2015 Mustang

[jbsides]

Any opinions on the '15 Mustang?

Interesting statistics and graph in the article on sales volume. Mustang has hit 170K untis a few times, and Camaro has bested it in sales the past few years. 2015 Mustang article

[mockingbird812]

Not bad. Looks like a Ferrari ran into the back of a current gen 'Stang [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img] I do like &quot;lighter&quot; and &quot;IRS&quot; as big pluses!

[twertsy]

Absolutely Fugly, IMHO......they've taken all the &quot;beef&quot; away seemingly in favor of a more European style. I'll stick with my '07 Shelby.

[old5.0]

The picture in the article is not what the car will look like. That's just a slightly re-touched Evos rendering that was released by a third party over a year ago. Besides, a little Euro styling won't hurt it any. Make it light,fast and, most importantly,affordable, and the styling becomes a secondary concern. For all the hype over the 05-present &quot;retro&quot; car, it's been a failure in terms of sales. Decade-over-decade, 80-89 was the last time the Mustang came close to maintaining its historical sales rate. 90-99 saw the start of a decline and 2000-2009 was a disaster. 2010-forward is shaping up to be even worse.

It seems to be trendy these days to fret over the state of young people and cars. You want to know why kids aren't interested? Money. The number of young people under 30 who have the cash (and the willingness) to shell out 35 large for a new Mustang GT or Camaro SS these days probably couldn't fill the average soccer stadium. $50K+ Shelby's and ZL1's aren't even in the equation. They can make these things look like any older model they want, glue anybody's name to the dash they want, it won't matter. Kids aren't walking into showrooms because almost nobody makes anything remotely interesting that they can afford. Ford was almost on the right track with the Focus ST, but I haven't found one yet wearing a sticker under $25,000. 25 grand for a Focus? Thanks, but no thanks.

Light, cheap, fast. Get those three right, and looks suddenly become a lot less important. Ford had the youth market locked down in the 80's and early 90's, and then they just walked away from it. They need it back, and the high-priced niche cars they're building now aren't going to get it done.

[twertsy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: old5.0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The picture in the article is not what the car will look like. That's just a slightly re-touched Evos rendering that was released by a third party over a year ago. Besides, a little Euro styling won't hurt it any. Make it light,fast and, most importantly,affordable, and the styling becomes a secondary concern. For all the hype over the 05-present &quot;retro&quot; car, it's been a failure in terms of sales. Decade-over-decade, 80-89 was the last time the Mustang came close to maintaining its historical sales rate. 90-99 saw the start of a decline and 2000-2009 was a disaster. 2010-forward is shaping up to be even worse.

It seems to be trendy these days to fret over the state of young people and cars. You want to know why kids aren't interested? Money. The number of young people under 30 who have the cash (and the willingness) to shell out 35 large for a new Mustang GT or Camaro SS these days probably couldn't fill the average soccer stadium. $50K+ Shelby's and ZL1's aren't even in the equation. They can make these things look like any older model they want, glue anybody's name to the dash they want, it won't matter. Kids aren't walking into showrooms because almost nobody makes anything remotely interesting that they can afford. Ford was almost on the right track with the Focus ST, but I haven't found one yet wearing a sticker under $25,000. 25 grand for a Focus? Thanks, but no thanks.

Light, cheap, fast. Get those three right, and looks suddenly become a lot less important. Ford had the youth market locked down in the 80's and early 90's, and then they just walked away from it. They need it back, and the high-priced niche cars they're building now aren't going to get it done. </div></div>

The average auto-worker (UAW) makes just over $54/hr (avg wages = ~$40/hr plus approximately $15/hr in accumulated bennies)......... Add in retiree pensions/bennies and that cost goes up to around $70/hr. Good luck bringing the price down.

[69 Post Sedan]

With the two tier wage system, the new hires, which there are a lot of, are starting at $16-$19 an hour with less benefits....a lot lower than the veterans.

Too bad prices of the vehicles don’t seem to reflect the difference....then we might see some of the younger crowd buying more HP cars. IMO

Kurt

[XXXGoldL34M20]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: twertsy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Absolutely Fugly, IMHO......they've taken all the &quot;beef&quot; away seemingly in favor of a more European style. I'll stick with my '07 Shelby. </div></div>

X2
Took the words right out of my mind.
Thank God I bought a 07, still the best looking generation.

[twertsy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 69 Post Sedan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the two tier wage system, the new hires, which there are a lot of, are starting at $16-$19 an hour with less benefits....a lot lower than the veterans.

Too bad prices of the vehicles don’t seem to reflect the difference....then we might see some of the younger crowd buying more HP cars. IMO

Kurt </div></div>

If that's the case, those lower wage young bucks are certainly not reflected in the prices........plus, we gotta pay the union staff to watch the guys watching the robots weld...

[old5.0]

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 &quot;retro&quot; Mustang, but the reality is the retro trend started over a decade earlier. Anyone remember the marketing slogan in '94? &quot;It is what it was&quot;, as I recall. &quot;Look at me!&quot; all the ads screamed. &quot;I have a running horse in the grille! I have side scoops! I have triple segmented tailights! I'm just like an old Mustang!!!&quot; 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 &quot;slower and more expensive&quot; 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.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

You wonder why almost 90% of the kids you see out there today are buying Hondas and other foreign performance vehicles. They are fast and very affordable. The big three did it to themselves.

-Matt