 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2005New Mustang selling big
From cnnmoney.com; Ford boosts Mustang production After announcing the Thunderbird's retirement, the automaker to increase another icon's output. March 17, 2005: 10:52 AM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Ford Motor Co. announced Thursday that it will boost production of the new Mustang by 70 percent this year in response to rising sales. The automaker said it will increase Mustang production to 192,000 in 2005, from 112,000 in 2004. "We're planning to increase production well beyond what was initially planned. This will allow us to sell 160,000 - 165,000 Mustangs in the U.S. this year," Steve Lyons, Ford Division president, said in a statement. In the U.S. market, Mustang sales are up more than 45 percent on a retail basis over last year, boosted by sales of the convertible model, according to the company. "Ford Mustang is the hottest car in the industry, and its performance on the street and in the showrooms is beating everyone's expectations," Lyons said in the statement. More than 8 million Mustangs have been sold in the 41 years since its introduction. The 1 millionth Mustang was sold by March 1966. Last week, Ford announced plans to halt production of its Thunderbird sports car after the current model year ends production in July. Top of page In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for us sports/muscle car enthusiasts. :) It also shows that when Detroit produces a quality car that gives the public what it desires decent sales volume will follow. > From cnnmoney.com; > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > sports car after the current model year ends production in July. Top > of page >In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for >us sports/muscle car enthusiasts. :) It also shows that when Detroit >produces a quality car that gives the public what it desires decent >sales volume will follow. I'm wondering who in their right mind would consider the Charger and Mustang to be competitive with each other? The GTO has apparently increased the pace of it's sales since the power increase though. -Rich >>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of it's sales since the power increase though. > -Rich What other car do you think DC will look to take a chunk of market share from should a Charger become reality? It won't be the Corvette. ;) >>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > share from should a Charger become reality? It won't be the > Corvette. ;) What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who gets what part of the market share. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who >gets what part of the market share. Chysler seems to be in love with the $40k figure for their Hemi cars and trucks. -Rich RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:lsck31hrcv8np8ciapcu4av7snunqssea0 @4ax.com: >>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Hemi cars and trucks. > -Rich Rich, what are you smokin'? Try subtracting 10 grand from that. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:lsck31hrcv8np8ciapcu4av7snunqssea0 > @4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Rich, what are you smokin'? Try subtracting 10 grand from that. I say $28k-$30k for a base model and $34k-$36k for a loaded one. Any more than this and it will take sales away from the hopped up 300. >> RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:lsck31hrcv8np8ciapcu4av7snunqssea0 >> @4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I say $28k-$30k for a base model and $34k-$36k for a loaded one. Any > more than this and it will take sales away from the hopped up 300. Well, the Magnum RT (Hemi) starts at around $31k, and you can get a Ram 1500 with a Hemi for under $21k. The 300C (Hemi) starts at around $34k, and the SRT8 goes for $42k and change. --- From the Charger web site: "The target market for Dodge Charger includes trendsetting, young affluent males with incomes from $65,000 - $90,000. Customers looking for the thrilling ride and handling characteristics of a sports car, but with the added convenience of a functional, five passenger vehicle, will be able to experience the best of both with the 2006 Dodge Charger." "Production of the 2006 Dodge Charger begins this spring at the Brampton Assembly Plant in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. The Dodge Charger will join the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300 vehicles already built there." "The Dodge Charger will be available in North American markets early this summer and in select markets in Latin America and the Middle East in late 2005." --- What I don't get is why the guys slamming hi-power 4-door sedans don't have much to say when you mention BMW or Mercedes. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > What I don't get is why the guys slamming hi-power 4-door sedans don't > have much to say when you mention BMW or Mercedes. Targeting affluent males making $65k-$90k a year is a mistake IMO. Sounds like they shouldn't even use the Charger name as the original car was a muscle car for those on a budget. IIRC, there were very affordable stripped down models that sold quite well in the late sixties. Joe wrote: Joe Mar 18, 6:50am show options Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang From: Joe <avoidings...@nospam.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:50:03 GMT Local: Fri,Mar 18 20056:50am Subject: Re: New Mustang selling big Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show original| Report Abuse Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Mar 25, 6:50am). "Michael Johnson, PE" <nos...@ourhouse.com> wrote in news:woKdnd9basbj_6ffRVn-pw@comcast.com: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Joe wrote: >> RichA <n...@none.com> wrote in news:lsck31hrcv8np8ciapcu4av7s nunqssea0 >> @4ax.com: >>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:42:54 GMT, Joe <avoidings...@nospam.com> >> wrote: >>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote in >>>>news:b5udnUDdlrhtdqTfRVn-pA@comcast.com: >>>>>RichA wrote: >>>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark >> the >>>>>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good >> things >>>>>>>for us sports/muscle car enthusiasts. :) It also shows that when >>>>>>>Detroit produces a quality car that gives the public what it >>>>>>>desires decent sales volume will follow. >>>>>> I'm wondering who in their right mind >>>>>>would consider the Charger and Mustang >>>>>>to be competitive with each other? >>>>>>The GTO has apparently increased the pace >>>>>>of it's sales since the power increase though. >>>>>>-Rich >>>>>What other car do you think DC will look to take a chunk of market >>>>>share from should a Charger become reality? It won't be the >>>>>Corvette. ;) >>>>What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who >>>>gets what part of the market share. >>>Chysler seems to be in love with the $40k figure for their >>>Hemi cars and trucks. >>>-Rich >> Rich, what are you smokin'? Try subtracting 10 grand from that. > I say $28k-$30k for a base model and $34k-$36k for a loaded one. Any > more than this and it will take sales away from the hopped up 300. Well, the Magnum RT (Hemi) starts at around $31k, and you can get a Ram 1500 with a Hemi for under $21k. The 300C (Hemi) starts at around $34k, and the SRT8 goes for $42k and change. --- >From the Charger web site: "The target market for Dodge Charger includes trendsetting, young affluent males with incomes from $65,000 - $90,000. Customers looking for the thrilling ride and handling characteristics of a sports car, but with the added convenience of a functional, five passenger vehicle, will be able to experience the best of both with the 2006 Dodge Charger." "Production of the 2006 Dodge Charger begins this spring at the Brampton Assembly Plant in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. The Dodge Charger will join the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300 vehicles already built there." > What I don't get is why the guys slamming hi-power 4-door > sedans don't have much to say when you mention BMW or Mercedes. I can't tell you why anyone would slam a hi-po 4-door just because it has four doors. But a few diffs: 1. The BMW and MB 4-doors haven't been clock-stopping ugly, and the DC Charger is. (In fairness, so are the new BMW 5's and 7's. The new 3 won't stop a clock but it's still pretty nasty. So this factor is going to be changing.) 