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

SVT for 2005



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 11th 05, 09:27 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dan Murphy wrote:

> etc.. From what I've read SVT wasn't going to limit the price to under 40k.
> That only makes sense with a Shelby badged SCCA race car. It fits a niche,
> and doesn't have to compete in the market head to head with much else in
> the way of American cars.


The higher the price goes, the more a 'somewhat better' mustang isn't
going to cut it IMO. What I mean by this, is the penalty paid for being
based on the same platform as the basic V6 mustang.

As the price extends beyond 40K, the more people start thinking about
other alternatives, vettes, porsche, BMW, etc and so forth. One begins to
ask the question, best new mustang or slightly used 911? If the price for
these mustangs is going to be 40, 50, even pushing 60K, why get a car
that is compromised in whatever for due to the needs of the V6 base car?

Such a thing would work for the niche that wants such a mustang. But
there is competition out there performance wise in the US market.



Ads
  #12  
Old March 11th 05, 11:29 PM
Dan Murphy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Dan Murphy
> wrote:
>
>> etc.. From what I've read SVT wasn't going to limit the price to
>> under 40k. That only makes sense with a Shelby badged SCCA race car.
>> It fits a niche, and doesn't have to compete in the market head to
>> head with much else in the way of American cars.

>
> The higher the price goes, the more a 'somewhat better' mustang isn't
> going to cut it IMO. What I mean by this, is the penalty paid for
> being based on the same platform as the basic V6 mustang.


Right, but SVT isn't ever going to be a high volume deal anyway.

>
> As the price extends beyond 40K, the more people start thinking about
> other alternatives, vettes, porsche, BMW, etc and so forth. One begins
> to ask the question, best new mustang or slightly used 911? If the
> price for these mustangs is going to be 40, 50, even pushing 60K, why
> get a car that is compromised in whatever for due to the needs of the
> V6 base car?


Even at 60 grand what are you going to buy from Porsche? Or even BMW?
Then you take it to an SCCA event and get lapped by a version of the car
your secretary is driving. The new 'stang is already off to a good start.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html. Actually in recent
years it's been Vipers, Cadillac, and Audis. BMW and Porsche are too
expensive and too slow. The 3 series and smaller cars race in a different
class than the Mustang.

>
> Such a thing would work for the niche that wants such a mustang. But
> there is competition out there performance wise in the US market.


Not really. The Viper and Vette are special built platforms. The Mustang
benefits from mass produced cheap components. I'm betting the new SVT
will be in the ball park horse power wise but 20-30 grand less than a
Viper or a C6 Vette. There is definitely a market for a car like that,
especially with Shelby's name on it. Even if it does look like a
secretary's 6 cylinder commuter car and doesn't handle as well.

Dan
  #13  
Old March 12th 05, 07:00 AM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Michael Johnson,
>>>PE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think they are too. The sad fact is that even though Ford has
>>>>given us some very nice performing cars/trucks via SVT's efforts it
>>>>really hasn't done anything to improve the companies overall bottom
>>>>line.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because they don't build these cars to demand. They build them as
>>>collectables. And unless they can get many times what it cost them
>>>to build, they won't even be a blip on ford's bottom line.
>>>
>>>The cars are more or less advertising when built and sold like
>>>this, and not much more. If a cobra isn't going sell a large number
>>>of 6 cylinder base cars then ford will drop it IMO. If ford built
>>>these cars to demand maybe they could add to the bottom line. I
>>>don't really want to bid for a cobra, which is nothing more than
>>>the top level mustang configuration to satisify some dealer's
>>>greed. It's not some supercar that they can hand build only 12 a
>>>year. It's a somewhat improved version of a MASS PRODUCED CAR. 30
>>>years from now we'll know if it's a collectable or not, I'm not
>>>buying a car to put in shrink wrap for 30 years anyway.

