• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

New 2005 Cars, Cheers & Jeers!

Share this page

I haven't had my coffee. I was just trying to say the Neon is a super deal, but not a super car.

No problem Bax, I don't even function without at least 3 cups of java....and we are just going to disagree.

In my observation, the Neon handles better than the WRX.

My oldest daughter owns a 2 year-old WRX and it is an amazing Winter-car. Obviously, it can't be used for plowing snow or towing boats, but in the real-world driving that most of us do, it's head-and-shoulders above vehicles that most folks buy for "the four-wheel-drive benefit". But in Summer driving , it doesn't feel as well-planted as a normal fwd car (to me)....not as bad as an SUV, but it is still higher and heavier than similar-size fwd cars.

The WRX and SRT-4 guys that I mentioned above are both experienced track-drivers....I'd say they are about even. As I saw it, the Neon was able to keep up due to handling more so than power.
Actually, my stock Miata can run-even with WRXs in turns (but it's "bye-bye" on the straightaway!)

As far as buying a Neon for daily driving, we looked at them last year (along with all the other cars listed above) and ended up buying a new Protege. I thought the SRT-4 handled well, but all Neons seem rough around the edges with taxi-cab interiors. The SRT-4 has the same crude personality as the old Omni GLH or even the 383 Road Runner. If I were a young kid looking for cheap "go-power" (instead of a modest amount of refinement) the Neon would have trumped everything. The ugly wing on the tail is supposed to be a real aero-aid at high speed (remember, it can do over 150) but I'd be tempted to unscrew it.

Sam's comments about looking at the youth market are spot-on and I think Chrysler has done this. Most of my students are 19 year old guys with limited money. They love the SRT-4. It's like an Acura RSX that they can actually afford.

By the way, I agree that early Neons are better cars than most folks realize (and they *are* light). Our club runs a four-hour enduro at Summit Point. A stock-ish Neon came close to winning overall last year, outrunning many Hondas, VWs and so forth. It was basically a $2500 car with a roll cage, fuel cell and belts. If I wanted to race small sedans, I'd use a Neon. Many of the quality problems mentioned about these cars are minor trim stuff that I don't care about in a track car....engines/gearboxes seem even better than Hondas.
 
The new Mustang may not bring in the kids, but I expect that the Boomers (the ones with the money) will make it a big success.

One nice thing about retro is that it doesn't seem to become dated nearly as soon as the more modern stuff.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The new Mustang may not bring in the kids, but I expect that the Boomers (the ones with the money) will make it a big success.

One nice thing about retro is that it doesn't seem to become dated nearly as soon as the more modern stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huck, what you said is -exactly- the rationale behind Ford's product development as of late -- so you definitely have a good head on your shoulders. (And now I say this as nicely and with as much respect as possible /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)...

The problem is that most independent marketing research shows this to be a false assumption.

Taking all the "retro" cars, which now includes PT Cruiser, New Beetle, Thunderbird and Mini Cooper (which is not really retro, because the car it replaced went out of production five years ago,) the only car to have had any success with people old enough to remember the original was the PT Cruiser.

Now the PT Cruiser's target was primarily boomers, and that's exactly who bought them. Problem was that the number of people interested in a cheap, small wagon in this demographic was fairly small. Sales plummeted. Chrysler brought out Turbo and Convertible versions to increase sales. I made the prediction that the whole model would disappear after 2007 when it first arrived -- I think it will be that way.

New Beetle also had initial spikes in sales, but that fell off almost immediately. New Beetle sales now make it the smallest unit vehicle in VW's offerings (although the Phaeton might beat it this year.)

Most boomers simply aren't in the market for an unrefined kid's coupe with fairly useless back seats. PT Cruiser sold well initially because the target listed style and utility value as the top two reasons for buying it. Mustang loses points on all the issues that are most important to the boomer demographic (refinement, luxury, comfort, style, reputation, reliability.)

While this is much more subjective, I would argue that retro cars are actually quicker to look dated. The issue is that retro cars to stick-out more in the crowd, so the common (non-car) folk recognize these vehicles. These cars are already "familiar." Familiar lends itself to being "old" earlier.

It's usually extremely hard for people to tell how old more modern design is. For instance, the German cars always get high marks for fresh design, even though the bulk of the designs have only changed just slightly (BMW's Bangle Butt) in the last decade. To say a Jetta looks fresh is interesting, because the car was designed in the later part of the 90s.

Again, I think the Mustang looks cool, but I'd never buy a Mustang at my age. I also don't see the import tuner crowd going to buy one. And in this current automotive market, vehicles need to expand their market to emerging targets, otherwise you're like the Camaro/Trans Am and wake up one day to find yourself axed, because no matter how much performance you have, the kids are still buying Hondas, and the people who made the Camaro/TA's record-setting sales figures in the late 70s wouldn't even consider buying one now, not because of how the car looks, but because what the car -is- at the core.

