July 2016 Mustang Sales Numbers (Updated with Charts)

[Voodooo]

They're doing it to take on the world's best supercars. Progress is progress and a superior design is a superior design. You can be a purist all you want. But you'll struggle to keep up with the best in the world. That mid-engine design is gonna be a beast. They're talking about a mid-engine ZL-1 also.

How the hell are you going to make a midengine ZL1. Really in a Camaro? I heard it all now lmao.

Sponsored

 

[Voodooo]

LOL, if you say so. I met several people who were in the market for one each of whom said they would never pay more than MSRP. And each of them paid more than MSRP for that thing. I saw listings for that car all over the country and when it first came out, I never once saw one at MSRP. You don't have to agree. I'm sure that there are a good amount of people who knew the right people...and were able to get one at MSRP. But that car got marked up crazy. I saw stickers for them at $90,000 when it first came out.

And no, it isn't a "foolish statement". You simply don't agree with it. Just because you don't agree with it (or don't like Chevy) doesn't make what I said "foolish". The Camaro is priced higher than the Mustang. But you also get more from the Camaro for the price. I could see if the options, performance, and quality were the same and Chevy just decided to ask $50K for the Camaro. That isn't the case. The only thing the Mustang has over the Camaro is looks and visibility. The Mustang is cheaper because the engine is a carried over version of previous engines. The Camaro got a brand new engine altogether. Sure it was in the Corvette first in 14. But it is still a new engine. And for what I have seen, the SS is running low 12s out the box. So look, you can bash all you want, thats cool with me. And you don't have to agree for whatever reason. Heck, I meet people just like you over on the Camaro forums and have to debate with them all the time too. I think the Camaro is expensive, but I don't think it's over-priced. It is simply out of the reach of most people who are buying stripped down GTs.

Please explain to me what you are getting that's extra in the Camaro that is really worth the extra $3000-$5000.00. Wow 20 hp? A butt ass ugly car that hasn't changed the looks in years? Asian looking front and rear bumpers? Poor visibility? Really???
Let's put some Hoosier R7 tires on both the mustang and Camaro and see how much faster that Camaro really is. Both cars run 12s. The z28 and zl1 were over priced and a joke. They couldn't even give away a z28. Now I hear of 2015 camaros still on the new lots along side the 2016 and now 2017! GM is a rip off. They think the consumer is stupid just because they sold the body style well in gen 5 doesn't mean you can add a vett engine and a Cadillac platform and keep the styling the same and "RAISE THE PRICE". They are killing themselves.
Look. The Camaro, Cadillac and vet share the same engine. The Camaro and Cadillac share the same platform. What "SHOULD THAT EQUAL"???? Less cost to the consumer. Build more sell at a less cost to get the price down. Henry Ford knew this over 100 years ago. And Chevy still hasn't learned. Too stupid.

 

[DiPsTiCk]

Actually, if you do the math, it comes out like this (these are just averages BTW)

Camaro - 5500 units at $40,000 each = 220,000,000

Mustang - 9900 units at $32,000 each = 316,800,000

That is if they were all at those prices. Of course the EB and V6 Stangs will be much cheaper than $32,000 and the fully optioned GTs with convertible, Premium, PP, and other add ons will be much more than $32,000. Same with the Camaro. The turbo 4 and V6 will be less than $40,000 obviously and the fully optioned SS will be into the $50,000 rang easily before you even get to the convertibles...those are probably in the mid $50,000 range. But as you can see, just based off a basic rough guesstimate, they aren't that far off. Then factor in the costs of making the vehicles, how many are actually being made, and other costs, and it doesn't look like the Camaro is doing too bad after all. Of course a deeper analysis might show something different. But just from this basic generic quick equation of things, I wouldn't count them out.

Apparently you missed what I wrote?

VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

I could be in error here but with that strategy it seems to be a recipe for crash and burn. Last month they sold 4969 this month with 0% they only sold 5520.What happens in the dead of winter when you are selling significantly less?

Your making more money per vehicle but your not selling any/enough. Meanwhile the competition just keeps getting more and more popular. You would be hard pressed to convince people you are making double the profit of your competitor. No way no how. You might, you might be making a little more but your competitor is outselling you almost 2-1.

