Changes I'd Make To The 2011 GT

I've found the Mustang you want -- lighter, lower, and
quicker. In fact, I've found a couple of 'em:

2011 Ford 2011 Chevy 2011 Ferrari
Mustang GT Corvette 458 Italia
5.0L V8 6.2L V8 4.5L V8
------------ ------------ ------------
Length 188.1 in. 174.6 in. 178.2 in.
Width 73.9 in. 72.6 in. 76.3 in.
Height 55.8 in. 49.1 in. 47.8 in.
Wh.Base 107.1 in. 105.7 in. 104.3 in.
Weight 3603 lbs. 3208 lbs. 3042 lbs.
Backseat Cramped None None
Perform. Quick Quicker Quickest
MSRP $30K $49K $225K

When I win the lottery, I may park a Ferrari or a 'Vet in
one bay of my (new) garage, and something with a backseat
in another bay. Until then, the Mustang GT is the most
appealing toy of all backseat-mobiles.
--
Cheers, Bob

On Aug 4, 11:33*pm, Brent > wrote:

> >> >> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.

> >> > I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
> >> > performance cars. *Surely, I can't be the only one left in
> >> > America.

> >> V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.

> > Good point. *(Though those Cobras were a bit lighter.) *However, how
> > many would jump at 412HP Mustang with a sticker at around $28K? *I for
> > one have a few friends who love the new 5L GT, but balk at the thought
> > of paying over $30G to get one, and also think the V8 version has
> > become too pricey. I know a couple grand less isn't much when you're
> > financing, but for some a sales person saying a price a few under
> > under $30 is more appealing, much like a store using .99 price
> > tag.

> I'd love a brand new aston martin vantage for $10K, but it isn't going
> to happen.

Think of it this way. Buyers asked for more retro-styled pony cars
and we got them, three of them -- Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.
Buyers asked for larger displacement, higher horsepower, more fuel
efficient V8s, and delivered we 412HP 5-liter/550 HP 5.4-liter, 425
HP 6.1 liter (soon to be a near 500 HP 6.4 liter), and a 426 HP 6.2-
liter. Buyers also asked for 6-speed transmissions, better brakes,
etc, etc, etc.

Geeze, why do you act like the current Mustang is the pinnacle? That
it can't get any better? I say hold on buddy, be an optimist, the
future will only get brighter.

Today's regular V8 mustang is now operating in areas that
> are beyond many of the most special mustangs of the past.

Exactly my point above! Thanks for restating it. Next up is weight
reduction, and a de-contented 5-liter V8 model because both both are
coming. Why you ask? Because buyers want it and the competition in
the auto biz is fierce. (Proof: 1) The Shelby lost over 100 pounds
this year. 2) "...Ford has been giving serious consideration to a de-
contented 5-liter V8 in six-cylinder trim, just like the old days."
-- PHR July 2010)

> >> You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
> >> people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
> >> stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.
> > In these economic times, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

> In these economic times you get customers who can buy it all or nothing
> as per the article on ford limiting GT500 to maintain 'exclusivity'.

That's a very bad example. There's only so much market for near $60G
Shelby Mustangs. And Ford has always limited the production of their
high-end Mustangs, even during the booming 90s.

> >> >> R models have never been significant production volume.
> >> > Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.
> >> But they cost more than loaded GT.
> > But that was marketing, not reality pricing.

> Welcome to ford products. But we don't know the breakdown. In any case
> the production was very low.

Right. But that doesn't mean a lesser-optioned V8 car sold at a lower
price wouldn't be a seller. (The Rs were low option, high dollar.)

> >> > Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
> >> > Now THAT would be magic!
> >> not sellable. You can't get many people to pay for four hundred
> >> horsepower and the drivetrain and suspension to deal with it and live
> >> without what are basic things found in even entry level cars these days.
> > Note: I only said dimensions of the 80's Mustang. *Not the old
> > suspension and trans.

> That's what I wrote. Buy a four hundred horsepower car with all needed
> to deal with it... Nobody is going to buy that in a package with roll up
> windows,

You don't need power windows to "deal with" 400HP.

>no sound deadening,

Though appealing to me, I'm not asking for no sound deadening. Only
that the rear seat be optional and to replace the carpeting with
vinyl.

