It's Time to Revive The SVO Mustang!

On Jul 20, 8:03 am, "dwight" > wrote:

On Jul 20, 8:03 am, "dwight" > wrote:

> > On Jul 19, 1:41 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>
> >> All that aside, I have no problem with a 4-cylinder SVO-style current
> >> model.
> >> A 4-cylinder engine doesn't have to be boring, but I wonder whether the
> >> Mustang is too hefty for this approach. The Focus, even the Fusion, would
> >> be
> >> a great little car in SVO clothing, and probably more appealing to that
> >> market segment.

The current Focus, IMO, has been neutered; it's styling now vanilla.
Bring on the European version.

SVT Fusion - yes. But that does nothing to expand Mustang's
market.

> >> If you're looking to maximize fuel mileage, the Mustang - SVO or
> >> otherwise -
> >> would be a rather poor choice.


> > But here's the thought. A modern SVO/4-cylinder Mustang could help
> > change the minds of a certain market segment who view the Mustang as
> > nothing more than a gas-guzzling muscle machine or a retro V8
> > dinosaur. I think an SVO model would change the imagine of the
> > Mustang as being "in step with the times" AND help get the young, road
> > racing, 4-cylinder tuner market to consider a Mustang.

> That may be true, but probably not in sufficient numbers to make it
> worthwhile. I just don't think that the Mustang is the vehicle for this
> approach, precisely because it was designed to be the polar opposite.

It's time, IMO, for the pony car to evolve, again. The Camaro will
likely have a four offered, the Challenger has a multi-displacement
six, and I think the Mustang needs to offer more than an old six at
the bottom.

> If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
> performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd... then it
> seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here. In that brave new
> world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.

I say not as much if they offer a modern four and six.

> I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but they
> should also have offered something other than a manual shifter). If they
> could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while aiming for 35mpg,
> eye-opening performance, and a retail price under $25,000, they'd have a
> winner. A small-market-segment winner, but still a winner for today and
> going forward.

The Mustang can't continue with just a HiPo V8 and an old six. IMO,
it would have been like soldiering on with the '71-'73 style through
the 70s. (I'm not advocating another Mustang 2.) And I think a hot
four-cylinder model, with a milder 4 version later, would be a great
way show the Mustang as being more than a one trick (V8 Dinosaur)
pony.

> Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO goodies,
> and how many copies would you realistically expect to sell?

Just enough to get the market buzzing, although I think an "economy",
performance pony car would do pretty well right now.

Patrick

On Jul 20, 12:44 pm, "Frank ess" > wrote:

> Bring back the 2004-style Mustang as vehicle for the aero and engine
> improvements and you'll have a better chance of making a compromise
> product with decent economy/performance and sales prospects, my view.

IIRC, and I'd almost positive I do, the pre-94 LX Foxes were the most
aero Mustang -- they were .36. The GT's were .38.

Despite their more slippery appearance, the '94-'04 were .38.

And as for weight the 80's Foxes they were about 200 lbs
lighter.

Anyone for a retro Fox to be the next generation Mustang? ;-)

> Much as I like my S197, it's too much like me (overweight and the
> wrong shape) to prosper in a reduced fossil-dependence world.

Everything is porky now days. Hell, look at the Porshes. They were
never close to 3,000 lbs; now they can't get down to anywhere near
3,000. Only the Corvette has lost weight and kept it off.

Patrick

On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices combined
> prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice rockets
> because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well under
> $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its intended market
> and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they will have to do it
> with the base model but even then I don't think they will find many
> buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose them more middle aged and
> over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in sales.

I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.

The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the Mustang's
styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.

The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential of
the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model to
get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did it
right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts from
Motorsport.

> > If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
> > performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd... then
> > it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here. In that
> > brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.

> > I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but they
> > should also have offered something other than a manual shifter). If they
> > could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while aiming for 35mpg,
> > eye-opening performance, and a retail price under $25,000, they'd have a
> > winner. A small-market-segment winner, but still a winner for today and
> > going forward.

> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually meant
> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford typically
> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT mystic
> right down the toilet.

It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make such
bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the competitors
who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their stupidest
ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.

> > Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO
> > goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to sell?

> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and gives a
> great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would turn the base
> Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.

Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
What's the average air bag count now? Four? And everyone wants to be
driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras, GPS,
cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc. It's like we've taken a
raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack and
we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or least
the very least cut some of it's bulk.

