Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

14142444647141

Comments

  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    GM had to pay Fiat $2 Billion. That isn't going to help GM so take that into consideration.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,896
    Yeah, that GM/Fiat deal was doomed from the start. I still don't know why GM made that deal. They got....well.....essentially.....nothing for their $2B.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    No problem. I'm not upset at all, Also GTO owners get jumped on by Mustang owners too! It goes both ways! Competition, LOL! Both the GTO and Mustang are very good cars. You make some valid points. I had to pay that $1300 gas guzzler tax, that stunk! The GTO only gets 2 mpg worse then Mustang. 16/21 Mustang is 18/23 Pretty close.

    GM sold 16k GTO's in 2004 and they reduced production to only 12k GTO's for 2005. I agree, probably lack of sales and no promotions or advertising!

    You can use regular 87 octane gas in the GTO with no problems, you will loose a little performance. Part of the reason for Premium for best perf. in GTOis because it has a higher compression ratio 10.9 vs Mustangs 9.8.

    My dealer was very nice to me, no hidden markups, got the car for about $30k even. For me, the insurance was $100 more a year for the Mustang, based on the quotes/prices from my insurance company! I have good driving record. The joke is that my 2001 Infiniti I30t is the same or higher then the GTO insurance wise? Strange!!

    As I said they are both good cars! I don't think the GTO is half assed in anyway.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    mschmal wrote..........What GM did with the GTO is they took a look at current Pontiacs and translated that into a 2 door coupe. Hence you have something that looks like a Pontiac Sunfire. Ford would have gotten the same look if they had styled the Mustang along the lines of the Focus or heaven forbid the Taurus.

    NO, the GTO already existed as the 2 door coupe Holden Monaro in Austrailia since it's LATE 2001 introduction. They took that car and put a Pontiac front end on it, made it left hand drive and changed some things so it would meet US crash protection standards & emmissions, otherwise it is pretty much the same Austrailian designed car. The only thing that looks different on the Holden is the front end and part of the backend.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I understand your point. I'm not flaming either... just pointing out my reason for choosing GTO over the Mustang..... In my case I have a GM employee discount, I don't have a Ford discount, so the GTO really wasn't much more $$ then a similarly equipped Mustang!! All the Mustang dealers wanted MSRP for V8 where I checked.. wasn't getting much off. The insurance was MORE on Mustang for me. For me the backseat mattered with my son & his car seat. GTO is easier to put in a Britax seat. Also there isn't many GTO on road, where as everywhere you look you see 10 mustangs. They way I look at is that I got the same 400hp Corvette drivetrain for about $30k.

    In normal driving you won't see a dif between IRS or solid rear, but in harder driving or on uneven pavement, or HARD cornering, the IRS is superior to the solid rear, that is a PROVEN FACT!! Why doesn't the vette or 350z etc use solid rear? SOlid rear is BAD in car that costs $25k to $30k. cost cutting by ford. Either way, they are both good cars!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "GM sold 16k GTO's in 2004 and they reduced production to only 12k GTO's for 2005"

    Too clarify:

    They certainly IMPORTED 16k of the 2004 model, but they sold no where close to 16K during the '04 calender year. From what I understand, there are STILL many, many '04 models on the lots (in April of '05?). Which is why they imported 25% fewer for '05, despite the improvements made to the car.

    The point is, the low sales numbers are NOT due to the limited supply of cars. The low sales numbers are due to low demand. The reasons for the low demand may be debated (and there are, IMO, several reasons), but the limited supply of cars should not be construed as a factor.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...but in harder driving or on uneven pavement, or HARD cornering, the IRS is superior to the solid rear, that is a PROVEN FACT!!"

    Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. But the solid rear-end didn't seem to be much of a hindrence in the first Grand Am Cup race of the year where Mustangs finished 1-2 against their compeitition, all of whom were running IRS.

    In concept, the IRS should be superior. But sometimes there is a difference between concept and execution. Sometimes IRS is used simply because of the 'old school' stigma associated with solid rear-ends.

    Who could also argue that for $30+ who shouldn't have to put up with the 'old school' technology of a pushrod engine. Yet GM does pushrods engines VERY well. So, if you can accept pushrod technology, why not solid rear-ends?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Cost cutting - sure. But that doesn't mean that a properly tuned solid rear axle can't perform just as well as an IRS setup.

    Show me one negative thing that's been said about the Mustang rear suspension in any reviews or test drives. Quite the opposite in fact. One magazine said the drivers actually looked under the rear of the car to make sure nobody slipped them an IRS equipped ringer. It's that good.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    [You] could also argue that for $30[K]+ [you] shouldn't have to put up with the 'old school' technology of a pushrod engine. Yet GM does pushrods engines VERY well. So, if you can accept pushrod technology, why not solid rear-ends?

    touche' :blush:

    Also, gunit, have you read any of the reviews on the Mustang? It's been printed several times that the solid rear of the new Mustang was designed so well that, when comparing its performance to an IRS setup, the difference was so miniscule that it didn't justify the cost of adding an IRS. And, as has been stated, with the 1-2 finish in its first Grand Am race, the solid rear works well enough to defeat IRS sprung M3s, Porsches, and their ilk.

