Sponsored

Who else will be incredibly disappointed if the new GT500 has a 5.2 FPC motor?

w3rkn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Threads
21
Messages
3,078
Reaction score
755
Location
Detroit
Vehicle(s)
bmw 135is(sold)
With everything GM and Fiat are coming out with Ford is falling behind fast! I'm sure they're well aware of it and have something up their sleeve for the near future. I'd bet after this Demon craze wears off then they will slap it in their face... The Demon is a niche car and really not good for anything IMO. I know a guy that owned a Hellcat for 2 months because after the initial excitement wore off he realized it was a complete waste of money so he sold it before the market was saturated with them which happened quick! You can go to about any dealer and leave with a Hellcat right now. And from what I've seen many of the original owners have already sold or traded them in already in higher numbers than the GT350's at this point. I've seen 2 GT350's on used lots here and at least 10 Hellcats already... Even if the HP numbers don't match the Hellcat for the upcoming Ford offering I guarantee it will still be a better car as it will most likely handle better than anything Fiat can come out with. Their platforms are just too bulky to be considered a track car. They'd have to come up with something completely new. They brought back cars that were hot in the drag racing days and more people want a road course capable car now over a drag only car. I consider Ford and GM competitors in this race and Fiat Chrysler is just off in it's own little world.

Yeah, but again only for bragging rights, does Ford need to do any of that..^^

There is zero reason for Ford Performance Racing to go after facetious horsepower wars. And 650HP + has never been hard to do on any generation of Mustang. The only reason Chrysler is going big, is because that is all their engineers got.

GM & Ford see each other on the race track each weekend, and have something to prove. And Ford Performance Racing's engineers, are racing cars for competition.

The FPR Mustang (ie: SVT) is more about the complete package. :first:
Sponsored

 

6String

Active Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Threads
0
Messages
36
Reaction score
11
Location
SE TN
Vehicle(s)
2006 Mustang GT
What? You do know that Ford, Chrysler and GM all lose money on their halo cars, right?

They certainly don't build the ZL1, GT500 and Demon to make money off of them. They make their money because those halo cars bring new customers to the brand.

Joe blow comes into the Chevy dealership to look at that badass new ZL1 on the showroom floor, and then he drives home in a Camaro SS.
So you have one of those 2004 Camaros?

No, we don't know that all manufacturers lose money on the halo cars--that's an assumption on your part, not a fact.

In 2001 The Camaro SS had 310-HP from a 5.7L V8. The Mustang GT had a 4.6 with the 2-valve heads that had 260 HP. The Mustang was a full 2 seconds slower from 0-100. (I still remember the tests.) Mustang 163K units sold. Camaro 29K sold. In fact adding the Firebird sales to the Camaro sales the Mustang out sold their combined sales 3-1.

Fact: With the sales of the Camaro in a death spiral, GM could not make a business case for continuing the product. It had absolutely nothing to do with performance, actual or perceived. It could outrun a Mustang, but not poor sales.

In 2004 Pontiac introduced the Holden Monaro, pardon me, the new GTO with 350-HP, easily more HP than the Mustang. Mustang 143K units sold, GTO 13K. To be perfectly honest here, Pontiac didn't expect to sell over 100K GTO's, but GM expected more than 13K, because they built 18,000. Everyone that didn't sell was a complete write-down. (100% loss.)

In 2005 Pontiac increased the HP to 400-HP. (I really liked that car!) According to your HP sells theory, sales should have taken off like a rocket. They did, for the 2005 Mustang, despite the new 3-valve head having less HP than the previous year's 4-valve Mach 1. The GTO with the added HP dropped like a brick--only 11K sold. It performed well, faster than the 'Stang. There were no changes to the GTO for 2006, and then there was no GTO.

In 2010 Offered a Mustang with a 4.6 with 315-HP, the new Camaro took the sales crown--as much to do with a seven-year pent up demand as with any other factor. In 2011 Ford boosted the HP with a new 5.0 pushing 412-HP--nearly a 100 HP jump. Sales? 2010=81K, 2011=69K. So despite the big jump in HP and performance sales dropped. (Dropped? Plummeted more like--11,000 units is a staggering loss.)