Patrick

wrote in news:1ca27ae8-cf98-4650-8cb8-185a2ab4a605
@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 20, 12:44 pm, "Frank ess" > wrote:
>
>> Bring back the 2004-style Mustang as vehicle for the aero and engine
>> improvements and you'll have a better chance of making a compromise
>> product with decent economy/performance and sales prospects, my view.
>
> IIRC, and I'd almost positive I do, the pre-94 LX Foxes were the most
> aero Mustang -- they were .36. The GT's were .38.
>
> Despite their more slippery appearance, the '94-'04 were .38.
>
> And as for weight the 80's Foxes they were about 200 lbs
> lighter.
>
> Anyone for a retro Fox to be the next generation Mustang? ;-)
>
>> Much as I like my S197, it's too much like me (overweight and the
>> wrong shape) to prosper in a reduced fossil-dependence world.
>
> Everything is porky now days. Hell, look at the Porshes. They were
> never close to 3,000 lbs; now they can't get down to anywhere near
> 3,000. Only the Corvette has lost weight and kept it off.
>
> Patrick

The weight issue has a lot to do with today's safety requirements, added
electronics, and other stuff that was never in older vehicles. Except
for entry-level stripper econoboxes, lean, mean, no-op cars are pretty
much history.

wrote in
:

> On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
>> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices
>> combined prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice
>> rockets because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well
>> under $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its
>> intended market and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they
>> will have to do it with the base model but even then I don't think
>> they will find many buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose
>> them more middle aged and over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in
>> sales.
>
> I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
> attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.

I have to disagree because I don't think marketing would expose an SVO
to the masses. They'd target their niche and do vertical advertising.

> The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the Mustang's
> styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.

Styling, yes. But 4-banger, no. There are plenty of other 4-bangers
that those secretaries would love to be seen in moreso than a Mustang -
especially for less money.

> The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential of
> the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model to
> get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did it
> right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts from
> Motorsport.

An SVO 4-banger Mustang couldn't match what's already out there,
especially when you consider cost. The Mustang simply isn't the right
platform for a 4-banger SVO car.

>> > If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
>> > performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd...
>> > then it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here.
>> > In that brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.
>
>> > I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but
>> > they should also have offered something other than a manual
>> > shifter). If they could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while
>> > aiming for 35mpg, eye-opening performance, and a retail price under
>> > $25,000, they'd have a winner. A small-market-segment winner, but
>> > still a winner for today and going forward.
>
>> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
>> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually meant
>> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford typically
>> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT
>> mystic right down the toilet.
>
> It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make such
> bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the competitors
> who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their stupidest
> ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.

Agreed - and those commercials where the car's taking off like a jet are
just absurd.

>> > Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO
>> > goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to
>> > sell?
>
>> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
>> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and
>> gives a great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would
>> turn the base Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.
>
> Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
> unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
> What's the average air bag count now? Four?

When we have laws that mandate helmets for kids riding bicycles, you
know it's beyond absurd. I still long for the days of bench seats, no
seatbelts, and huge, plastic steering wheels with sharp metal horn rims.

> And everyone wants to be
> driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
> everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras, GPS,
> cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc.

Welcome to the 21st century. Those consumers mentioned above (that
"young crowd") demand those things. They're the same ones that waited
on line overnight to buy the new iPhone 3G.

> It's like we've taken a
> raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
> elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack and
> we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
> performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or least
> the very least cut some of it's bulk.
>
> Patrick

Again, agreed, but today's buyers want and/or simply accept the bulk.

To get back on topic, an SVO Mustang just isn't "right" - IMO, the
Mustang platform doesn't lend itself to that type of engineering.

IMO again, Ford needs a new car to go up against the current crop of
"tuner" cars that will compete in performance, handling, _and_ looks.
Marketing-wise, they need another Mustang, but the car itself would have
to compete directly with Civic Si, GTI, MazdaSpeed, WRX, etc. This is
where SVO needs to be.

wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
>> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices combined
>> prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice rockets
>> because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well under
>> $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its intended market
>> and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they will have to do it
>> with the base model but even then I don't think they will find many
>> buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose them more middle aged and
>> over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in sales.
>
> I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
> attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.

That is a problem, IMO. There are just too many good four cylinder cars
out there and many are lighter, more powerful and handle better than the
current base Mustang. That is a market niche that Ford can't crack with
the current chassis.

> The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the Mustang's
> styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.
>
> The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential of
> the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model to
> get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did it
> right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts from
> Motorsport.

