Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last
> rendition of the GTO? Amazing!

Ya know what, let me know when you're going to stop making stuff and
assigning it to me and we can discuss things, until then forget it. I
stated nothing of the sort and you damn well know it.

On Mar 8, 8:32 pm, "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.

Mike, Brent's point it that the early Tempest had a very strong
resemblence to the rest of the Pontiac line. (Just like the new GTO
does.) And in the old Pontiac line-up they were quite boring looking
compared to the up-market and more stylish Catalina and Grand Prix.
Only its compact size, no-frills looks, the advance of time, and the
biggest factor of all the high-performance image does the body thrill
us now with its "classic look".

> >>>> 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.

But were they any more stylish [back then] compared to a Chevelle,
Chevy II, Fairlane, Galaxie, etc.? My answer is no. In that crowd,
they were boring looking... just a plain-Jane, blend-in-with-the-pack
sedan, even in GTO trim.

So how is the new GTO any different? It looks very much like any
other late-model Pontiac with the only difference being its high-
performance image.

Lastly, compare the looks of a new GTO to a '70 GTO. Now compare an
'04 Mustang GT to '65 Mustang GT? I think the evolutionary
resemblence of the early version to the latter version of both cars is
quite similar, don't you?

Patrick

wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:32 pm, "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.
>
> Mike, Brent's point it that the early Tempest had a very strong
> resemblence to the rest of the Pontiac line. (Just like the new GTO
> does.) And in the old Pontiac line-up they were quite boring looking
> compared to the up-market and more stylish Catalina and Grand Prix.
> Only its compact size, no-frills looks, the advance of time, and the
> biggest factor of all the high-performance image does the body thrill
> us now with its "classic look".

Whether the car is boring is a matter of opinion. I don't believe
Pontiac designed the Tempest to be boring. The GTO was targeted to be
an affordable muscle car. It delivered this in spades and hit the
marketing bullseye. In its day the GTO was stylish and appealed to a
large number of people just like the Tempest did. If the body thrills
us now then why wouldn't it thrill someone in the 1960s? Cars don't get
better looking with age.

Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I
disagree. The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold
in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and
profitable. The Holden GTO was far from this. If Pontiac had followed
the same formula then the last GTO would have been based off a Grand
Prix or maybe even a G6. That wasn't in the cards because of these cars
having FWD. At least they had enough sense to keep the GTO RWD.

Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and
convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They also
didn't bother to determine if their target market would respond well to
a GTO based on an import. Why did GM kill off the GTO after two years?
It didn't sell because most people didn't care for the styling and/or
price. I bet GM took a bath on the last few GTO that were sold.
Bringing one to the showroom was a complicated and expensive process.
Does this sound like the formula used for the original car? It doesn't
to me.

>>>>>> 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.
>
> But were they any more stylish [back then] compared to a Chevelle,
> Chevy II, Fairlane, Galaxie, etc.? My answer is no. In that crowd,
> they were boring looking... just a plain-Jane, blend-in-with-the-pack
> sedan, even in GTO trim.

Style is a matter of taste. They sold well so style had to be a part of
the car's appeal to the public. The cars you mentioned were no better
than a Tempest or GTO, IMO. They all had about the same style quotient.

> So how is the new GTO any different? It looks very much like any
> other late-model Pontiac with the only difference being its high-
> performance image.

Did a Chevelle SS look that much different than a garden variety
Chevelle? Maybe a few badges, wider tires etc. Sounds like the formula
for a GTO to me. It also seems that the muscles cars of the 1960s were
based on higher volume base models like the Nova, Chevelle, etc. The
last GTO was far from this formula.

> Lastly, compare the looks of a new GTO to a '70 GTO. Now compare an
> '04 Mustang GT to '65 Mustang GT? I think the evolutionary
> resemblence of the early version to the latter version of both cars is
> quite similar, don't you?

Are you saying they look alike or not? I'm not sure what your point is.
The last GTO has no resemblance to any earlier model and it shouldn't.
It's an import. Like I said, Brent seems to think the last GTO was in
line with the first. I disagree.

wrote:
> 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.

