Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> "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.
>
> I still think they should want more on the roads and in people's
> hands.
> It is like them having a roving billboard to boost their
> performance
> image. Plus, they are going back on their word if they don't turn up
> the wick on GT500 production. That really chaps my ass.

Agree 1000%.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:

> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
> bang for the buck factor.

A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.

What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?

If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.

> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
> point to argue?

Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.

In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but one
>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has
>> put out since the mid 80s.

> Not the same thing.
> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other this
> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much in
> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the
> Lexus does...

The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
considering it's FWD.

"Thomas Hart" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:33:56 -0500 Michael Johnson > wrote
> in Message id: >:
>
> >You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as
> >boring sedans. 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.
>
> I've got to agree with you there, but the '64 was a bit boring. The 65-67
> Goats were, IMO, the best looking cars that Detroit ever produced.

It's good to know I'm not the only person who feels that way. When I think
"GTO" an image of a '66 is instantly conjured up in my mind. A truly
beautiful design, IMO.

For the "rebirth" of the GTO to have had any chance at all, it should have
taken more styling cues from the 65-67's,... the "jelly bean" with a GTO
emblem was ill-conceived, at best.

--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but one
>>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has
>>> put out since the mid 80s.
>
>> Not the same thing.
>> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other this
>> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much in
>> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the
>> Lexus does...
>
> The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
> considering it's FWD.
>
>

And probably should be, that doesn't make your argument any easier for you.

In article <zDlIh.88$Eg4.86@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but one
>>>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has
>>>> put out since the mid 80s.
>>
>>> Not the same thing.
>>> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other this
>>> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much in
>>> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the
>>> Lexus does...
>>
>> The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
>> considering it's FWD.

> And probably should be, that doesn't make your argument any easier for you.

My argument is just fine... It's that in order to disqualify it the
standards have to be increased to such a point that (practically) nothing
made today can qualify for a classic name badge.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <zDlIh.88$Eg4.86@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but
>>>>> one
>>>>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison
>>>>> has
>>>>> put out since the mid 80s.
>>>
>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other
>>>> this
>>>> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much
>>>> in
>>>> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the
>>>> Lexus does...
>>>
>>> The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
>>> considering it's FWD.
>
>> And probably should be, that doesn't make your argument any easier for
>> you.
>
> My argument is just fine... It's that in order to disqualify it the
> standards have to be increased to such a point that (practically) nothing
> made today can qualify for a classic name badge.
>

Hum, I'm not sure how you get to that point...

The 2005 Mustang did an outstanding job of living up to it's classic name
badge.
World class modern suspension and drive train, with plenty of well done
styling ques from a long and successful distinctly American Heritage...

In article <rUlIh.91$Eg4.0@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article <zDlIh.88$Eg4.86@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> put out since the mid 80s.
>>>>
>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other
>>>>> this
>>>>> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much
>>>>> in
>>>>> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the
>>>>> Lexus does...
>>>>
>>>> The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
>>>> considering it's FWD.
>>
>>> And probably should be, that doesn't make your argument any easier for
>>> you.
>>
>> My argument is just fine... It's that in order to disqualify it the
>> standards have to be increased to such a point that (practically) nothing
>> made today can qualify for a classic name badge.
>>
>
> Hum, I'm not sure how you get to that point...
>
> The 2005 Mustang did an outstanding job of living up to it's classic name
> badge.
> World class modern suspension and drive train, with plenty of well done
> styling ques from a long and successful distinctly American Heritage...

But it doesn't meet the requirements being applied in this thread to the
GTO. For one, there is no mass produced compact that it shares
significantly from as it did in original form or even fox body form.

It serves to show the gymnastics being done in this thread.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <rUlIh.91$Eg4.0@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article <zDlIh.88$Eg4.86@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article <jXjIh.10$y56.4@trnddc07>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> put out since the mid 80s.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>>> One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Lexus does...
>>>>>
>>>>> The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up,
>>>>> considering it's FWD.
>>>
>>>> And probably should be, that doesn't make your argument any easier for
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> My argument is just fine... It's that in order to disqualify it the
>>> standards have to be increased to such a point that (practically)
>>> nothing
>>> made today can qualify for a classic name badge.
>>>
>>
>> Hum, I'm not sure how you get to that point...
>>
>> The 2005 Mustang did an outstanding job of living up to it's classic name
>> badge.
>> World class modern suspension and drive train, with plenty of well done
>> styling ques from a long and successful distinctly American Heritage...
>
> But it doesn't meet the requirements being applied in this thread to the
> GTO. For one, there is no mass produced compact that it shares
> significantly from as it did in original form or even fox body form.
>
> It serves to show the gymnastics being done in this thread.
>
>

There is no logic to your position!
The Mustang is not a reintroduction to a 20 plus year gone "classic name
badge"! You are comparing apples to oranges here.

The 2005 Mustang is simply a very well done progression in styling change of
an ongoing continuously built (since 1964) and sold car model. How can that
(continuously live and ever changing car model) be compared to this travesty
of an abortion GM did to the long dormant GTO with this reintroduction?

That is not what I was doing.

My point in bringing up the 2005 Mustang was simply to illustrate that if GM
had done a similar (styling wise) thing with the Holden based GTO, instead
of the nasty looking thing they came up with, (which by the way doesn't have
a hint of the original GTO's styling) we would not be having this discussion
now.

In article <3tmIh.96$Eg4.33@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> There is no logic to your position!

I am being quite logical. Since 'Mustang' cannot meet the proposed
standard, the proposed standard is flawed.

> The Mustang is not a reintroduction to a 20 plus year gone "classic name
> badge"! You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Irrelevant. A redesign is a redesign wether there was a gap in usage or
not.

> The 2005 Mustang is simply a very well done progression in styling change of
> an ongoing continuously built (since 1964) and sold car model. How can that
> (continuously live and ever changing car model) be compared to this travesty
> of an abortion GM did to the long dormant GTO with this reintroduction?

Yes the mustang does, however it fails the standard being used to call
the last GTO a 'travesty of an abortion', thusly the standard is in
error. That's my point.

> My point in bringing up the 2005 Mustang was simply to illustrate that if GM
> had done a similar (styling wise) thing with the Holden based GTO, instead
> of the nasty looking thing they came up with, (which by the way doesn't have
> a hint of the original GTO's styling) we would not be having this discussion
> now.

GTO did not have it's own styling other than some relatively minor
differences from the tempest / le mans. This last GTO was similiar
compared to it's base car. I am on the record saying they should have
not tried calling it a GTO, but ever see a 1974 GTO? It looks like a
goofy Nova.