The current chassis is just too heavy for a economic four cylinder
engine. There are too many other cars in this class that are better
from all aspects. Now if ford wants to really make a market niche for
themselves then they need to shrink the Mustang a tad, lighten it up A
LOT, add an independent rear suspension, give it a nice V-6 or four
cylinder engine and keep it rear wheel drive. This would get the
attention of the youth crowd, IMO. Then they could make an SVT version
with a twin turbo V-6. I could go for that and so could my 23 year old son.

>>> If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
>>> performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd... then
>>> it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here. In that
>>> brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.
>
>>> I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but they
>>> should also have offered something other than a manual shifter). If they
>>> could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while aiming for 35mpg,
>>> eye-opening performance, and a retail price under $25,000, they'd have a
>>> winner. A small-market-segment winner, but still a winner for today and
>>> going forward.
>
>> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
>> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually meant
>> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford typically
>> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT mystic
>> right down the toilet.
>
> It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make such
> bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the competitors
> who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their stupidest
> ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.

Ford has created about 75% of their current problems through bone headed
marketing decisions.

>>> Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO
>>> goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to sell?
>
>> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
>> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and gives a
>> great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would turn the base
>> Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.
>
> Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
> unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
> What's the average air bag count now? Four? And everyone wants to be
> driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
> everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras, GPS,
> cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc. It's like we've taken a
> raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
> elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack and
> we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
> performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or least
> the very least cut some of it's bulk.

I think the weight of cars is due more to laziness by the engineers than
anything else. They haven't moved to use lighter materials and really
focused on trimming weight on EVERY component. If they looked at
shaving a percentage of the weight of every component they could make
some big reductions in weight.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
>>> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices combined
>>> prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice rockets
>>> because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well under
>>> $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its intended market
>>> and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they will have to do it
>>> with the base model but even then I don't think they will find many
>>> buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose them more middle aged and
>>> over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in sales.
>>
>> I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
>> attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.
>
> That is a problem, IMO. There are just too many good four cylinder cars
> out there and many are lighter, more powerful and handle better than the
> current base Mustang. That is a market niche that Ford can't crack with
> the current chassis.
>

Yep, there are a few people that would buy an SVO just because it's
a Mustang, but I believe a powerful turbo charged Focus or something
similar would be more lucrative.

--


Perhaps a metaphor might help:

1. Your emails are like sperm, ready to dash out and do their thing.
2. Your ISP is a prick.
3. APEWS is a condom.
4. We are innocent maidens who do not like surprises.
5. You are asking for one teeny hole in the rubber.

You'll have to get us drunk first. - Hey Bub

On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Joe > wrote:

> >> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
> >> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices
> >> combined prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice
> >> rockets because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well
> >> under $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its
> >> intended market and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they
> >> will have to do it with the base model but even then I don't think
> >> they will find many buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose
> >> them more middle aged and over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in
> >> sales.

> > I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
> > attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.

> I have to disagree because I don't think marketing would expose an SVO
> to the masses. They'd target their niche and do vertical advertising.

Perhaps. But I do think the return, after 15+ years, of a 4-cylinder
engine in a Mustang would make the news circuit. And if Ford did it
right, the SVO could attract the road racing/tuner types, and standard
4 banger to those who think the Mustang is just a muscle
machine.

> > The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the Mustang's
> > styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.

> Styling, yes. But 4-banger, no. There are plenty of other 4-bangers
> that those secretaries would love to be seen in moreso than a Mustang -
> especially for less money.

Keep in mind though that today's 4-bangers aren't the 99 HP weaklings
of yesteryear.

I'm thinking the young boomer females who want the styling they grew
up with and the economy a 4-cylinder promises.

> > The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential of
> > the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model to
> > get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did it
> > right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts from
> > Motorsport.

> An SVO 4-banger Mustang couldn't match what's already out there,
> especially when you consider cost. The Mustang simply isn't the right
> platform for a 4-banger SVO car.

I disagree. I think it's time for the Mustang to do some incremental
changes before it ends up having to doing major ones later -- ala'
1973 to the 1974 Mustang. I say start trimming the dimensions a bit
(like the latest Vette did), cut some weight, and offer an entry-level
4-cylinder. And the SVO version would keep the enthusiasts happy and
interested.

> >> > If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
> >> > performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd...
> >> > then it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here.
> >> > In that brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.

