Completely understand what you are saying.... but the comparison with what happened to the 4th gen is a completly different story.

The 4th gen was the sole vehicle being made at Ste Therese. A car that in the end was making about 50K per year in a plant capable of producing 250K+ annually.

The Mustang is being made at a plant that produces other cars. Therefore, Ford keeps the ability to continue manufacturing the Mustang at a very low sales rate without losing money on the assembly since other models can be rammped up.

This is the same situation that allowed Chevrolet to continue selling the Monte Carlo even though the Monte dropped down to something like 30-35K per year. GM was still making 250-300K Impalas.


As for cost of manufacture, Camaro is a fairly high content car. It has IRS while the Mustang has a cheaper live axle, Camaro has a more rigid structure which I bet costs more than that on the Mustang.

Yes, it's true that the Mustang has incentives that Camaro doesn't. Camaro is still a dramatic looking car that is new and doesn't need them. You win that one.

As for cars sold to rental agencies, I did a bit of research on it.

Mustang convertibles make up the lion's share of Mustang's going to rental agencies. In fact, it seems that Ford has a lock on all convertibles that rental agencies use since there doesn't seem to be anyone else in the game. Even Chrysler doesn't seem to be selling many Sebring convertibles anymore... even to rentals. I will say that it seems far and away easier to get Camaro coupes from rental agencies than Mustang coupes, though.

 

To be honest, I really and truely don't think Ford is overly concerned about falling behind the Camaro in sales for the moment.

Consider:

1. Ford is raking in billions in profit.

2. Ford's market stock value has increased from about $1.75 2 years ago to about $18 today... and the Ford family's (including Bill's) livelyhood is entirely based on stocks.

3. Ford is still enjoying goodwill (fairly or not) over turning themselves around without government help.

4. Ford's quality (which only 9 years ago was worse than GM in some circles) is now better than Toyota.

Sure, Bill Ford is a major league Mustang fan. He views Mustang as much as an American legacy as much as a symbol of the Ford Motor Company. And he's not the only current high level executive that feels that way over at Ford (Mark Fields for one).

However, with everything at Ford going phenominally well, and a all new Mustang already very much well along in development and within a couple of years from the street, I doubt anyone at Ford is loosing sleep or is feeling a noticable sting from Camaro's current time in the sun.

Ford hasn't chased sales records since Bill Ford killed that notion off early in the decade to focus on quality and better profit margins ahead of Mually's arrival.

Keep in mind that Ford's making more money than they've made in many, many years while still selling something like half the cars they used to globally.

Up iuntil the day they went bankrupt, GM sold far and away more cars than Ford.

 

People at the top at Ford might not care much, but the worker bees do care.

The whole shift thing is because of the dump in sales of the Mazda 6, not the Mustang. This is also what is straining the relationship at AAI and could eventually lead to a shakeup.

 

Which is exactly why I said in my statement "profit and accounting and balancing sheets aside". You can't tell me that it doesn't upset the apple cart over at Ford just a bit that people are preferring the Camaro over the Mustang right now.

Mustang vs. Camaro has a bit more of a "swagger" attitude than Fusion vs. Malibu (vs. Camry vs. Accord, etc.). It's all well and good that profit, not volume, is the key metric for both Ford and GM now. All I am saying is that I am sure there are a few egos at Ford that are a little bruised up over this. That's all.

I'll bookmark this thread so that the next time Mustang outpaces Camaro sales and Ford trumpets that fact, I can reference it about how little Ford actually cares.

 

Of course everyone likes to brag when they are number one.

But when you are making money, and everything is koshier with the company (and you have a Mustang that paid off it's tooling years ago so you have some extra change to spend on it), you aren't worried if someone else gets a moment in the sun with an all new model while you're working on your's.

The only people who get worked up are hard core enthusiasts for one side or the other.

I will promise you that when the next Mustang comes out and if it's a hit that turns the tables on Camaro sales, as long as GM is still in great shape, making money on Camaro, and has a replacement in the pipeline, GM is also going to see it as no big deal.