In 2012 Ford offered a Boss with 444-HP, more HP and faster than the Camaro. Sales picked up for the Mustang--they had to, 2011 was one of the worst sales year in Mustang history. But, despite the Boss, the HP, the best track rat of the year. Camaro sold better.

In 2016 the Camaro easily topped the Mustang in the 0-60 sprint. More horsepower, faster, lighter. How well did it fare in sales? Take a look at the huge inventory build up. On Camaro6 they like to boast of a higher transaction price, but every piece of unsold inventory represents a zero margin. They aren't making any money on cars sitting on the factory lot.
You're right in some cases a manufacturer may be willing to sell a product below cost--but not 100K units worth. Camaro has been cancelled once.

Opinion, not fact: I suspect the ZL1 was fast-tracked because of the dismal sales of a brand new Camaro.

You are entitled to your opinion--and to your credit a halo car may attract some customers. But the question is how many? If you can't quantify it, there's just no way of knowing what percentage of overall sales it represents.

But history in no way suggests that HP sells, or that halo vehicles can save a losing proposition. The '73 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda was the baddest car on the road in 1973 (I loved that purple color back then.) More HP, faster, than any Mustang or Camaro that year. But there wasn't a '74 Hemi 'Cuda. (Come to think of it--there may have been a prototype or two, but the company decided against a production run--there wasn't enough money in it.) The Challenger has been cancelled twice. The AMC Javelin of Mark Donahue slaughtered the competition in the SCCA Trans Am series in '71 and '72 taking home the championship both years. It didn't save the car, or the company.
 
Last edited:

9secondko

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Threads
4
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Irvine, ca
Vehicle(s)
2003 cobra
So you have one of those 2004 Camaros?

No, we don't know that all manufacturers lose money on the halo cars--that's an assumption on your part, not a fact.

In 2001 The Camaro SS had 310-HP from a 5.7L V8. The Mustang GT had a 4.6 with the 2-valve heads that had 260 HP. The Mustang was a full 2 seconds slower from 0-100. (I still remember the tests.) Mustang 163K units sold. Camaro 29K sold. In fact adding the Firebird sales to the Camaro sales the Mustang out sold their combined sales 3-1.

Fact: With the sales of the Camaro in a death spiral, GM could not make a business case for continuing the product. It had absolutely nothing to do with performance, actual or perceived. It could outrun a Mustang, but not poor sales.

In 2004 Pontiac introduced the Holden Monaro, pardon me, the new GTO with 350-HP, easily more HP than the Mustang. Mustang 143K units sold, GTO 13K. To be perfectly honest here, Pontiac didn't expect to sell over 100K GTO's, but GM expected more than 13K, because they built 18,000. Everyone that didn't sell was a complete write-down. (100% loss.)

In 2005 Pontiac increased the HP to 400-HP. (I really liked that car!) According to your HP sells theory, sales should have taken off like a rocket. They did, for the 2005 Mustang, despite the new 3-valve head having less HP than the previous year's 4-valve Mach 1. The GTO with the added HP dropped like a brick--only 11K sold. It performed well, faster than the 'Stang. There were no changes to the GTO for 2006, and then there was no GTO.

In 2010 Offered a Mustang with a 4.6 with 315-HP, the new Camaro took the sales crown--as much to do with a seven-year pent up demand as with any other factor. In 2011 Ford boosted the HP with a new 5.0 pushing 412-HP--nearly a 100 HP jump. Sales? 2010=81K, 2011=69K. So despite the big jump in HP and performance sales dropped. (Dropped? Plummeted more like--11,000 units is a staggering loss.)

In 2012 Ford offered a Boss with 444-HP, more HP and faster than the Camaro. Sales picked up for the Mustang--they had to, 2011 was one of the worst sales year in Mustang history. But, despite the Boss, the HP, the best track rat of the year. Camaro sold better.