>cheaply made interior,

I'm only asking for a base level V6 interior -- no blue tooth, 12-
speaker Mach 9 radio, or whatever the numbers are up to, multi-color
gauges, etc. And better designed, read more comfortable/bolstered,
seats.)

>no AC,

I'd be tempted. But with traffic now often flowing at 75+ mph, going
windows down doesn't work as well as it used to.

>no PS,

Nope. The new electric P/S is cool with me.

etc
> and so forth. It's not going to work. All that money to have a powerful
> car and cut out the little things, which are cheap commodity stuff these
> days? it's not worth it for the very tiny percentage of people who want
> that.

That's the **** that adds up. Christ, they wanted a extra few grand
for the upgraded interior. I told them sorry, I'd rather use that
cash for performance -- give me the Brembos instead.

But I'm sure there are others who just want a sweet-sounding, burbling
V8 Mustang at the lowest price possible.

> >> You're acting like you don't know what the mechanisms are.
> > I simply listed one of the benefits of ram-air -- cooler air. *Rest
> > assured I understand the mechanisms.

> And how are you going to justify the tooling, development, and warranty
> costs on it? You're getting just about nothing in HP to appeal to the
> cosmetic desires of a small group of buyers. It doesn't make sense or
> cents.

Image sells. That's why we have retro designs and accents. And ram-
air adds to that image.

> > Another benefit is adding a little macho. And real is better. *I've
> > heard many "car guys/girls" who commented on how cool a scoop looks,
> > but after closer inspection see it's non-functional/no opening then
> > change their opinion to something like "oh, that's cheesy".

> So it's just a gaget. nothing more. Like countless others over
> automotive history. You might as well argue for a turn table poping out
> of the dash to play 45rpm records. Sure it's cool but technology passed
> it by a long time ago.

Note: I said "another benefit".

> > Reminder: I only want a ram-air scoop to be an option.

> Which drives up the per unit costs and makes it even harder to
> justify the development work & costs. And instead of the EPA testing of
> one engine, now you have to do it TWICE!

They did it for the '03-'04 Mach 1s.

> >> This is at best tenths of a horsepower. You can't be putting on a
> >> mechanism prone to getting dirty, jamming up, gaskets to
> >> deteroriate, exposed to all sorts of crap for tiny fractions of
> >> horsepower on a car that is for 99.9% of drivers a STREET CAR, one the
> >> vast majority will drive all year in all conditions. One of the reasons
> >> to get a mustang instead of a lot of other cars is they aren't as
> >> sensitive to every little thing. They can be put out in the weather.
> > Options = potential profits.

> Would you pay say, $1000 for it? Because for ford and its stealerships
> to make the profits on it that's about what it would need to cost.
> You're looking at a quarter million dollars easy to offer that option.

Or they could get an aftermarket manufacturer to supply it to them.
I'm sure there would be more than a few companies willing to be the
supplier.

> >> very few percentage wise actually drag race. I know this, ford knows
> >> this. If more than 3% of all mustangs made see a drag strip I'll be
> >> surprised.

> > Have you been to a local drag strip lately? *Late-model Mustangs seem
> > to pretty popular.

> Ford makes roughly 150,000 mustangs a year. How many of those owners do
> you think are serious enough about drag racing to care? 5000? Think
> about it. If 5000 people for each model year drag race, that's hundreds
> of thousands of people, yet it's only a very tiny percentage of mustang
> owners/buyers.

And the rest couldn't tell you what sort of suspension is under their
new Mustang. All they know is it rides comparable to, or better than,
the competitions. Because the 2011 GT's suspension does.