Of course, I could be wrong...but retro styling has been something both the marketing consultant and the auto journalist sides of my company have been following for a while.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Mustang looks cool, but I'd never buy a Mustang at my age. I also don't see the import tuner crowd going to buy one. And in this current automotive market, vehicles need to expand their market to emerging targets, otherwise you're like the Camaro/Trans Am and wake up one day to find yourself axed, because no matter how much performance you have, the kids are still buying Hondas, and the people who made the Camaro/TA's record-setting sales figures in the late 70s wouldn't even consider buying one now, not because of how the car looks, but because what the car -is- at the core.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/iagree.gif BUT, the 100,000 Mustang enthusiasts who celebrated the 40th anniversary of Mustang last spring, and were the first to see the 2005 model, would disagree with you. They are the reason that the Mustang didn't die when the Probe was introduced in 1989 as the Mustang replacement and they were the focus group that was surveyed during the design stages of the 2005 model.

In addition, the Fox and Fox4 platform that the 2004 model was built on was 25 years old and should have been replaced long ago (sort of like the C3 Corvette platform). Even if the retro look does not last, the new platform may be adapted to other models; for example, a more streamlined, more modern Mustang, a new Shelby GT350, etc.

Finally, 30-something X-Gens, not baby boomers, are building 1967 "Eleanor" clones by the dozen. Take a look at AutoTrader.com or Hemmings and see some of the handiwork of these new Mustang aficionados. They have created a whole new market for the classic 1960's Mustangs. I realize this fad will not last, but, according to the Old Car Price Guide, it has sure raised the value of my '66 convertible in the past 2 years.

So, although I agree with your assumption that "retro" may soon fade, that does not necessarily mean that it will take the Mustang the way of the Camaro/Firebird. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/iagree.gif BUT, the 100,000 Mustang enthusiasts who celebrated the 40th anniversary of Mustang last spring, and were the first to see the 2005 model, would disagree with you. They are the reason that the Mustang didn't die when the Probe was introduced in 1989 as the Mustang replacement and they were the focus group that was surveyed during the design stages of the 2005 model.



[/ QUOTE ]

As a marketing guy, I strongly caution throwing too much into the value of the "focus group." If you recall, the first car to utilize extensive focus group information was the Edsel!

This is often the problem with domestic manufacturers, especially those with insulated marketing departments. Eseentially, they spend too much time talking to people who already bought their cars. Mustang fans, for instance, will already be partial to buying Mustangs, especially one that looks like the perceived high-watermark of its design.

In those 100,000 people who already have Mustangs, Ford will be lucky if 1/10th of a percent buy a 2005 or 2006...and that's generally the sell through rate. Repeat buying of Mustangs is extremely low -- at last I checked, one of the lowest in the industry for long-term brands. The reason is that people "grow-out" of the car. That doesn't necessarily mean the owners don't enjoy the car, and in fact, many keep their car long-term. A Mustang fanatic is as hard-core as any Vette or Porsche fan...but the repeat buying is low.

As for the Probe/Mustang issue, that was an apples and oranges thing, just like the Porsche 928/911...and there's still much evidence to show that in both cases the "disappearance" of the Mustang/911 were more marketing to generate renewed interest.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the Fox and Fox4 platform that the 2004 model was built on was 25 years old and should have been replaced long ago (sort of like the C3 Corvette platform). Even if the retro look does not last, the new platform may be adapted to other models; for example, a more streamlined, more modern Mustang, a new Shelby GT350, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree that the Fox platform is long overdue in being replaced. That goes without saying. Staying with a solid rear axle, though, is just pitiful, and shows why most in the target buy imports...it's simply cheap. Sure they say "it's for drag racers," but we all know that this is to keep the costs down and the profit high. Any serious drag racer will wind up replacing the rear-end anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, 30-something X-Gens, not baby boomers, are building 1967 "Eleanor" clones by the dozen. Take a look at AutoTrader.com or Hemmings and see some of the handiwork of these new Mustang aficionados. They have created a whole new market for the classic 1960's Mustangs. I realize this fad will not last, but, according to the Old Car Price Guide, it has sure raised the value of my '66 convertible in the past 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but auto manufacturers have proven that the issue works in reverse to the value of your point. Essentially, a new version of a car that plays on old drives the value of the old, rather than a classic car drives sales of the new car. (And not to seem like a know-it-all media type...so sorry if this sounds snotty -- not my intention,) as a columnist that specializes in collector cars while also tracking new cars, it's pretty evident that what drives the popularity of collector cars can sometimes be what kills new cars.

