A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 30th 08, 02:10 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Falcon Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)

$179000

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17815.aspx
http://www.midtowntoronto.com/2007/1...ouse-for-sale/

Spike wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:26:19 -0400, Falcon Guy
> > wrote:
>
>> Not a chance in hell of getting a condo or cheap house in Toronto at
>> that price. Maybe if you were trying to buy two GT40's.
>>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> The traditional idea of a muscle car was a stripped-down product, with
>>> power. In later years (1970-71) the muscle car version of a line
>>> became almost a luxury vehicle. Now, Ford only knows that kind.
>>> Check out the sticker on a convertible GT in Toronto, Canada.
>>>
>>> $45k, plus $3000 insurance (way more if you are younger) and $3000/yr
>>> in gas means this car costs about the same as the mortgage to a medium-
>>> priced condo or a cheap house.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/100830683

>
> What? Toronto doesn't have any slums? :0) LOL

Ads
  #22  
Old July 30th 08, 03:50 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
dwight[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 28, 2:04 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>> > "Rich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> The traditional idea of a muscle car was a stripped-down product, with
>> >> power. In later years (1970-71) the muscle car version of a line
>> >> became almost a luxury vehicle. Now, Ford only knows that kind.
>> >> Check out the sticker on a convertible GT in Toronto, Canada.

>>
>> >> $45k, plus $3000 insurance (way more if you are younger) and $3000/yr
>> >> in gas means this car costs about the same as the mortgage to a
>> >> medium-
>> >> priced condo or a cheap house.

>>
>> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/100830683

>>
>> > Is there a point here? Are you somehow mad at Ford for not putting
>> > "muscle cars" in the hands of more young people?

>>
>> > I don't get it.

>>
>> This guy resides in my kill file because he is a low grade troll. He
>> posts the same worthless crap in the photography newsgroups and gets
>> slapped around their too.

>
> $45,000. In 1988, $16,500 for an LX 5.0 or less. 240,000 sold in
> 1988. 2008....? Case closed.


Sorry, not. There are too many variables behind those numbers to just spit
them out and think that it proves something.

You're completely discounting inflation, trends, evolution of taste and
style, and the simple fact that NOBODY GIVES A CRAP about muscle cars
anymore.

But you just rest now. Your brain must be tired.

dwight


  #23  
Old July 30th 08, 04:36 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)

dwight wrote:
> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real,
>>> full-of-ice-cream milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>>>
>>> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>>>
>>> dwight

>>
>> We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since
>> the 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and
>> after being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's"
>> and is just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be.
>> But stuff is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the
>> shakes are NOT a quarter.

>
> Were there any chains in the 50's? I can't remember (because I was 6 in
> 1960). In my memory, the drug store was a place that had a counter with
> stools, where you could sit down and get a cherry cola for a dime. And
> the counterperson had to mix the cola with cherry syrup for you - it
> wasn't prepackaged that way.
>
> We used to go into downtown Philadelphia once in a while, and a great
> time was feeding nickles into the slots for your choice of a la carte
> lunch at Horn and Hardart. Everything from sandwiches to pies was behind
> glass, and you'd put in your 15cents to 50cents, one nickle at a time,
> to get what you wanted.
>
> )
>
>


Sure Woolworth's, Walgreene's are two I know of, but in 1960 my
parents were not even yet married.

--



TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on
talking when people are no longer interested?

HAROLD: A teacher
  #24  
Old July 30th 08, 07:30 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Jul 29, 5:59 pm, Rich > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:26 pm, Falcon Guy > wrote:
>
> > Not a chance in hell of getting a condo or cheap house in Toronto at
> > that price. Maybe if you were trying to buy two GT40's.

>
> > Rich wrote:
> > > The traditional idea of a muscle car was a stripped-down product, with
> > > power. In later years (1970-71) the muscle car version of a line
> > > became almost a luxury vehicle. Now, Ford only knows that kind.
> > > Check out the sticker on a convertible GT in Toronto, Canada.

>
> > > $45k, plus $3000 insurance (way more if you are younger) and $3000/yr
> > > in gas means this car costs about the same as the mortgage to a medium-
> > > priced condo or a cheap house.

>
> > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/100830683

>
> $250,000 mortgage at 7.5% for the condo.


