Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <V5%Hh.2044$3i.1491@trnddc01>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
>>>>> early version of the GTO.
>>>
>>>> Ya, if you are OK with a butt ugly GTO that looks more like a Toyota Camry
>>>> than anything anyone can imagine as a GTO...
>>>> I guess you could think that, Ya, OK.... :-(
>>> Ever see an early GTO? Looks like a typical boring sedan of the time period.
>> You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as
>> boring sedans.
>
> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ?

OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs
LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again.

>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of
>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it
>> was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every
>> sense of the word.
>
> 1964 GTO:
> http://www.yenko.net/reunion/SCR79999999.JPG
>
> 1964 tempest
> http://www.sdpoci.com/yelo64.gif
>
> Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period.

For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO. They
sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with
your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
>>> early version of the GTO.
>
>> Not hardly. It is a converted left hand drive import. Read up on the
>> early GTOs. There is little in common with the last one.
>
> Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch.

Which family sedan was it "gussied up" from? None sold here in the USA.

>>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of
>>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember
>>>> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda.
>
>>> If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that
>>> only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter.
>
>> Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy?
>
> Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact.

If you say so. I guess the early I-6 Mustang was a boring compact too?

>> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car.
>
> Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different
> than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with
> only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think?

You do know that not all of them sported a six cylinder?

>> Well you do think the early GTOs were
>> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you.
>
> I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much?

I do OK. Reading text from a competent author makes comprehending
things somewhat easier.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I guess it's both bad and good news...
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ypofdq
>>> Hello?
>>> Someone needs to tell George Pipas, Ford Motor Co.'s top sales analyst to
>>> make more damn Shelby GT500's and sell them at MSRP!
>> BINGO!!! Give this man a prize.
>
> If they wouldn't be screwing us loyal Ford Fanatics out of this car, I would
> now be driving my new Shelby GT500 and my wife would be driving her new
> "matching" Mustang GT...
> As it is I refuse to buy one because of their lack of regard for and ****ty
> treatment of their core customers.
>
> There goes another two sales...
>
> Huum...

Plus, I never see any GT500s on the street here. They are just a myth
to most people. Maybe if a few more were on the road people might see
them and get the urge to visit a Ford dealer to see what's up with the
new Mustangs. Heck they may even end up buying one or maybe a 500 or
even a Fusion. I guess that concept is lost on Ford's "sharp as a tack"
management team.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> My Name Is Nobody wrote:

>> If they wouldn't be screwing us loyal Ford Fanatics out of this car, I would
>> now be driving my new Shelby GT500 and my wife would be driving her new
>> "matching" Mustang GT...
>> As it is I refuse to buy one because of their lack of regard for and ****ty
>> treatment of their core customers.
>>
>> There goes another two sales...
>>
>> Huum...
>
> Plus, I never see any GT500s on the street here. They are just a myth
> to most people. Maybe if a few more were on the road people might see
> them and get the urge to visit a Ford dealer to see what's up with the
> new Mustangs. Heck they may even end up buying one or maybe a 500 or
> even a Fusion. I guess that concept is lost on Ford's "sharp as a tack"
> management team.

You can't put them on the road.... they are 'exclusive' to be shrink
wrapped for future returns!

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ?

> OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs
> LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again.

I've seen them in person, they look like generic early-mid 60s sedans,
maybe some fancier wheels if they are stock.

>>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of
>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it
>>> was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every
>>> sense of the word.
>>
>> 1964 GTO:
>> http://www.yenko.net/reunion/SCR79999999.JPG
>>
>> 1964 tempest
>> http://www.sdpoci.com/yelo64.gif
>>
>> Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period.

> For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO.

Then so was a plain base tempest.

> They
> sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with
> your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic.

6 cylinder falcons sold better.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
>>>> early version of the GTO.
>>
>>> Not hardly. It is a converted left hand drive import. Read up on the
>>> early GTOs. There is little in common with the last one.
>>
>> Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch.

> Which family sedan was it "gussied up" from? None sold here in the USA.

And you complain about splitting hairs. The holden from which it came.

>>>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of
>>>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember
>>>>> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda.
>>
>>>> If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that
>>>> only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter.
>>
>>> Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy?

>> Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact.

> If you say so. I guess the early I-6 Mustang was a boring compact too?

Whatever floats your boat... remember you're saying they are boring, I am
only saying that it isn't special or remarkable. And before you continue
this, I'll remind you I have a 250 I6 maverick.... figure it out.

