Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:45:44 -0600,
(Brent P) puked:

>In article >, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:52:23 -0600,
>> (Brent P) puked:
>>
>>>In article >, 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?
>>>
>>
>> Ever heard of a Plymouth Neon? I'll never forget seeing one parked
>> right next to a Dodge Neon and doing a double take...
>
>The point was there is no Plymouth any more.
>

My point is they badged the Plymouth Neon a Dodge Neon after
Plymouth's demise...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

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.

In article >, lab~rat >:-) wrote:

> My point is they badged the Plymouth Neon a Dodge Neon after
> Plymouth's demise...

No, Neons were sold by both divisons long before that.

Brent P wrote:
> 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.

It isn't based on a regular sedan. It is based on an Australian import
that isn't even left hand drive. Also, the GTO is base on one of
Holden's luxury models and not a base sedan.

>> 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.

..... and this is like the original GTO?

>> 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.

I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far
from the first GTO in concept.

> 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.

I guess we can both agree that the last GTO was ill conceived and
executed. The first one was brilliantly conceived and executed. What
was different between them that made this possible?

Brent P wrote:
> 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!

I'm assigning you your own words. So now we have you saying it was true
to the original and then saying there were major differences. Which is it?

Joe wrote:
> 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

I think if it goes with private investors it will either be a disaster
or brilliant move. There will be no middle ground. Private investors
might break from the old way of doing things that don't work anymore.
Then again, they may not know what they are doing and run the whole mess
right of a cliff.

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.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It isn't based on a regular sedan. It is based on an Australian import
> that isn't even left hand drive. Also, the GTO is base on one of
> Holden's luxury models and not a base sedan.

There is no lower RWD passenger sedan in world wide GM production. What
exactly should they have used?

This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense.
Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades.

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

> I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far
> from the first GTO in concept.

All you are pointing out is that it's not 1964 anymore and 20 years post
GM adbandoning RWD for anything under a caddy in the US.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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!
>
> I'm assigning you your own words. So now we have you saying it was true
> to the original and then saying there were major differences. Which is it?

It's been forty years. If you could get that carburated no seat belts
tempest to pass current regs without major changes you'd be a miracle
worker and should be an engineer for GM.

Today's mustang has major differences from the ones that rolled out in
'64... there's not even a compact to base it on any more. But it's the
same theme right? Where's the falcon ? Shouldn't the mustang be based on
an ordinary bread and butter compact under the skin?

All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it
had, it wasn't the one people expected though.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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.
>> It isn't based on a regular sedan. It is based on an Australian import
>> that isn't even left hand drive. Also, the GTO is base on one of
>> Holden's luxury models and not a base sedan.
>
> There is no lower RWD passenger sedan in world wide GM production. What
> exactly should they have used?

Maybe they should have never went ahead with the GTO. Considering how
short lived it was and its low sales volume, that was probably the right
choice.

> This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense.
> Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades.

You're confusing cars designed from the ground up to be both left and
right hand drive with the GTO. Its parent car was never designed to be
converted and this made the process much more complicated. This in turn
made the car's profit margin very slim and forced a higher sales price
than the public would pay.

>>> You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different.
>
>> I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far
>> from the first GTO in concept.
>
> All you are pointing out is that it's not 1964 anymore and 20 years post
> GM adbandoning RWD for anything under a caddy in the US.

All I am pointing out is the inconsistencies in your statements.