I agree that today's Mustang costs more than a '65-'73 Mustang, even
after adjusting for inflation. Last time I checked, the correct
multiplier for a 1970 dollar is five 200x dollars. The Department of
Labor website has the complete info. So adjusting for inflation a
$4000 1970 428 Cobra Jet Mustang would get you to $20,000 today. The
$20,000 price point today is the home of the Honda Civic, but nothing
much in the way of performance.

However, today's cars have so much more standard equipment than the
cars of the '60's, it's apples to oranges. Try to buy a performance
car without power steering, power brakes, AC, AM/FM/CD, pdl, pw, power
seats, cruise control, trip computer, etc, etc. You can't! Not to
mention driveability, fuel economy, emissions controls, and yes
horsepower too, that weren't available at any price in the '60's.

Although not exactly on topic, the fact is that we have recently
passed a tipping point, where the route to cheap thrills via high
performance cars is not to buy and hotrod the old heaps but instead to
pick up a late model in the $10,000 to $20,000 price range. That
range covers turbo Supras, '03-'04 SVT Cobras, LT4 '96 Corvettes and
LSx Corvettes and Cambirds. If you like to live dangerouslyl, there
are also many BMW M cars and a few MB AMG cars in this price range
too.

My personal choice is the '04-06 GTO. In April I got a 60,000 mile
'04 for $15k, which was not a screamin deal but I got impatient and
took the plunge. For $15k I got a 350 hp, high 13s 155 mph car, with
irs, 4-wheel discs, lsd, all leather interior, OD auto (T56 6-spds are
much more common), 6-disc 8-speaker stereo, AC, cruise, pdl, pw, power
seats, power rearview mirrors, trip computer, and other odds and
ends. For $4k to $6k more you can find 10,000 mile '05s and '06s with
the 400 hp LS2. Or for $6k you can throw a roots blower on an '04 and
get 500 hp. Not smog legal, so that's not an option here in the SF
Bay Area, unless I want to pull it all off every 2 years for Smog
Check.

Point being, I'm not crying crocodile tears for anyone who wants hipo
fun in 2008 and whines that it used to be cheaper 40-45 years ago.

180 Out
  #25  
Old July 30th 08, 10:27 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:55 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> wrote:

>dwight wrote:
>> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real,
>>>> full-of-ice-cream milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>>>>
>>>> dwight
>>>
>>> We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since
>>> the 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and
>>> after being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's"
>>> and is just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be.
>>> But stuff is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the
>>> shakes are NOT a quarter.

>>
>> Were there any chains in the 50's? I can't remember (because I was 6 in
>> 1960). In my memory, the drug store was a place that had a counter with
>> stools, where you could sit down and get a cherry cola for a dime. And
>> the counterperson had to mix the cola with cherry syrup for you - it
>> wasn't prepackaged that way.
>>
>> We used to go into downtown Philadelphia once in a while, and a great
>> time was feeding nickles into the slots for your choice of a la carte
>> lunch at Horn and Hardart. Everything from sandwiches to pies was behind
>> glass, and you'd put in your 15cents to 50cents, one nickle at a time,
>> to get what you wanted.
>>
>> )
>>
>>

>
> Sure Woolworth's, Walgreene's are two I know of, but in 1960 my
>parents were not even yet married.


OUCH! LOL :0) My folks are still going strong. Married in 1947, Mom
is 76, and Dad is 81. I'm only 60. :0)
  #26  
Old July 31st 08, 12:51 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)

Spike wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:55 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> > wrote:
>
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real,
>>>>> full-of-ice-cream milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> dwight
>>>> We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since
>>>> the 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and
>>>> after being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's"
>>>> and is just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be.
>>>> But stuff is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the
>>>> shakes are NOT a quarter.
>>> Were there any chains in the 50's? I can't remember (because I was 6 in
>>> 1960). In my memory, the drug store was a place that had a counter with
>>> stools, where you could sit down and get a cherry cola for a dime. And
>>> the counterperson had to mix the cola with cherry syrup for you - it
>>> wasn't prepackaged that way.
>>>
>>> We used to go into downtown Philadelphia once in a while, and a great
>>> time was feeding nickles into the slots for your choice of a la carte
>>> lunch at Horn and Hardart. Everything from sandwiches to pies was behind
>>> glass, and you'd put in your 15cents to 50cents, one nickle at a time,
>>> to get what you wanted.
>>>
>>> )
>>>
>>>

>> Sure Woolworth's, Walgreene's are two I know of, but in 1960 my
>> parents were not even yet married.