As noted here, I clearly stated “you would be hard pressed to convince people you are making double the profit of your competitor.” And correct. A deeper analysis might show something different. And for that, I’ll use one of my own basic generic quick equations.

There is no way no how GM is making double in profits camaro v. mustang. No way. So for funS let’s say Ford makes 5k for each mustang sold and chevy makes 7k. Which IMHO would be incredibly generous.

Camaro- 5500 units at 7,000 each = 38,500,000

Mustang- 9900 units at 5,000 each = 49,500,000

Ford made in the same month 11,000,000 MORE then GM.

Now, who’s strategy is the better one?

If one drills the numbers down further we find

YTD

Camaro- 42,354 units at 7,000 each = 296,478,000

Mustang- 72,530 units at 5,000 each = 362,650,000

Ford made YTD 66,172,000 MORE then GM.

And again, this would be YTD. We still have 5 more months to go and chevy can only offer 0% so many times to get to 5,500 a month. Ford however, with a winner on there hand, doesn’t have to concern themselves with this tactic.

Can someone here please explain how they think they know what the profits are for each car? Because the truth is you don't know. Just because one car is selling for say $32k and sells 9900 per month with a gross sales of $316,800,000 and the other 5500 at $40k with a gross monthly sales of $220,000,000 does not make it close. Or even near it.

How do you even know what each manufacturer pays for each and every part? We don't. Not to mention the labor that is included into each car built, over head, etc.
No car manufacturer makes all parts in house. Hell some don't make any.

Correct.

 

[DiPsTiCk]

If they were banking on higher profits per car, they wouldn't be cranking them out so fast. The build volumes are proportional to what GM needs to make or exceed their margin targets. There'd be a lot fewer cars on lots if they only needed to sell ~5000-5500 a month to meet targets. For the first month or two, yeah, you flood lots to chum up interest and feed pent-up demand. We're far past that point.

Superb point.

Spot on...

 

[4V Mayhem]

Please explain to me what you are getting that's extra in the Camaro that is really worth the extra $3000-$5000.00. Wow 20 hp? A butt ass ugly car that hasn't changed the looks in years? Asian looking front and rear bumpers? Poor visibility? Really???
Let's put some Hoosier R7 tires on both the mustang and Camaro and see how much faster that Camaro really is. Both cars run 12s. The z28 and zl1 were over priced and a joke. They couldn't even give away a z28. Now I hear of 2015 camaros still on the new lots along side the 2016 and now 2017! GM is a rip off. They think the consumer is stupid just because they sold the body style well in gen 5 doesn't mean you can add a vett engine and a Cadillac platform and keep the styling the same and "RAISE THE PRICE". They are killing themselves.
Look. The Camaro, Cadillac and vet share the same engine. The Camaro and Cadillac share the same platform. What "SHOULD THAT EQUAL"???? Less cost to the consumer. Build more sell at a less cost to get the price down. Henry Ford knew this over 100 years ago. And Chevy still hasn't learned. Too stupid.

1, looks are subjective so let's throw that out. BTW, thats the same thing I say over there when they say the Mustang is "ugly". So I don't expect anyone to actually grasp the concept of being subjective and how something that is subjective is not valid.

2, the cars are tested bone stock from the factory. Not with slicks on, not with boost, not with weight reduction. Mods is an endless and pointless argument. Stock to stock out the factory the SS is a faster car. It is faster.

3, Chevy IS cheaper than Cadillac. Look at the price of the CTS-V vs the ZL1. The ZL1 puts out more hp but the CTS-V costs much more. SO that argument isn't really valid. The ZL1 to the CTS-V is like the 96 Cobra to the 96 Mark VIII. The Cobra put out more, but the Mark VIII was much more expensive. So yea the Camaro costs more than the Mustang. But like I said, you get more from the Camaro. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can't admit something. Like I said, overall, the Mustang has the Camaro in looks (subjective), price (if that's a consideration for you), and visibility.

How the hell are you going to make a midengine ZL1. Really in a Camaro? I heard it all now lmao.

SMH...

 

[4V Mayhem]

Apparently you missed what I wrote?

VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
As noted here, I clearly stated “you would be hard pressed to convince people you are making double the profit of your competitor.” And correct. A deeper analysis might show something different. And for that, I’ll use one of my own basic generic quick equations.

There is no way no how GM is making double in profits camaro v. mustang. No way. So for funS let’s say Ford makes 5k for each mustang sold and chevy makes 7k. Which IMHO would be incredibly generous.

Camaro- 5500 units at 7,000 each = 38,500,000

Mustang- 9900 units at 5,000 each = 49,500,000

Ford made in the same month 11,000,000 MORE then GM.

Now, who’s strategy is the better one?

If one drills the numbers down further we find

YTD

Camaro- 42,354 units at 7,000 each = 296,478,000

Mustang- 72,530 units at 5,000 each = 362,650,000

Ford made YTD 66,172,000 MORE then GM.

And again, this would be YTD. We still have 5 more months to go and chevy can only offer 0% so many times to get to 5,500 a month. Ford however, with a winner on there hand, doesn’t have to concern themselves with this tactic.
Correct.

And like I said, sales is just one part of it. You have to factor in the costs of making the vehicle and how many units were made. And you also have to look and see what the projected sales figures were and whether or not they met their goals. You can't be soo closed minded and one track minded when it comes to sales figures. Sales alone does not tell the entire story.

 

[wireeater]

I like how I'm the beginning of the thread they said they don't really care about the sales and it doesn't matter and now the thread has 450 posts....

 

[Raven15]

I like how I'm the beginning of the thread they said they don't really care about the sales and it doesn't matter and now the thread has 450 posts....

It's like that every month.

 

[EcoVert]

I have to say something after a personal call out.

First thing, don't ban me I'm in the market for a pony car. You guys have moderators, C6G doesn't./QUOTE]

That's funny I was just over at c6g and they show 17 moderators

 

[Glenn G]

1, looks are subjective so let's throw that out. BTW, thats the same thing I say over there when they say the Mustang is "ugly". So I don't expect anyone to actually grasp the concept of being subjective and how something that is subjective is not valid.

Looks may be subjective think of it as a beauty pageant though and every month Miss Mustang gets twice as many votes as Miss Camaro, and Miss Challenger who is getting around retirement age is beating her too.
Every single day we judge subjective things, saying the comparison is not valid when you have hard data is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LA, LA, LA. You can never convince the few people who think Rosie O'Donnell is hotter than Kiera Knightley that they are wrong because the majority of people feel that way

2, the cars are tested bone stock from the factory. Not with slicks on, not with boost, not with weight reduction. Mods is an endless and pointless argument. Stock to stock out the factory the SS is a faster car. It is faster.

Everyone knows the GT and SS are not the volume sellers and never were.
The Ecoboost out performs the V6 and I4 Camaro until General Motor Trend went out and bought much better tires that are not available on the I4 (IE modded, something they never do for any other car) and EB vs V6 handed the win to the V6 because of sound (subjective) even though the EB Objectively beat it in everything else except 0-60 (.1 sec)
The fact that the SS is marginally faster than the GT in magazine tests has not translated to sales anyways

3, Chevy IS cheaper than Cadillac. Look at the price of the CTS-V vs the ZL1. The ZL1 puts out more hp but the CTS-V costs much more. SO that argument isn't really valid. The ZL1 to the CTS-V is like the 96 Cobra to the 96 Mark VIII. The Cobra put out more, but the Mark VIII was much more expensive. So yea the Camaro costs more than the Mustang. But like I said, you get more from the Camaro. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can't admit something. Like I said, overall, the Mustang has the Camaro in looks (subjective), price (if that's a consideration for you), and visibility.
SMH...

