2015 Prices and getting older...

[Free Agent]

Yeah I wouldn't go comparing different cars. Compare a 1995 GT to a 2005 GT to a 2015 GT. That's apples to apples. No question the new Mustang will be the most technologically advanced ever and light years ahead of the one from 10 years ago, as you'd hope. With the massive power and handling it offers, it's definitely a bargain compared to almost anything else out there. There's also no question that as the car has become more powerful, the price of a Mustang GT has escalated beyond inflation for awhile now.

I bought a 1993 GT in 1998 my sr year of HS for around 9-10k, leather, power, 5 speed, excellent condition, 50-60k miles. I punched it into an inflation calc, that 10k in today's dollars is about 16,400. So just now I looked at 5 year old GTs used online and they range from 15-25k generally with avg around 20k.

Stick with your own advice, apples to apples. Don't compare used car purchase prices with new car purchase prices. ;)

Lets just say I was trying to compare a Granny Smith Apple with a Golden Delicious. ;)

Sponsored

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Yeah I wouldn't go comparing different cars. Compare a 1995 GT to a 2005 GT to a 2015 GT. That's apples to apples. No question the new Mustang will be the most technologically advanced ever and light years ahead of the one from 10 years ago, as you'd hope. With the massive power and handling it offers, it's definitely a bargain compared to almost anything else out there. There's also no question that as the car has become more powerful, the price of a Mustang GT has escalated beyond inflation for awhile now.

I bought a 1993 GT in 1998 my sr year of HS for around 9-10k, leather, power, 5 speed, excellent condition, 50-60k miles. I punched it into an inflation calc, that 10k in today's dollars is about 16,400. So just now I looked at 5 year old GTs used online and they range from 15-25k generally with avg around 20k.

I don't think you really can compare a 1995 Mustang with a 2015 Mustang, though. A 1995 Mustang was aimed at a completely different customer base than the 2015 Mustangs... people weren't cross shopping BMW's and Corvettes with 1995 Mustangs the way they are now.

 

[EXP Jawa]

Lets just say I was trying to compare a Granny Smith Apple with a Golden Delicious. ;)

For baking or for eating? Context is key. ;)

My '99 (GT, 5-speed, convertible w/ 35th SE package) had a sticker price of around $28.5K 15 years ago. Plug that into a calculator and you get nearly $41K today. That puts it near the base price of a premium package GT convertible now. A '15 with the 50th appearance package is about $44K before tacking on options that don't correlate to ones on the '99. That tells me that after inflation, the price of the new car has drifted up about $3K over the last 15 years. But it went from 260 to 435 HP. It gained crazy levels of tech and safety equipment. It became more refined. IMHO, that's $3K very well spent, comparatively speaking.

 

[Fox9350]

I don't think you really can compare a 1995 Mustang with a 2015 Mustang, though. A 1995 Mustang was aimed at a completely different customer base than the 2015 Mustangs... people weren't cross shopping BMW's and Corvettes with 1995 Mustangs the way they are now.

Well you're right. What it means is the Mustang GT has moved up in class significantly. So it's not necessarily that the price has inflated for no reason, but the car really is no longer an entry level pony car, its now a sophisticated machine with value (ie that its attainable to a young professional) competing with other world class cars. Again not saying it's bad just saying the OP has merit in that the car is not near as attainable as it was, in V8 trim anyway. I think that's where the ecoboost and v6 come in, obviously making a lot more power than their predecessors as well.

 

[Fox9350]

Stick with your own advice, apples to apples. Don't compare used car purchase prices with new car purchase prices. ;)

Lets just say I was trying to compare a Granny Smith Apple with a Golden Delicious. ;)

My point was merely that adjusting for inflation, even the used Mustang GT is not as attainable for a HS senior as it was when I was that age. In my example I'm comparing 5 yr old used cars from each era (because even back then a new GT was mostly unattainable for a HS senior), but you can easily swap it to new for new comparison and the point will stand as well. the car whether new or used has surpassed inflation, and for good reason as others have stated its no longer a pony car in V8 form. Not saying that is good or bad, it just 'is'....I actually love how far they've pushed the mustang. I think it's great. There's clearly a market for it. Hell I remember when the first tuner and SVT versions were going for 40,50,60k and people were like for a Mustang? Now someone with cash to burn wouldn't think twice of dropping 60k on a high powered SVT mustang.......In the end,the V6 and Ecoboost are the pony car version now and they kick ass as well.

