By that same token, how many women bought one for their husband as a present or another reason?

 

It may just be my opinion, so take it for what its worth, but I have never seen the performance models as "chick cars."

Besides, whats the big deal is you have alot of women driving "lesser versions" of your sports car. Sure would add a little something extra to those F-body gatherings

 

I too usually see M*stangs (the last ones especially) as girly cars. Mostly the V6's, because that's almost always who I see driving/owning them. They don't have that sportscar edge, more like a muscled-up sedan. I also see some girls driving F-Bodies, but not nearly as many. Everyone knows which car is truly the more aggressive and purpose built car, but that also doesn't help Camaro sales. I would never want the Camaro to have a girly or sedan-like image though. I actually see the 05 V6/GT as less of a girly car than the last cars. It just doesn't have quite the same "little car" appeal that alot of girls like. The retroness in and out also doesn't add to that. That's a better thing IMO, but it might not be good for sales.

 

You guys are pretty funny. Some of you are letting your bias shine through, pretty brightly.

It would seem as if, in your anger over your car of choice not being produced, you have to strike out on its competitor.......... which still is being produced.

If calling it a "girly car" makes you feel better, then have a blast.

Now........... I do have to ask............... what is wrong with appealing to the women/females of the species??? In todays marketplace, women control the money. They control the major purchase decisions. Any manufacturer who does not take this into account for ANY mass marketed vehicle is stupid. Plain and simple.

It may make your d*ck feel bigger to know that men found the Camaro more appealing than the Mustang (by percentage only). However, it was this same "problem" that doomed it............ and will doom it again if this formula is not changed. That is, unless GM plans to make this a niche car........... in which case there won't be enough of them on the roads to even worry Mustang owners at all. However, if you measure your "manliness" by what you drive, I guess you have other issues that need to be explored.

Just face it, Ford anticipated the market for the Mustang much better than GM did with the Camaro. I know, it's hard for some of you to say. You know who you are............. the same people who have to spell Mustang with an * in it, like its a dirty word............. or call it a Mudstain, or a Rustang. You know............. you manly men.

 

Glad to see you still have the gumption pal! Nice job stating facts!

I've been trying hard not to get into this one... I'm tired of typing the same sh1+ over and over and over. It's like the same thread has to come up every 6 months to a year. "Mustang = sissy-car/girly car. Mustang GT is slower than Camaro. Mustangs are slow. Mustangs are lame. Mustangs are ugly. Mustangs are trash, scum, and whatever else."

The old-timers on this board (in particular THIS board) have seen the data. Many of us spent lots of time and effort compiling the data for all eyes to view. We did a thread on performance from C&D, R&T, HotRod, and numerous other rags from 1965 thru today. We did another on sales figures from 1965 thru today from production sources to government data. We've looked at Car of the Year awards for 40 years. We've looked at sales $, and incentives and advertising. Heck, we even had a thread that compared the number of recalls on Mustang and Camaros. I've bookmarked many of these threads and use them for data at times.
Know what... it all averages out to blandness and parity in the end.
Mustang has been faster at times, Camaro at times. Both have won championships and titles. Both have had COY honors. Both have been pace cars. Both have had recalls. Both have had bad styles. Both have had sh1++y interiors. Both have cult-like followings. Hell, if anything, the two cars should be more intertwined, not separated as a dump-truck versus a limo - yet some people really think there is that much difference between the two.



QUOTE - "I have always thought of the Mustang as a chick car, it isn't an illusion, it isn't a stereotype, it is my opinion of Mustangs that many share with me. Try sitting inside of an F-body and I DARE you for one second to think its a chick car. No freak'n way...Now go drive a Mustang. Definately more feminin."
Maybe this is your opinion - and that's fine. No problem.
But I disagree. I'd say I see as many Y's as X's in Camaros and Firebirds as I do Mustangs. And moreover, I see at least 3 to 4 times as many V6 cars as I do V8 F-bodies - especially the F-4 gen. (And I do look for the Z28, WS6, SS signs too!)
With the exception of the F4, the F3 was as much a chick-car as Mustang was/is. I still see as many (if not more) girls in F3's and F2's as I do the same year Mustang.
Know what else, those years correspond to the best sales for F-cars - go figure. Even from the beginning, the Mustang and Camaro were targetted at BOTH sexes - if you don't believe that, you're delusional.
Notice how GM, in it's own press release, decided to put a "Chic" in front of their 1970 SS 350 ad? LINK Was that to appeal to the GUYS or the GIRLS?
How about this "Chic" actually driving a '69 RS Vert? LINK
The TITLE of this 1967 RS/SS shot was "Mod Fashions"... "Chic" or Chique? LINK
Chic parking her RS/SS '67 vert... LINK
And this was all from my first link on a search. There's a ton of advertising that pits the f-cars towards women - at least until the late '90's anyways.

All I can say is if you think the F4 was not a car intended for women, and you like it that way, then you better enjoy your F4 for a loooonnnng time. Likewise, I say to you the F4 was not the epitome of all Camaros, and it alone does not speak for the entire name or history of the car. There were 3 previous generations that wore the name, and they served it extremely well.

As guionM said earlier - sales rule. Personally, I'll go for the bi-sexuallly appealing base unit which has been successful for 4 decades, with the adrenaline-charged top-dog models thrown in on the side for the enthusiastic extremists (which is where I place myself in the fray).
IMO, pony cars seem to "live better" with that flexibility and diversity, as opposed to the "dedicated land-missile". Maybe a little more flexibility would have kept the 'Cuda, Javelin, Charger, and a bucket full of other cars around longer too. We'll never know will we...