Patrick

On Aug 5, 6:36*am, Bob Willard > wrote:
> I've found the Mustang you want -- lighter, lower, and
> quicker. *In fact, I've found a couple of 'em:
>
> * * * * * * 2011 Ford * * * 2011 Chevy * * *2011 Ferrari
> * * * * * * Mustang GT * * *Corvette * * * *458 Italia
> * * * * * * 5.0L V8 * * * * 6.2L V8 * * * * 4..5L V8
> * * * * * * ------------ * *------------ * *------------
> Length * * 188.1 in. * * * 174.6 in. * * * 178.2 in.
> Width * * * 73.9 in. * * * *72.6 in. * * * *76.3 in..
> Height * * *55.8 in. * * * *49.1 in. * * * *47.8 in..
> Wh.Base * *107.1 in. * * * 105.7 in. * * * 104.3 in.
> Weight * * 3603 lbs. * * * 3208 lbs. * * * 3042 lbs.
> Backseat * Cramped * * * * None * * * * * *None
> Perform. * Quick * * * * * Quicker * * * * Quickest
> MSRP * * * $30K * * * * * *$49K * * * * * *$225K
>
> When I win the lottery, I may park a Ferrari or a 'Vet in
> one bay of my (new) garage, and something with a backseat
> in another bay. *Until then, the Mustang GT is the most
> appealing toy of all backseat-mobiles.

Bob,

We could have been/stayed happy with the '05 GT, '03-04 Terminators,
2000 R, 1996 DOHC Cobra, '94 GT, '93 Cobra, the '87 5.0, etc, but
weren't/didn't. We demanded more and Ford has delivered. Let's keep
demanding! Me, in the future I want a weight reduction/slightly
smaller car and a stripper V8 model. What do you want? Are you
implying Ford should continue building the 2011 GT, unchanged,
forever?

Patrick

On 2010-08-06, NoOp > wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:33*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
>> >> >> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.
>
>> >> > I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
>> >> > performance cars. *Surely, I can't be the only one left in
>> >> > America.
>
>> >> V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.
>
>> > Good point. *(Though those Cobras were a bit lighter.) *However, how
>> > many would jump at 412HP Mustang with a sticker at around $28K? *I for
>> > one have a few friends who love the new 5L GT, but balk at the thought
>> > of paying over $30G to get one, and also think the V8 version has
>> > become too pricey. I know a couple grand less isn't much when you're
>> > financing, but for some a sales person saying a price a few under
>> > under $30 is more appealing, much like a store using .99 price
>> > tag.
>
>> I'd love a brand new aston martin vantage for $10K, but it isn't going
>> to happen.
>
> Think of it this way. Buyers asked for more retro-styled pony cars
> and we got them, three of them -- Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.
> Buyers asked for larger displacement, higher horsepower, more fuel
> efficient V8s, and delivered we 412HP 5-liter/550 HP 5.4-liter, 425
> HP 6.1 liter (soon to be a near 500 HP 6.4 liter), and a 426 HP 6.2-
> liter. Buyers also asked for 6-speed transmissions, better brakes,
> etc, etc, etc.
>
> Geeze, why do you act like the current Mustang is the pinnacle? That
> it can't get any better? I say hold on buddy, be an optimist, the
> future will only get brighter.

I'm not. I'm saying you're asking for something buyers don't want, a
stripped down car without any of the typical comforts of a small entry
level car and 400+hp and light weight cutting edge materials all for a
low low price of ford focus or something. You can demand that all you
want but you're not going to get it because that's just the way things
are. Your demands and balance point are way out of wack with 99+% of
mustang buyers.

> Today's regular V8 mustang is now operating in areas that
>> are beyond many of the most special mustangs of the past.

> Exactly my point above! Thanks for restating it.

Stop pretending your strawman is some sort of reality, thanks.

> Next up is weight
> reduction, and a de-contented 5-liter V8 model because both both are
> coming. Why you ask? Because buyers want it and the competition in
> the auto biz is fierce. (Proof: 1) The Shelby lost over 100 pounds
> this year. 2) "...Ford has been giving serious consideration to a de-
> contented 5-liter V8 in six-cylinder trim, just like the old days."
> -- PHR July 2010)

You do realize that "6 cylinder trim" is going to retain all the things
you don't want, including power windows. It's not going to weigh much
different.

>> >> You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
>> >> people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
>> >> stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.
>> > In these economic times, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

>> In these economic times you get customers who can buy it all or nothing
>> as per the article on ford limiting GT500 to maintain 'exclusivity'.

> That's a very bad example. There's only so much market for near $60G
> Shelby Mustangs. And Ford has always limited the production of their
> high-end Mustangs, even during the booming 90s.