2. MB and BMW make lots of cool and incredibly high performance 2-door coupes as well. DC makes the strange Crossfire and that's it. A revived Charger was DC's big chance and they took a pass. 3. Probably the biggest reason is the heritage. (If we overlook the K-car "Chargers.") The '68-'70 Charger was an icon. DC is borrowing on that heritage for promotional purposes and betraying it . (Sorta like the not-really-a-hemi Hemi deal.) 180 Out P.S. to Michael Johnson: the Charger was available with a 318 small block, as well as a taxicab level 383, and with these engines the car could accurately be described as a stripper. But the R/T was upmarket and was available only with a 440 or a Hemi. The Super Bee with a 383 Magnum was the Dodge muscle car for people on a budget, with the Coronet R/T somewhere in between. one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Joe wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. > This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Mar 25, 6:50 ?am). > "Michael Johnson, PE" <nos...@ourhouse.com> wrote in > news:woKdnd9basbj_6ffRVn-pw@comcast.com: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Well, the Magnum RT (Hemi) starts at around $31k, and you can get a > Ram 1500 with a Hemi for under $21k. ?The 300C (Hemi) starts at around > $34k, and the SRT8 goes for $42k and change. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Magnum was the Dodge muscle car for people on a budget, with the > Coronet R/T somewhere in between. I got the drift with the new Charger "stealing" the old Charger's heritage, but that's one of the things DC is depending on to push sales. I also got the whole 2-door/4-door thing about MB and BMW with their wonderful 2-door cars, but my point wasn't specifically about the Charger. I still wonder why people will write off a hi-po car because of the number of doors it has. To me, it's simple closed-mindedness. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] > Charger. I still wonder why people will write off a hi-po car because > of the number of doors it has. To me, it's simple closed-mindedness. I don't write it off I just think it would make for a killer looking two door coupe. :) >> one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > I don't write it off I just think it would make for a killer looking > two door coupe. :) Michael, I wasn't referring to your comments - just some others. At any rate, I just got back from the Fort Lauderdale car show, and I saw the Charger Daytona in person. As I'd hoped, it looks 1000% better in person. I also learned a few things about it at the show. The top of the line Daytona Hemi will go for around $40k; the base 6- cylinder Charger will be in the mid-20s. The Charger, Magnum, and 300 all share the same platform and basic layout. Of course, the 300 is Chrysler's upscale offering, but one can think of the Charger and Magnum as the sedan and wagon version of the same basic car. According to the Dodge rep at the show, the Charger is the replacement for the Intrepid, which explains why the car is a 4-door. It's certainly not designed to go up against the Mustang. When you think of the Charger in that light, it not only makes perfect sense, it's a plus that it's RWD and is available with a Hemi. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >>>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > Chrysler's upscale offering, but one can think of the Charger and > Magnum as the sedan and wagon version of the same basic car. Sounds like the Hemi will be competing in a very tough market segment. There's plenty of four-door performance sedans to pick from in the $40k-$50k price range. I would think they would be better served to go after the Mustang end of the market. There they would have only one real competitor. To do that they would need a two door model though. > According to the Dodge rep at the show, the Charger is the replacement > for the Intrepid, which explains why the car is a 4-door. It's > certainly not designed to go up against the Mustang. When you think > of the Charger in that light, it not only makes perfect sense, it's a > plus that it's RWD and is available with a Hemi. You gotta love the return of the RWD platforms sporting V-8's. >>>>one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >>>>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 210 lines] > have only one real competitor. To do that they would need a two > door model though. Make that the $35-$40k price range under the Dodge marque. In the $40k and under market, the Hemi will do just fine. The Chrysler 300C is already doing well in the $40k market. >> According to the Dodge rep at the show, the Charger is the >> replacement for the Intrepid, which explains why the car is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You gotta love the return of the RWD platforms sporting V-8's. Absolutely! The bummer was seeing cars like the Five Hundred, the Montego, the Zephyr, the Monte Carlo, the Cobalt, etc. Apparently, Ford and GM haven't gotten the message yet. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >>>>>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > Montego, the Zephyr, the Monte Carlo, the Cobalt, etc. Apparently, > Ford and GM haven't gotten the message yet. I do give Ford some credit though. They kept the Crown Vic when GM abandoned the RWD Impala and when RWD was dying fast they held on to the T-Bird through 1997. Plus most all of the Lincoln sedans are RWD now. My guess is the Taurus, 500 etc. will remain FWD/AWD for some years to come. There are many people (like my wife) that think FWD is better than RWD and will buy based on that presumption. I would love to see some of the smaller cars like the Focus, Eclipse, G6 etc. go RWD. With a 200-250 hp V-6, RWD and a decent suspension they would be some fairly serious performers. IMO, one of the best small cars of all time was the Nissan 240SX. We had a 240 vert until our son totaled it and it was a great handling car and very fun to drive mainly due to it being RWD. <lots of old stuff snipped> > I do give Ford some credit though. They kept the Crown Vic when GM > abandoned the RWD Impala and when RWD was dying fast they held on to > the T-Bird through 1997. Regarding the CV, Ford had no choice. There was/is no replacement for the CV in Ford's lineup. Just saw an '06 Grand Marquis last night. They're still hanging on. > Plus most all of the Lincoln sedans are > RWD now. Not the Zephyr. Ugh. Not only FWD but ugly as well. > My guess is the Taurus, 500 etc. will remain FWD/AWD for > some years to come. There are many people (like my wife) that think > FWD is better than RWD and will buy based on that presumption. Apparently that mentality is still alive and well within Ford corporate. Shame. > I would love to see some of the smaller cars like the Focus, > Eclipse, G6 etc. go RWD. With a 200-250 hp V-6, RWD and a decent > suspension they would be some fairly serious performers. IMO, one > of the best small cars of all time was the Nissan 240SX. We had a > 240 vert until our son totaled it and it was a great handling car > and very fun to drive mainly due to it being RWD. Yes, the 240SX was a very neat car. Of note at the show last night was the Pontiac Solstice. It's a very neat Miata-killer for around $20k. 2 seats, 2 doors, RWD. Also watch for the Saturn Sky. Should be very interesting. