Re: 2015 Mustang
There are no shortage of things to blame it on; excessive union pay scales/bennies are only part of the issue. You can't leave out marketing and product planning decisions on Ford's part, either.
Everyone thinks of the '05 as the "retro" Mustang, but the reality is the retro trend started over a decade earlier. Anyone remember the marketing slogan in '94? "It is what it was", as I recall. "Look at me!" all the ads screamed. "I have a running horse in the grille! I have side scoops! I have triple segmented tailights! I'm just like an old Mustang!!!" Meanwhile, Ford forgot to point out that the new car was also slower, heavier, and significantly more expensive than the previous model. In 1993, arguable the fastest car on the Ford dealer's lot would be an LX coupe with the 5.0/5-speed/3.08 drivetrain and no options. Such a car could be driven off the lot for less than $13,000. By 1996, purchasing the equivalent straight line speed required you to step up to the Cobra, which cost $26,000. The price more than doubled in three years. Was the SN-95 a better all around car than the Fox? Sure, it was better built, quieter and more comfortable to drive, particularly on long trips. But the "slower and more expensive" part was hard for a lot of people to get over, and Ford's insistence that anyone who wanted a reasonably quick straightline car first track down an SVT-certified dealer and then pay the Cobra's exorbitant asking price didn't help. Some people went to the Chevy dealer (where the Camaro, in fairness, suffered from it's own issues). Others just didn't bother.
Ford, in the early 90's, made a conscious decision that they were going after an older, more affluent clientele with the Mustang, and every decision they've made since has reflected this philosophy. Is a Shelby really worth twenty grand more than a GT? The specs don't say so. Under the hood, the GT500 still uses the old 4.6/5.4 Modular architecture, so Ford can't even claim that your extra twenty large is going toward amortizing the cost of developing the new 5.0 engine. You're paying that much because Ford says you will. The same thing can be said when comparing the GT to the base car. Is there enough there to justify an almost ten grand bump in price? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd guess the cost of developing and screwing together the base model vs. the GT vs. the Shelby is closer than anyone realizes. Twenty five years ago, you could buy a really hot V8 Mustang for about the same money as a loaded Escort station wagon, and for thousands less than a full-size Crown Victoria. No longer. Now the Mustang is the most expensive passenger car in Ford's lineup.
The Mustang was successful specifically because it was a populist sporty car. In the sixties and again in the eighties, they appealed (and, more importantly, were accessible) to everyone from little old retired librarians to young college kids to professional street racers. It hasn't been that car in 20 years. Ford needs to figure out a way to <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> it that car again.
|