Last post on Nov 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM
You are in the Ford Mustang
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Coupe
#899 of 2921 Re: Why the Mustang is such a hit. [mschmal]
Apr 05, 2005 (6:28 am)
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.
#900 of 2921 Re: no flame intended.... [graphicguy]
Apr 05, 2005 (6:44 am)
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!
#901 of 2921 gunit
Apr 05, 2005 (6:51 am)
"GM sold 16k GTO's in 2004 and they reduced production to only 12k GTO's for 2005"
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.
#902 of 2921 gunit
Apr 05, 2005 (6:56 am)
"...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?
#903 of 2921 Re: no flame intended.... [gunit]
Apr 05, 2005 (6:59 am)
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.
#904 of 2921 Re: gunit [rorr]
Apr 05, 2005 (7:20 am)
[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 pushrod
s engines VERY well. So, if you can accept pushrod technology, why not solid rear-ends?
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?
#905 of 2921 Re: SVT GT500 [gunit]
Apr 05, 2005 (9:04 am)
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.
#906 of 2921 Re: GT500 Article [jae5]
Apr 05, 2005 (12:10 pm)
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.
#908 of 2921 Re: good news or not so good news.... [graphicguy]
Apr 05, 2005 (1:48 pm)
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?