Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

Brent P wrote:
> 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.

We are talking about the concept of the original GTO to the latest
offering. Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there
are major differences in technology but there were also major
differences between the concepts employed in their development.

> 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?

The Mustang has held true to the original in design and concept. That
is why it is still around and the GTO is gone.

> 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.

It wasn't what people expected because GM deviated too far from the
original concept they used in the 1960s.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> 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.

That doesn't change the theme. It's the spot GM put themselves into when
they killed off almost all their RWD cars. They also needed to move the
driver's side over to sell cars on that platform in the middle east when
they stopped building the RWD caprice in the USA and no longer had it to
sell there.

>>>> 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.

There is none, except that manufactured in your head. Cars aren't the
same as they were forty years ago and aren't going to be. Just themes
survive.

You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing
both sides yourself. Quite a trick.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> That doesn't change the theme. It's the spot GM put themselves into when
> they killed off almost all their RWD cars. They also needed to move the
> driver's side over to sell cars on that platform in the middle east when
> they stopped building the RWD caprice in the USA and no longer had it to
> sell there.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> There is none, except that manufactured in your head. Cars aren't the
> same as they were forty years ago and aren't going to be. Just themes
> survive.
>
>

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> 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.

> We are talking about the concept of the original GTO to the latest
> offering.

A family sedan made with more punch. That's the concept, that's what was
done.

> Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there
> are major differences in technology but there were also major
> differences between the concepts employed in their development.

A family sedan with more punch, that's the concept of the development.

>> 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?

> The Mustang has held true to the original in design and concept. That
> is why it is still around and the GTO is gone.

You do know the car that the GTO was based on ended production....

But you could make various similiar gripes based on where the SN197
platform came from.

>> 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.

> It wasn't what people expected because GM deviated too far from the
> original concept they used in the 1960s.

It's a family sedan with more punch. That's the original concept, that's
what the last one was. All your gripes of 'difference' are behind the
scenes trivia that most people don't even concern themselves with
knowing.

When someone says GTO they expect this:
http://home.rochester.rr.com/vampyre...%20LEAGUE!.jpg

Not something that looks like an ordinary sedan.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing
> both sides yourself. Quite a trick.

Your purposeful ignorance knows no bounds obviously.

On Mar 9, 6:40 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> 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.

Some random thoughts:

The '64 GTO was an option package on the Tempest. It was a bare
minimum to get the project off the ground. John DeLorean was sneaking
it under the radar of the GM ban on big car engines in intermediates,
and did not want to attract too much attention prior to the roll-out,
by adding a bunch of distinctive features.

The '64 Tempest may or may not have been intended to be boring. What
it was intended to do was to make the buying public forget all about
the '61-'63, which was probably the worst modern domestic ever. A
Corvair transaxle with swing axles designed to flip you over in hard
cornering. A sliced in half V8 that shook so bad it required a rope
drive shaft to try to cope. A truly nasty little vehicle.

The Barracuda always had an available with a V8. In '65 -- the second
year of production -- it got a 235 hp solid lifter 273-4v that was as
strong and probably had more potential than the Ford Hi-Po 289 sitting
in the Shelby Cobras and the K-code and GT350 Mustangs of the day.

In the '66 Trans Am series, Mustangs won the season manufacturer's
title with 46 points to the Barracuda's 39. Adding the Barracuda's 39
and Dodge Dart's 33 got you to 62 total Mopar points.

The 225 ci slant six was far torquier than the equivalent Ford and not
to be disdained, for what it was.

Funny to see the classic Cuda exalted for its inherent wonderfulness
and the modern GTO scorned for its poor sales. The '70-'74 Cudas were
terrible cars AND did not sell, both. In particular they could not
give away the Hemis and 440-6v's. That's why they're so expensive now
-- that Plymouth made so few of them when they were new. For example,
only 11 '71 Hemi verts found buyers. I would guess that's one-tenth
the number of Ferrari Daytona Spyders sold in that same model year.
The modern GTO blew away the hi-po Cudas in sales, and will do the
same thing in any measure of performance, comfort or utility. So it's
funny to scorn the GTO just because Ma and Pa Yahoo preferred an
Explorer in their driveway, unless you're going to apply the same
yardstick to the classic Barracuda.

I don't know why this thought occurs to me, but the Jeep Grand
Cherokee SRT8 remains one of the quickest Hemis of all time. It's 13.2
@ 104 -- http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm -- is better than
most the magazine tests of 426 hemi cars "in the day." I guess the
thought occurs because I'm in Cuda-bashing mode. Fraudulent and stupid
cars.

Sorry if any of these points have already been made; I did not read
every post in this thread.

180 Out

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.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing
>> both sides yourself. Quite a trick.
>
> Your purposeful ignorance knows no bounds obviously.

..... and so we have reached the end of this wonderfully fulfilling
diatribe.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> We are talking about the concept of the original GTO to the latest
>> offering.
>
> A family sedan made with more punch. That's the concept, that's what was
> done.

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.

>> Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there
>> are major differences in technology but there were also major
>> differences between the concepts employed in their development.
>
> A family sedan with more punch, that's the concept of the development.

>>> 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?
>
>> The Mustang has held true to the original in design and concept. That
>> is why it is still around and the GTO is gone.
>
> You do know the car that the GTO was based on ended production....
>
> But you could make various similiar gripes based on where the SN197
> platform came from.

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

>>> 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.
>
>> It wasn't what people expected because GM deviated too far from the
>> original concept they used in the 1960s.
>
> It's a family sedan with more punch. That's the original concept, that's
> what the last one was. All your gripes of 'difference' are behind the
> scenes trivia that most people don't even concern themselves with
> knowing.
>
> When someone says GTO they expect this:
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/vampyre...%20LEAGUE!.jpg
>
> Not something that looks like an ordinary sedan.

Whatever it is someone expects from a GTO, the last one didn't deliver
it. The first one did. What was different between them? Care to
answer the question this time or are you just going to ignore it again?
It the question too hard for you to answer?

"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...