I wonder who will buy Chrysler? I don't see Ford or GM doing it.
Toyota doesn't need it and most other companies would be crazy to take
that leap. I guess if Daimler lets it go cheap enough someone will step
up.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last
>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing!
>
> Ya know what, let me know when you're going to stop making stuff and
> assigning it to me and we can discuss things, until then forget it. I
> stated nothing of the sort and you damn well know it.

Let me quote you from earlier in this thread:

"It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
early version of the GTO."

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:

> Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I
> disagree.

A shared theme of being based on a regular sedan without any significant
styling differences.

> The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold
> in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and
> profitable. The Holden GTO was far from this. If Pontiac had followed
> the same formula then the last GTO would have been based off a Grand
> Prix or maybe even a G6. That wasn't in the cards because of these cars
> having FWD. At least they had enough sense to keep the GTO RWD.

Having killed their domestic RWD lines, they used a bread and butter RWD
line from overseas.

> Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and
> convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They also
> didn't bother to determine if their target market would respond well to
> a GTO based on an import. Why did GM kill off the GTO after two years?
> It didn't sell because most people didn't care for the styling and/or
> price. I bet GM took a bath on the last few GTO that were sold.
> Bringing one to the showroom was a complicated and expensive process.
> Does this sound like the formula used for the original car? It doesn't
> to me.

You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different.

In the end of the day it's a family sedan with a special package, and
really the only RWD one GM had world wide to choose from. Maybe if GM
hadn't killed off RWD cars in the 80s and then those that survived in the
90s they could have had a more effective GTO, but that's neither here nor
there when it comes to basing the GTO on an ordinary family sedan.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last
>>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing!
>>
>> Ya know what, let me know when you're going to stop making stuff and
>> assigning it to me and we can discuss things, until then forget it. I
>> stated nothing of the sort and you damn well know it.
>
> Let me quote you from earlier in this thread:
>
> "It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the
> early version of the GTO."

Which is about three universes away from what you assigned to me above.

Of course there are major differences... It's been 40 years!

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Michael
> Johnson wrote:
>
>> Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I
>> disagree.
>
> A shared theme of being based on a regular sedan without any
> significant styling differences.
>
>> The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold
>> in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and
>> profitable. The Holden GTO was far from this. If Pontiac had
>> followed the same formula then the last GTO would have been based off
>> a Grand Prix or maybe even a G6. That wasn't in the cards because of
>> these cars having FWD. At least they had enough sense to keep the
>> GTO RWD.
>
> Having killed their domestic RWD lines, they used a bread and butter
> RWD line from overseas.
>
>> Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and
>> convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They
>> also didn't bother to determine if their target market would respond
>> well to a GTO based on an import. Why did GM kill off the GTO after
>> two years?
>> It didn't sell because most people didn't care for the styling
>> and/or
>> price. I bet GM took a bath on the last few GTO that were sold.
>> Bringing one to the showroom was a complicated and expensive process.
>> Does this sound like the formula used for the original car? It
>> doesn't to me.
>
> You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different.
>
> In the end of the day it's a family sedan with a special package, and
> really the only RWD one GM had world wide to choose from. Maybe if GM
> hadn't killed off RWD cars in the 80s and then those that survived in
> the 90s they could have had a more effective GTO, but that's neither
> here nor there when it comes to basing the GTO on an ordinary family
> sedan.

Michael is right on the money IMO. The point I'd like to make here is
that the latest GTO shares nothing with the rest of GM's American
offerings, as opposed to the earlier GTO which was derived from the
Tempest. Different things entirely.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> 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.

There are a few running around on the roads down here. Seeing them with
other cars, they don't look too inspiring at all. In fact, the Hertz
Mustangs look a lot better.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I wonder who will buy Chrysler? I don't see Ford or GM doing it.
> Toyota doesn't need it and most other companies would be crazy to take
> that leap. I guess if Daimler lets it go cheap enough someone will
> step up.

Here's today's latest:
http://tinyurl.com/38d5wr