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Charger. I still wonder why people will write off a hi-po car because > of the number of doors it has. To me, it's simple closed-mindedness. I guess, from my point of view, if I'm looking for a sports car or a sporty car, I'm not looking to 4 doors. I don't particularly care for more than one passenger in my toy car. I also don't feel that most 4-door cars look as good as their 2-door bretheren, nor do 4-door cars have the same sporty look that the same car could have if made as a 2-door. It might just be my personal opinion, and while I know the car has balls o'plenty, it just doesn't catch my eye. I like a lot of DC's new stuff, but I don't like any of the pictures I've seen of the Charger. I think what the biggest gripe is that it's nothing like its namesake. It looks like it would be more at home wearing simulated wood panels on the doors than racing sponsorship stickers, but that's also my opinion. The GTO's sales are low even with more power than the Mustang because the car just doesn't turn heads. I fear the Charger may fall into the same fate. For another side of the argument, look at the Marauder. Big car, really cool, but not quite enough power and/or too heavy, and too costly for the average enthusiast. Great idea, but only a select few want that car, and Ford's wonderful marketing didn't put the information into their hands. Pappy won't shell out the cash, speed freaks want something smaller/lighter, soccer moms don't care about the power. As for the BMW/MB 4-door argument.... I still think that a majority of their cars manage to hold a sporty aerodynamic shape to them even with 4 doors. They do make some killer 2-door (and 2-seater) cars, but even the mid '90s 4-door 3-series BMWs had a swept, smooth shape to them. On some cars, the rear doors look like an afterthought. All that said, I'd still just rather have two doors, at least until I get married and have kids. JS > Joe > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >> one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sporty car, I'm not looking to 4 doors. I don't particularly care > for more than one passenger in my toy car. That's perfectly understandable and reasonable. Some people just prefer 2 doors. > I also don't feel that most 4-door cars look as good as their 2-door > bretheren, nor do 4-door cars have the same sporty look that the > same car could have if made as a 2-door. It might just be my > personal opinion, and while I know the car has balls o'plenty, it > just doesn't catch my eye. Again, no problem. It's all taste. My query was regarding those who dismiss a car as "bad" (for lack of a better term) due to the number of doors it has. > I like a lot of DC's new stuff, but I don't like any of the pictures > I've seen of the Charger. Me neither. Most of the pix I've seen really sucked. However, I saw it in person last night and it is striking. I think it'll look great out on the road. > I think what the biggest gripe is that > it's nothing like its namesake. It looks like it would be more at > home wearing simulated wood panels on the doors than racing > sponsorship stickers, but that's also my opinion. I agree. But DC readily admits that the name is being used to draw in potential customers. The car was never meant to be a "re-issue" of the '60s Charger - it's actually meant to be the Intrepid's replacement. > The GTO's sales > are low even with more power than the Mustang because the car just > doesn't turn heads. I fear the Charger may fall into the same fate. I saw a GTO last night right after looking at the Charger, and there's no comparison in the looks department. The GTO looks like an oversized jellybean. > For another side of the argument, look at the Marauder. Big car, > really cool, but not quite enough power and/or too heavy, and too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > freaks want something smaller/lighter, soccer moms don't care about > the power. Marketing is the difference IMO. Ford/LM's was non-existent for the Marauder; DC's is in your face with the Charger Daytona. But the difference with the Charger is that the Daytona is just an option package - it's not being marketed as an entirely different car as the Marauder was. > As for the BMW/MB 4-door argument.... I still think that a majority > of their cars manage to hold a sporty aerodynamic shape to them even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JS Entirely understandable. I'll tell you though - I went into the auto show last night wanting to understand why the Charger was a 4-door. I came away with an entirely different perspective for the better: First and foremost, the Charger is the Intrepid's replacement. In so many words, it's Dodge's version of the 300. It's also the "car" version of the Magnum wagon. All three share the same platform. When you think of the Charger in that light, it makes perfect sense that DC would build a "hi-po" version with a Hemi. The Magnum and 300 can be had with a Hemi, so why not a Charger? Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >> I guess, from my point of view, if I'm looking for a sports car or a >> sporty car, I'm not looking to 4 doors. I don't particularly care >> for more than one passenger in my toy car. > >That's perfectly understandable and reasonable. Some people just >prefer 2 doors. All things being equal, 2 door cars weigh less than 4 door cars. -- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter. >> one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111166896.040868.204890 >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >car, I'm not looking to 4 doors. I don't particularly care for more than >one passenger in my toy car. And if it can't take off it's top, it just ain't sexy enough. >I also don't feel that most 4-door cars look as good as their 2-door >bretheren, nor do 4-door cars have the same sporty look that the same car [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Pappy won't shell out the cash, speed freaks want something smaller/lighter, >soccer moms don't care about the power. But damn I wanted that car. Tried real hard to buy one as well. Even got the sales monkey to find someone over at the plant to give me their x-plan. Still to damn expensive. >As for the BMW/MB 4-door argument.... I still think that a majority of their >cars manage to hold a sporty aerodynamic shape to them even with 4 doors. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >All that said, I'd still just rather have two doors, at least until I get >married and have kids. Back in da day, which day was dat Uncle Zomby?, there was almost always a 2-door version and a 4-door version of any particular model of a car. Alias that is no more. Ever see a 2-door Crown Vic? >JS > >> Joe >> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies >> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC  Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:lsck31hrcv8np8ciapcu4av7snunqssea0 >@4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Rich, what are you smokin'? Try subtracting 10 grand from that. Sorry, I'm still thinking in 2002 Canadian dollars which were worth 40% less than U.S. dollars. Trouble is, our dollar is now within 20% of the U.S. and Canadian car dealers are still charging high ticket prices. -Rich > What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who > gets what part of the market share. That, and it's a butt ugly 4-door. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >>What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who >>gets what part of the market share. > > That, and it's a butt ugly 4-door. It definitely needs to lose two of those doors. >>>What's the Charger expected to cost? That'll play a big part in who >>>gets what part of the market share. >> >> That, and it's a butt ugly 4-door. > >It definitely needs to lose two of those doors. Without a doubt if it is to be called & considered a Charger! The only thing I can think of is that they are trying to go after the original owners who may now be looking at Luxury Barges with a little power. Granddaddy Gearhead needs to get the grand kiddies in the back. Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >What other car do you think DC will look to take a chunk of market share >from should a Charger become reality? It won't be the Corvette. ;) A Hemi powered two seater Barracuda? -- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter. >>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >A Hemi powered two seater Barracuda? But wouldn't that require bringing back the Plymouth brand? Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >But wouldn't that require bringing back the Plymouth brand? Wasn't the Neon originally a Plymouth? -- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter. >>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >What other car do you think DC will look to take a chunk of market share >from should a Charger become reality? It won't be the Corvette. ;) A Hemi powered two door Barracuda? -- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter. >>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A Hemi powered two door Barracuda? Now that would be a direct competitor to the Mustang. One thing Ford has going for the Mustang is it isn't a rehashed version of a family sedan. There's very little left of the DEW platform from the four door sedans it originated from. IMO, this is a marketing plus and adds to the Stang's popularity. It is truly unique in Ford's lineup. The problem with the Charger is it's just another rehashed 300C platform of which the 300C does a great job with already. The need to at least make it a two door to differentiate it from its parent vehicle. Otherwise, just give me a 300C of the R/T flavor. It's basically the same car. >>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark >>>>>the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > parent vehicle. Otherwise, just give me a 300C of the R/T flavor. > It's basically the same car. Michael, I think it's the old Chevy / Pontiac thing. Same cars with different trim and whatnot. Why did some people buy Novas and others bought Tempests? Why did some buy Camaros and others buy Firebirds? The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. DC offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. DC > offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. I think what everyone's really wishing for is that they'd make Hemi-powered ponycar. The family sedan is wonderful and all... but the other automakers are looking on as the Mustang tears up the sales charts. It's a great car, but some competition wouldn't hurt it any. Sadly, the GTO isn't doing much despite a rock-solid drivetrain. DC really has nothing in the ponycar class. Everyone was hoping the Charger would be another option... something to keep Ford honest with the Mustang. Those looking for one probably won't consider the other... it's not like the Camaro/Mustang wars. Then again, DC was always odd like that, well before they were DC. JS >> The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. DC >> offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the other automakers are looking on as the Mustang tears up the > sales charts. Bingo. Unless they've just plain given up on that arena, it beats me why GM and DC don't have something to go up against the Mustang. > It's a great car, but some competition wouldn't hurt > it any. Sadly, the GTO isn't doing much despite a rock-solid > drivetrain. It's got two main problems: marketing and appearance. Both are pretty bad. > DC really has nothing in the ponycar class. Everyone > was hoping the Charger would be another option... something to keep [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > JS I don't know, Dodge and Plymouth had some pretty cool cars if you think about it. In no particular order, Challenger, Charger, Road Runner, Barracuda, Dart GT... Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>> The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. DC >>> offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bingo. Unless they've just plain given up on that arena, it beats me > why GM and DC don't have something to go up against the Mustang. It's great for Ford, but like I said in another post... it doesn't keep them very honest. They could do whatever they wanted with the Mustang and we'll either buy it or go outside that class. Luckily, it seems they're trying to keep us happy. >> It's a great car, but some competition wouldn't hurt >> it any. Sadly, the GTO isn't doing much despite a rock-solid >> drivetrain. > > It's got two main problems: marketing and appearance. Both are pretty > bad. Agreed. The appearance isn't that bad, for a Grand Am, but not your performance machine. While the GTO is in the same class as the Mustang and was probably intended to be the direct competitor, the only reason people seem to be buying it is either a die-hard attachment to GM or because they're giving away high-horsepower ponycars. As for advertisement, did they think that one show they were promoting the hell out of was enough of an ad? >> DC really has nothing in the ponycar class. Everyone >> was hoping the Charger would be another option... something to keep [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > think about it. In no particular order, Challenger, Charger, Road > Runner, Barracuda, Dart GT... I'm not saying they didn't have some pretty cool cars, but they were always different... borderline odd, and remarkably Dodge/Plymouth products. You couldn't mistake it for anything else. They were known to be long and wide... cars that didn't like to do much but go real fast in a straight line. JS >>>> The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. >>>> DC offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Mustang and we'll either buy it or go outside that class. Luckily, > it seems they're trying to keep us happy. Yep. I think Ford's betting the farm on the Mustang and so far it's paying off. A win-win situation. >>> It's a great car, but some competition wouldn't hurt >>> it any. Sadly, the GTO isn't doing much despite a rock-solid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Agreed. The appearance isn't that bad, for a Grand Am, but not your > performance machine. Exactly. It looks like another Pontiac Soapbar car. > While the GTO is in the same class as the > Mustang and was probably intended to be the direct competitor, the > only reason people seem to be buying it is either a die-hard > attachment to GM or because they're giving away high-horsepower > ponycars. Right. Except for the Corvette engine, there doesn't seem to be a reason to want to rush out and get one. > As for advertisement, did they think that one show they > were promoting the hell out of was enough of an ad? Indeed. But I just saw another ad tonight on tv. Didn't see the beginning, but it had a blue GTO and said 'gto.com' at the bottom. The taillights looked sort of green though - the color didn't seem to be right. The tv's fine too... >>> DC really has nothing in the ponycar class. Everyone >>> was hoping the Charger would be another option... something to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JS Gotta love it though. That's what muscle/pony was all about back then. Nowadays we want it all in a single package. ;) Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark >>>>>>the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The Charger/Magnum is the base car/wagon; the 300C is upscale. DC > offers each vehicle with a hi-po option. What I don't understand about the Charger is why DC is even doing it at all. It's basically a cosmetic variant of the 300C. Making it a two door would give it a little of its own identity on the cheap. I think JS hit it in that I was hoping the Charger would be a viable choice from the Mustang. In reality the two cars aren't even competitors. I also see the four door sports sedan market chock full of competition. Overall I really hate the way DC will take a car and execute it only 90% of the way. A recent example is the Crossfire. They could have made it a Vette killer (or at least a competitor) but didn't follow through to make it a reality. They are about to do the same thing with the Charger. They could make it a two door and be competing it a market that they and Ford could own. They would have a home run if they cut off two doors, dropped in a hemi making 340-400 hp, made a 6-speed manual an option and priced it between $32k-$35k base and less than $40k loaded. I bet they couldn't make them fast enough to meet the demand. <snip> >>>Now that would be a direct competitor to the Mustang. One thing >>>Ford has going for the Mustang is it isn't a rehashed version of a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >manual an option and priced it between $32k-$35k base and less than $40k >loaded. I bet they couldn't make them fast enough to meet the demand. I don't know, is it better to compete model to model or care out your own niche market? Apparently what is happening is the Charger is just the Dodge version of the 300. A little cheaper, a little sportier and that's that. DC has already stepped up the 300C with a new version and the Crossfire has recently been given some balls, but still lacks in the suspension compartment. All in all I think that GM & DC have simply decided to leave the Mustang to it's own devices and not compete in that market at the current time. I've heard rumors, who hasn't, that there will be a new pony from GM. Whether it will be a CamBird resurrection or not who knows? The GTO was/is only supposed to be a fill in until they could cobble up something else domestically. Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark >>>>>>>the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > What I don't understand about the Charger is why DC is even doing it > at all. It's basically a cosmetic variant of the 300C. Exactly. It's a notch under the 300, and it costs less. If you don't want to spring for the 300C, you'll get the Charger. Unless, of course, you want the wagon and go for the Magnum. Simple. > Making it a > two door would give it a little of its own identity on the cheap. It looks less like the 300 than the Magnum does IMO. > I > think JS hit it in that I was hoping the Charger would be a viable > choice from the Mustang. Indeed. But that's what we were hoping for in this forum. DC apparently doesn't want to compete with the Mustang. > In reality the two cars aren't even > competitors. I also see the four door sports sedan market chock > full of competition. Actually, the Charger is the Intrepid's replacement. Consider this for a moment. The Intrepid was never seriously considered as a performance car, but the Charger immediately gets pigeonholed because of its namesake. > Overall I really hate the way DC will take a car and execute it only > 90% of the way. A recent example is the Crossfire. They could have > made it a Vette killer (or at least a competitor) but didn't follow > through to make it a reality. I think you have to look at it from their perspective. They never intended the Crossfire to compete with the Corvette; I think they were more after the Thunderbird niche. Based on what you're saying, you could've said the same thing about the Thunderbird. It falls short because it doesn't compete with the Corvette. But Ford didn't intend it to. > They are about to do the same thing > with the Charger. They could make it a two door and be competing it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > less than $40k loaded. I bet they couldn't make them fast enough to > meet the demand. I don't think the Charger is that car. The platform's just too big for a 2-door. A 2-door Charger would've been a DC Monte Carlo. Ugh. If DC enters the 2-door market along with the Mustang, they're going to have to come up with a smaller platform than the 300/Magnum/Charger. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark >>>>>>>>the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Indeed. But that's what we were hoping for in this forum. DC > apparently doesn't want to compete with the Mustang. I guess when I hear the name "Charger" I think of a Mustang competitor. I was also hoping it would be too. >>In reality the two cars aren't even >>competitors. I also see the four door sports sedan market chock [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > performance car, but the Charger immediately gets pigeonholed because > of its namesake. I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when they see the new Charger. :) >>Overall I really hate the way DC will take a car and execute it only >>90% of the way. A recent example is the Crossfire. They could have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because it doesn't compete with the Corvette. But Ford didn't intend > it to. The Thunderbird was an abortion from the start. The car didn't know which end was the front. It should be used as a shining example of how going retro can turn out something butt ugly. They could have at least put the Terminator engine in it. That would make me overlook some of that ugly styling. The Crossfire is a nice looking car and DC could had made a powder-puff version and one that would rip up the asphalt. Mercedes does this with several of their models under the AMG name plate. I want an AMG Crossfire, damn it! >>They are about to do the same thing >>with the Charger. They could make it a two door and be competing it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to have to come up with a smaller platform than the > 300/Magnum/Charger. After reading up on the Shelby GT500 who ever wants to compete directly with the Mustang had better come to that party sporting a real big set of doo-dads. >>>>>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might >>>>>>>>>spark the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > directly with the Mustang had better come to that party sporting a > real big set of doo-dads. Yup. That's one awesome car. Although I wonder exactly what Shelby (the man) actually contributed to the car except his name. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might >>>>>>>>>>spark the return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > Yup. That's one awesome car. Although I wonder exactly what Shelby > (the man) actually contributed to the car except his name. I think the proper question is "What did Ford contribute to Shelby to use his name?" He does nothing with his mane without getting a paycheck for it. I think about the only thing he did for the GT500 is sit in it and get his picture taken. <lots of other stuff snipped> >>>After reading up on the Shelby GT500 who ever wants to compete >>>directly with the Mustang had better come to that party sporting a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > paycheck for it. I think about the only thing he did for the GT500 > is sit in it and get his picture taken. LOL! So if Ford hadn't put 'S H E L B Y' on the back of the car, it would've cost $5000 less. ;) Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > <lots of other stuff snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > LOL! So if Ford hadn't put 'S H E L B Y' on the back of the car, it > would've cost $5000 less. ;) I bet it added at least $1,000-$2,000 per car. With a production run of 7,500 cars the first year, $1,000 per car puts $7.5m in his pocket. > I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when > they see the new Charger. :) It's already started. The new Mopar Muscle magazine skewers the Charger both on the cover and inside, basically mirroring the talk going on here. SignatureCobraJet >>I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when >>they see the new Charger. :) > > It's already started. The new Mopar Muscle magazine skewers the > Charger both on the cover and inside, basically mirroring the talk > going on here. I don't blame them either. It would be like Ford discontinuing the Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on something like a Taurus or Crown Vic variant. >>>I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when >>>they see the new Charger. :) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on >something like a Taurus or Crown Vic variant. The Mustang III? Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>>I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when >>>>they see the new Charger. :) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The Mustang III? We are lucky the Mustang II sold well or it might have been the end of the line for it. Now why it sold is a mystery to me. > >>I don't blame them either. It would be like Ford discontinuing the > >>Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We are lucky the Mustang II sold well or it might have been the end of > the line for it. Now why it sold is a mystery to me. Consider the alternatives at the time! Pacer, Gremlin, Vega, Citation and its cousin the Pinto. -John >> >>I don't blame them either. It would be like Ford discontinuing the >> >>Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Consider the alternatives at the time! Pacer, Gremlin, Vega, Citation and >its cousin the Pinto. Yeah that pretty much answers that question. Ever see one of those King Cobra's from that era? Local kid has one that he uses to deliver pizza in. Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when >>>they see the new Charger. :) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on something > like a Taurus or Crown Vic variant. They were going to try that with the Probe. We (collectively) bitched, and they made both, and made even more money. I'd hope they wouldn't be that silly, but look at the Charger, and to some extent the GTO. I guess it could happen to the Mustang too. JS <snip> >> I don't blame them either. It would be like Ford discontinuing the >> Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on something [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >JS I have no idea why the decided to recycle the Charger name on a 4-door, but some Marketing Whiz deep in the bowels of DC probably has an answer. As I said before, perhaps to appeal to those who owned the first round and are now graying. The GTO is another story all together. It was simply a stop gap measure to play to the renewed interest in Mucsle/Pony cars until they could get their act together and come up with something (Still haven't done so to my knowledge). After all the GTO was really the car that started it all (Muscle cars, not Pony cars). They (GM) didn't have the time, energy, balls, or domestic platform to throw a big V8 in like they did the last time around. So they dug deep into one of their subsidiaries and pulled out a platform that they could do with as they originally did with the first GTO, add a big engine to a regular sedan. Problem is the car is how shall we say, bland? Time will tell with the `05's stylizing clues back to the cars heritage as well as the bigger LS2 motor, but I still don't think it is going to sell well at it's price point. Damn thing is just to expensive with limited interest at it's current price. Here locally the `04's really started to move once the prices were dropped in to the mid-20's. I've seen more GTO's on the road here in the past month then I have in the past year. Still don't see any SSR's on anything other then dealers lots, even now with the price dropped down to about $32k. I like it's concept, but it is about useless as a pickup, and to heavy to be a Muscle version of anything. All in all it is simply a cute styling exercise. It could have been oh so much more. Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Muscle version of anything. All in all it is simply a cute styling > exercise. It could have been oh so much more. The problem with DC's concept of the Charger as a four door sedan is that it is a very crowded segment of the auto market. There are many, many capable sport sedans, including many from DC itself. They are bringing nothing new to this segment to differential a Charger from a 300C, BMW, Mercedes etc. I just see the use of the Charger name plate on this car as a waste of a good marketing opportunity that will alienate many of the older MOPAR fans. It might loose them as many buyers as it creates. > The problem with DC's concept of the Charger as a four door sedan is that > it is a very crowded segment of the auto market. There are many, many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a waste of a good marketing opportunity that will alienate many of the > older MOPAR fans. It might loose them as many buyers as it creates. Didn't they try this in the 80's with the Daytona cars? I remember good ol' Shelby had a word in on a couple of Daytonas... and I'm pretty sure early on in their lifecycle they used the Charger name as well. Maybe the stuck the turbo-4 in it, not sure. They really need to get their act together and start putting the name on something reminiscent of its heritage. They might as well put it on an SUV at this point. JS >> The problem with DC's concept of the Charger as a four door sedan >> is that it is a very crowded segment of the auto market. There are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > JS IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check out the car. That goes for any marque. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check out > the car. That goes for any marque. > > Joe > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC While I can see your point, it's the automaker's use of the names that's part of that equation too. They use that name hoping that it triggers the response in the brain to check out the car. You see "DC reintroduces the Charger" and you immediately think ponycar. You think fast Mopar muscle. You think of a car that'll turn heads, make lots of noise, and make you dream of it at night. They got part of the solution right, but they missed the turn heads part, IMO. You may disagree, but I think it should look more like the NASCAR Charger and less like the 300C. They use the name to get us to check the car out, otherwise we wouldn't even bother naming the silly things. We have the right to be let down if they give us a poor representation of the original. They could have called it anything else in the world and there wouldn't have been so much as a whimper from Mopar fans... but they used a name sacred to the Mopar faithful. What if the '05 Mustang flopped like the GTO (or Cambirds) and they discontinued it, only to bring it back 10 years from now looking like a Crown Victoria with 400hp? The collective sigh of disappointment from enthusiasts would be very large indeed. Fast and RWD it would be, and a great car at that, but still no Mustang. Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate our not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car names, designs, etc... could just as easily leave a lasting impression if executed correctly. JS > Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate our > not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car names, designs, > etc... could just as easily leave a lasting impression if executed > correctly. Everyone is trying to entice the Baby Boomers into buying their products. It's a large market, they have money and many are desperately trying to relive their youth and are willing to pay through the nose to do it. >> IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check >> out the car. That goes for any marque. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > be very large indeed. Fast and RWD it would be, and a great car at > that, but still no Mustang. Point well taken. But isn't Ford doing the same thing by using the name 'Shelby' on the GT500? > Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate our > not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car names, > designs, etc... could just as easily leave a lasting impression if > executed correctly. > > JS Already familiar names score higher than new, unfamiliar names. But it really doesn't matter to the discerning consumer. He/she will be looking at product regardless of what it's called. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>> IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check >>> out the car. That goes for any marque. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Point well taken. But isn't Ford doing the same thing by using the > name 'Shelby' on the GT500? To an extent yes. Maybe it's not a Shelby of old, but good ol' Shel's slapped his name on anything he could in the last 40 years to make a buck. Remember the Shelby Daytonas/Chargers of the early 80's? To me, the GT500 looks like an updated 67/68 Shelby Mustang. I think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is rediculous, but the car was pretty much on the mark as far as what they were trying to accomplish. Shelby's Mustangs in the 60's were top-of-the-line cars with the styling to go with all of that power and handling. I feel the only thing they misfired on was putting the solid rear axle in. Shelby always wanted to turn too. Had they called the plain jane GT a Shelby to sell more cars, I might have been a little more likely to agree with you on this point. Calling a 450-500hp car that looks like nothing but a Shelby Mustang could (not even Saleen, Roush, or Steeda made their cars look this good IMO) a Shelby isn't such a bad thing. >> Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate our >> not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car names, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC That's true. I take it for face value as well. I'm disappointed that they called that thing a Charger, but the car is solid. I don't care for the looks, but I'll respect it at a stoplight. I'd enjoy driving one if given the chance... I'm sure it's a blast... but it's not the car for me, and wouldn't pay my hard earned cash for it. The Shelby, on the other hand, already has me making plans to sell or trade in the '97 Cobra for it. I wouldn't care what name it had on the back. I guess if I were in the market for a 4-door sedan with some balls, I might consider the Charger though. Up until now, if forced into that segment by a change of family status, I'd have probably taken the turbo 5-cylinder Volvo... this might change my mind. Does it come in a stick? JS > I think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is ridiculous. What a mouthful. It's gonna have the freaks out there trying to call their old rustbucket stangs... "Ford Shelby Mustang Boss 390 GT Z's". Yes, I've actually heard something close to this uttered at the local show and shine. AARRRGGGHHH!!!!! SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >>I think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is ridiculous. > > What a mouthful. It's gonna have the freaks out there trying to call their > old rustbucket stangs... > "Ford Shelby Mustang Boss 390 GT Z's". Yes, I've actually heard something > close to this uttered at the local show and shine. AARRRGGGHHH!!!!! That's God awful. We have two manufacturers' names (one a coachbuilder, if you prefer), three model names and then the SVT qualifier. It's sort of like, "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". They need to drop three of the above. Dropping two might make it passable. What are the badges on the car going to say? SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 >>>> IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check >>>> out the car. That goes for any marque. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > make a buck. Remember the Shelby Daytonas/Chargers of the early > 80's? Unfortunately, yes. But everybody's playing the name game now. GM, Ford, and DC have all done it. > To me, the GT500 looks like an updated 67/68 Shelby Mustang. Obviously, that's the inevitable comparison. Even Ford's got pix of the two cars together. > I > think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is rediculous, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and handling. I feel the only thing they misfired on was putting > the solid rear axle in. Shelby always wanted to turn too. I'll bet they kept the solid rear for price constraints. I think they had to cut back somewhere to keep the car in the low $40s, and the solid rear took away the least from the car they had in mind. > Had they called the plain jane GT a Shelby to sell more cars, I > might have been a little more likely to agree with you on this > point. Calling a 450-500hp car that looks like nothing but a Shelby > Mustang could (not even Saleen, Roush, or Steeda made their cars > look this good IMO) a Shelby isn't such a bad thing. At this point, the Shelby name is nothing to those in the know. As you've already said, look at those Shelby Daytonas and Chargers of the '80s. >>> Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate >>> our not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > JS I think it's only available as an automatic, but supposedly they're coming out with an SRT version, just like the 300 and the Magnum with the 6.1 Hemi. At any rate, I think Ford's guilty of trading IRS for the Shelby name. They could've kicked Shelby off the bus and installed an IRS in the car probably for what the use of Shelby's name cost. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >> To an extent yes. Maybe it's not a Shelby of old, but good ol' >> Shel's slapped his name on anything he could in the last 40 years to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unfortunately, yes. But everybody's playing the name game now. GM, > Ford, and DC have all done it. Understood. The point I was trying to make is that, thus far, Ford's kept to the original essences of this particular car better than the other manufacturers have with their big names. It's unmistakably Shelby Mustang material... even if he didn't really do anything but decorate the rear section with his name. >> I >> think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is rediculous, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > had to cut back somewhere to keep the car in the low $40s, and the > solid rear took away the least from the car they had in mind. The sad thing is that there isn't even an option - this is a big mistake - and that we're no longer working with the SN95/Fox-4 chassis, and the parts aren't as plentiful for a rear swap. Is there another DEW-chassis IRS available that'll bolt into the Mustang for those of us who might want to turn when the road's bumpy? > At this point, the Shelby name is nothing to those in the know. As > you've already said, look at those Shelby Daytonas and Chargers of the > '80s. Sad... very sad. Like you and many others, I wonder what he really contributed. >> I guess if I were in the market for a 4-door sedan with some balls, >> I might consider the Charger though. Up until now, if forced into [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > coming out with an SRT version, just like the 300 and the Magnum with > the 6.1 Hemi. I figured the Daytona would be