>
> OUCH! LOL :0) My folks are still going strong. Married in 1947, Mom
> is 76, and Dad is 81. I'm only 60. :0)


Yabut I was born in 63.

--



TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on
talking when people are no longer interested?

HAROLD: A teacher
  #27  
Old July 31st 08, 01:43 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Itsfrom Click
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)


getting back to the original "muscle cars are dead" theme:

to me, the failing of American car companies is their inability to bring
a car to market in a timely manner. Jees, they used to restyle every
model every year....and every car was "all new" every 3 years (new
chasis, body, etc)

now it takes them 6 years to restyle a grill, and by the time they bring
a new car to market, the market for that kind of car has evaporated.
Yes, EPA, crash testing and probably just as much Design by Committee
and Market Research..

The original Mustang was designed to be optioned to suit just about any
kind of buyer. When the new one got to market in 2005, it was as either
a 6 or 8......but not cheap either way (and why get the 6 when the 8
got nearly as good mileage?).

NOW......3,4,5 years later GM and Chrysler market their
responses.....and the Challenger is introduced as a Hemi only. Saleens,
Cobras, etc., etc. ..... just what we need with $4 gas (along with the
4500 pound Flex).

Meanwhile, it seems the Japanese and Koreans are able to have the right
cars at the right time.

What I don't know is if the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro are intended
as mass market cars, or niche vehicles. Time and time again in the
70s,80s,90s we saw cars discontinued because they supposedly didn't sell
in sufficient quantities to justify (like "only 150,000 a year").....so
I can't see cars being designed just for old farts like me (you know,
wanted a new Mustang in '68 but didn't have 2 cents to my name......my
new GT convert wasn't bought as transportation, but as a toy and "dream
fullfillment" and I could care less what gas costs for it -- I put gas
in it twice a year). But I don't see "secretaries" driving them
either......are there enough old farts and good ol' boys to justify
muscle cars?

FYI: adding the Mustang to my regular insurance costs about $550 a
year......it will go to Collectors's insurance soon as I can prove how
little it is driven. Back in '65 a pretty nice 'stang could be had for
$3500. My Dad was considered "upper income" because he made over $15000
a year......my college tuition was $200 a term. In '65 we "made a
killing" selling our lakeside house for $40,000........the same family
owned it until 1992 and then sold it for $800,000 ..... the buyer tore
it down and spent $1.55MM to build a new one on the lot. Times change.
But new cars still take a much bigger chunk of the average person's
annual income..... it looks like leasing won't be an alternative to a
lot of people who want a newer car.....and keeping a fuel injected,
computer controlled car going when it gets older isn't the same as the
$200 winter beaters we bought back then. A lot of poeple are gonna be in
a bind.

More tripping down memory lane: my Dad didn't believe in financing and
paid cash for every car he ever bought.......last night I saw a
commercial for Cadillac Escalades with 72 MONTH loan terms. Gees.

  #28  
Old July 31st 08, 03:32 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
C. E. White[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)


My first new car was a 1972 Pinto - $2,200 out the door.
Next was a 1975 Datsun 280Z - $65000 out the door.
Then a 1978 Farimont V-8 loaded - somewhere around $5000 ou the door
I don't think I topped $10k until I bought an F150 in 1992.
The biggest jump was when I bought an Explorer in 1996 - and that one was
over $26K.
On the other hand I bought a 2006 Mustang for my son for around $15k and
even though it is only a V6, it has at least as good performance as mid-90's
Mustang V8s.

