No, but after the rebate, it was around $29k... that's with leather, 6 disc CD, etc etc etc standard...

No, it's a 6-speed manual, but I havent heard a ton of people clammoring for a 6 speed auto... maybe a 5-speed, but I'd expect it to get whatever the auto tranny of the day is at GM.

No, it has 350, like I said... and also like I said, the 05 has 400hp.

It's all new to the US, regardless, there are built in shipping costs and also limited run costs... There are a lot of "new platform" vehicles coming out... they aren't all pie-in-the-sky priced just because they are new.

Don't remember seeing a Mustang priced in 2008 dollars yet either.... so, just use it in today's dollars.

All this is based on the fact that Mustang has a solid axle??

Let's be realistic:

The engine is already here: LS2... The Camaro got the LS1, the LT1 before that , the L98 before that... and was able to have the pricing in line.

The tranny, at least the manual is already here, and was available before... the automatic upgrade will happen when GM pushes it out.

I could go on and on, but the fact is, there's no reason why the largest car company in the world should be able to make an "as good as or better" product and keep it in line price-wise with the compitition.

 

I agree... I'm just trying to play devil's advocate with this...

I think it *IS* doable... there are factors in GTO's pricing that wouldn't effect a Camaro so much, I would think.

Shipping, limited production, less standard features, being on a platform that is used on many more units, etc etc....

 

What about tooling? Does the GTO's price reflect Holden Monaro R&D and Toolup costs or not? That would be a huge difference. My guess is it doesn't because its sort of a value-added product from an existing line that has already paid for that stuff, but its just a guess.

 

Just to bring us back to point a little:

I think any reasonable person can see that it is an oversimplification to say the Mustang has NO competition for buyers.

 

I dunno... I'm sure there was some signifcant cost in certifying the GTO for the US, especially in relocating the gas tank and some of the othe rlittle things that needed done...

Being such a limted run, I too wonder how much of that R&D and toolup would be rolled into it, especially since they are kind of "add-ons" for Holden late in the game... still, you have to wonder why they WOULDN'T cost the GTO's the same (or more) than Monaro, especially since changes had to be made to Monaro to make it a GTO...

 

I agree with this...

While I do feel that no Camaro and Firebird certainly helps the Mustang, I don't think it is the main cause for high Mustang sales.

Obviously, it is a styling hit... styling is #1 above everything else.

 

Good points. Makes me actually wonder if any of that figured into the MSRP or if they priced it for the market rather than the costs involved? Since its a Pontiac Halo car maybe none of that was factored in? In that case it would make a terrible comparison for Camaro pricing realities.

 

I've actually wondered if the MSRP on GTO was pumped up for this very reason (The GTO name, and the halo car effect)... I have nothing to back this idea up, but I've always had it in my head!

Kind of goes both ways!

 

I can't talk to the Viper or M5 (very rare on a dragstrip anyway), but you might want to do a search on the Z06 and wheel hop over on Z06vette.com. They most certainly do have issues.

 

For the 2003 Mustang:

65% - V6
35% - V8

That equates to about 100,000 V6 Mustangs were sold.

 

I'm aware of 1 for sure that trade for a GT.

At least 4 that traded for or added a GTO.

Others are buying new or used 'vettes.

I bought another 4th gen.

Nobody AFAIK has mentioned that it was the SS/WS6/Firehawk that carried the last few years of the F-body. These buyers are going to move up the food chain if the 5th gen doesn't evolve upward itself. Also, if the 5th gen shows up in '08 and it takes another 2 -3 years for the HP version to show up, how much of the historic F-body customer base will be left?

 

It doesn't even need to be "sporty coupe." I'd say sporty car is more accurate. With today's performance offerings, there is little stigma associated with a four-door, so cross-shopping sedans and coupes is not uncommon.

If I were shopping for a new car right now, it'd look something like:

'05 Mustang GT
'05 GTO
'05 WRX STi
'05 Lancer Evo MR
Infiniti G35

And I'd include '06 Solstice if I didn't already have a two-seater.

Really, if it's exciting, looks good (subjective), and fun to drive and in the ballpark pricewise, it's fair game. So yes, the Mustang has competition in all sorts of flavors...

 

I agree with this completely.

 

It is because ride quality SUCKS on choppy roads.

It is because cornering performance takes a real eye opening twist when a mid corner bump is encountered.

It is because I feel that maybe, just maybe GM engineers didn't stumble upon the holy grail of affordable handling back in 1982.

It is because I feel that the new car could be better for EVERYONE if a little effort and money was put forth.

It is because I feel a whole new audience could be reached while still satisfying the old customers if a little effort and money was put forth.

It is because the new car needs to be ahead of the Mustang at least in the design phase or it will surely be behind by the time it reaches us.

It is because younger buyers (not young - they're not the demographic) are emamored with technology and old school truck axles aren't going to cut it.

It is because, lets face it, the Camaro must be more of a match mechanically because it cannot match the Mustang's mystique. Especially after this hiatus crap.

It is because I autocross my car and I'm sure you are already aware of just how big an issue that solid rear axle is when it comes to making the car handle in that environment.

It is because I autocross my car and am tired of constantly getting my butt kicked by cars with more sophisticated suspensions. (driver inadequacy not withstanding )

 

Valid point, but I'd say any IRS with a performance tuned suspension is only MARGINALLY better in this respect.

Also a valid point

Are you sure about that? '82 Camaro was the MT car of the year after all. For its day it was the best handling American built car. Certainly the target has moved a bit but when an SLA/live axle '02 SS can track within .3 of a blown '03 cobra with MacStruts/IRS for quite a bit less cash I'd say we already have had the holy grail of affordable handing and perhaps IRS is more of a comfort/convenience issue than any sort of MUST HAVE equipment.

Who says there's the money to be put forth?

At what cost? At what price? Where do you draw the line? Are you willing to give up a great interior to get IRS? What else are you willing to give up?

Valid point

Doesn't seem to be slowing Mustang sales....

Excellent point

I know lots of people autoX Fbodies but get serious, the car was not meant to be tossed around a parking lot, it was meant to stretch its legs at an open track. If you want to be serious about AutoXing maybe you should get a DIFFERENT CAR rather than trying to turn Camaro into something it has never been.

See last comment above....


I think Darth hit on something....we are changing as a group. its been 3 years since Fbody production ended and many of us are growing up and growing older. If Fbody production were uninterupted we wouldn't be having this discussion but may of the same people may have moved on to other vehicles they considered more refined.

Ask yourself has Camaro changed or have YOU changed. Lets please not move the target more than is realistic. I'm not saying IRS is a deal killer for me at all but lets not turn the whole of Camaro into something its not because some of us want SUV utility and Caddy ride comfort ( I know that's an extreme example but it illustrates my point)

Also lets try to get away from all the "I feel" crap and start dealing with as many facts or at least beliefs and opinions. Feelings are subjective and pretyt much worthless.