The list price isn't even close to 60 grand. The reason the price gets
that high is because ford cares more about stealerships surcharging than
it does actual customers. Regardless, people have the cash or they
don't. They are going to buy a nice car or they aren't. Nobody who is
tight on money right now is going to buy a new stripped down 400hp V8
car. It's just a stupid way to go if you're short on cash.

>> >> >> R models have never been significant production volume.
>> >> > Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.
>> >> But they cost more than loaded GT.
>> > But that was marketing, not reality pricing.

>> Welcome to ford products. But we don't know the breakdown. In any case
>> the production was very low.

> Right. But that doesn't mean a lesser-optioned V8 car sold at a lower
> price wouldn't be a seller. (The Rs were low option, high dollar.)

Yeah, and lots of people used R's to go to work and back every day. Not.

>> >> > Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
>> >> > Now THAT would be magic!
>> >> not sellable. You can't get many people to pay for four hundred
>> >> horsepower and the drivetrain and suspension to deal with it and live
>> >> without what are basic things found in even entry level cars these days.
>> > Note: I only said dimensions of the 80's Mustang. *Not the old
>> > suspension and trans.

>> That's what I wrote. Buy a four hundred horsepower car with all needed
>> to deal with it... Nobody is going to buy that in a package with roll up
>> windows,

> You don't need power windows to "deal with" 400HP.

Are you just intentionally being an ass? I don't have time for these
stupid games of yours. That's not what I wrote, there's no way to even
see it that way. At this point I have to conclude you're doing this
intentionally.

>>no sound deadening,
>
> Though appealing to me, I'm not asking for no sound deadening. Only
> that the rear seat be optional and to replace the carpeting with
> vinyl.

You want lots of weight ripped out, I'm telling you where it has to come
from.

>>cheaply made interior,

> I'm only asking for a base level V6 interior -- no blue tooth, 12-
> speaker Mach 9 radio, or whatever the numbers are up to, multi-color
> gauges, etc. And better designed, read more comfortable/bolstered,
> seats.)

Which won't save any significant weight. The 6 cylinder stereo systems,
electronics, etc don't weigh any less to any degree you couldn't
accomplish by skipping breakfeast.

>>no AC,
>
> I'd be tempted. But with traffic now often flowing at 75+ mph, going
> windows down doesn't work as well as it used to.
>
>>no PS,
>
> Nope. The new electric P/S is cool with me.

I doubt the electric motor weighs any less. That has to do with
emissions and fuel economy not the weight of the components. It's just
easier to deal with the higher alternator load than have direct drive of
a hydraulic pump.

> etc
>> and so forth. It's not going to work. All that money to have a powerful
>> car and cut out the little things, which are cheap commodity stuff these
>> days? it's not worth it for the very tiny percentage of people who want
>> that.

> That's the **** that adds up. Christ, they wanted a extra few grand
> for the upgraded interior. I told them sorry, I'd rather use that
> cash for performance -- give me the Brembos instead.

Those are cheap commodity items TO FORD. They aren't going to bring the
cost TO FORD down much, and thus the final PRICE to the customer isn't
going to be much lower unless ford and the stealerships decide to make
less on it.

BTW, If you're going to line item an upgraded interior on a
lower trimmed car model it's going to cost you because ford wants you to
buy the model package that it comes in. That's how marketing works. They
do that intentionally.

> But I'm sure there are others who just want a sweet-sounding, burbling
> V8 Mustang at the lowest price possible.

Yeah, smaller than the insignificant number of people who liked 428SCJ
hardtops with dog dish hubcaps and no AC. The same kind of people who
would order 7 liter galaxies without PS so their wife would not be able
to drive it. These people are few.

Your modern 'decontented' V8 is going to have nearly everything on it,
weigh nearly the same, and the actual cost of the vehicle is going to be
about the same.

>> >> You're acting like you don't know what the mechanisms are.
>> > I simply listed one of the benefits of ram-air -- cooler air. *Rest
>> > assured I understand the mechanisms.

