Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2006
Ford kills SVT unit
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Backyard Mechanic - 08 Mar 2006 14:31 GMT 2007 Shelby Cobra Mustang to be performance division's swan song
Source: Autoblog
http://tinyurl.com/f47ew
Too bad, but inevitable. There's no way Ford could continue to justify SVT, considering current market and Corporate fiscal conditions.
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
Brent P - 08 Mar 2006 15:01 GMT > 2007 Shelby Cobra Mustang to be performance division's swan song > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Too bad, but inevitable. There's no way Ford could continue to justify > SVT, considering current market and Corporate fiscal conditions. So what does this mean? One model year of GT500?
It clearly means that they are going to filter them out one per dealer or so. Which means significant price mark ups by itself, but with SVT going away even more. If there is only one model year of GT500 the mark ups will be incredible. It's as if ford is trying hard not to sell cars.
Backyard Mechanic - 08 Mar 2006 15:58 GMT > In article <Xns978062D6DD102pettyfogery@207.115.17.102>, Backyard > Mechanic wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mark ups will be incredible. It's as if ford is trying hard not to > sell cars. I dont think that necessarily follows.
Unless Ford LOSES money on each one - which COULD be the case, if the MBS's so desire- then the more they sell, the better for the bottom line. It aint the production costs, it's the design and tooling.
And remember the significance of these specialties against the corporate sales/bottom line.
What it DOES mean is that a smart aftermarket guy like Saleen, or even Shelby who isnt that smart, can really make some money from this... if he can hire away -or part time- one or more of the skunkworks designers. What Saleen DOESNT do, in my opinion, is give a design that really integrates into the original appearance flow.. eg should look less like 'bolt-on'
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
HerkyJerky - 08 Mar 2006 18:24 GMT I just wonder if this really only means the SVT as its organized now will not exist. Whats the chance that the specialty cars will be brought fully under the umbrela of the parent program, i.e. Mustang, or Fusion or whatever. I guess I'm hoping for the best in what appears to be a bad deal on the surface. SVT has no doubt made money for Ford (they kept it alive for this long) but I suppose in these dire times its about putting the resources where they get the best return. At least I have my 96 model. Can't afford a 2007. Kinda sad if this is all turns out to be true.
Zombywoof - 09 Mar 2006 13:39 GMT >I just wonder if this really only means the SVT as its organized now >will not exist. Whats the chance that the specialty cars will be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >At least I have my 96 model. Can't afford a 2007. Kinda sad if this >is all turns out to be true. While it does seem strange in the days of multiple specialty groups within/out various automakers, SRT, AMG, M-Series, and so forth we have to remember that Ford is bleeding blue arterial blood right now.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense that after doing all the tooling up for the GT500 that they would shut the production line down after just one model year run. I can see (though not understand) shutting down any future Soups-2-Nuts designs out of SVT, but killing their latest creation without even knowing what the sales figures are seems like really piss poor management to me. Unless of course Bill Fords retirement portfolio contains one of each SVT model in shrink wrap and he wants to maximize the collector value of this latest product.
 Signature
December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)
Blue Mesteno - 09 Mar 2006 17:03 GMT >I just wonder if this really only means the SVT as its organized now > will not exist. Whats the chance that the specialty cars will be > brought fully under the umbrela of the parent program, i.e. Mustang, or > Fusion or whatever. Isn't this exactly what happened to the SVO group from the '80's?? Came back around as SVT. What'll be next?
 Signature Scott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
RT - 10 Mar 2006 21:50 GMT >I just wonder if this really only means the SVT as its organized now >will not exist. Whats the chance that the specialty cars will be >brought fully under the umbrela of the parent program, i.e. Mustang, or >Fusion or whatever. I guess I'm hoping for the best in what appears to >be a bad deal on the surface. SVT has no doubt made money for Ford It's not about making money. You can't make (a lot) of money on low volume cars like the svt models. It's a billboard with indirect results. You have to remember, car manufacturers make money on mass volume.
>(they kept it alive for this long) but I suppose in these dire times >its about putting the resources where they get the best return. >At least I have my 96 model. Can't afford a 2007. Kinda sad if this >is all turns out to be true. yup
Brent P - 08 Mar 2006 19:29 GMT > Unless Ford LOSES money on each one - which COULD be the case, if the > MBS's so desire- then the more they sell, the better for the bottom line. > It aint the production costs, it's the design and tooling. Which is why I find it bogglesome that Ford continually chooses 'collectable' over production when it's the dealer that profits the most. Who the hell knows what will be collectable in 30 years, turn the crank and pay off the tooling.
RT - 10 Mar 2006 21:49 GMT >> In article <Xns978062D6DD102pettyfogery@207.115.17.102>, Backyard >> Mechanic wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Unless Ford LOSES money on each one - which COULD be the case, if the They won't lose anymore money. After the development of the model, They would make money on each car they sell. The more they sell, the sooner the investment will be recouped. GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models are the first one to get axed since it isn't high volume and they won't make substantial amounts of money on it. My guess it that they will sell the shelby for a couple years to at least recover some of the investment. As long as the pure production/warranty cost does not exceed the asking price they should sell it. I think they make enough on it.
