Proud, I hear what you're saying. Well optioned (base) V8 Camaros and Mustangs are well into the $30K's. But you have to admit that a base Mustang at $22,145, a solid 13 second car, is a raging performance bargain. Maybe you're saying that there is room below it?

A GTS registry? Damn, you guys have everything!

 

The technology and safety items in today's cars cost money too.

For a lot of us, the value of tire pressure monitors and side airbags may not be much, but it costs $$ to put them into cars. Many of the luxury items cost a lot less to put in than they used to, which is why they're ubiquitous. Then you get demands for nav systems, HUDs, etc.

 

Touche.

Likewise, if a 330 hp land missile for $24k was such a desireable thing back in the 1990's and early 2000's, we would not have seen an American Icon disappear from the dealerships, would we? I'm also thinking that there were more than a few Fox 5.0's at the local dragstrips and roadcourses that were more than "competitive" with LT1 and LS1 cars after both were far from stock. That you chose not to paint your own canvas is your decision and you made the right one for you - no question, but don't preclude that everyone else wanted to take the same route you chose.

I'm kind-of thinking that the American public did in fact vote with their wallets, and one side was a clear winner... selling far more 2.3L I4 cars than V8 rocketships too. Blank canvas or not, history tells a story to those wanting to read it, and it says that rockets don't sell in volume (Ford ones or GM ones).

BTW - You are correct - it would frost my balz to face a smack-down by a Camry, but then again I am a racer and gear-head at heart, so it wouldn't happen but once. MY CANVAS DOES get worked-on - it's what I do and what I want to do for years to come.

But in all honesty, the first Mustangs ever made - YEARS before there was a Camaro, Charger, Challenger, or other such cars - were powered by a 170 CI inline 6 and a 3-spd (auto or manual). Don't think there were some 409 Chevys, 406 Fords, or 440 Mopars on the streets from 1960-1965 that were slapping those first Mustangs around at-will? What did it get them? ... and what happened to the Mustang?

Lesson? Let's not forget that speed is not everything to everyone. Nor is every gadget, bell, and whistle. I want the car to win the WAR, not the battle.

Stripper cars don't sell? Tell that to a few folks that bought a 5.0 LX instead of the GT between 1985 and 1993. There were a "few" of them! A huge percentage don't have PW or PL, many don't have A/C, and I have a couple with radio delete! Hmmm... no spoilers, no fog lamps, no hatch, no PW, no PL, no A/C, a 5-spd... sounds like a pretty basic car to me.
I know what you are saying - and I don't think it would stand as it's own model for sure, but they DO SELL and there is a market for such IMO.

Outcry for the LX 5.0 in 1994 is what brought about the GTS option. THINK ABOUT THIS... how many of you guys even knew what a GTS was? (and we are gear-heads!) Without any advertising as a unique model of Mustang, and with very few dealers wanting to forego the huge profits built into well-optioned showroom units (meaning nobody ordered these as stock units to sit on the lots because they weren't loaded with cash-cow options), the purists that know Mustangs still ordered and bought over 5000 units/year. Apparently, there was enough demand to cause Ford to keep it 5 model years, only killing it during the MCE in 1999. Ironically, I am hearing more and more discussion about a potential "LX" version of the new 5.0, but I don't think it will happen.

I honestly like both you guys and love reading your posts - you are both very knowledgeable and I give you high credit. Please don't take my posts the wrong way... I'm more like you than you know, but I am also probably more in touch with the pulse of these cars than the average Joe. I make parts for them all every day for a living, I am getting a license to reproduce parts for them via my own company, and I currently own more of them than most folks own in a lifetime... I am serious about them and I want to see them stay around for my kids and grandkids to be part of. But right now, I am more worried than ever before that the Mustang is changing it's DNA in a really bad way. The best analogy I can think of is this - "there are some really good things happening on this Mustang-ship (weight, power, Limited Eds, etc), but the ship is heading into a sea full of icebergs (too upscale, too big, too much power in base units, annual sales volume way down, etc)."