> >> > I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but
> >> > they should also have offered something other than a manual
> >> > shifter). If they could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while
> >> > aiming for 35mpg, eye-opening performance, and a retail price under
> >> > $25,000, they'd have a winner. A small-market-segment winner, but
> >> > still a winner for today and going forward.

> >> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
> >> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually meant
> >> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford typically
> >> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT
> >> mystic right down the toilet.

> > It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make such
> > bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the competitors
> > who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their stupidest
> > ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.

> Agreed - and those commercials where the car's taking off like a jet are
> just absurd.

Yet, surprisingly, Ford is currently in the best position of the three
companies to survive.

> >> > Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO
> >> > goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to
> >> > sell?

> >> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
> >> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and
> >> gives a great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would
> >> turn the base Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.

> > Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
> > unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
> > What's the average air bag count now? Four?

> When we have laws that mandate helmets for kids riding bicycles, you
> know it's beyond absurd. I still long for the days of bench seats, no
> seatbelts, and huge, plastic steering wheels with sharp metal horn rims.

Okay, maybe not that far back.

But IMO< of "need" for options and gadgets is nearly absurd. It's
ranking right in there with carting 1.5 kids (or whatever today's
average offspring count is) around in lumbering, 5,000+ pound, 8-
passenger SUVs.

> > And everyone wants to be
> > driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
> > everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras, GPS,
> > cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc.

> Welcome to the 21st century. Those consumers mentioned above (that
> "young crowd") demand those things. They're the same ones that waited
> on line overnight to buy the new iPhone 3G.

The same ones that got taken when Apple later dropped the price of
their first gen iPhone by a few hundred bucks a couple months after
introduction?

> > It's like we've taken a
> > raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
> > elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack and
> > we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
> > performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or least
> > the very least cut some of it's bulk.

> Again, agreed, but today's buyers want and/or simply accept the bulk.

sigh

> To get back on topic, an SVO Mustang just isn't "right" - IMO, the
> Mustang platform doesn't lend itself to that type of engineering.

> IMO again, Ford needs a new car to go up against the current crop of
> "tuner" cars that will compete in performance, handling, _and_ looks.
> Marketing-wise, they need another Mustang, but the car itself would have
> to compete directly with Civic Si, GTI, MazdaSpeed, WRX, etc. This is
> where SVO needs to be.

The next gen (Euro) Focus is going to do that. Yes, America is
finally going to get the Euro version.

Patrick

On Jul 23, 11:23 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> >> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
> >> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices combined
> >> prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the rice rockets
> >> because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for well under
> >> $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its intended market
> >> and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd they will have to do it
> >> with the base model but even then I don't think they will find many
> >> buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose them more middle aged and
> >> over buyers thus resulting in a net loss in sales.

> > I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only bring
> > attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.

> That is a problem, IMO. There are just too many good four cylinder cars
> out there and many are lighter, more powerful and handle better than the
> current base Mustang. That is a market niche that Ford can't crack with
> the current chassis.

It wouldn't directly compete with those cars. Mustang is its own
niche. I'm saying expand the niche, not enter a new one.

> > The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the Mustang's
> > styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.

> > The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential of
> > the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model to
> > get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did it
> > right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts from
> > Motorsport.

> The current chassis is just too heavy for a economic four cylinder
> engine. There are too many other cars in this class that are better
> from all aspects. Now if ford wants to really make a market niche for
> themselves then they need to shrink the Mustang a tad, lighten it up A
> LOT, add an independent rear suspension, give it a nice V-6 or four
> cylinder engine and keep it rear wheel drive. This would get the
> attention of the youth crowd, IMO. Then they could make an SVT version
> with a twin turbo V-6. I could go for that and so could my 23 year old son.

If you did that, you'd be abandoning the Mustang's market. You'd ****
off the traditionalists. With a return of the SVO, you'd be honoring
the heritage, but expanding the market. You know what I mean?

> >>> If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with high
> >>> performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner crowd... then
> >>> it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear here. In that
> >>> brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.

> >>> I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour (but they
> >>> should also have offered something other than a manual shifter). If they
> >>> could do a similar makeover with the Focus, while aiming for 35mpg,
> >>> eye-opening performance, and a retail price under $25,000, they'd have a
> >>> winner. A small-market-segment winner, but still a winner for today and
> >>> going forward.

> >> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
> >> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually meant
> >> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford typically
> >> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT mystic
> >> right down the toilet.

> > It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make such
> > bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the competitors
> > who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their stupidest
> > ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.