    I can see the argument from some that those cars are on older platforms, yadda, yadda... But if IRS is supposed to be so superior, that should be a moot point. Right?
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,896
    gunit....I'm not so certain Mustang fans are really that drawn to the GTO crowd, until someone brings the comparison up (as is done in this instance).

    However, as rorr...tayl0rd and others have said, the whole IRS vs solid axle of the Mustang has proven to be a moot point. Ford did a wonderful job with the solid axle design in the Mustang that the extra complexity and cost associated with the IRS isn't needed, nor wanted. Truth is, the solid axle layout is so good, they will continue to use it for the upcoming Shelby model coming out in about 18 months.

    As was pointed out, '04 GTO had production capacity of 16,000 units. The last production figures I saw was that "only" around 14,000 were produced, however. And about 500 of that "lower" 14,000 production run are still sitting on dealer's lots....even with the heavy rebating GM has done on them. About 1,300 GTOs were sold last month, but 30% of them were still '04 models (or about 400 units). So, even the 12,000 GM is scheduled to produce of the '05 models, they've sold something like 2,000-2,500 of them. '05 MY will end in August or thereabouts. That means GM has to sell 9,500-10,000 '05 GTOs in the next 5 months....that's an average of about 2,000/mo.

    You can see, if sales history is any indication, not even that will happen....even with the reduced '05 GTO production schedule.

    Only reason I bring this up is that it was part of my decision making process when I was looking at both cars (the Mustang and the GTO).

    Truth is, even if you had decided to get a Mustang GT today, you probably would have to wait for the '06 MY to get one.....and Spring has just hit. I'd bet by the time summer rolls around, Mustang GT's will be even more scarce than they are right now. Since dealers are trying to already push their customers to '06 Mustangs, then sales for Mustangs (for the '05s and at least the beginning runs of '06 models) will continue to be very strong.

    Just doing "like for like" standard equipment between the Mustang GT and similar equipment levels for the GTO nets you a Mustang GT MSRP (premium with IUP) of about $26.6K. GMS/GMO price of am '05 GTO is $30,200. That's still a $3,600 swing in the Mustang's favor.

    No matter which way I did the numbers in my purchase decision, it always came out in the Mustang's favor.

    My guess is, as hard as GM is trying to stay away from rebates on all their cars (not just the GTO), I don't see any way around it for them to move GTOs when push comes to shove.

    Bottom line, if you like your GTO, that's all that matters.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,395
    Thanks for the article. With the mention of "SVT boss Hau Thai-Tang..." in the third paragraph, does this mean that Coletti is not the head guy of the SVT group?

    IIRC John Coletti has retired.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,896
    You may find this interesting regarding demand and production challenges with the Mustang........

    http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102118
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    From the article:

    " But dealers and customers shouldn't expect the mix to swing wildly to the GT, which shares its 4.6-liter engine with other Ford vehicles - notably the F-150 pickup. The automaker isn't likely to sacrifice higher-margin F-150 sales for more Mustang GTs.

    The Romeo, Mich., engine plant, which makes the V-8, is not currently on overtime."


    The way I read it, the availability of the GT is tied to engine production at the Romeo plant......which isn't currently running at capacity? :confuse:
  • canddmeyercanddmeyer Posts: 382
    I have an acquaintance who has the GTO with the six-speed manual. He loves his $35,000 car, and has pegged it already at 155mph (so he says). Although he had reservations about it's origin, he loved that he could get Corvette performance without the Vette price and have his family along for the ride. They love it too.

    For me, I'd never consider the GTO. I just cannot get used to an American badged performance car not being made in America. The former SS Impala (90's) is a car I woulda considered, but GM quit making them when I was ready to buy one. The Mustang on the other hand has USA written all over it, and looks great too. Definitely the best eye candy of any vehicle out there. The Mustang is priced well too, considering you can get the 'look' without the performance for $22,000, or fully decked out for $31,000 or so. This is why I'm considering a Stang, plus the wife has given the green light to HER future new car. Based on reviews here and the few folks I've talked to, owners are tickled to death to have one of these. I've been waiting for the end of the model year for possible financing and to read if Ford made any major boo-boo's putting it together. Other than corrected gas tank and HVAC issues it appears the car is very solid.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Yes, the 87 octane is useable, but performance is compromised (by how much not sure) due to the ecm dialing back so there won't be any detonating, knocking, pinging, whichever term you prefer. But using the regular defeats the purpose and those buying the neo-goat probably aren't wondered about the difference anyway. But with gas in my neck of the woods ranging from $2.26 to $2.45 for regular -within a 3 mile stretch- with premium hitting $2.68 (and that's at my new place in the burbs', higher in Chi-town), that 2mpg and $0.20+ difference can be quite a bit.