In 2016 the Camaro easily topped the Mustang in the 0-60 sprint. More horsepower, faster, lighter. How well did it fare in sales? Take a look at the huge inventory build up. On Camaro6 they like to boast of a higher transaction price, but every piece of unsold inventory represents a zero margin. They aren't making any money on cars sitting on the factory lot.
You're right in some cases a manufacturer may be willing to sell a product below cost--but not 100K units worth. Camaro has been cancelled once.

Opinion, not fact: I suspect the ZL1 was fast-tracked because of the dismal sales of a brand new Camaro.

You are entitled to your opinion--and to your credit a halo car may attract some customers. But the question is how many? If you can't quantify it, there's just no way of knowing what percentage of overall sales it represents.

But history in no way suggests that HP sells, or that halo vehicles can save a losing proposition. The '73 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda was the baddest car on the road in 1973 (I loved that purple color back then.) More HP, faster, than any Mustang or Camaro that year. But there wasn't a '74 Hemi 'Cuda. (Come to think of it--there may have been a prototype or two, but the company decided against a production run--there wasn't enough money in it.) The Challenger has been cancelled twice. The AMC Javelin of Mark Donahue slaughtered the competition in the SCCA Trans Am series in '71 and '72 taking home the championship both years. It didn't save the car, or the company.
Some valid points.

But...

The reason there wasn't a '74 Hemi 'Cuda was due to regulations. Not because it couldn't sell. It's the same year the Mustang 2 came out for a reason.

That was the beginning of a long and tragic saga for automobile enthusiasts. Especially for the American ponycar. Pretty much killed off the Barracuda and any true version of the Challenger of Charger.

May we never be forced to relive that again in history.

Also, the pre-euthanized F-body was a poor seller due to being ugly and uncomfortable to drive. It was a chore to get in and out of and the build quality was shameful. The interior would rattle apart literally after MONTHS Aof ownership and the door hinges would go on the regular.

It was a performance beast though. Aerodynamic and with a "big" v8 compared to the tiny displacement afforded the Mustang. That was simply a poor era for Ford.

Those days are long gone.

Then the Terminator came along. But it had nothing to terminate.

Then more years of anemic GTs until the money grab GT500 came out, followed by an actual hot rod GT500 in 2013. But a few years before that, Ford decided to play ball and the 5.0 was reborn.

The roles were reversed with the Mustang outrunning the Camaro on pretty much every trim level.

Then the Camaro went on a diet and gained power.

The ball is in the Mustangs court yet again.

2018 is going to be interesting.
 

CGADAMS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Threads
13
Messages
222
Reaction score
101
Location
Kansas City
First Name
Chris
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Premium PP 1992 SSP LX 5.0 W/ 331 stroker
So you have one of those 2004 Camaros?

No, we don't know that all manufacturers lose money on the halo cars--that's an assumption on your part, not a fact.

In 2001 The Camaro SS had 310-HP from a 5.7L V8. The Mustang GT had a 4.6 with the 2-valve heads that had 260 HP. The Mustang was a full 2 seconds slower from 0-100. (I still remember the tests.) Mustang 163K units sold. Camaro 29K sold. In fact adding the Firebird sales to the Camaro sales the Mustang out sold their combined sales 3-1.

Fact: With the sales of the Camaro in a death spiral, GM could not make a business case for continuing the product. It had absolutely nothing to do with performance, actual or perceived. It could outrun a Mustang, but not poor sales.

In 2004 Pontiac introduced the Holden Monaro, pardon me, the new GTO with 350-HP, easily more HP than the Mustang. Mustang 143K units sold, GTO 13K. To be perfectly honest here, Pontiac didn't expect to sell over 100K GTO's, but GM expected more than 13K, because they built 18,000. Everyone that didn't sell was a complete write-down. (100% loss.)

In 2005 Pontiac increased the HP to 400-HP. (I really liked that car!) According to your HP sells theory, sales should have taken off like a rocket. They did, for the 2005 Mustang, despite the new 3-valve head having less HP than the previous year's 4-valve Mach 1. The GTO with the added HP dropped like a brick--only 11K sold. It performed well, faster than the 'Stang. There were no changes to the GTO for 2006, and then there was no GTO.