Eleanor (which kills me, since Eleanor was a '73 MachI in the real Gone in 60 Seconds)is a reflection of what guys want in their weekend classic cars: booming, loud, fast. Nobody wants to be stuck in traffic in one of these cars after a long day of work.

Furthermore, this proves the point that if someone wants the look of a '65 or '68 Mustang -- they'll buy one! (Heck of a lot cheaper than a 2005!) For me, I'm much more likely to buy a '67 Fastback or '65 Convertible than a new Mustang.

By the way, one of my best friends has a '66 Mustang convertible -- dark blue with saddle Pony interior. V8 automatic car -- upgraded to a 4v carb. I've driven it and it's a wonderful cruiser. If he ever sells is (he's had it for 18 years,) I have right of first refusal to buy it.
 
How many these days are buying NEW "extra" cars? Are there enough people now with sufficient funds and space to buy a mustang or a mini S or a corvette for play, and drive then their Ford 500 or Camry to work and the grocer? I would guess that most of us drive our toys for fun and show and then do our regular driving/ car pooling/ stuff-hauling in daily drivers. Are some of these manufacturers counting on people with sufficient dough/space to buy expensive new toys to go with their daily?
 
As a general rule, people generally don't buy a new mid-range sporty car as a play car. The break comes at about the high-performance level -- Corvette, Porsche, Ferrari etc, where these vehicles are often purchased as second or third cars solely for fun.

Interestingly, Ford sales were announced, and they are down 9 percent from last year.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Staying with a solid rear axle, though, is just pitiful, and shows why most in the target buy imports...it's simply cheap. Sure they say "it's for drag racers," but we all know that this is to keep the costs down and the profit high. Any serious drag racer will wind up replacing the rear-end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I agree with you completely, Sam. And I think Ford does too, since the more expensive 2006 or 2007 Cobra version of the Mustang will likely have an independent rear suspension to go with its dual overhead cams, 6-speed manual, and, possibly, 400 HP.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, this proves the point that if someone wants the look of a '65 or '68 Mustang -- they'll buy one! (Heck of a lot cheaper than a 2005!) For me, I'm much more likely to buy a '67 Fastback or '65 Convertible than a new Mustang.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, if my '66 convertible were currently restored to "show" (#1) condition (ie., equivalent to a new car), it would be worth $7,000 more than a new 2005 Mustang GT (according to the October OCPG '66 convertible price compared to the 2005 Mustang GT window sticker I looked at in the dealer's showroom on Saturday). Sometimes the "old" can reach a price that is considerably greater than the new models without being a Ferrari, Mercedes, or Porsche--eg., '57 FI Corvette, '57 F-code T-Bird, or '69 Mustang Boss 302.

For me, the epitomy of bad "retro" is the kit to convert a C4 (?) Corvette to a '53/'54 look. Why not just buy a '53/'54? Well, because so few were built that few people can own one--just like a 427 Cobra (now a kit car made by multiple manufacturers) or a 550 Spyder (another kit car knockoff for a Bug chassis). The only one I really don't understand is the kit for converting a Bug to an MG-TD--the finished kit car probably cost more than a real TD.

I recently saw a '55 Chevy being "built" on one of the Hot Rod TV shows without a single '55 Chevy part being used. There are not just aftermarket drive trains, suspensions, and interiors for the Tri-5 Chevys, there are complete aftermarket frames and bodies, too! Maybe Ford's new retro cars are just a way to forestall someone from knocking off the '56 T-Bird and the '69 Mach 1. After all, why should the aftermarket/kit guys have all the fun?

Great discussion, by the way! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, if my '66 convertible were currently restored to "show" (#1) condition (ie., equivalent to a new car), it would be worth $7,000 more than a new 2005 Mustang GT (according to the October OCPG '66 convertible price compared to the 2005 Mustang GT window sticker I looked at in the dealer's showroom on Saturday). Sometimes the "old" can reach a price that is considerably greater than the new models without being a Ferrari, Mercedes, or Porsche--eg., '57 FI Corvette, '57 F-code T-Bird, or '69 Mustang Boss 302.


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is that there is certainly a firmer price on new cars, and a wide range for classics. On the plus side, depreciation on classics is lower (at least on non-concours cars.)

I show $23,500 for a coupe and $34,000 for a convertible in #1 concours condition, which are the same for new Mustangs, but the '66 prices are for 100-point, perfect cars that have ZERO miles (other than going from trailer to the lawn at a concours. If it is not 100-points, a convertible drops $10,500 in value (a 99 point car is worth $23,800.)