 

[Free Agent]

For baking or for eating? Context is key. ;)

My '99 (GT, 5-speed, convertible w/ 35th SE package) had a sticker price of around $28.5K 15 years ago. Plug that into a calculator and you get nearly $41K today. That puts it near the base price of a premium package GT convertible now. A '15 with the 50th appearance package is about $44K before tacking on options that don't correlate to ones on the '99. That tells me that after inflation, the price of the new car has drifted up about $3K over the last 15 years. But it went from 260 to 435 HP. It gained crazy levels of tech and safety equipment. It became more refined. IMHO, that's $3K very well spent, comparatively speaking.

Funny stuff with the baking/eating. I lol'd. Thanks for the chuckle.

Good points made as well.

Well you're right. What it means is the Mustang GT has moved up in class significantly. So it's not necessarily that the price has inflated for no reason, but the car really is no longer an entry level pony car, its now a sophisticated machine with value (ie that its attainable to a young professional) competing with other world class cars. Again not saying it's bad just saying the OP has merit in that the car is not near as attainable as it was, in V8 trim anyway. I think that's where the ecoboost and v6 come in, obviously making a lot more power than their predecessors as well.

The V6 car is still a VERY attainable car with a lot of value and it has 300 HP!!! It has great bang for the buck as well. 20 years ago 300 HP was upper echelon sort of HP. I would argue it presents better value now than it did 20 or even 10 years ago for all the technology, creature comforts and 300 HP. The problem is there doesn't seem to be as much buying power now as there was 20 years ago in the "youth" market. That can be attributed to the economy I would think.

Mustang has moved upmarket a bit over the years in response to its aging customer base and rightly so. But that base model is STILL a smoking value if you ask me.

 

[Free Agent]

My point was merely that adjusting for inflation, even the used Mustang GT is not as attainable for a HS senior as it was when I was that age. In my example I'm comparing 5 yr old used cars from each era (because even back then a new GT was mostly unattainable for a HS senior), but you can easily swap it to new for new comparison and the point will stand as well. the car whether new or used has surpassed inflation, and for good reason as others have stated its no longer a pony car in V8 form. Not saying that is good or bad, it just 'is'....I actually love how far they've pushed the mustang. I think it's great. There's clearly a market for it. Hell I remember when the first tuner and SVT versions were going for 40,50,60k and people were like for a Mustang? Now someone with cash to burn wouldn't think twice of dropping 60k on a high powered SVT mustang.......In the end,the V6 and Ecoboost are the pony car version now and they kick ass as well.

I think there is a market for a small, RWD, entry level sporty car below Mustang size. The problem is the market is small and margins on a car that size are razor thin. Mustang is trying to hit it but will never quite do it since it needs to procure the high ATP's at the upper end to make money on the project.

Again I'll refer to my above post as well. The economy isn't as good for young consumers today as it was 20 plus years ago.

I see your points though.

 

[SynisterGT]

There is alot more bang for the buck but the problem with the mustang now is it is trying to do way too much.

Adding the Eco 4 is trying to compete with the STI, Civic Si, Golf. This engine is amazing but the car is justoverweight. Ford needs a small rwd car or possibly awd car to compete with this class.

The V6 is fine but with a bit more power could compete with the 370Z, Accord coupe, Genisis coupe.

Besides the Camaro and Challenger Ford is now setting its goals for the Mustang a lot higher.

The GT is competeing with the 60k M3/4 and posibbly even the new C7. Ford needed to build a 2 seat coupethat weighted 3200 lbs or less for this.

Don't get me wrong though, I love what the Mustang has become and it shows just how far Ford is willing to go. It is wonderful but I personally think the Mustang is being asked to do too much.

I mean who knows the SVT variant might have a shot at Godzilla.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I think there is a market for a small, RWD, entry level sporty car below Mustang size. The problem is the market is small and margins on a car that size are razor thin. Mustang is trying to hit it but will never quite do it since it needs to procure the high ATP's at the upper end to make money on the project.

Again I'll refer to my above post as well. The economy isn't as good for young consumers today as it was 20 plus years ago.

I see your points though.

Well, if we're talking about the market for small RWD entry sporty cars below the Mustang in size, we've got...

(all prices are base starting)
Mazda MX-5 Miata: $23,720
Scion FR-S: $25,455
Subaru BRZ: $25,695
Nissan 370Z: $29,990

Aaaaannnnnnnnnnd that's it. At some point the Kia GT4 might join them.

The V6 Mustang starts at $24,425. So if you want "rear wheel drive" and "sporty" and "cheaper than a Mustang," your choices are a base Miata or used. There just isn't much market there.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

There is alot more bang for the buck but the problem with the mustang now is it is trying to do way too much.

Adding the Eco 4 is trying to compete with the STI, Civic Si, Golf. This engine is amazing but the car is justoverweight. Ford needs a small rwd car or possibly awd car to compete with this class.

The Mustang 2.3T is absolutely not competing in that class. That's what Ford has the Focus ST and Fiesta ST and presumably at some point the Focus RS for.

