to justify that. Also it is rediculus they promised 275hp and at the last minute relized they could only get 270...and had to send a letter out apologizing. I mean is the 4.6L really that hard to get another 5hp from?

 

The SS looks just like a base Camaro with a different hood and spoiler, costs $3500 and only offers 20hp, so I'm confused as to your point.

The 270-275HP thing has a lot to with them covering their *** after the cobra fiasco.

I'm not a brand enthusiast and I don't feel like turning this into a "Bullitt owner Vs. Chevy Loyalists" thread, so I won't say anying else other than you can see the differences between it and a GT on my site.

I don't know why every thread comparing Mustangs/Camaros has to devolve into Mustang trashing threads. Sure, Camaro had no weaknesses....

 

Now that we are finally on the same page

 

RWD, manual transmission.

Those are two big things for the "sporty" market that are not offered on, well, any GM car anymore.

But I agree that the Mustang name alone pulls people in.

Also, bitching about fog lights not being on the Bullit? Half the time I can't believe redzed is being serious. That guy's posts are so biased. He has a few things he likes and nitpicks the rest of the world.