>>
>>I think we are both saying the same thing. Unfortunately the SVT
>>vehicles have not helped Ford sell cars. IMO, this gives more
>>strength to the bean counters argument (assuming there is one) to ax
>>the entire SVT concept (and the Cobra along with it). If that
>>happens then Ford's performance cars will suffer, IMHO, of course.
>>The existence of SVT and its influence on the DEW Mustang design
>>team is likely the biggest reason that the current Mustang performs
>>so well. My fear is the only type of performance cars Ford might be
>>interested in developing in the future will be the mega dollar (i.e.
>>highly profitable) supercars like the Ford GT. This could also lead
>>to the eventual termination of the Mustang. Chevy did it to the
>>Camaro and Ford could do it to the Mustang.

>
>
> I don't think the Mustang will be phased out anytime soon, as it's a
> decent money-maker for the beanies. However, I agree with everything
> else you guys have said.
>
> The niche for a new Cobra is getting tight. Nobody's going to want to
> pay big bucks for the same platform that the V6 is riding on (even
> with mega-horsepower), as it's got its own limitations. If SVT's
> going to survive, it's got to come out with a new car that will make
> people drool over it, and they've got to make a profit doing it.


IMO, the DEW Cobra has to be about the same level of improvement as the
DEW GT is over the SN95 GT for about the same price as the SN95 Cobra.
  #14  
Old March 12th 05, 08:28 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dan Murphy wrote:

> Even at 60 grand what are you going to buy from Porsche? Or even BMW?
> Then you take it to an SCCA event and get lapped by a version of the car
> your secretary is driving. The new 'stang is already off to a good start.


I dunno about the new stang, but SN95 was between a rock and hard place
wrt to SCCA solo 2 when I went to the training course and autoX a few
years back.

> http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html. Actually in recent
> years it's been Vipers, Cadillac, and Audis. BMW and Porsche are too
> expensive and too slow. The 3 series and smaller cars race in a different
> class than the Mustang.


All I know is, the only other guy running a mustang besides me was giving
his up for a porsche and he was already bending the rules with the
mustang. Of course my experience is really very limited.

>> Such a thing would work for the niche that wants such a mustang. But
>> there is competition out there performance wise in the US market.


> Not really. The Viper and Vette are special built platforms. The Mustang
> benefits from mass produced cheap components.


What's the benefit when ford is going to over charge, keep production
down so dealers can gouge, and let the car's performance suffer because
they won't put the money into it to make up for compromises done for the
6 cylinder base car, let alone the ones they can't do anything about.

> I'm betting the new SVT
> will be in the ball park horse power wise but 20-30 grand less than a
> Viper or a C6 Vette. There is definitely a market for a car like that,
> especially with Shelby's name on it. Even if it does look like a
> secretary's 6 cylinder commuter car and doesn't handle as well.


If they keep the price under 40K and do it right yes. But here are the
rumors that it's going to shatter 40K, and not have IRS. Sales droid at
the stealership was telling me 55K and no IRS. I don't think a couple
suspension mods and more powerful mod motor are worth a 25 grand premium.
Of course, the sales droid could be wrong, and I assumed he was until
reading the same sort of thing here.



  #15  
Old March 12th 05, 04:48 PM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, Michael Johnson,
>>>>>PE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think they are too. The sad fact is that even though Ford has
>>>>>>given us some very nice performing cars/trucks via SVT's efforts
>>>>>>it really hasn't done anything to improve the companies overall
>>>>>>bottom line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they don't build these cars to demand. They build them as
>>>>>collectables. And unless they can get many times what it cost them
>>>>>to build, they won't even be a blip on ford's bottom line.
>>>>>
>>>>>The cars are more or less advertising when built and sold like
>>>>>this, and not much more. If a cobra isn't going sell a large
>>>>>number of 6 cylinder base cars then ford will drop it IMO. If ford
>>>>>built these cars to demand maybe they could add to the bottom
>>>>>line. I don't really want to bid for a cobra, which is nothing
>>>>>more than the top level mustang configuration to satisify some
>>>>>dealer's greed. It's not some supercar that they can hand build
>>>>>only 12 a year. It's a somewhat improved version of a MASS
>>>>>PRODUCED CAR. 30 years from now we'll know if it's a collectable
>>>>>or not, I'm not buying a car to put in shrink wrap for 30 years
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>>I think we are both saying the same thing. Unfortunately the SVT
>>>>vehicles have not helped Ford sell cars. IMO, this gives more
>>>>strength to the bean counters argument (assuming there is one) to
>>>>ax the entire SVT concept (and the Cobra along with it). If that
>>>>happens then Ford's performance cars will suffer, IMHO, of course.
>>>>The existence of SVT and its influence on the DEW Mustang design
>>>>team is likely the biggest reason that the current Mustang performs
>>>>so well. My fear is the only type of performance cars Ford might
>>>>be interested in developing in the future will be the mega dollar
>>>>(i.e. highly profitable) supercars like the Ford GT. This could
>>>>also lead to the eventual termination of the Mustang. Chevy did it
>>>>to the Camaro and Ford could do it to the Mustang.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think the Mustang will be phased out anytime soon, as it's
>>>a decent money-maker for the beanies. However, I agree with
>>>everything else you guys have said.
>>>
>>>The niche for a new Cobra is getting tight. Nobody's going to want
>>>to pay big bucks for the same platform that the V6 is riding on
>>>(even with mega-horsepower), as it's got its own limitations. If
>>>SVT's going to survive, it's got to come out with a new car that
>>>will make people drool over it, and they've got to make a profit
>>>doing it.