The Mustang 2.3T is there to replace the V6 as the base pony car. Because it can game the EPA charts and boost Ford's CAFE if that engine sells in volume. The V6 has always been the big seller in Mustangland, but now that the Mustang is going global and expanding into countries that tax engine displacement and CO2 output, they needed an offering that would actually sell there. That's what that engine is for; not to move the Mustang into competition in a class Ford is already well-represented in.

 

[Free Agent]

Well, if we're talking about the market for small RWD entry sporty cars below the Mustang in size, we've got...

(all prices are base starting)
Mazda MX-5 Miata: $23,720
Scion FR-S: $25,455
Subaru BRZ: $25,695
Nissan 370Z: $29,990

Aaaaannnnnnnnnnd that's it. At some point the Kia GT4 might join them.

The V6 Mustang starts at $24,425. So if you want "rear wheel drive" and "sporty" and "cheaper than a Mustang," your choices are a base Miata or used. There just isn't much market there.

Thanks for listing those and it proves a point of mine. Miata has been around FOREVER so the cost is amortized for it. The twins share across 2 automakers so that spreads cost out. Nissan 370Z has been around for awhile but it is the most expensive and at $30K I wouldn't call it a bargain vehicle. Nissan still needs to charge these prices as their yearly sales are tiny.

It might be blasphemy but if Ford and GM would have a joint venture small RWD sporty chassis program, sharing the Code 130R or coming up with something new, then both could get into a market that they are absent from right now. Just a thought.

I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[EXP Jawa]

Miata has been around for a while now, but its running out the clock on its second platform. It was a tough sell for Mazda to invest in the new platform initially, since the car's potential for success was unknown. The second gen car was probably easier to justify. But I think that its telling that Mazda has chosen to co-develop the third gen platform with Alfa Romeo. Even though the car has been around, developing a new platform for a third gen version is still developing a new platform. All the car's history does for it is help justify the business case. Its still expensive to develop, and its still nice to have a partner.

 

[SynisterGT]

The Mustang 2.3T is absolutely not competing in that class. That's what Ford has the Focus ST and Fiesta ST and presumably at some point the Focus RS for.

The Mustang 2.3T is there to replace the V6 as the base pony car. Because it can game the EPA charts and boost Ford's CAFE if that engine sells in volume. The V6 has always been the big seller in Mustangland, but now that the Mustang is going global and expanding into countries that tax engine displacement and CO2 output, they needed an offering that would actually sell there. That's what that engine is for; not to move the Mustang into competition in a class Ford is already well-represented in.

Ok my mistake, Having an turbo 4 RWD coupe is more along the lines of what the BRZ and Miata are through.

If the Focus would become rwd this would be different in my book. I understand about cafe standards but a rwd car and fwd car are just too different. The FR-S looks like an amazing little fun car to drive. Ford needs to do this with the Focus, a light weight 2700 lbs turbo 4 coupe. Not a 3500 lb coupe. That's all I meant.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Ok my mistake, Having an turbo 4 RWD coupe is more along the lines of what the BRZ and Miata are through.

If the Focus would become rwd this would be different in my book. I understand about cafe standards but a rwd car and fwd car are just too different. The FR-S looks like an amazing little fun car to drive. Ford needs to do this with the Focus, a light weight 2700 lbs turbo 4 coupe. Not a 3500 lb coupe. That's all I meant.

I mean, I hear you, but... those cars don't really exist. Like, they did 40 years ago, before there were fuel economy requirements and safety regulations, but, like... here's a total, complete list of every RWD car currently offered for sale in America that's got a curb weight under 3000 pounds:

Smart ForTwo: 1610 pounds, $13,270 base price
Alfa Romeo 4c: 2194 pounds, $55,195
Mazda Miata: 2480 pounds, $23,720
Subaru BRZ: 2784 pounds, $25,695
Scion FR-S: 2785 pounds, $25,455
Porsche Boxster: 2910 pounds, $54,600
Porsche Cayman: 2910 pounds, $53,550
McLaren 650s: 2932 pounds, $269,200

And that's everything. So the list is basically those cars I mentioned before; a McLaren supercar; a handful of cars competing just out of reach of the top end of the Mustang line; and the Smart ForTwo, which everybody always forgets is rear wheel drive.

The fact of the matter is that there just isn't a market for small, cheap, rear-wheel drive cars that aren't Miatas. As fun as the FR-S/BRZ is, I'll be truly shocked if it survives more than one generation -- every attempt to enter this space in the last couple of decades has petered out and failed except the Miata (Honda S2000; Mazda RX8; Pontiac Solstice; Saturn Sky).

 

[SynisterGT]

Yeah oh well, thanks.

Sponsored