Thanks,
PP

 

You are correct - 100%. Today's level of performance for the money is quite amazing. I recall my father and I discussing how we were going to bust the 400hp mark in 1988 with my 71 Mach 1 build-up, and how awesome we were going to be with it - and we were! I smacked many-a 5.0 and Camaro at Farmington Dragway and on various backroads in that car, but I had $6000 in an engine alone in 1988 too, when a new 5.0 could be bought for $9k.

I guess my point is that there are only so many people who actually want 400+ hp today, and even fewer who actually NEED or CAN USE IT. So why go through all the trouble of making it and charging for it if it's not in that big of a demand? I can see a few strokes of a pen, and all these 400hp cars become bad baggage like a big-block Mustang or Camaro did in 1975. Insurance... $5/gal gasoline... CAFE... and a slew of other factors we can't even imagine today could put a major crunch on these cars in the next few years making them unprofitable at lower sales levels, and effectively killing them off... fast.

I view this as a major issue with the Mustang getting it's own powerplant too. If they don't use it in something else, it means the Mustang will have to sell enough volume to support it all alone. If the chassis is designed for this drivetrain, and the drivetrain is forced to die because of economics, what happens to the Mustang model? Will Ford invest in retrofitting another coupe's drivetrain into it? A FWD/AWD unit like in the Taurus? A V6-only unit like the Fusion's? Or will they invest in a driveline from the unitized-body of the Explorer or Escape? Will they invest in a new chassis again? An AWD one? I can't say. All I know is I wish they would offer the Mustang with a base driveline that is hugely available in other models, with decent power and GREAT economy (like into the 40's mpg kind of economy). I think it would create huge sales, increase the popularity of the car, get costs lower (engine cost alone would HAVE to go down if they are making over 1-million / year compared to the dedicated 50-60k 5.0's and 60k V6's they are doing now). And for heaven's sake - get the youth back into these cars... MORESO than the baby-boomers that are dropping 65k for a GT500 because the youth will buy several more vehicles before they age-up to the retiree with a pension to blow.

Ranting a little, but serious feelings and insight here. You mentioned the raging value and I agree it's there for the folks wanting a fast ride with no wrenching on their part, but I wish we would keep the "other" buyers in mind too.


PS - the GTS thing...
There's becoming a registry for just about anything these days... colors, options, engines... it's getting unreal!

 

And I like you too Proud, in spite of what you may think of me!

I both agree and disagree.

Agree because I would be the person who would buy a stripper version... as long as we don't go back to horse 'n' cart technology for the sake of stripping price and weight. The package must be attractive from the outset.

It's like walking up to a poor girl, she might not have much money but she has to have a great attitude and personality to match if she is to become your close, life-long friend.

Disagree because it's a competitive global market and that's (unfortunately) the price that the US pony cars must pay to continue to be relevant. It's always been the case that nothing stands still in the automotive world... Henry Ford sort of had the same flawed business plan when he conceived the Model T, which became hugely popular... then began to lose it's luster.

What we are effectively proposing here is to get the customer to alter their criteria for choosing a car... That strategy is fraught with risks because it's something that would force a philosophical change on consumers, in a market that is very price sensitive, feature driven and it's largely a disposable society we all live in.

I think I'm an exception rather than the rule when I say I could do without things like electric everything and even air conditioning in my cars as long as I am also buying a car that is a sheer pleasure to drive.

However, car manufacturers tell us that such cars would no longer sell well enough to make them viable.

 

Couldn't agree more here Proud. I haven't really followed Mustang's demographics, but Camaro's demographics are aging. These cars have always been youth oriented, even if "young people" of ALL ages bought them. What's the addage? You can sell a young man's car to an old man, but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man.

The more gizmos these cars get the less I like it. And they are getting gizmo laden. Yuck We're getting away from the less is more paradigm. Years ago, I met Fbodfather for dinner and wouldn't you know it -- we talked about Camaros. I remember us discussing that for Camaro, less is more. That Camaro needed to be an honest car not burdened by too much fluff and frills. For cripe's sake, it's even got back-up warning sensors now! You know, I'm no spring chicken so don't get me wrong, but you can't aim these cars at the mushy 50 year old demographic for long before you alter it's imaging - maybe forever.