Ed


  #29  
Old July 31st 08, 06:38 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
dwight[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)

"Itsfrom Click" > wrote in message
...
>
> getting back to the original "muscle cars are dead" theme:
>
> to me, the failing of American car companies is their inability to bring
> a car to market in a timely manner. Jees, they used to restyle every
> model every year....and every car was "all new" every 3 years (new
> chasis, body, etc)
>
> now it takes them 6 years to restyle a grill, and by the time they bring
> a new car to market, the market for that kind of car has evaporated.
> Yes, EPA, crash testing and probably just as much Design by Committee
> and Market Research..
>
> The original Mustang was designed to be optioned to suit just about any
> kind of buyer. When the new one got to market in 2005, it was as either
> a 6 or 8......but not cheap either way (and why get the 6 when the 8
> got nearly as good mileage?).
>
> NOW......3,4,5 years later GM and Chrysler market their
> responses.....and the Challenger is introduced as a Hemi only. Saleens,
> Cobras, etc., etc. ..... just what we need with $4 gas (along with the
> 4500 pound Flex).
>
> Meanwhile, it seems the Japanese and Koreans are able to have the right
> cars at the right time.
>
> What I don't know is if the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro are intended
> as mass market cars, or niche vehicles. Time and time again in the
> 70s,80s,90s we saw cars discontinued because they supposedly didn't sell
> in sufficient quantities to justify (like "only 150,000 a year").....so
> I can't see cars being designed just for old farts like me (you know,
> wanted a new Mustang in '68 but didn't have 2 cents to my name......my
> new GT convert wasn't bought as transportation, but as a toy and "dream
> fullfillment" and I could care less what gas costs for it -- I put gas
> in it twice a year). But I don't see "secretaries" driving them
> either......are there enough old farts and good ol' boys to justify
> muscle cars?
>
> FYI: adding the Mustang to my regular insurance costs about $550 a
> year......it will go to Collectors's insurance soon as I can prove how
> little it is driven. Back in '65 a pretty nice 'stang could be had for
> $3500. My Dad was considered "upper income" because he made over $15000
> a year......my college tuition was $200 a term. In '65 we "made a
> killing" selling our lakeside house for $40,000........the same family
> owned it until 1992 and then sold it for $800,000 ..... the buyer tore
> it down and spent $1.55MM to build a new one on the lot. Times change.
> But new cars still take a much bigger chunk of the average person's
> annual income..... it looks like leasing won't be an alternative to a
> lot of people who want a newer car.....and keeping a fuel injected,
> computer controlled car going when it gets older isn't the same as the
> $200 winter beaters we bought back then. A lot of poeple are gonna be in
> a bind.
>
> More tripping down memory lane: my Dad didn't believe in financing and
> paid cash for every car he ever bought.......last night I saw a
> commercial for Cadillac Escalades with 72 MONTH loan terms. Gees.


I have to believe that there are two major considerations in NOT buying a
Mustang.

1. Insurance. The rates for a V8 engine are killer for young people. Hell,
I'm an old fart, and I still pay a penalty for having a V8, one that puts my
rates on a 1993 Mustang right up there with my wife's new 2007 Escape. I get
a break on the insurance for the convertible, because I can't drive both
cars at the same time, otherwise, I'd have to seriously consider keeping
two!

2. Young people usually mean young families. I've lost count of how many
people have said that they had to sell off their Mustangs when they had
kids. To me, that's a lame excuse, since the back seat of a Mustang isn't
much good for anything BUT kids, but it must be the whole
access-to-the-back-seat-in-a-coupe thing that makes them go away. It's so
much easier to transport children in a 4-door sedan, minivan, or SUV.

Those of us who are kidless and have the means can look to Mustangs,
certainly, but a V8 coupe doesn't fit the needs for a lot of the younger
ones.

dwight


  #30  
Old July 31st 08, 07:33 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:32:48 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>My first new car was a 1972 Pinto - $2,200 out the door.
>Next was a 1975 Datsun 280Z - $65000 out the door.
>Then a 1978 Farimont V-8 loaded - somewhere around $5000 ou the door
>I don't think I topped $10k until I bought an F150 in 1992.
>The biggest jump was when I bought an Explorer in 1996 - and that one was
>over $26K.
>On the other hand I bought a 2006 Mustang for my son for around $15k and
>even though it is only a V6, it has at least as good performance as mid-90's
>Mustang V8s.
>
>Ed
>


1972 Straight from the factory Datsun 240, $2600. Instead we got an
new MG Midget for $2000... drove it right out of the showroom.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Front.jpg 255893 bytes HEMI-Powered@[email protected] Auto Photos 0 April 23rd 08 01:02 PM
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Back.jpg 242202 bytes HEMI-Powered@[email protected] Auto Photos 0 April 23rd 08 01:01 PM
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:35 AM
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:31 AM
New place to buy and sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.