In 2010 Offered a Mustang with a 4.6 with 315-HP, the new Camaro took the sales crown--as much to do with a seven-year pent up demand as with any other factor. In 2011 Ford boosted the HP with a new 5.0 pushing 412-HP--nearly a 100 HP jump. Sales? 2010=81K, 2011=69K. So despite the big jump in HP and performance sales dropped. (Dropped? Plummeted more like--11,000 units is a staggering loss.)

In 2012 Ford offered a Boss with 444-HP, more HP and faster than the Camaro. Sales picked up for the Mustang--they had to, 2011 was one of the worst sales year in Mustang history. But, despite the Boss, the HP, the best track rat of the year. Camaro sold better.

In 2016 the Camaro easily topped the Mustang in the 0-60 sprint. More horsepower, faster, lighter. How well did it fare in sales? Take a look at the huge inventory build up. On Camaro6 they like to boast of a higher transaction price, but every piece of unsold inventory represents a zero margin. They aren't making any money on cars sitting on the factory lot.
You're right in some cases a manufacturer may be willing to sell a product below cost--but not 100K units worth. Camaro has been cancelled once.

Opinion, not fact: I suspect the ZL1 was fast-tracked because of the dismal sales of a brand new Camaro.

You are entitled to your opinion--and to your credit a halo car may attract some customers. But the question is how many? If you can't quantify it, there's just no way of knowing what percentage of overall sales it represents.

But history in no way suggests that HP sells, or that halo vehicles can save a losing proposition. The '73 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda was the baddest car on the road in 1973 (I loved that purple color back then.) More HP, faster, than any Mustang or Camaro that year. But there wasn't a '74 Hemi 'Cuda. (Come to think of it--there may have been a prototype or two, but the company decided against a production run--there wasn't enough money in it.) The Challenger has been cancelled twice. The AMC Javelin of Mark Donahue slaughtered the competition in the SCCA Trans Am series in '71 and '72 taking home the championship both years. It didn't save the car, or the company.
there was no hemi cuda in 73. last year for the hemi was in 71 in any mopar up until the modern hemi. hell there where no big blocks period in the cuda and challenger. after 71. just saying.
 

6String

Active Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Threads
0
Messages
36
Reaction score
11
Location
SE TN
Vehicle(s)
2006 Mustang GT
there was no hemi cuda in 73. last year for the hemi was in 71 in any mopar up until the modern hemi. hell there where no big blocks period in the cuda and challenger. after 71. just saying.

You're right! I had forgotten Chrysler had dropped the Hemi in '71.
 

6String

Active Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Threads
0
Messages
36
Reaction score
11
Location
SE TN
Vehicle(s)
2006 Mustang GT
Some valid points.

But...

The reason there wasn't a '74 Hemi 'Cuda was due to regulations. Not because it couldn't sell. It's the same year the Mustang 2 came out for a reason.


Also, the pre-euthanized F-body was a poor seller due to being ugly and uncomfortable to drive. It was a chore to get in and out of and the build quality was shameful. The interior would rattle apart literally after MONTHS Aof ownership and the door hinges would go on the regular.

2018 is going to be interesting.
I agree, 2018 will be interesting.

I mis-remembered the year the 'Cuda went extinct. They ceased production in April of '74. (I had to look it up.) So, there was a production run. Sales were a brisk 11K. (Tongue in cheek.)

Camaro and Mustang had to run with the same regulations facing the Barracuda and Challenger. But Camaro (and Firebird) existed in '74 despite the regulations. I don't remember precisely, but I believe Camaro did a respectable 151K that year. The Mustang II, offered with a V6 or I4 (no V8) sold 384K.

Under the same regulations, Chevy sold 151K Camaros, Mustang 384K and the 'Cuda only sold 11K. And you don't think slow sales was the problem? (Sales from MyClassicGarage.Com). There was a '75 Camaro, and Mustang even brought back a V8. Both were pretty anemic performers. But they had sales.

I agree with your assessment of the ergonomics of the F4. And I think you're right about the build quality having a big impact on the sales. Which underlines the point I was trying to make--HP and speed, having the most, being the fastest, doesn't necessarily correlate to sales.
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: HCT
 




Top