I have no idea what this guy is on about

"Paul, Man of Mustangs" (stangmanpaul) 08/15/2013 at 14:28 • Filed to: None

0

14

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! just keeps spouting some nonsense that doesn't really have much to do with my initial comment. All I want is a very basic V8 Mustang. Stripped down, maybe detuned, but priced around $23,000 or less. So he tells me that I should buy an older one. What?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Lets Just Drive > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 14:42

1

Before we go any further, I just need to know; are you drunk?

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Lets Just Drive 08/15/2013 at 14:43

0

No, just a couple cups of coffee.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 14:46

1

Do we really need even more power from the GT? I don't think so. Maybe some better handling and braking, but not power. But power has been going up while prices stay about the same, or not climbing nearly as quickly as one would think. So why not go the other direction? Same power (or slightly lower), but more affordable? There's always ways to reduce costs without sacrificing quality or performance, so why not pursue those? - That is the basis of my thread, but he just goes off on tangents.

Mattbob > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 14:51

0

They probably wont cheap out on the engine tech because they need the fuel economy. A V8 weighs more than a 6 so whats the point of having the same power with more weight (also sales cannibalizing)? Like someone else said, having that many models makes no economic sense to produce. The only reason I could see here for you wanting the V8 instead of the 6 is the big V8 sound. In that case you could get a V6 and a nice CD of V8 sounds.

LumberJunk > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 14:57

1

We need added lightness :)

I can see what you're saying about we don't need more power right now. The most fun I've had was in a sub 200hp E30. I've driven the new 5.0 Tang and it had enough power.

The horsepower game annoys me.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Mattbob 08/15/2013 at 14:58

0

I imagine that there's people that want a new, V8 Mustang that can't afford the 5.0 and don't want the 6, so they're simply out of the market, and this would bring them back in. And I want the V8 instead of the 6 so I can build it up myself. I like modifying things, so I'd want to build it to 400-450 hp or so on my own. 450 home-made hp is more satisfying than 450 purchased hp.

But you're doing the same thing that he is doing. You aren't even addressing the original point. I want a more affordable Mustang, and we could achieve that by capping performance and advancing cost-cutting measures rather than more performance at an affordable cost. THAT is my point. Why not? Why can't (or won't) Ford work towards making the Mustang a more affordable option?

Paul, Man of Mustangs > LumberJunk 08/15/2013 at 15:01

0

Thank you for actually addressing the topic at hand!

Currently, the Mustang's main weakness is horrendous brake dive and off-the-line grip. Honestly. Both can be solved with some better geometry. In fact, the fix currently is some spacers or offset brackets. That, combined with a smaller, overall lighter chassis will improve the performance to more than adequate.

Mattbob > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 15:19

0

Market segments, Image, Cost benefit.

without getting really into it because I have to go home soon, model differentiation is somewhat important to how they market the car and sales.

These new models that you propose will probably have a lower profit margin. Retooling lines to have these engines (while maybe not super costly) is an investment in order to produce a car that they will make less money on, when most people who would buy it would have just gotten the V6 or the GT anyway. You are sort of a special niche case. If you weigh the amount of people like you who have need of such a specific model versus the retooling costs and any impact that this new model can have with their marketing scheme it is fairly obvious why they don't bother. Maybe if they were really hurting for sales they might change it up, but the current engine levels seem to be working for them.

As far as your assertion that they are making the cars so much better for the same price or more, why cant they engineer the other way and engineer them cheaper? Engineering is not a video game. There are no slider bars that make cost and performance go up, and vice versa. Things get better because of new advancements. Making things shittier isn't going to make them cheaper, It's just going to make them shittier usually. Things like chassis design and engine controls don't really add much to the raw materials of the car, but they make it better. Use crappier ones, and you may save some engineering costs, but you still have similar materials costs (assuming no exotic materials). anyway, I'm rambling and have to get ready to go home.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > Mattbob 08/15/2013 at 15:36

0

I'm thinking along the lines of optimizing the chassis for rigidity with minimal (or reduced) material use, like they're doing for the new one, finding ways to simplify engine function, since the current 5.0 is fairly complicated in how the cams independently phase, and just in general, optimize and simplify. Complex things take longer to build and with more expensive parts, which adds to the price. If fuel economy wasn't a huge issue right now (and also mandated by law), an engine could be made quite cheaply.

