BlackHorse

Waves freeze as they hit the beach in Newfoundland. Because it's so warm outside right? lol Additionaly Anchorage is buried under more than 74 inches of winter snow, a new record for them. http://www.break.com/index/newfoundland_frozen_waves.html

.7 seconds at 60 mph is certainly not 4 to 6 car lengths. The difference between these two cars at the 1/4 mile is 1 second and to that end, yeah I can see 3 or 4 car lengths easily. All things being equal. But you have to keep it real guys. Out there on the streets, all things are rarely equal. Does torque move cars? Sure. And to that end the Mustang generates a lot of torque and really kicks the car along. But don't be fooled guys. When you get out on the streets these two cars are close enough in performance numbers that you aren't going to just see a Mustang destroy an RX8 all the time. There's so many factors you guys are discounting out of hand. There's traffic, road conditions, driver skill, ambient temperature, vehicle conditions. You can't just quote the numbers and say "that's it, game over." It looks good on paper but out there on the streets driving fast is a whole different thing. Now you can come back with the whole flurry of "You shouldn't be racing in traffic." and "I only race at the track." Great, good for you. But once again, you have to keep one foot in reality. Most people don't race at the track. Most people try to get their fast and the furious on right there in traffic and that's a whole different kind of driving fast. It's certainly not just line them up in a straight line, hammer the gas and see who gets to the Dairy Queen down the street first. Like I said, if you're so confident about your Mustang GT, and nothing against the GT its a fun car, but if you're so absolutley confident about it then man up and do what I said. Find one in a parking lot and be sure to hock up a nice nasty one on the guys hood, then jump in your stang and try to get away. I'm betting a pissed of guy in an RX8 isn't going to have too much trouble keeping up with you.

Hardly, for one thing, the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of drivers of these two cars will never take one to the track to find out what it will do in the 1/4 mile. Additionally, most drivers of these cars don't hammer the gas pedal to the floor out of every street light to make sure their Mustang is still getting to 60mph in 5.1 and respectively the RX8 is getting their in 5.8. The majority of the time you drive with the flow of traffic. For one thing, you'd be stopping at the gas station every other day if you drove the car to it's performance limits like that all the time. Additionally don't expect the car to last too long driving like that because you will surely break something if you hammer it everywhere you go. Even multi-million dollar hand built race cars don't stand up to that kind of abuse. Your RX8 and Mustang GT surely also will not take it. If by chance you happen to be driving your Mustang GT and low and behold some guy in an RX8 pulls up next to you at the light and the two of you decide to see what they'll do then it's all going to come down to the driver and conditions. Maybe your lane has some nasty road patchwork 100 feet or so up ahead and his doesn't. Suddenly the .7 seconds disappears. The reverse is also true and .7 seconds becomes 1.4 seconds or so right? What if the guy in the Mustang can't drive a stick worth a crap and the guy in the RX8 is a really good driver? What if the reverse was true? What if your Mustang GT has worn out tires and the RX8 is sporting brand new Z rated rubber? What if he's not in the mood to race you because he has his girlfriend in the car and it's not worth risking her life to whip some jerk in a Mustang? What if the reverse were true? What if you guys are neck and neck and you come up on some serious curves? Say bye bye Mustang, you're suddenly in 2nd place. What if you don't and it's pretty much straight for miles? Say bye bye RX8 because the Stang will pull away at top end power. You can't just take the posted numbers and decide that the cars will always run 5.1 and 5.8 respectively and by God the means the Mustang always wins no matter what. Doesn't work that way. Keep in mind that your average car on the road is hitting 60 mph somewhere between 7 and 10 seconds. A V6 Camry does it in 6.5, I'm not sure what the Altima does. The Impala SS is supposed to be 5.5. So no, .7 seconds is not an eternity out there in the real world. An RX8 that hits 60 in 5.8 and handles every bit as good or better than a Mustang GT is in actuality just as good as the Mustang day to day. But if you really want to find out, here's how you do it. Get in your Mustang GT then go find some RX8 in a parking lot. Wait on the guy to come out. When he gets to his car, spit a nice big one on his hood. Then jump in your Mustang GT and see if you can get away with no problem. If you can't, then I rest my case. lol

I don't know CurtisH, I think the big hoopla about the new Stang has ebbed somewhat. The Ford lot here is choking on Mustangs, where as a couple years ago they would hit the lot and be gone in a couple hours. Now they sit and languish. I think the new has worn off. That coupled with the fact that the average price of the GT has gone up an average of 4 to 5 thousand dollars over what the previous generation Mustang was I think has caused a lot of buyers to say "I don't think so." I think the V6 Mustang is a great buy at 21 to 23 K because it still has plenty of pep and in the pony package it handles pretty good. But at 30 grand for a GT (average price) I think a lot of buyers are shying away. Those that were hard core about getting one went ahead and got one in the first couple years. So yeah the new has worn off, and it's not the hot topic car it was a couple years ago. Still a good car and all, but yeah, I think the sales are starting to slow down on them. Who knows if they'll bounce back, we'll just have to wait and see.

