Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:43:52 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>
>getting back to the original "muscle cars are dead" theme:
>
>to me, the failing of American car companies is their inability to bring
>a car to market in a timely manner. Jees, they used to restyle every
>model every year....and every car was "all new" every 3 years (new
>chasis, body, etc)
>
>now it takes them 6 years to restyle a grill, and by the time they bring
>a new car to market, the market for that kind of car has evaporated.
>Yes, EPA, crash testing and probably just as much Design by Committee
>and Market Research..
>
>The original Mustang was designed to be optioned to suit just about any
>kind of buyer. When the new one got to market in 2005, it was as either
>a 6 or 8......but not cheap either way (and why get the 6 when the 8
>got nearly as good mileage?).
>
>NOW......3,4,5 years later GM and Chrysler market their
>responses.....and the Challenger is introduced as a Hemi only. Saleens,
>Cobras, etc., etc. ..... just what we need with $4 gas (along with the
>4500 pound Flex).
>
>Meanwhile, it seems the Japanese and Koreans are able to have the right
>cars at the right time.
>
>What I don't know is if the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro are intended
>as mass market cars, or niche vehicles. Time and time again in the
>70s,80s,90s we saw cars discontinued because they supposedly didn't sell
>in sufficient quantities to justify (like "only 150,000 a year").....so
>I can't see cars being designed just for old farts like me (you know,
>wanted a new Mustang in '68 but didn't have 2 cents to my name......my
>new GT convert wasn't bought as transportation, but as a toy and "dream
>fullfillment" and I could care less what gas costs for it -- I put gas
>in it twice a year). But I don't see "secretaries" driving them
>either......are there enough old farts and good ol' boys to justify
>muscle cars?
>
>FYI: adding the Mustang to my regular insurance costs about $550 a
>year......it will go to Collectors's insurance soon as I can prove how
>little it is driven. Back in '65 a pretty nice 'stang could be had for
>$3500. My Dad was considered "upper income" because he made over $15000
>a year......my college tuition was $200 a term. In '65 we "made a
>killing" selling our lakeside house for $40,000........the same family
>owned it until 1992 and then sold it for $800,000 ..... the buyer tore
>it down and spent $1.55MM to build a new one on the lot. Times change.
>But new cars still take a much bigger chunk of the average person's
>annual income..... it looks like leasing won't be an alternative to a
>lot of people who want a newer car.....and keeping a fuel injected,
>computer controlled car going when it gets older isn't the same as the
>$200 winter beaters we bought back then. A lot of poeple are gonna be in
>a bind.
>
>More tripping down memory lane: my Dad didn't believe in financing and
>paid cash for every car he ever bought.......last night I saw a
>commercial for Cadillac Escalades with 72 MONTH loan terms. Gees.

and a 50 year mortgage is now available.

Part of the problem is that all business relies on two basic factors.
Items made today will wear out, and the population will continue to
grow, providing new people to buy the products. What we need is a mass
reduction of world population, so we can start over.....

The buying power of the middle class in ALL areas has continued to
shrink as prices on everything rise, in part because we are forced to
fund every socialist idea that comes down the pike. God help the USA
if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning Congress in
control!