LumberJunk > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 15:46

0

I'm actually really excited to see what the next one offers! A post here pointed to an article saying that it will shed a minimum of 400 lbs. While also going to a smaller chassis. However I think it said there may be a price increase.

While I can see that the "retro design" of the current Mustang has been working, I think it is time for Ford to move forward (much like their "Moving Forward" slogan. Is that even Ford?) and produce a sports car that will perform like a modern sports car should.

I don't know too much about them, except for what my friend who has totally changed his up has told me. But most of all the weakness' that he has had to deal with do seem to have been caused by size and weight as you said.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > LumberJunk 08/15/2013 at 15:54

0

I posted an article yesterday about it. The price increase will be on the higher-end models like the GT500 (or the GT350, since I think they're dropping the GT500). I imagine that the higher end ones will use more exotic materials than the base models, leading to the higher prices.

LumberJunk > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 15:57

0

That's the one I read! But that makes sense. Give people the option to pay more. From my experience, the target market for premium goods, are more likely to still purchase regardless of a price hike. They have more discretionary income than me, and it makes me jealous.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Paul, Man of Mustangs 08/15/2013 at 17:52

0

I have a friend like you who has similar thoughts. The thing is he is a tight-ass and refuses to buy anything new so I tell him his opinions don't matter anyways.....but in your case let's look at a few things.

1) There is about an 8,000$ gap between the entry V8 and the entry V6. Between material, manufacturing, and labor costs of literally just yanking out the V6 and putting in the V8, I'd estimate about 1500-2000$ difference.
2) HOWEVER, it is not just the engine that is changed. The driveshaft, suspension, brakes, and I believe the rear end are all bespoke for the V8 and cost more to make than their V6 equivalents.

3) So now you're up to around a 4,000$ "increase" by the time you also factor in the profit ford wants to make on this car. This means the cheapest you could theoretically get away with pricing a new mustang GT is about 26 grand or so. I think this is the car you want.

4) Why is that the car you want? Because I didn't mention the interior upgrades and equipment extras you get besides the go-fast stuff. I believe you get a bunch of stuff as standard on the GT that is optional on the base V6. Trying to develop a package to fit the 4.6L V8 in there is pointless. Look at how tight that gap is - 4 grand to fit in a whole new model that would literally be SLOWER than either one above or below it AND be a MPG liability for ford as well as forcing them to continue making more 4.6 parts while they're trying to phase it out.

Simply put, petition ford to let you build a stripper model with as few features as physically possible but keep in mind even if they did it a V8 mustang can probably start no smaller than 26,500 or so.

Paul, Man of Mustangs > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 08/15/2013 at 18:24

0

If I made enough money, I would buy new. So there's that.

1) Probably accurate

2) I think the rear axle differences in the new ones is mostly just ratio choices. There's not a whole lot of readily-available info I can find at the moment. So that's likely a $500 savings. Transmission would add $200-400 over the sixxer. I can't imagine that V8 springs would be much more expensive, maybe another $50 or so. Shocks? Those would probably be a tad more pricey, at $200 more.

3) Could be maybe $3000, so $2500. Maybe.

4) I really don't need much to be happy with a car's interior. Make it comfortable for long trips, ergonomic, adequate instrumentation, and a halfway decent sound system. Oh, and A/C. No MFT nonsense, no LCD displays in the dash, etc.

But originally, I wasn't thinking a new model line. I was thinking of engineering a cheaper car overall. Everyone else is putting this intermediate line into my train of thought. Could we make the current GT cheaper? Sure. Might have to sacrifice size and power, but it could end up lighter.

If gas prices were back around $2.50, and CAFE requirements were gone (I think they're stupid, but that's an argument for another place), I'd just say toss the 6.2 in there. Remove the cam phasing stuff, and just tune it for the middle-of-the-road. 350 hp or so. Include the truck-model 5.0 in there as well as a non-GT option. Then again, let's just stick with the 6.2.