>MBS's so desire- then the more they sell, the better for the bottom line. >It aint the production costs, it's the design and tooling. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What it DOES mean is that a smart aftermarket guy like Saleen, or even >Shelby who isnt that smart, can really make some money from this... if he Yup, Saleen, roush etc, will get more business for sure.
>can hire away -or part time- one or more of the skunkworks designers. >What Saleen DOESNT do, in my opinion, is give a design that really >integrates into the original appearance flow.. eg should look less like >'bolt-on' Lynn McGuire - 10 Mar 2006 22:05 GMT > GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models are Do you have proof that Ford is in trouble ? I have proof that it is not currently in trouble: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=F&annual
Ford has been profitable for the last 3 years. Not very profitable, but a little profitable is a whole lot better than losing money.
I fully expect Ford to get even better when the UAW contract gets renegotiated next year when GM is in bankruptcy. In fact, I would not be surprised to see the UAW walk off the job for six to twelve months. I fully expect Ford, GM and Chrysler to convert their retirement plans into 401Ks and drop retiree health benefits.
Lynn
HerkyJerky - 11 Mar 2006 03:34 GMT True. It has been profitable on a worldwide basis. However, when you look at the automotive sector alone, they have lost money the last three years at least. In 2005 the loss was nearly $4 Billion (before tax effects). Lost nearly $2 Billion in 2003. North American operations and the Premium Auto Group account for a lot of that.
Zombywoof - 11 Mar 2006 15:13 GMT >> GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models are > >Do you have proof that Ford is in trouble ? I have proof that it is not >currently in trouble: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=F&annual All depends on what you call trouble. While FoMoCo as a global company is doing fair to partly cloudy, the American Cars Division definitely has Thunder Clouds on its horizon.
>Ford has been profitable for the last 3 years. Not very profitable, >but a little profitable is a whole lot better than losing money. How about a couple of Billions with a "B" lost domestically. One cannot make up losses in the Billions by volume.
>I fully expect Ford to get even better when the UAW contract gets >renegotiated next year when GM is in bankruptcy. In fact, I would >not be surprised to see the UAW walk off the job for six to twelve >months. I fully expect Ford, GM and Chrysler to convert their >retirement plans into 401Ks and drop retiree health benefits. While I don't expect it, but I do highly suspect that something is going to have to be done about UAW contracts. If not more then just the Domestic part of GM is going to go down the tubes. All US Auto Manufacturers have been mortgaging their future with the current rebates & price rollbacks.
Prior to Christmas I bought my darling wife an `05 Lincoln Aviator for $15k off MSRP. I yes I know it is nothing much more then a gussied up Explorer, but she is a tad of a label whore, and it is a pretty sweet ride with the heated & A/C seats, Factory THX navigation & entertainment system. It also rides fair more superiorly to an Explorer or Mountaineer. Now if I can get a vehicle with a $50k+ sticker for a touch over $35k out the door with Tax, Tag, Title & a pre-paid Scheduled Service contract included. This deal was without almost no bargaining effort what so ever. Was it a buy at below production cost? I don't know, but I doubt that there was a $15K profit margin built into the damn thing. After just springing $35K for a vehicle, which my wife as not a car person absolutely loves to drive, I don't think there are many more new FoMoCo product purchases in my near future and with the pre-paid scheduled service contract for the length of the Warranty I won't being spending all that much at the dealership as well.
If the UAW does in fact walk, I hope the hell that the US Manufacturers simply lock the gates on the unionized plants and never ever unlock them for the SOB's again. It would serve them right.
What would be even worse then any of the Big 3 converting their retirement programs to 401K's is abandoning them as un/under-funded liability. Ford is in much better shape then GM in this area, but if it happens it might be you & I, Joe Average Taxpayer, that gets stuck with the un/under-funded retirement liability.
 Signature
December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)
Backyard Mechanic - 11 Mar 2006 15:41 GMT >>> GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models >>> are [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Manufacturers have been mortgaging their future with the current > rebates & price rollbacks. ...
> If the UAW does in fact walk, I hope the hell that the US > Manufacturers simply lock the gates on the unionized plants and never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it happens it might be you & I, Joe Average Taxpayer, that gets stuck > with the un/under-funded retirement liability. The typical Union guy is afraid of the 401, while most white collar corps converted to them starting 20 years ago. and they perform FAR better than the pension funds.
Of course, you have to actually DO something to manage them.
But it's the same guy who howls against any change in the Social Security.
 Signature Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it!
Zombywoof - 12 Mar 2006 19:08 GMT >>>> GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models >>>> are [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >But it's the same guy who howls against any change in the Social >Security. Without calling names, such as the "Typical Union Guy", most White Collar workers have a little bit more on the ball as far as the education & knowledge to make the decisions that are involved with 401K type investments.