Just .02 more on the pile...

 

GREAT POST !!!!!!

You use alot more decorum than I do. At one time, I tried to be diplomatic also. I think my 2.5 year old just sucks all of the patience from me now, so there is none left for some of the posts on here.............. all of which follow a very similar pattern (Mustang sucks).

While my post above may have lacked some tact, the basic premise remains correct. I truly believe that some of the "Mustang sucks" crowd are redirecting their anger at GM, at the Mustang. They don't have a car, so they have to bash the one that is still out there. Its a "girly car," its "slow," it looks like garbage, its a Ford, it can't beat a 12-year old Camaro, they will be on every street corner (if Camaro was, it would still be built), etc, etc, etc.

I have always liked the Camaro and the Mustang. I owned a Mustang, and I currently own a Camaro. They both have their plusses and minuses. Also, as much as some of the blindly brand biased don't want to see it, they are very much alike.

On a side note, I saw my first '05 Mustang GT at FFW on Saturday. It was the silver with the interior upgrade package, and the red seat/ accent package. The owner had put Hallibrand wheels on it, and done stripes down the middle............. and it looked amazing. I was very impressed. While some may not like the style of the interior (I really liked it), to say that it is not of greater quality than the last gen Mustang, or the Camaro is ludicrous. Everything fits very well, and there are small even gaps throughout. The plastics look nice ( I cannot judge feel as this was a privately owned car), even if they may not be the best, to the touch. The interior upgrade package was very nice. The fact that they give you actual aluminum instead of plastichrome is impressive also. All in all, a very nice car for the money. I'm anxious to see the convertible.

 

but isn't better cornering, ride compliance, and real-world usability going to be more important than all that???

I never cease in wonderment that an American company in the 21st century put in a live axle in a brand new, ground-up redesign of a 'performance' car

 

Quote off SEMA article:

"Mustang leads the performance parts business with annual sales over $800 million, fueled by owners who spend an average of $1,500 every year"

Mustang leads performance parts business. Something i enjoyed during my 5.0 ownership years. I'll pick up a 5.0 fox one day.

As for the chick car comment, So in order for it to be a "mans" car, it has to be a turn-off to anyone but the most testostrone laden brute? Lol, so by that logic, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen Camaro's where chick cars because they did so well in selling to a wide array of consumers? I'd take a closer look at this flawed logic. The new edge sn95's had aggressive looks, moreso than the simpler, sleeker, more understates lines of 98+ z28, and it pulled off the aggrssiveness without turning off the masses of buyers, and that has contributed alot to its sales success in the last or so decade. The mustang wasn't a "chicks" car, it was a "peoples" car just like the original mustang and if it had to swing to side, it would be the male side due to them making up a larger proportion of buyers. In the end, the F-bod hardly quilifies as a "mans car" when 100,000+ men bought mustangs, which is more than firebird and camaro sales combined.

Having said that, the 4th gens looks wasn't to everyone's liking, especially the 98+ restyle. I love my car, and most of the owners that bought them do as well, but the style was not only a turn-off to woman buyers, but to male buyers as well and that's something GM will have to take into consideration when it comes time to laying the styling foundation for the 5th gen.

 

Funny...

FWIW, my wife refers to our '95 Z28 as a chick-car. She says the opposite for our '96 Mustang GT.

I guess it all depends on each person's own perspective.

 

Magnum, have you driven this completely redesigned car with its "antiquated" solid rear axle???

The reason I ask is that all of the magazine tests that I have read have had nothing but praise for it. Basically, most have said that they were wrong in condemning the car, initially, due to the solid axle. They say the ride is much better than the outgoing car, with much more compliance. It also leans much less in corners, and has significantly better handling. Due to the better suspension geometry, it also no longer looks like a 4wd stock.

Plus, for those who race their cars, it is extremely strong. The Camaro crowd could only dream that their car had a 31-spline 8.8 rear axle.

I agree that it will not handle as well as an IRS if there is a bump in the corner.

 

Probably because Camaro has smoother, simpler, and sleeker lines to the mustangs edgier lines, creases, and proportions (relative to camaro). Throw on fake scoopary, nice 17" wheels (to 98+ z28's lacked scoops and had boring 16" wheels), and you have a Mustang that looks more aggressive/flashy than camaro (which seems understated styling wise except for SS hood), atleast in the eyes of the general public.

The Mustangs may have lacked in the performance category, but aggressive looks and exhaust-note is one thing the Mustang didn't lack. Hence why you'll see many people who'll tell you they think that the Mustang is faster than z28 judging by looks alone. I think that's an obeservation many here have made.

 

Perhaps, but how many people can even come close to the limits of the live axle chassis? Very, very few. The ride is better, but for in my opinion, most butt-o-meters won't notice much (mine sure didn't). As for usability...beyond a bit better ride and a bit better cornering (both of which I just covered), what other "usability" would there be?

I guess you'll just have to be ceaselessly wondered.

 

I agree that this whole argument is pretty stupid. I guess its my fault for starting the whole mustangs are for girls thing. My opinion is my opinion, and weather you agree or not its fine with me. Sorry if I pissed some people off by bringing up old arguments. Didn't mean to. But some people on here do have some pretty jacked up ways of looking at things, but hey maybe I'm included in that.

 

 

One of the reasons I think the 4th gen fbody failed in sales was the lack of chick appeal. I hardly ever see a girl in a 4th gen, but it seems like Mustangs, especially V6's, I am quite likely to see a girl at the wheel. Also, I love the fact that my car is a purpose built land missile.