 

Well sure. But Camaro hasn't been anywhere near as important to GM's portfolio (at least, in the eyes of GM) as Mustang has been in Ford's. Hopefully that attitude is changing. A better comparison or gauge of GM's public response would be if Ford developed a 2 seat sports car that overtook Corvette in sales. If GM said "oh well, we're not worried about it" I'd wonder WTH is wrong with them if I believed it.

 

It's a misnomer that Mustang "paid off its tooling". It's just not true. Every program is budgeted for tooling to be paid for over the life of the program based on a certain # of sales. There's no way in hell Mustang paid off its BIW tooling 2 years early and has already paid off its $Millions$ in tooling from the 2010 and 2011 refreshes.

Please stop saying this type of stuff.

 

Ford did this already.

The original 2 passenger Ford Thunderbird left the Corvette for dead. Devestated the Corvette so badly that GM was about to pull the plug on the Corvette.

GM in fact did actually backtracked and decided to shrug it off, meanwhile Thunderbird turned into a 4 passenger car in the search for even more sales, and Corvette suddenly found itself with a monopoly.

Anyone can make a 2 passenger car that will overtake Corvette in sales*.

a. Shorten a RWD chassis (ie: Mustang's).
b. Wrap it in a a slick, great looking body.
c. Sell for 40 grand or less.

The trick is to make a 2 passenger sports car that will at the very least break even, let alone be profitable or at least pay ity's own way... let alone at Corvette's pricing. Plus, diverting hard pressed cash towards developing a car that has a unique structure and sells no more than 30K models per year in a company that sells 2 million plus vehicles per year is an extraordanary tough sell.

Viper sold at levels (and length of time... nearly 20 years!) that made it profitable. Depending on who you talk to at Ford, the GT either made a wafer thin profit or represented a very small loss for Ford.

The Kappa cars barely broke even... in fact, oddly enough, if GM had sold more Kappas than they did, the cost of manufacture would have actually gone up! (a story in itself)

Corvette made GM a tidy amount of money while it was racing along at 25-30K per year. If sales get down to Mazda Miata levels (about 12K per year), you can bet the red alert is going to sound at GM.


*The 2 passenger Ford Thunderbird from early this decade was initially supposed to morph into a competitor to the Corvette at a lower price. Ford was scheduled to add a supercharger and some more agressive visual cues. One of those ideas (hiding a future model in plain site) was a Thunderbird that did the show circuit that had a redone hood and grille and a more aggressive suspension. That idea died when Ford started running out of money and started looking at (then almost as quickly, abandoning) a 4 passenger Thunderbird.

The Forty-Niner concept was actually headed to production, and the Thunderbird name was seriously considered for the car. Instead, Ford decided on producing the GT. There's a pretty good story behind that decision involving ambushing Bill Ford, but I'll save that for another time.

 

"$Millions$" is very little money when a typical new car program costs $Billions$.

Zeta was done at an unusually low price, and it cost 1 billion. The Statesman/Caprice spinoff cost about 300 million. GM certainly spent no more than that converting Zeta for the Camaro (but likely spent extra in other areas). Mustang didn't likely cost more than that either. The MN12s were the 1st billion dollar cars, and the Mondeo program cost close to $5 billion.

I believe we both know that the development of what's underneath the skin of a vehicle is where the true costs are and is what I am refering to. Not the sheetmetal or interior design, which compared to the rest of the car is relative peanuts in cost.

Hinting that after 6 years a car isn't paid for is a bit of a reach, don't you think? Especially selling at the numbers Mustang has with no changes until last year...and then only skin and minor tweaks.

The structure, suspension, is where development money goes. Large sections of this were taken from the DEW98 and the entire budget for development of Mustang was based on modest sales estimates.