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:38:24 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Itsfrom Click" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> getting back to the original "muscle cars are dead" theme:
>>
>> to me, the failing of American car companies is their inability to bring
>> a car to market in a timely manner. Jees, they used to restyle every
>> model every year....and every car was "all new" every 3 years (new
>> chasis, body, etc)
>>
>> now it takes them 6 years to restyle a grill, and by the time they bring
>> a new car to market, the market for that kind of car has evaporated.
>> Yes, EPA, crash testing and probably just as much Design by Committee
>> and Market Research..
>>
>> The original Mustang was designed to be optioned to suit just about any
>> kind of buyer. When the new one got to market in 2005, it was as either
>> a 6 or 8......but not cheap either way (and why get the 6 when the 8
>> got nearly as good mileage?).
>>
>> NOW......3,4,5 years later GM and Chrysler market their
>> responses.....and the Challenger is introduced as a Hemi only. Saleens,
>> Cobras, etc., etc. ..... just what we need with $4 gas (along with the
>> 4500 pound Flex).
>>
>> Meanwhile, it seems the Japanese and Koreans are able to have the right
>> cars at the right time.
>>
>> What I don't know is if the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro are intended
>> as mass market cars, or niche vehicles. Time and time again in the
>> 70s,80s,90s we saw cars discontinued because they supposedly didn't sell
>> in sufficient quantities to justify (like "only 150,000 a year").....so
>> I can't see cars being designed just for old farts like me (you know,
>> wanted a new Mustang in '68 but didn't have 2 cents to my name......my
>> new GT convert wasn't bought as transportation, but as a toy and "dream
>> fullfillment" and I could care less what gas costs for it -- I put gas
>> in it twice a year). But I don't see "secretaries" driving them
>> either......are there enough old farts and good ol' boys to justify
>> muscle cars?
>>
>> FYI: adding the Mustang to my regular insurance costs about $550 a
>> year......it will go to Collectors's insurance soon as I can prove how
>> little it is driven. Back in '65 a pretty nice 'stang could be had for
>> $3500. My Dad was considered "upper income" because he made over $15000
>> a year......my college tuition was $200 a term. In '65 we "made a
>> killing" selling our lakeside house for $40,000........the same family
>> owned it until 1992 and then sold it for $800,000 ..... the buyer tore
>> it down and spent $1.55MM to build a new one on the lot. Times change.
>> But new cars still take a much bigger chunk of the average person's
>> annual income..... it looks like leasing won't be an alternative to a
>> lot of people who want a newer car.....and keeping a fuel injected,
>> computer controlled car going when it gets older isn't the same as the
>> $200 winter beaters we bought back then. A lot of poeple are gonna be in
>> a bind.
>>
>> More tripping down memory lane: my Dad didn't believe in financing and
>> paid cash for every car he ever bought.......last night I saw a
>> commercial for Cadillac Escalades with 72 MONTH loan terms. Gees.
>
>I have to believe that there are two major considerations in NOT buying a
>Mustang.
>
>1. Insurance. The rates for a V8 engine are killer for young people. Hell,
>I'm an old fart, and I still pay a penalty for having a V8, one that puts my
>rates on a 1993 Mustang right up there with my wife's new 2007 Escape. I get
>a break on the insurance for the convertible, because I can't drive both
>cars at the same time, otherwise, I'd have to seriously consider keeping
>two!
>
>2. Young people usually mean young families. I've lost count of how many
>people have said that they had to sell off their Mustangs when they had
>kids. To me, that's a lame excuse, since the back seat of a Mustang isn't
>much good for anything BUT kids, but it must be the whole
>access-to-the-back-seat-in-a-coupe thing that makes them go away. It's so
>much easier to transport children in a 4-door sedan, minivan, or SUV.
>
>Those of us who are kidless and have the means can look to Mustangs,
>certainly, but a V8 coupe doesn't fit the needs for a lot of the younger
>ones.
>
>dwight
>

Yep. Had a 72 Mustang when both kids were young. Spouse kept ragging
on me about how we needed a family car. So she picked out a 72 Nova
hatchback a guy at work was selling. Made a lot of sense to me. Lots
of people dump the sporty car for family friendly vehicle that the
kids can eventually be hauled to soccor games, and such. Never mind
that they probably won't even have the same vehicle by then.

As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with
the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales
staff will be crunching numbers.

"Spike" > wrote
> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with
> the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales
> staff will be crunching numbers.

I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen some of
the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much like a '69
sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of
the bigger sportsroof.
Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.

Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500
'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone

I guess we should also consider that new cars last longer than those old
cars that were built so much better, lol. IF you can afford a new car
today, chances are you can drive it 100,000 miles without any major
expense.......so while it was crazy to take out a 3 year car loan "in
the good old days", I guess it isn't so nuts to take out a 5 year loan
now (if you get a very low rate).

Maybe youngers don't know: RUST: if you lived anywhere salt was used
in the winter, a normal car could be pretty well rusted-out in 3 years.
Those '55 Chevies that look so good now, were full of holes when they
were 5 years old. But we didn't think much of it, since the rest of
the car was worn out, too: tires didn't last 20,000 miles, you replaced
shocks, water pumps, mufflers, radiators, generators every couple years.
You changed the oil and got a "lube job" every 1000 miles. And a
tune-up (points, plugs, carb adjust & time) at least once a
year....hoses and belts might last 2 years.....you changed anti-freeze
every year. Right thru 1954, Packard's recommended Spring check-up
included dropping the oil pan for cleaning! The upside was that if you
knew what you were doing, you could shop around for a 2 year old car and
find a "creampuff" that had been taken care of for next to
nothing......I used to buy 2 year old T-Birds (when they were on 3 year
styling cycles).......my '61 had 20,000 miles on it - paid all of $600,
which was way above "market" but it was pristine.