> Ford has created about 75% of their current problems through bone headed
> marketing decisions.

Agreed. But thankfully, and luckily, the Mustang survives.

> >>> Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other SVO
> >>> goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to sell?

> >> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
> >> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and gives a
> >> great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would turn the base
> >> Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.

> > Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
> > unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
> > What's the average air bag count now? Four? And everyone wants to be
> > driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
> > everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras, GPS,
> > cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc. It's like we've taken a
> > raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
> > elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack and
> > we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
> > performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or least
> > the very least cut some of it's bulk.

> I think the weight of cars is due more to laziness by the engineers than
> anything else. They haven't moved to use lighter materials and really
> focused on trimming weight on EVERY component. If they looked at
> shaving a percentage of the weight of every component they could make
> some big reductions in weight.

Full agreement.

Patrick

wrote in news:9c88c5c6-6f8e-4d5e-a650-bfbfba368811
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Joe > wrote:
>
>> >> I think you are right. The higher performance Mustangs are seldom
>> >> bought by the youth crowd. The insurance rates and car prices
>> >> combined prevent it for all but a very few people. They buy the
rice
>> >> rockets because they can be insured reasonable and purchased for
well
>> >> under $20k. IMO, the current Mustang is the ideal car for its
>> >> intended market and purpose. If Ford goes after the youth crowd
they
>> >> will have to do it with the base model but even then I don't think
>> >> they will find many buyers there. Then doing so will likely lose
>> >> them more middle aged and over buyers thus resulting in a net loss
in
>> >> sales.
>
>> > I think you guys are missing the point. A modern SVO would only
bring
>> > attention to the fact a 4-cylinder Mustang exists.
>
>> I have to disagree because I don't think marketing would expose an
SVO
>> to the masses. They'd target their niche and do vertical
advertising.
>
> Perhaps. But I do think the return, after 15+ years, of a 4-cylinder
> engine in a Mustang would make the news circuit. And if Ford did it
> right, the SVO could attract the road racing/tuner types, and standard
> 4 banger to those who think the Mustang is just a muscle
> machine.

It would certainly make the news circuit, but I'm not sure it would make
a huge impression on Joe Consumer. They'd still see a Mustang and
they'd have their preconceived notions of what it was, regardless of
what it is.

For an SVO car to attract road racing/tuner types, I think it would have
to be something other than a Mustang. There's a lot of history
associated with the Mustang name - most of which is on the other side of
the fence from tuner cars.

>> > The secretary types would be drawn in because they like the
Mustang's
>> > styling and could get an economy (base model) 4-cylinder engine.
>
>> Styling, yes. But 4-banger, no. There are plenty of other 4-bangers
>> that those secretaries would love to be seen in moreso than a Mustang
-
>> especially for less money.
>
> Keep in mind though that today's 4-bangers aren't the 99 HP weaklings
> of yesteryear.

Exactly. And that's one reason why I think those girls would go for
something other than a Mustang. It would be interesting to ask 250
young, professional women which car they'd rather drive - a Scion tC or
a Mustang.

> I'm thinking the young boomer females who want the styling they grew
> up with and the economy a 4-cylinder promises.
>
>> > The young crowd would like it because they could see the potential
of
>> > the 4-cylinder SVO, yet could purchase the lesser 4-cylinder model
to
>> > get the lower sticker price and insurance rate. Then if Ford did
it
>> > right, the buyers.owners could later purchase all the SVO's parts
from
>> > Motorsport.
>
>> An SVO 4-banger Mustang couldn't match what's already out there,
>> especially when you consider cost. The Mustang simply isn't the
right
>> platform for a 4-banger SVO car.
>
> I disagree. I think it's time for the Mustang to do some incremental
> changes before it ends up having to doing major ones later -- ala'
> 1973 to the 1974 Mustang. I say start trimming the dimensions a bit
> (like the latest Vette did), cut some weight, and offer an entry-level
> 4-cylinder. And the SVO version would keep the enthusiasts happy and
> interested.

At this stage, I think a new Mustang platform that would be used for a
lightweight turbo 4 as well as a 300+ hp GT would simply cost too much
to engineer and produce. If a turbo 4 from SVO is to appear, I think it
would have to be a car other than the Mustang.