>>
>>IMO, the DEW Cobra has to be about the same level of improvement as
>>the DEW GT is over the SN95 GT for about the same price as the SN95
>>Cobra.

>
>
> Tough bill to fill. I hope they can do it.


I think they can. At least they are starting out with a good chassis.
If they keep the '03-'04 Cobra brakes, improve the handling over the GT,
use the T-56, use the blown 4V 4.6L motor tweaked to 450 hp and design a
decent IRS then I think it will be there. They should be able to keep
the price about the same too. IMO, the '03-'04 Cobra drive train was so
good that they could use it virtually unchanged except for the IRS.
This saves a ton of money on R&D.
  #16  
Old March 12th 05, 09:55 PM
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:48:58 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
> <snip>
>
>>>Tough bill to fill. I hope they can do it.

>>
>>I think they can. At least they are starting out with a good chassis.
>>If they keep the '03-'04 Cobra brakes, improve the handling over the GT,
>>use the T-56, use the blown 4V 4.6L motor tweaked to 450 hp and design a
>>decent IRS then I think it will be there. They should be able to keep
>>the price about the same too. IMO, the '03-'04 Cobra drive train was so
>>good that they could use it virtually unchanged except for the IRS.
>>This saves a ton of money on R&D.
>>

>
> Why not step up to the 5.4 and load that baby up with some more torque
> to further differentiate it from the GT? Yeah HP is great, but I've
> always loved low-end torque for a good launch. It was one of the
> things I simply loved about my Goat and its 455 HO SD. A decent
> launch would catapult me half way down the track. I would
> consistently post lower MPH trap times yet get great overall ET
> compared to the guys with the small blocks. Left a lot of guys
> scratching their heads as to why they lost against me when I never
> even broke 100 mph but had a trap time of ~ 12 seconds.


They already have the low end torque with the supercharged 4.6L engine.
Also, the 5.4L is wide at the top of the engine which makes for a
multitude of packaging problems and is why it is mostly installed into
trucks and SUV's. Plus, Ford can make more than enough hp/torque with
the 4.6L engine. With the hp raised to 450 I would expect it to have
350-400 ft-lbs at 1,500-2,000 rpm's. The '03-'04 Cobras are dipping
into the low 9's in the 1/4 mile with very few engine mods. Ford could
get 450/450 hp/tq from it with little effort.

I love low end torque too. Hence the reason I have a Kenne Bell blower
on my '89 LX making 460 rwtq at 2,500 rpm. It makes for a fun ride.
  #17  
Old March 12th 05, 11:29 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We'll see at the NYIAS but as of December, according to my sources, the
powerplant choice was the 5.4L, 3V, VVT with a Whipple (Lysholm)
huffer. I'm not betting my last dollar, it's Ford after all, but I
think the probability is reasonably high that my information isn't too
far off .

Dan
2003 Cobra convertible
With some stuff and things

 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 AM.


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