I was never interested in the V8s and the EB is my daily driver so I will take the subjectively better looks, Objectively better performance, better visibility, larger trunk, more rear seat room every single day of the week,

Wait..... it's cheaper too? I guess I know why me and nearly 9k or more people a month went out and bought one vs the Camaro. /thread

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Looks may be subjective think of it as a beauty pageant though and every month Miss Mustang gets twice as many votes as Miss Camaro, and Miss Challenger who is getting around retirement age is beating her too.
Every single day we judge subjective things, saying the comparison is not valid when you have hard data is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LA, LA, LA. You can never convince the few people who think Rosie O'Donnell is hotter than Kiera Knightley that they are wrong because the majority of people feel that way


Everyone knows the GT and SS are not the volume sellers and never were.
The Ecoboost out performs the V6 and I4 Camaro until General Motor Trend went out and bought much better tires that are not available on the I4 (IE modded, something they never do for any other car) and EB vs V6 handed the win to the V6 because of sound (subjective) even though the EB Objectively beat it in everything else except 0-60 (.1 sec)
The fact that the SS is marginally faster than the GT in magazine tests has not translated to sales anyways



I was never interested in the V8s and the EB is my daily driver so I will take the subjectively better looks, Objectively better performance, better visibility, larger trunk, more rear seat room every single day of the week,

Wait..... it's cheaper too? I guess I know why me and nearly 9k or more people a month went out and bought one vs the Camaro. /thread

Please post one of these when you're mopping up the floor with some 6grn Camaro fan! I took a bad fall.

 

[MyFirst5.0]

is chevy serious with this bullshit??

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458855

 

[4V Mayhem]

Looks may be subjective think of it as a beauty pageant though and every month Miss Mustang gets twice as many votes as Miss Camaro, and Miss Challenger who is getting around retirement age is beating her too.

Every single day we judge subjective things, saying the comparison is not valid when you have hard data is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LA, LA, LA. You can never convince the few people who think Rosie O'Donnell is hotter than Kiera Knightley that they are wrong because the majority of people feel that way

No. Looks ARE subjective and as such cannot be used in an argument. I for one think those beauty pageant chicks are ugly, weird looking, too skinny, and look psycho standing there smiling incessantly. I see chicks at my gym who look 10 times better than those Miss America women. Others disagree. Because beauty pageants all look for certain qualities and bone structures etc that they consider when they judge a woman. All considerations that I personally don't care about. And I'm sure there are plenty of chicks who turn me on that you wouldn't even care for and vice versa. But this isn't about women, it is about subject judgements. And anything subjective is unreliable. I happen to think that Kiera is not that good looking at all BTW. I wouldn't kick her out the bed on a cold night but I also wouldn't go out of my way to have her. Like I said, subjective.

Everyone knows the GT and SS are not the volume sellers and never were.
The Ecoboost out performs the V6 and I4 Camaro until General Motor Trend went out and bought much better tires that are not available on the I4 (IE modded, something they never do for any other car) and EB vs V6 handed the win to the V6 because of sound (subjective) even though the EB Objectively beat it in everything else except 0-60 (.1 sec)
The fact that the SS is marginally faster than the GT in magazine tests has not translated to sales anyways

I don't know this to be true with Motor Trend's testing. Last I checked, the V6 Camaro was faster than the EB Stang AND the V6 Stang. I read nowhere that they put better non-OEM tires on the Camaro, left the OEM tires on the Stang, and conducted the test that way. And I'd like to see a link to this test where you claim they did. The fastest I have seen the EB in testing was a 13.9-14.1 if I remember. And that was faster or just about as fast as the V6. Small margin. The V6 Camaro was well into the 13s from the test I saw. So show me where you're seeing these tests. I'll likewise try to post up links to the ones I saw. The V6 Stang was faster than the V6 Camaro up until the 6th Gen Camaro came out. And, obviously, the Camaro SS outperforms the GT. At the track, most SS Camaros are running bone stock around the same times as the GTs with DRs, headers, and other bolt-ons. I see these SS Camaros running low 12s out the box and danr near into the 11s with DRs and intakes. That says a lot. They're basically keeping up with the GT350 in the quarter mile.

I was never interested in the V8s and the EB is my daily driver so I will take the subjectively better looks, Objectively better performance, better visibility, larger trunk, more rear seat room every single day of the week,

Wait..... it's cheaper too? I guess I know why me and nearly 9k or more people a month went out and bought one vs the Camaro. /thread

Subjectively, yes, you should buy what looks good to you. Objectively better performance, I'd like to see links that show any S550 Mustang out-performing the equivalent Camaro stock to stock. It IS cheaper that is true. Which is a big part in why the sales numbers are soo great. Ford is giving out really good deals and that cannot be argued. But everything else you said is not correct.