>> >> > If the idea is to deliver high fuel efficiency together with
high
>> >> > performance, while at the same time attracting the tuner
crowd...
>> >> > then it seems that you want that silk purse from a sow's ear
here.
>> >> > In that brave new world, the Mustang really IS a dinosaur.
>
>> >> > I think the SVT folks did a pretty nice job with the Contour
(but
>> >> > they should also have offered something other than a manual
>> >> > shifter). If they could do a similar makeover with the Focus,
while
>> >> > aiming for 35mpg, eye-opening performance, and a retail price
under
>> >> > $25,000, they'd have a winner. A small-market-segment winner,
but
>> >> > still a winner for today and going forward.
>
>> >> Ford had a good moniker in the SVT name plate they tacked onto
>> >> performance variants of their mundane cars. It also actually
meant
>> >> something regarding improved performance. Then like Ford
typically
>> >> does, they flushed all their hard marketing work creating the SVT
>> >> mystic right down the toilet.
>
>> > It's mind numbing isn't it? These execs make millions yet make
such
>> > bone-headed decisions. They never seem to learn from the
competitors
>> > who are kicking their ass, but when they do they use their
stupidest
>> > ideas -- i.e. Lincoln's three letter monikers.
>
>> Agreed - and those commercials where the car's taking off like a jet
are
>> just absurd.
>
> Yet, surprisingly, Ford is currently in the best position of the three
> companies to survive.

I'm not so sure after the last quarter. Ford posted a loss of $8.7
billion, the largest loss in their history. They're betting on the
Flex, MKX, and future cars, but those new cars may not appear until it's
too late.

In order for Ford to not only survive but be competitive, they need cars
like what Toyota and Honda are offering right now. I just don't see
that happening.

>> >> > Put your 4-cylinder in a Mustang, along with all of the other
SVO
>> >> > goodies, and how many copies would you realistically expect to
>> >> > sell?
>
>> >> I think Ford needs to put the Mustang on a serious weight diet and
>> >> shrink its dimensions a little. Losing weight helps mileage and
>> >> gives a great handling, stopping and acceleration boost. It would
>> >> turn the base Mustang into a competitor with many imports, IMO.
>
>> > Damn near everything needs to go on a diet now days. But
>> > unfortunately we've been safetied to death (does that make sense?).
>> > What's the average air bag count now? Four?
>
>> When we have laws that mandate helmets for kids riding bicycles, you
>> know it's beyond absurd. I still long for the days of bench seats,
no
>> seatbelts, and huge, plastic steering wheels with sharp metal horn
rims.
>
> Okay, maybe not that far back.

LOL

> But IMO< of "need" for options and gadgets is nearly absurd. It's
> ranking right in there with carting 1.5 kids (or whatever today's
> average offspring count is) around in lumbering, 5,000+ pound, 8-
> passenger SUVs.

Being the old curmudgeon that I am, I fully agree. Today's consumers
are totally spoiled. But you know, that's what parents of every
generation say. Those spoiled kids of today will say the same thing
about their kids in 15 years.

>> > And everyone wants to be
>> > driving their living room -- leather, pushbutton, adjustable
>> > everything. We have climate/speed/roll/braking control, cameras,
GPS,
>> > cupholders, mega-multi speaker systems, etc.
>
>> Welcome to the 21st century. Those consumers mentioned above (that
>> "young crowd") demand those things. They're the same ones that
waited
>> on line overnight to buy the new iPhone 3G.
>
> The same ones that got taken when Apple later dropped the price of
> their first gen iPhone by a few hundred bucks a couple months after
> introduction?

Yup. Gullibile snots, ain't they?

>> > It's like we've taken a
>> > raw athlete from yesteryear, improved his condition & training to
>> > elite status, but over the years have saddled him with a backpack
and
>> > we keep adding more and more poundage for him to carry. He still
>> > performs damn good, but if we could only remove the backpack, or
least
>> > the very least cut some of it's bulk.
>
>> Again, agreed, but today's buyers want and/or simply accept the bulk.
>
> sigh
>
>> To get back on topic, an SVO Mustang just isn't "right" - IMO, the
>> Mustang platform doesn't lend itself to that type of engineering.
>
>> IMO again, Ford needs a new car to go up against the current crop of
>> "tuner" cars that will compete in performance, handling, _and_ looks.
>> Marketing-wise, they need another Mustang, but the car itself would
have
>> to compete directly with Civic Si, GTI, MazdaSpeed, WRX, etc. This
is
>> where SVO needs to be.
>
> The next gen (Euro) Focus is going to do that. Yes, America is
> finally going to get the Euro version.
>
> Patrick

I certainly hope you're right. But if that car appeared in showrooms
this week, it wouldn't be a minute too soon.