It's splitting hairs to say that the 2011's 5.0 and the new Mustang skin from last year hasn't been paid yet. I also believe that everyone on this site knows that is not what I am refering to. I also believe everyone understands that it takes typically little time to pay from skin stampings if all else is carried over (ie, mounting points, wiring, the structure it's mounted to.

Am I also correct in that machine molds wear out over time (depending on how many years they were made to last...cheaper molds lasting less time than more expensive ones), and many manufacturers take advantage of this by refreshing exterior design (especially if they plan to update the skins of their cars after x-number of years, and order molds to last that partitular number of years)?

Also the price of the GT has jumped $5K in as many years and the rest of the line (save the very base model no one buys) has climbed nearly as fast.

The D2C structure is paid for. Was to take 3 to 4 years as I recall (and their sales were over projections over those 4 years combined).

Last year's reskinning will be paid off well before the next model assuming it's only 2 years away as scheduled.

The 5.0 is going into the F series this year.

At the rate the F series trucks sell, the development costs of the 5.0 will be erased fairly quickly as well.

 

Ford Mustang and Camaro are both doing well. I have a fully modded Z28 & a new 2011 Mustang 6 auto.
The Mustang is a better car and gets great highway mileage. The GM business model depends on tax payer subsidy;the Ford model does not. GM borrows more cheaply from our Gov (0% t0 .25%) than Ford does at the bank. So GM has an edge. The camaro engineering and production costs are greater for their new Camaro and Fords are much less. They at Ford, also have a better CEO in Alan Mullaly while GM is still Washington centric and playing musical chairs with the top jobs. The Ford businesss model is to keep dealer inventories lower and quality up. They innovate intelligently and push the technology enevelope across a wider range than GM. Both are on a rebound but Ford is running without tax payer help. I hope GM gets a plan and team together soon and reduces US Gov. dependence. The Gov is hurtful to GM long term but was necesasary to save GM from bankrupcy. Good old capitalism is needed now.

 

Good grief. Come on, you know what I am talking about. In the 50's Corvette certainly wasn't the legend it has become.

What I am talking about is Ford's flagship car, a car that has had a death grip on the sales lead in this demographic for 25 years, a car that Ford loves to tout as America's Pony Car, now being outsold by the upstart Camaro. From a profit perspective I'm sure Ford is not concerned. But it's a blow to them, just as it would be to GM if Ford came out with a comparable car to Corvette TODAY (not the fledgling 50's) and beat it in sales, just as if the Viper had outsold Corvette....if you don't think that Ford and Mustang fans ever relished leading the pack over the last 2+ decades with Mustang sales, you clearly have not been paying attention....

 

Don't agree and don't have the time to create the wall of text to explain why.

To put it simply, the product planners take everything you listed into account when they determine the viability of the program.

 

I finally get to use this smiley...



Heehee...just trying to lighten the mood here!

 

I'm with ya Jason.

Guy basically goes out of his way to call people idiots at times, so when he is wrong I think he should be corrected. I'm trying to respectfully educate him on how things work (as someone who has done it). A lot of people respect Guy (for good reason) and I don't want this to be taken as gospel. That's how rumors/misinformation get spread.

Anymore after this will be via PM (as maybe it should have been in the first place )

 

I cannot debate your opinion on the Modded Z28 (...which would have to be at least 8 years old versus a new Mustang....but I would hope that in that amount of time that the Mustang WOULD be a better car.......

The rest - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no. You are assuming an awful lot of things................and most of them are incorrect. (it IS true that Ford did not have to borrow money from the government -- and the only reason they didn't is that they mortgaged everything including the paperclips on the desks about 4 years ago....when it was still possible to borrow money from banks...........which is what GM and Ford would have done except that there was this thing called the housing meltdown..........

Much too complicated to get into on a thread...........

And Guy - in the words of Olympia Dukakis in a movie "I love ya like my luggage" - but IRE engineer is correct. And the FlatRock plant still has fixed costs that don't go away - the EBIT is pretty high on a Mustang, so when you pull that schedule out.........whoops! and thus, things are not good in river city.