Do I need to intervene, or are we good here?
Do I need to intervene, or are we good here?
Well, they've been working on developing carbon fiber K-members for years now. Why couldn't that have been applied to the new GT500? Why are they using so much stamped steel when they could've saved a couple hundred pounds or more by using aluminum and magnesium parts instead? It's not like they don't know how to incorporate aluminum and magnesium into their vehicles. They've been doing it for years.
They're building the car to a price instead of a standard. The problem there is that people are still complaining about the price they built it to because either they can't afford it or they don't want to pay that much "for a Mustang." So, why not just go all in and build it to a standard for the people who can afford it and will pay that much for a Mustang??
Because Ford will make much more profit selling the stang at a moderately high price to the blue collar guy vs selling it at a very high price to the white collar guy only.
A lot of very common blue collar people afforded the svt cobras to the 14 gt500, they no longer can without 10 year car payments and you want to start adding Carbon sub frames?? why not just go full carbon tub and OH WAIT we are at the FGT. Not everyone has GTpremi money and can afford what a 3500lb 760HP DCT carbon riddled mustang would cost... That's literally the ballpark of Mclaren and FGT money and specs. I've been using that as a joke on here for a while because some people are so damn lost when it comes to reality and what a mustang should be.So, you're just hellbent on making up stuff today, I see. Where did I say I wanted a McLaren with a Mustang price tag??? I'm not one of the ones complaining about it being too expensive. I clearly stated Ford should build a better Mustang for the people who are willing and able to pay for it. When has a Shelby ever been affordable to the "common" man? If I recall, in '67 the GT500 cost more than a Corvette. The Corvette was never priced for the common man. (Most of the people on SVTP who have a Corvette bought it used and depreciated. Very few have a new, first-owner Corvette.) So, why now should the GT500 be priced lower than a Corvette and be riddled with compromises?
And how can saying how something LOOKS be considered silly?? That's purely subjective. Are you on some kind of medication today thereby rendering you completely illogical and unreasonable?
That's not true either lol
Your opinions might change on what the new GT-500 could have been or should have been.....after you actually drive one.Something that's built more to a standard than to a price. This car could have (and should have) been so much more.
What is your theory then?
My theory?
Ford sets a ROI that they expect to make from the car, then they make it as "good" as they can and still fit that ROI. It's business, black and white...not "let's see what we can charge for a Mustang."
Looks like you are basically saying what I’m saying, maybe expressing it differently. Ford IS looking for return on investment, looking to make more money selling more mustangs at a lesser price/profit vs. Selling less mustangs at a higher price/profit.
They accomplish this by keeping the stang “affordable” to the hard working blue collar guy vs. Making it only attainable to the white collar guy.
Naw meen, dawg?
Naw dawg.
Higher prices do not mean higher profit.
But day kood, yo!
Kinda the same concept as a dealership choosing to sell volume over mark up, naw whataam sayin, yo?
They could. But selling at higher prices, outside of the value of the vehicle, leads to less sales...therefore less gross.
Dealerships cut their profit, like me, to sell more volume. Per vehicle gross goes way down, but total gross increases.
I believe that Ford is using a very similar approach to selling their mustang, as you and pop are when selling vehicles.