HaHaHa: the old "resale value" of one make over another made a big
difference when choosing a new car .........can you believe people
worried about whether their $3600 new car would be worth $500 or $600
when they traded it in a few years down the road?

So.....an old Hemi Cuda or Challenger is worth over a million
today........what will the new muscle cars be worth in 10, 20, 30 years?
Undoubtedly, they are "better" cars, but.........

Damn.....I managed to buy a lot of the old cars I lusted for as a
kid......but would still give my left nut for a '55 Coupe
deVille......but they're worth more than that!

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:03:32 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>
>I guess we should also consider that new cars last longer than those old
>cars that were built so much better, lol. IF you can afford a new car
>today, chances are you can drive it 100,000 miles without any major
>expense.......so while it was crazy to take out a 3 year car loan "in
>the good old days", I guess it isn't so nuts to take out a 5 year loan
>now (if you get a very low rate).
>
>Maybe youngers don't know: RUST: if you lived anywhere salt was used
>in the winter, a normal car could be pretty well rusted-out in 3 years.
>Those '55 Chevies that look so good now, were full of holes when they
>were 5 years old. But we didn't think much of it, since the rest of
>the car was worn out, too: tires didn't last 20,000 miles, you replaced
>shocks, water pumps, mufflers, radiators, generators every couple years.
>You changed the oil and got a "lube job" every 1000 miles. And a
>tune-up (points, plugs, carb adjust & time) at least once a
>year....hoses and belts might last 2 years.....you changed anti-freeze
>every year. Right thru 1954, Packard's recommended Spring check-up
>included dropping the oil pan for cleaning! The upside was that if you
>knew what you were doing, you could shop around for a 2 year old car and
>find a "creampuff" that had been taken care of for next to
>nothing......I used to buy 2 year old T-Birds (when they were on 3 year
>styling cycles).......my '61 had 20,000 miles on it - paid all of $600,
>which was way above "market" but it was pristine.
>
>HaHaHa: the old "resale value" of one make over another made a big
>difference when choosing a new car .........can you believe people
>worried about whether their $3600 new car would be worth $500 or $600
>when they traded it in a few years down the road?
>
>So.....an old Hemi Cuda or Challenger is worth over a million
>today........what will the new muscle cars be worth in 10, 20, 30 years?
>Undoubtedly, they are "better" cars, but.........
>
>Damn.....I managed to buy a lot of the old cars I lusted for as a
>kid......but would still give my left nut for a '55 Coupe
>deVille......but they're worth more than that!


That's hitting the old rust holes with bondo :0)

One of the reasons old car prices are so high is that so few of them
still exist. How many of the 1965 Mustang Fastbacks produced still
exist? Sure there are a lot of them BUT a lot compared to the original
numbers? No.

There will always be "collectors". I look back on all the cars of the
past that I could have had for a song and dance.... Bricklin, Avanti,
Commander, XKE.... A local couple collect cars. His are all Chevelle
SS/GTO types, and hers are all Metropolitans. His would be a first
thought on a list of cars to collect. But hers? Who woulda thunk it?

My best friend up in Washington, in 1971 found an original 1967
Mustang fastback at a dealer that was still under original factory
warranty. Seems it came in some ugly color, 6 cyl, etc. Like it was
the basic Mustang before any options were selected. The dealer had
added custom wheels, V8 swap w/dual exhaust, 4 spd. posi, custom
paint, custom stereo, etc etc etc. Dale got the car for $1500.
A week later he had orders to Vietnam. The car was headed for his
folks place to go on blocks.

There are deals out there.......

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:54:32 -0600, "Scott W."
<69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:

>
>"Spike" > wrote
>> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with
>> the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales
>> staff will be crunching numbers.
>
>I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen some of
>the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much like a '69
>sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of
>the bigger sportsroof.
>Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.
>
>Scott W.
>'68 Ranchero 500
>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>

The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and see,
but it sure looked sharp.

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:54:32 -0600, "Scott W."
> <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spike" > wrote
>>> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with
>>> the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales
>>> staff will be crunching numbers.
>>
>>I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen some of
>>the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much like a '69
>>sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of
>>the bigger sportsroof.
>>Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.
>>
>>Scott W.
>>'68 Ranchero 500
>>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>>
>
> The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and see,
> but it sure looked sharp.