If left to their own devices most folks are simply one decision away from eating cat food in their retirement. That is why the politicians came up with SS in the first place. This includes my ABD a.s.
I think that idea of forced contribution is OK at its core, it is what is then done with the monies collected, or more to the point not done with them, that at this point in time isn't all that sound.
 Signature
December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)
RT - 12 Mar 2006 22:57 GMT >> GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models are > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Lynn Two words: declining marketshare Unless they can at least stop losing market share they will be in more and more trouble.
Lynn - 13 Mar 2006 06:56 GMT >>> GM and Ford are in big trouble, and niche cars like the svt models are >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Unless they can at least stop losing market share they will be in more > and more trouble. Ah, now that is a serious problem ! Companies are either growing or dying, they are not static entities.
What is Ford doing to combat this loss of market share ? They are killing off unprofitable areas. What areas are they spending money on ?
Lynn
rander3127@gmail.com - 09 Mar 2006 07:49 GMT They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. Why do they even need a separate division? Cachet?
KJ.Kate - 09 Mar 2006 11:57 GMT : They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. : Why do they even : need a separate division? Cachet? I don't know how THAT could be. Every time they issue a Cobra, the next model of GT just whomps it's a.s for a lot less money. Maybe it will go the way of the Camaor "We're never making another one!! Well, not until next time"
Kate
Ritz - 09 Mar 2006 12:57 GMT > : They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. > : Why do they even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe it will go the way of the Camaor "We're never making another one!! > Well, not until next time" Unless you've got big $$$, a lot of time, and a very good eye for the market, the "collectible car" business is going to be a constant financial drain on the casual buyer. Cars are a depreciating asset. With very few exceptions (unless you have all those items above), you'll never recoup the investment and will likely never make a dent in the relentless march of depreciation on the vehicle. That's what makes Ford's bumbling strategy of limited production so maddening for the everyday enthusiast (you know, the people that actually help keep them in business). Unless you are buying a GT or a Shelby to put under wraps for 20 years and then sell it at a profit (you'd probably do a lot better by just buying a $50k bank CD), you're going to throw 5 figures down the toilet. If you're buying it to actually drive it, then you just need to resign yourself to this fact.
It makes a lot more sense to buy a cheaper Mustang GT, spend a few grand on a supercharger and whatever other performance goodies you like, then just "drive it like you stole it" and not worry about taking a home mortgage out to buy a playtoy...unless, of course, you can afford to flush that $$$. In that case, you're simply buying what you want without worrying about those pesky financial details. In that case, I'd recommend a nice Ferrari. 8-)
Cheers,
Brent P - 09 Mar 2006 16:37 GMT > It makes a lot more sense to buy a cheaper Mustang GT, spend a few grand > on a supercharger and whatever other performance goodies you like, then > just "drive it like you stole it" and not worry about taking a home > mortgage out to buy a playtoy... Yeah I was just going to modify my '97 GT. Well, it's still almost stock. See, I was driving it, so I couldn't have the downtime or the nagging problems and fixes that come with modification.
I just don't want to mess with it. By the time the GT has a super charger and suspension mods and brakes it's going to be over 30 grand anyway. Throw in the other bits here and there that get upgraded and the difference between building the mustang GT up and GT500 MSRP is going be what? 5 grand or so? Maybe less... Don't install the mods yourself and there's no savings at all. I've got too many other projects demanding my time than to spend all that effort to risk the reliability and damaging other parts of a new car in the trial and error of the process.
Ford should just build the GT500 to demand, I don't care if it's worth something in 30 years or not. I'll take good care of it like I have my GT and if it's a collectable car, great. If not, so what, it's not like I was going to sell it anyway if I've had it that long.
Zombywoof - 09 Mar 2006 22:35 GMT >> : They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. >> : Why do they even [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Cheers, Well ya know what they say about depreciating assets. If it floats, flys or F**ks, lease it.
 Signature
December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)
KJ.Kate - 09 Mar 2006 20:54 GMT Camaor - oh good God in heaven was that a bad one. Almost as bad as Camero
C_A_M_A_R_O damnit!
:: They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. :: Why do they even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : Kate RT - 10 Mar 2006 21:56 GMT >: They could market it via the regular division, just an upmarket model. >: Why do they even >: need a separate division? Cachet? > >I don't know how THAT could be. Every time they issue a Cobra, the next >model of GT just whomps it's a.s for a lot less money. It's called progress.
>Maybe it will go the way of the Camaor "We're never making another one!! >Well, not until next time" I'm sure we'll see another one in the future.
>Kate dwight - 09 Mar 2006 02:21 GMT > 2007 Shelby Cobra Mustang to be performance division's swan song > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Too bad, but inevitable. There's no way Ford could continue to justify > SVT, considering current market and Corporate fiscal conditions. The eternal optimist in me hopes that the April 1st date has meaning.
dwight
|
|
|