The other thing.....

Although I'm really impressed by the 3.7 Mustang's performance, something seems alittle scary to me. That is, that the cheapest secretary special Mustang can run easy 13's. Know what I mean? I think alot of people don't want nor want to pay for that kind of performance (I think you said that somewhere - so I agree). I really think we're getting to the point where these cars need to be available with milder base 4's.

 

I'm with you on that, but is that what the youth want? I think a lot of them want iPhones and Nav and all that fancy tech stuff. I don't think Ford put Sync into the Focus for the 45+ crowd.

I think there will always be a certain segment of the population that wants RWD and a fast car, but that the average 22 year-old who would have bought a Mustang in 1967 would buy a Focus coupe (if Ford offered one) or a Fiesta today [ actually, in California, it'd probably be a Civic coupe, but I was trying to keep my example in the Ford family ].

 

The 5.0 in the Mustang, is also going in the F150. Yes, it will be tuned more for torque, with less horsepower.

The version of the 3.7L in the Mustang, is going in the MKX. I also expect to see this updated version in all of the Lincoln products.

Thus, there is no worrying about orphan engines. Will the V8 engine in the Mustang be a less propelling proposition in the future, yes. CAFE and gas prices will force that. Thus, what will happen will be a gradual shifting of more volume to the smaller engines, be they V6, turbo V6, or turbo 4cyl. Yes, the V8's will still be available, but they will be pricey, and limited.

 

Touche x 2. Although as has been discussed, it was hardly the F-body's performance capabilities that kept people away.

Some really interesting stuff in this thread. As far as designing Mustang to compete with BMW M3, I don't know that was ever Ford's real intention with the '11. The numbers just kind of turned out that way. I don't think there's anything wrong with aiming your V8 pony car at that target - acceleration, chassis and handling feel - as long as it isn't costing your buyer a "BMW" premium. And I don't see the '11 Mustang as doing so.

Someone else hit it right on the head about the youth market and their expectations for a car. If Mustang and Camaro DON'T offer things like Sync, Bluetooth, iPod interface and the rest, other "sporty" cars will and do. That certainly doesn't help. The "older" guys see that stuff as fluff but the 20-and-30-somethings expect these things. And yes, they add weight (which we as enthusiasts hate) and cost (which no one likes) but it's just the nature of the beast. You middle age guys probably expected the 8-track player over the AM-FM only radio when you were young too. And your elders bemoaned the feature-laden cars then.

Backup sensors should be reserved for soccer-mom trucksters though, no doubt.

 

See, I'm not really talking about things like Sync. Ways to interface your music or phone with your car is progress. Nav is a different story though. Personal technology may quickly over run the need for a dedicated nav screen on cars.

I'm talking about fluff. For example, Camaro's 4 pack console gauges are an obvious pander to the 50 something male. Ironic then, that the visual system of the 50 something can't safely use them. So now you have the unuseable 4-pack console ornaments and the addition of a HUD to get useable info. Heaven forbid you should simply have a clearly laid out instrument panel. And yes, those backup sensors are stuck in my craw.

 

If I am looking into M3, you won't catch me dead in a Mustang.

 

I wouldn't imagine anyone set on buying an M3 cross shopping it with a GT.

 

Not if you're set on the M3. But I could easily imagine someone considering whether to spend $60K or $35K, and figuring that the Mustang GT is a fine choice, considering the difference in monthly payments.

 

I see what you mean. On the one hand, that stuff is pretty silly -- just give me a clean interior (like a 90s BMW). But on the other, when I look at cars from the 50s, it's fun to look at the gizmos on the dash.

I wonder how popular the 4-pack will be in car shows in 2040....

 

It'll probably be a pretty popular doo-dad 30 years from now. So will the Brembo caliper weights.