The thing that really bugs me is all the websites who have it completely
wrong and are reporting that the styling design by the italian Giugiaro
design house (or however you spell it) is in fact the next mustang. which it
is not. The bright orange funky looking fastback looks cool but is not the
next mustang. I see just as many webites using the original silver concept
from '04 and stating that it's going to be the next Mustang also. Some idiot
finds a picture out there that doesn't look like the Mustang we have now and
automatically assumes and then promotes it as "the next Mustang".

Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500
'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone

Scott W. wrote:
> "Spike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:54:32 -0600, "Scott W."
>> <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Spike" > wrote
>>>> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet
>>>> with the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that
>>>> their sales staff will be crunching numbers.
>>>
>>> I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's
>>> seen some of the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks
>>> as much like a '69 sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a
>>> '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of the bigger sportsroof.
>>> Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be
>>> awesome. Scott W.
>>> '68 Ranchero 500
>>> '69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>>>
>>
>> The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and
>> see, but it sure looked sharp.
>
>
> The thing that really bugs me is all the websites who have it
> completely wrong and are reporting that the styling design by the
> italian Giugiaro design house (or however you spell it) is in fact
> the next mustang. which it is not. The bright orange funky looking
> fastback looks cool but is not the next mustang. I see just as many
> webites using the original silver concept from '04 and stating that
> it's going to be the next Mustang also. Some idiot finds a picture
> out there that doesn't look like the Mustang we have now and
> automatically assumes and then promotes it as "the next Mustang".
> Scott W.
> '68 Ranchero 500
> '69 Boss 302 SR2 clone

There's a picture of /my/ 2010 Mustang at
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/...f50c4ee2_o.jpg

It's also my 2006, '07, '08, and '09 Mustang. I'll wait to see how
everyone else's 2010 Mustang develops to decide on a 2011.

--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult.
Particularly about the Future.
—Deepak Gupta

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:58:09 -0600, "Scott W."
<69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:

>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:54:32 -0600, "Scott W."
>> <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Spike" > wrote
>>>> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with
>>>> the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales
>>>> staff will be crunching numbers.
>>>
>>>I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen some of
>>>the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much like a '69
>>>sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of
>>>the bigger sportsroof.
>>>Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.
>>>
>>>Scott W.
>>>'68 Ranchero 500
>>>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>>>
>>
>> The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and see,
>> but it sure looked sharp.
>
>
>The thing that really bugs me is all the websites who have it completely
>wrong and are reporting that the styling design by the italian Giugiaro
>design house (or however you spell it) is in fact the next mustang. which it
>is not. The bright orange funky looking fastback looks cool but is not the
>next mustang. I see just as many webites using the original silver concept
>from '04 and stating that it's going to be the next Mustang also. Some idiot
>finds a picture out there that doesn't look like the Mustang we have now and
>automatically assumes and then promotes it as "the next Mustang".
>
>Scott W.
>'68 Ranchero 500
>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>
That's the specs on the Camaro were just released according to the
news report.

Spike > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:58:09 -0600, "Scott W."
> <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spike" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:54:32 -0600, "Scott W."
>>> <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Spike" > wrote
>>>>> As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet
>>>>> with the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that
>>>>> their sales staff will be crunching numbers.
>>>>
>>>>I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen
>>>>some of the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much
>>>>like a '69 sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it
>>>>has the "hips" of the bigger sportsroof.
>>>>Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.
>>>>
>>>>Scott W.
>>>>'68 Ranchero 500
>>>>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>>>>
>>>
>>> The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and
>>> see, but it sure looked sharp.
>>
>>
>>The thing that really bugs me is all the websites who have it
>>completely wrong and are reporting that the styling design by the
>>italian Giugiaro design house (or however you spell it) is in fact the
>>next mustang. which it is not. The bright orange funky looking
>>fastback looks cool but is not the next mustang. I see just as many
>>webites using the original silver concept from '04 and stating that
>>it's going to be the next Mustang also. Some idiot finds a picture out
>>there that doesn't look like the Mustang we have now and automatically
>>assumes and then promotes it as "the next Mustang".
>>
>>Scott W.
>>'68 Ranchero 500
>>'69 Boss 302 SR2 clone
>>
> That's the specs on the Camaro were just released according to the
> news report.

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ook/index.html