>> And how are you going to justify the tooling, development, and warranty
>> costs on it? You're getting just about nothing in HP to appeal to the
>> cosmetic desires of a small group of buyers. It doesn't make sense or
>> cents.
>
> Image sells. That's why we have retro designs and accents. And ram-
> air adds to that image.
>
>> > Another benefit is adding a little macho. And real is better. *I've
>> > heard many "car guys/girls" who commented on how cool a scoop looks,
>> > but after closer inspection see it's non-functional/no opening then
>> > change their opinion to something like "oh, that's cheesy".

>> So it's just a gaget. nothing more. Like countless others over
>> automotive history. You might as well argue for a turn table poping out
>> of the dash to play 45rpm records. Sure it's cool but technology passed
>> it by a long time ago.

> Note: I said "another benefit".

So says the guy who doesn't want anything that adds weight or cost.
You'll take a very costly and heavy way to get a tenth of an hp.

>> > Reminder: I only want a ram-air scoop to be an option.

>> Which drives up the per unit costs and makes it even harder to
>> justify the development work & costs. And instead of the EPA testing of
>> one engine, now you have to do it TWICE!

> They did it for the '03-'04 Mach 1s.

The mach 1's had OTHER engine changes too. Maybe you'll find it on a
special model in the future.

>> >> This is at best tenths of a horsepower. You can't be putting on a
>> >> mechanism prone to getting dirty, jamming up, gaskets to
>> >> deteroriate, exposed to all sorts of crap for tiny fractions of
>> >> horsepower on a car that is for 99.9% of drivers a STREET CAR, one the
>> >> vast majority will drive all year in all conditions. One of the reasons
>> >> to get a mustang instead of a lot of other cars is they aren't as
>> >> sensitive to every little thing. They can be put out in the weather.
>> > Options = potential profits.

>> Would you pay say, $1000 for it? Because for ford and its stealerships
>> to make the profits on it that's about what it would need to cost.
>> You're looking at a quarter million dollars easy to offer that option.

> Or they could get an aftermarket manufacturer to supply it to them.
> I'm sure there would be more than a few companies willing to be the
> supplier.

You don't understand how this works. If they get it from the aftermarket
supplier they still have to pay the tooling charges, they still have to
warranty it, they still have to certify it epa wise, etc and so on.
Here's a hint, ford isn't actually making a lot of the parts themselves
anyway, they get them from suppliers.

>> >> very few percentage wise actually drag race. I know this, ford knows
>> >> this. If more than 3% of all mustangs made see a drag strip I'll be
>> >> surprised.

>> > Have you been to a local drag strip lately? *Late-model Mustangs seem
>> > to pretty popular.

>> Ford makes roughly 150,000 mustangs a year. How many of those owners do
>> you think are serious enough about drag racing to care? 5000? Think
>> about it. If 5000 people for each model year drag race, that's hundreds
>> of thousands of people, yet it's only a very tiny percentage of mustang
>> owners/buyers.

> And the rest couldn't tell you what sort of suspension is under their
> new Mustang. All they know is it rides comparable to, or better than,
> the competitions. Because the 2011 GT's suspension does.

WTF? Now only people who drag race their mustangs know anything? Sounds
like you're just trying to be insulting to salvage an argument that is
just dead wrong. The live axle is there because it costs less for Ford.
Period. If IRS cost less ford would tell the drag racers about how they
feel it makes for a more consistent launch or something.

On Aug 5, 11:05*pm, Brent > wrote:

> >> >> >> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.
>
> >> >> > I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
> >> >> > performance cars. *Surely, I can't be the only one left in
> >> >> > America.
>
> >> >> V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.
>
> >> > Good point. *(Though those Cobras were a bit lighter.) *However, how
> >> > many would jump at 412HP Mustang with a sticker at around $28K? *I for
> >> > one have a few friends who love the new 5L GT, but balk at the thought
> >> > of paying over $30G to get one, and also think the V8 version has
> >> > become too pricey. I know a couple grand less isn't much when you're
> >> > financing, but for some a sales person saying a price a few under
> >> > under $30 is more appealing, much like a store using .99 price
> >> > tag.
>
> >> I'd love a brand new aston martin vantage for $10K, but it isn't going
> >> to happen.
>
> > Think of it this way. *Buyers asked for more retro-styled pony cars
> > and we got them, three of them -- Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.
> > Buyers asked for larger displacement, higher horsepower, more fuel
> > efficient V8s, and delivered we 412HP 5-liter/550 HP 5.4-liter, 425
> > HP 6.1 liter (soon to be a near 500 HP 6.4 liter), and a 426 HP 6.2-
> > liter. *Buyers also asked for 6-speed transmissions, better brakes,
> > etc, etc, etc.
>
> > Geeze, why do you act like the current Mustang is the pinnacle? That
> > it can't get any better? *I say hold on buddy, be an optimist, the
> > future will only get brighter.
>
> I'm not. I'm saying you're asking for something buyers don't want, a
> stripped down car without any of the typical comforts of a small entry
> level car and 400+hp and light weight cutting edge materials all for a
> low low price of ford focus or something.