SRT's entry, though I know they like to stick with the numbered scheme. Sad that it's not available in a manual row gearbox... insult to injury. > At any rate, I think Ford's guilty of trading IRS for the Shelby name. > They could've kicked Shelby off the bus and installed an IRS in the > car probably for what the use of Shelby's name cost. I couldn't agree with you more. I know SVT could have done this on their own. What's the big deal with Carroll's name at this point? SVT's established, as is the Mustang Cobra name. We didn't need another name, just another Cobra. What was his involvement? "Stick the Ford GT/Lightning motor in it. Put that built-in wing on the back and move the cobra grille emblem to the driver's side... and get rid of some of that aluminum in the dash, it's too shiny." I think any one of us here could have done that. Yes, he was a legend, but this is like watching Mario Lemieux try to play for the Penguins when we all know his back won't let him play like he should. Sometimes, legends need to hang it up too. JS >>> To an extent yes. Maybe it's not a Shelby of old, but good ol' >>> Shel's slapped his name on anything he could in the last 40 years [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > unmistakably Shelby Mustang material... even if he didn't really do > anything but decorate the rear section with his name. Agreed. I think it would've been cool though if Ford incorporated the sequential turn signals into the car. >>> I >>> think the name Ford SVT Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500 is rediculous, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mustang for those of us who might want to turn when the road's > bumpy? Does the T-Bird have IRS? Although as Michael pointed out, the weight factor could be a problem. >> At this point, the Shelby name is nothing to those in the know. As >> you've already said, look at those Shelby Daytonas and Chargers of >> the '80s. > > Sad... very sad. Like you and many others, I wonder what he really > contributed. I'll bet Ford simply paid for the use of the name. >>> I guess if I were in the market for a 4-door sedan with some >>> balls, I might consider the Charger though. Up until now, if [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to stick with the numbered scheme. Sad that it's not available in a > manual row gearbox... insult to injury. AFAIK, the Daytona has the 5.7 Hemi; the SRT will sport the 6.1. Don't know what tranny the 6.1 will have. >> At any rate, I think Ford's guilty of trading IRS for the Shelby >> name. They could've kicked Shelby off the bus and installed an IRS >> in the car probably for what the use of Shelby's name cost. > > I couldn't agree with you more. I know SVT could have done this on > their own. What's the big deal with Carroll's name at this point? I think it's simply to attract more interest in the car. Marketing. > SVT's established, as is the Mustang Cobra name. We didn't need > another name, just another Cobra. What was his involvement? "Stick > the Ford GT/Lightning motor in it. Put that built-in wing on the > back and move the cobra grille emblem to the driver's side... and > get rid of some of that aluminum in the dash, it's too shiny." I > think any one of us here could have done that. Absolutely. But 'Shelby' will probably attract more people than 'SVT'. > Yes, he was a legend, but this is like watching Mario Lemieux try to > play for the Penguins when we all know his back won't let him play > like he should. Sometimes, legends need to hang it up too. > > JS Indeed. Old Shel's milking it for all it's worth at this point. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check >>>>>out the car. That goes for any marque. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > had to cut back somewhere to keep the car in the low $40s, and the > solid rear took away the least from the car they had in mind. I'm with you on this take. I bet they found the performance improvement from going with an IRS wasn't worth the cost. With the power this beast will be capable of with minimal after market tuning, I bet to make it reliable with an IRS added substantial weight to the car. I don't think the lack of it will sway one buyer. I know it wouldn't matter to me. I actually like the solid axle for a car like this. It is a torque monster and the tried and true solid axle is a good fit, IMHO. >>Had they called the plain jane GT a Shelby to sell more cars, I >>might have been a little more likely to agree with you on this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you've already said, look at those Shelby Daytonas and Chargers of the > '80s. The Shelby name means nothing to me either. All I care about is the specs and this car has them in spades. I must say though that Ford has honored the heritage of the original GT500 in this car. >>>>Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate >>>>our not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > They could've kicked Shelby off the bus and installed an IRS in the > car probably for what the use of Shelby's name cost. Aside from cost, I think Ford dropped the IRS due to added weight. With the new rear end geometry and mounting the current setup is much better than the solid axle on the Fox platform cars. It probably brought it close enough to IRS performance to make it not worth the absorbing the cost and weight penalties. Especially considering how much hp/torque the read end will need to handle once the after market tuners get their hands on them. >>>>>>IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check >>>>>>out the car. That goes for any marque. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > I'm with you on this take. I bet they found the performance > improvement from going with an IRS wasn't worth the cost. They might not have even got that far. They could've balked immediately when they found out what it would cost per car. > With the > power this beast will be capable of with minimal after market [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > axle for a car like this. It is a torque monster and the tried and > true solid axle is a good fit, IMHO. I think you're right, Michael. Sure, IRS would be cool, but the lack of it certainly won't be a showstopper. Even if it is for some people, there will probably be someone else ready to snap the car right up. >>>Had they called the plain jane GT a Shelby to sell more cars, I >>>might have been a little more likely to agree with you on this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > specs and this car has them in spades. I must say though that Ford > has honored the heritage of the original GT500 in this car. Agreed. As JS said, Ford has stayed true to the car's heritage whereas GM and DC have not done that with their old-is-now-new names. >>>>>Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate >>>>>our not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > considering how much hp/torque the read end will need to handle once > the after market tuners get their hands on them. As you've already said, it's not a showstopper. If I were in the market I'd buy it in a second. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >it a two door to differentiate it from its parent vehicle. Otherwise, >just give me a 300C of the R/T flavor. It's basically the same car. Well they have all but said that the Charger is the Dodge version of the 300. Signature"Maybe worshiping the cross and the painful death rather than the well lived life really has distorted our sense of who we are and what life is about." -- Author unkown >>>>>>In a twist of irony large volume Mustang sales just might spark the >>>>>>return of the Camaro, Charger etc. That can only mean good things for [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Well they have |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message