Please post one of these when you're mopping up the floor with some 6grn Camaro fan! I took a bad fall.

To you and everyone else who mistakenly thinks so, I am no fan of Ford or Chevy. I get into just as many heated discussions with the Camaro group as I do over here. I've argued tooth and nails with those guys on forums and pages and have many times been called a "Ford Fan-boy" to which I just as sternly object to. Funny how if you're not blindly loyal to one group then you're a fanboy of something else. I'll never be blindly loyal until one of them sends me a check. In 2012 I bought a SS because to me it looked better (subjective so the looks only count for my personal reasons), it performed just as well as the GT, and the dealership gave me a killer deal which no Ford dealership could match. I still have it. This year, I got a GT because I feel it looks better (again, subjective), it performs well enough that I don't need to pay more for the SS with it's performance advantage, and Ford gave me a much better deal than Chevy would or could give me...this time around. I personally buy or go for the better deal regardless of whether it is a Mustang or Camaro. I'm no fan of either. I'm a performance enthusiast and I own one of each for now.

 

[40calcobra]

No. Looks ARE subjective and as such cannot be used in an argument. I for one think those beauty pageant chicks are ugly, weird looking, too skinny, and look psycho standing there smiling incessantly. I see chicks at my gym who look 10 times better than those Miss America women. Others disagree. Because beauty pageants all look for certain qualities and bone structures etc that they consider when they judge a woman. All considerations that I personally don't care about. And I'm sure there are plenty of chicks who turn me on that you wouldn't even care for and vice versa. But this isn't about women, it is about subject judgements. And anything subjective is unreliable. I happen to think that Kiera is not that good looking at all BTW. I wouldn't kick her out the bed on a cold night but I also wouldn't go out of my way to have her. Like I said, subjective.




I don't know this to be true with Motor Trend's testing. Last I checked, the V6 Camaro was faster than the EB Stang AND the V6 Stang. I read nowhere that they put better non-OEM tires on the Camaro, left the OEM tires on the Stang, and conducted the test that way. And I'd like to see a link to this test where you claim they did. The fastest I have seen the EB in testing was a 13.9-14.1 if I remember. And that was faster or just about as fast as the V6. Small margin. The V6 Camaro was well into the 13s from the test I saw. So show me where you're seeing these tests. I'll likewise try to post up links to the ones I saw. The V6 Stang was faster than the V6 Camaro up until the 6th Gen Camaro came out. And, obviously, the Camaro SS outperforms the GT. At the track, most SS Camaros are running bone stock around the same times as the GTs with DRs, headers, and other bolt-ons. I see these SS Camaros running low 12s out the box and danr near into the 11s with DRs and intakes. That says a lot. They're basically keeping up with the GT350 in the quarter mile.



Subjectively, yes, you should buy what looks good to you. Objectively better performance, I'd like to see links that show any S550 Mustang out-performing the equivalent Camaro stock to stock. It IS cheaper that is true. Which is a big part in why the sales numbers are soo great. Ford is giving out really good deals and that cannot be argued. But everything else you said is not correct.




To you and everyone else who mistakenly thinks so, I am no fan of Ford or Chevy. I get into just as many heated discussions with the Camaro group as I do over here. I've argued tooth and nails with those guys on forums and pages and have many times been called a "Ford Fan-boy" to which I just as sternly object to. Funny how if you're not blindly loyal to one group then you're a fanboy of something else. I'll never be blindly loyal until one of them sends me a check. In 2012 I bought a SS because to me it looked better (subjective so the looks only count for my personal reasons), it performed just as well as the GT, and the dealership gave me a killer deal which no Ford dealership could match. I still have it. This year, I got a GT because I feel it looks better (again, subjective), it performs well enough that I don't need to pay more for the SS with it's performance advantage, and Ford gave me a much better deal than Chevy would or could give me...this time around. I personally buy or go for the better deal regardless of whether it is a Mustang or Camaro. I'm no fan of either. I'm a performance enthusiast and I own one of each for now.

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...st-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

 

[4V Mayhem]

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...st-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

That link compares the V6 to the EB...plus I've seen tests where the V6 Camaro ran in the 13s while the V6 Stang was in the mid 14s.

Sponsored