>>> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car.

>> Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different
>> than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with
>> only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think?

> You do know that not all of them sported a six cylinder?

The very early ones did according to the article I read today, and I
specifically referenced those making it very clear.

>>> Well you do think the early GTOs were
>>> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you.
>>
>> I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much?

> I do OK. Reading text from a competent author makes comprehending
> things somewhat easier.

It's me because you can't put two simple words together.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ?
>
>> OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs
>> LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again.
>
> I've seen them in person, they look like generic early-mid 60s sedans,
> maybe some fancier wheels if they are stock.

One man's opinion, I guess.

>>>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of
>>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it
>>>> was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every
>>>> sense of the word.
>>> 1964 GTO:
>>> http://www.yenko.net/reunion/SCR79999999.JPG
>>>
>>> 1964 tempest
>>> http://www.sdpoci.com/yelo64.gif
>>>
>>> Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period.
>
>> For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO.
>
> Then so was a plain base tempest.

Yes they were. My brother owned one. A convertible. It was a sweet
ride with a 326 V-8.

>> They
>> sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with
>> your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic.
>
> 6 cylinder falcons sold better.

..... and your point is?

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
>>>>> early version of the GTO.
>>>
>>>> Not hardly. It is a converted left hand drive import. Read up on the
>>>> early GTOs. There is little in common with the last one.
>>> Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch.
>
>> Which family sedan was it "gussied up" from? None sold here in the USA.
>
> And you complain about splitting hairs. The holden from which it came.

You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last
rendition of the GTO? Amazing! I can tell you one. The vintage one
sold well and for a long time. The last one was still born. I wonder why?

>>>>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of
>>>>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember
>>>>>> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda.
>>>
>>>>> If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that
>>>>> only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy?
>
>>> Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact.
>
>> If you say so. I guess the early I-6 Mustang was a boring compact too?
>
> Whatever floats your boat... remember you're saying they are boring, I am
> only saying that it isn't special or remarkable. And before you continue
> this, I'll remind you I have a 250 I6 maverick.... figure it out.

Is it boring too?

>>>> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car.
>
>>> Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different
>>> than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with
>>> only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think?
>
>> You do know that not all of them sported a six cylinder?
>
> The very early ones did according to the article I read today, and I
> specifically referenced those making it very clear.

I guess we have dueling articles. Looks like it came with a 273 CI V-8
in 1964. In 1965 it got a stronger V-8 in its option list. Here's a
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymout...cuda#1964-1966 BTW,
take a look at the pictures. I don't see the original Cuda as being
boring. In fact, its styling was somewhat unique for the period.

>>>> Well you do think the early GTOs were
>>>> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you.
>>> I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much?
>
>> I do OK. Reading text from a competent author makes comprehending
>> things somewhat easier.
>
> It's me because you can't put two simple words together.

Well I guess that is better than not being able to put two simple
thoughts together.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
>>> If they wouldn't be screwing us loyal Ford Fanatics out of this car, I would
>>> now be driving my new Shelby GT500 and my wife would be driving her new
>>> "matching" Mustang GT...
>>> As it is I refuse to buy one because of their lack of regard for and ****ty
>>> treatment of their core customers.
>>>
>>> There goes another two sales...
>>>
>>> Huum...
>> Plus, I never see any GT500s on the street here. They are just a myth
>> to most people. Maybe if a few more were on the road people might see
>> them and get the urge to visit a Ford dealer to see what's up with the
>> new Mustangs. Heck they may even end up buying one or maybe a 500 or
>> even a Fusion. I guess that concept is lost on Ford's "sharp as a tack"
>> management team.
>
> You can't put them on the road.... they are 'exclusive' to be shrink
> wrapped for future returns!

That wasn't Ford's original plan. Or at least the one they fed us.

On Mar 8, 1:19 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> >> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a
> >> Hemi Cuda will appear.

> > How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth?

> If I were D-C I would rebrand it a Dodge in a second. There's too much
> marketing power behind the name to ignore, IMO. Much more than the name
> Challenger. Would you really care if it were a Dodge or a Plymouth Hemi
> Cuda with 450+ hp? I sure wouldn't.

DC won't be rebranding anything. D will split from C. (There's no
way this won't happen.) And it'll be some investor(s) new Dodge
Challenger.

Patrick