I've never asked for '"lightweight cutting edge materials".

> You can demand that all you
> want but you're not going to get it because that's just the way things
> are. Your demands and balance point are way out of wack with 99+% of
> mustang buyers.

Odd then that Ford is discussing introducing a de-contented V8, huh?
Seems the percentages you're pulling out of your butt are off more
than a bit.

> > Today's regular V8 mustang is now operating in areas that
> >> are beyond many of the most special mustangs of the past.

> > Exactly my point above! *Thanks for restating it.

> Stop pretending your strawman is some sort of reality, thanks.

You need to stop pretending your marketing numbers are reality.
Because Ford wouldn't even be discussing a de-contended V8 if it was
only going to appeal to less than a percent of the buyers, now would
they?

> > Next up is weight
> > reduction, and a de-contented 5-liter V8 model because both both are
> > coming. *Why you ask? Because buyers want it and the competition in
> > the auto biz is fierce. *(Proof: 1) The Shelby lost over 100 pounds
> > this year. *2) "...Ford has been giving serious consideration to a de-
> > contented 5-liter V8 in six-cylinder trim, just like the old days."
> > -- PHR July 2010)

> You do realize that "6 cylinder trim" is going to retain all the things
> you don't want, including power windows. It's not going to weigh much
> different.

I think Ford's true goal with a de-contented model, more so than a
weight reduction, is a low entry level V8 price they can advertise.
Get 'em in and looking for a $27K-$28K 400+ Mustang, then try to sell
the options.

> >> >> You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
> >> >> people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
> >> >> stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.

> >> > In these economic times, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
> >> In these economic times you get customers who can buy it all or nothing
> >> as per the article on ford limiting GT500 to maintain 'exclusivity'.

> > That's a very bad example. *There's only so much market for near $60G
> > Shelby Mustangs. *And Ford has always limited the production of their
> > high-end Mustangs, even during the booming 90s.

> The list price isn't even close to 60 grand.

MSRP = $47K and change. I remembered the $55.3K as-tested price C&D
listed for their GT500 with the SVT performance package and
electronics package. (Note: A fully loaded a GT500 goes for
$57.7K.)

> The reason the price gets
> that high is because ford cares more about stealerships surcharging than
> it does actual customers. Regardless, people have the cash or they
> don't. They are going to buy a nice car or they aren't. Nobody who is
> tight on money right now is going to buy a new stripped down 400hp V8
> car. It's just a stupid way to go if you're short on cash.

That's your rational mind speaking. But emotions often drive car
purchases, especially performance/specialty models, so saying it would
be a stupid way to go if you're short of cash probably isn't what many
buyers are thinking in the showroom.

> >> >> >> R models have never been significant production volume.
> >> >> > Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.
> >> >> But they cost more than loaded GT.
> >> > But that was marketing, not reality pricing.
> >> Welcome to ford products. But we don't know the breakdown. In any case
> >> the production was very low.
> > Right. *But that doesn't mean a lesser-optioned V8 car sold at a lower
> > price wouldn't be a seller. (The Rs were low option, high dollar.)

> Yeah, and lots of people used R's to go to work and back every day. Not.

But you're conveniently forgetting the Rs were marketed as "future
collectibles". Add in their high price and rarity and that's why
their owners didn't drive them back and forth to work.

Now offer a lower priced, less-optioned V8 (than the GT) -- i.e the
80's LX 5.0 -- and you have them flying off dealer lots and folks
driving them everyday back and forth to work.

> >> >> > Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.