    Guess the insurance is higher on the Mustang due to the insurance company assuming you going to drive it like you stole it all day, every day. Or the styling of the Mustang is not as subdued as the GTO, figuring the Mustang will attract more attention. Is strange though.

    But we are in agreement that both cars are decent, but I really think as a whole GM blew it in terms of the public, meaning mainly the marketing approach, advertising, pricing, intros. It's almost as if they looked at what Ford did with the Mercury Marauder and unfortunately copied the exact same steps in these regards. The product was decent, the presentation bad.

    Know this is off topic, but what do you think of the conspiracy crap-o-la that Edmunds and all the magazines are blatantly against GM and the GTO. Seems that a lot of the people on the GTO forum feels that the magazines, and Edmunds, are out to get them. Not sure if they're serious or not, but their whining is comical at best.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,896
    rorr....you may be right. What I took from the article is that GT demand is much higher than Ford anticipated. In addition, the Interior Upgrade Package (aluminum dash, My Color guages, etc) demand was much higher, too.

    I guess you can make all kinds of assumptions about Ford wanting to keep some of the V8 production for F-150s because of their higher margins or that Ford wants to stay out of CAFE soup by selling more Mustang V6s.

    Personally, I think that Mustang GTs are selling as soon as they hit the ground whether they have the IUP or not. Although most dealers have V6s in stock, they also have more V6s they have to take from Ford for every GT they sell. My dealer, if he's to be believed, said he had to take 4 V6s for every GT he sold. That seems about right. He's sold 4 GTs (one was mine) and has had a total of 18 Mustangs, in all, so far in the '05 MY. My dealer has also said that all pending orders for GTs may or may not get built. He has already got a sizeable waiting list ready to order '06s if the '05s don't get built. Matter of fact, the dealer said if all those on the '06 waiting list do follow-through on their orders (all had to submit a $500 refundable deposit), then the first 3 months of his '06 GT allotment would be sold out, too.

    Bottom line, Ford can't produce enough to meet demand, regardless of the reason.....even at elevated production capacities.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Thanks for the clarification. That number has been jumping around. I thought the 16k number was very high, truth be told, I didn't know 14k were produced and almost sold. I thought the unsold #s were in the thousands. It seems, and no knock gunit, that the produced/sold numbers get blurred, and the fact that some of those '05 numbers includes '04 gets totally forgotten.

    As stated by you graphic and others, with only about a couple thousand '05s sold in 4 - 5? months, can 10k more be sold by September (just counting the '05s)? I don't see it w/o HEAVY discounts. Do you, or anyone else for that matter, think GM will just rebadge the unsolds as '06s, or keep going and produce an '06? And if so, how would you know that your '06 is really an '06?

    Guys (and gals), again, I know this was off topic but was just curious about other thoughts on this.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,896
    jae...GTO conspiracy? Am I to assume that Edmunds, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, et.al are all conspiring against the GTO?

    I think that's ridiculous.

    GTO is been a swing and a miss for GM. Reasons are as numerous as they are varied. Pick none, one or all......price, styling, marketing, handling, shifting, steering, braking, stereo, etc. as the reasons.

    What's clear is, Ford will sell 160,000-180,000 Mustangs for the '05 MY. GM has struggled mightily to sell about 14,000 '04 GTOs and is struggling mightily to sell the lowered production 12,000 '05 GTOs. They've started slapping rebates on the GTOs (in fairness, GM has slapped rebates on almost everything beginning today).

    It's crystal how the vast majority of the buying public have voted with their dollars who was right and who was wrong with the Mustang GT vs the GTO.

    As I've stated before, it's a shame since I was looking forward to a GM vs Ford muscle car war. It's not going to happen and that's too bad.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    What I took from the article posted was Ford was unprepared for the much higher demand for the GT compared to the V6; they apparently assumed the demand would be similar to the ratio for the previous generation. The article then had the little blurb about not being able to simply up production of the V8's since the 4.6l V8 is shared with the higher margin F150.

    So if the demand for the V8's is higher than expected (as you noted the dealers are practically begging Ford for more GT's), I don't understand why they haven't upped production at the Romeo plant? Parts supply problems perhaps? I'm just guessing....
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Wasn't the former SS Impala made in Canada?

    I know for sure that the former Camaro/Firebird where made in Canada? I guess GM just put out an American Made sports car other than the Corvette? hehe
    '
    Mark
Sign In or Register to comment.