It will cost a new Mustang GT convertible to actually restore a '66 Mustang to 100 points. To use the "Pebble Beach" rule, it costs 10K per point over 90 points, and 10K per 1/4 point between 99 and 100. It never pays to restore to concours level with any car worth under $100,000. I could give a litany of restoration stories of all types of cars which would make us all cringe!!!

Now, a "show and shine" quality 66 convertible, which has a chance of winning a local show, has a value of $13,600. Add for original 4v or GT.

From what I've seen on the market of actual sales prices, this is very accurate. Asking prices tend to be around $16K-$20K, with the sales prices hitting the $14K area for very nice drivers (show and shine.)

Now, on the topic of replicas, my mantra has always been: "I'd rather drive a real piece of crap than a nice fake." I did a story on a guy with a Healey 100, who also had a Porsche Speedster replica. He sold the Healey and kept the replica...he absolutely loved it for what it was. I respect his passion for it.

Wouldn't choose it for myself, though.

And I've never understood Healey replicas with V8s...why not just buy a V8 sports/muscle car? To each his own, I guess!?!?!
 
[ QUOTE ]
It will cost a new Mustang GT convertible to actually restore a '66 Mustang to 100 points. To use the "Pebble Beach" rule, it costs 10K per point over 90 points, and 10K per 1/4 point between 99 and 100. It never pays to restore to concours level with any car worth under $100,000. I could give a litany of restoration stories of all types of cars which would make us all cringe!!!

And I've never understood Healey replicas with V8s...why not just buy a V8 sports/muscle car? To each his own, I guess!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're absolutely right about the cost of restoration. My point is that, if you paid $3500 for a 1966 Mustang convertible and spent the cost of a new Mustang on restoring it, you would have a '66 Mustang in "better than new" (not "Pebble Beach") condition that would likely be worth about what you have in it. As you stated, that is not the case for some collector cars.

I also agree that I enjoyed parking next to a real '66 A-H 3000 last week at Cruise Night more than I did a V-8, fiberglass A-H knockoff a few weeks earlier. I much prefer the real thing, despite knowing that I will never own a real '65 427 Cobra or a real '62 Ferrari GTO (now a kit for a Datsun 280Z).

But cloning is not a black & white issue--Rover V-8s in MGB roadsters and Ford crate 5.0-liter V-8s in '67 Alpines, for example. How is that different than hot rodding a '32 Ford roadster with a 383 small-block Chevy? How about if the '32 roadster is all fiberglass and has no '32 Ford parts on it? Or how about the difference between the Arkley SS body for a Spridget and a VW Bug with a fiberglass MG-TD body?

Fortunately, like the guy with the Speedster replica instead of his A-H 100, there is room in this hobby/profession for any type of individual expression we can dream up. From the East Texas chicken farmer who decided to take on Ferrari to the V-12 Lincoln street rod that sold for $400,000 in January's Barrett-Jackson auction--"to each his own" is ok by me! Where would the automobile industry and the car collecting hobby be without those guys?

By the way, what happened to all the other discussion on this thread? When did it become the "Sam and Steve" show? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
We frightened 'em all off!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Probably. Somehow, "2005 cars" became "2005 Mustangs" and there aren't too many other Mustang fans on this forum. Oh well, back to LBC threads.
 
Well there may be more than you think-- remember all the readers that haven't commented!
On a related note see the poll in today's New York Times-- It provides an opportunity to vote for your favorite "hip" car among about 10 they list. It shows pics of all of the cars you can vote for except the mustang! (my pic was the GT 40 from Ford. Awesome in description and when I saw it "in person" it was even better.
 
I like the GT (NOT called a GT40, because some dummy at FoMoCo didn't think to keep the trademark on the name!!!) The car is timely, and is essentially a copy of the GT40 (but larger.) I'd love one, but I'd like an original much more.

But again, Ford is going to have to come out with something that ensures that once us 1930s-early 1970s car fans are dead and buried that people are still interested in buying Fords.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I like the GT (NOT called a GT40, because some dummy at FoMoCo didn't think to keep the trademark on the name!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, since the early 1990s Ford has been using "GT-40" for the special alloy heads designed for the former Mustang Cobra 5.0-liter V-8. Why, I have no idea, but similar to their misuse of "Mach 1" for the megawatt stereo system in recent Mustangs. Now, that name can't come from a focus group, Sam, because no Mustang aficionado would allow the use of the name of a classic Mustang model on a stereo! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Good thread! I think that we have some real thinkers and expertise here. This discussion has been refreshing and shows the quality of this site and its members! Thanks to Basil for making a non-LBC forum for these side chats.

That may read sarcastic, but I am quite sincere.
 
Man cannot live on LBCs alone! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Back
Top