Wow, overall car sales down 40%. That's not good. Looks like the Mustang has started to fizzle out. They have to come up with some good ideas, quick.

The Mazda 3 has recieved a lot of good press this year. Automobile ranked it as one of their top 10 most desireable cars for 2007. More recently Motortrend ranked it as top in it's class up agianst the Matrix, Calibur and HHR. The little Speed 3 has recieved a great deal of good press. It's a nice looking little car, handles well, has a plethora of good features. I can see why Mazda is moving a lot of them. Ford should take a look at it for their Focus line and see what Mazda is doing right.

I'd buy a V6 Mustang long before the GT. The GT just isn't worth what they are asking for them. I suspect I'd feel the same way about the Camaro. If I were seriously in the market for one I'm almost positive I'd go with the V6 Camaro for the same reason.

Yeah I just saw this one and another one just like it where the parts are coming together to build the new tailgate with the step ladder incorporated into it. I thought to myself, "Now that's a good commercial about a Ford prodcut!" A really good commercial in fact. I was pleasantly surprised. Why can't they come up with something as well thought out for their car lines that doesn't come off so cheesy. Well done Ford.

And yet the weak little RX8 motor still manages 5.8, 0 to 60 and 14.49 in the 1/4 mile as compared to the Mustang GT at 5.1 and 13.5. So we are talking .7 seconds respectively, about the time it takes you to blink. Look I like the Mustang too, but lets keep things on an even keel. The RX8 is every bit as good a car, probably handles better as well. Additionally we should factor in that most Mustang GT's on the road are automatic transmission, and that lowers those numbers to 5.5 and 14.1 respectively. I don't know if most of the RX8's that are sold are also automatic but I wouldn't doubt it.

It's all going to come down to price just like it did before. Most of the buyers of these cars are not nearly so educated about the internal workings of a modern muscle car as you give them credit for. "It looks good and goes fast." is about where the criteria end. After that it's going to come down to who sells their sports car cheaper. To that end, Ford knows they can get away with a live axle rear. It's performance capabilities aside, the fact remains they could have fit an IRS to the Mustang GT. If you can go purchase a Mazda RX8 for less than or right around 30 thousand with IRS there's no reason Ford couldn't do the same with the Mustang. They left it off for a number of reasons. First, they knew that most drivers would likely never press the car hard enough for an IRS to really make a difference. More importantly, however, a live axle rear end is cheaper to make and put on the car that you are still charging 30 grand for and oh boy that sure makes for a nice fat profit margin. Now I know for you fellas that work for Ford that's a good thing, but to the average consumer, it's not. But then most consumers don't know the difference and don't understand they are actually getting a little ripped off there. Additionally it makes the production line move a lot faster if you don't have to change the suspension type between base model V6 Mustangs and the GT. An IRS would have all different mounting points on the chassis and would require a different process to attach it to the car. That could slow things down a little, but I'm no expert on assembly line process so maybe not. So like I said, in the end it's going to come down to who can make their car cheaper. If GM opts for the IRS and as a result they can't reasonably lower their price below say 27 grand, you watch and see if the price of a Mustang GT doesn't drop back to 26 or 25 grand and still clear profit. What? What do they have to prove? It's just cars my friend. Some people will prefer the GM cars, others the Ford cars, still others will buy Hondas. There is nothing to prove here. We can speculate back and forth about who's better, quote magazines and news stories, the whole nine. But in the end, it's all going to come down to some people will buy Fords, others won't.

It was the Taurus buddy.

You already hit the nail on the head. They will keep "your" money in "their" account for 30 days, probably along with a lot of other peoples money waiting to go out. They will earn interest off of "your" money. The kicker is, it would cost you more than 9k and years of your time most likely to sue them for the 9K they are going to send you in 30 days. So essentially it's not viable to sue them for such a small amount and they know it. People wonder why the average American has such a piss poor opinion about big business in this country, hell they've earned it.

What was it the woman in the car said "They had a better idea." The problem that faces Ford now in a nutshell. I also just loved how they found the one guy that would be sure to bash Reagan about how much money he's not making. I guess he'd already forgotten how absolutely screwed up the country was under Jimmy Carter only 7 years earlier. By 1987 Reagan had already passed some pretty hefty tax cuts. Even in 1987 the big 3 networks were profoundly anti-conservative, we just didn't know it because there was no alternative.

It's true that in rural areas you tend to see more domestic brands, for the reasons pointed out. It's a pain in the butt to have to drive your import into the nearest city to be serviced or have warranty work done. Easier to purchase from the local chevy dealer who is close. Additionally I would guess they get better customer service in the small towns given that most everyone knows most everyone else. "I'm so and so's boy." "Oh yeah, we'll take care of that water pump son, don't you worry about it." But it doesn't mean that imported products don't make it out that way. Lots of those good old country boys love to play around off road and when they do they often use their 4 wheelers. In that domain, Honda is widely used and respected. Additionally it's not at all uncommon to find a Kubota tractor gracing some farmers field. Now personally I prefer Arctic Cat 4 wheelers but to be honest, I don't know where they are made. I'm guessing the US. They are little more expensive than the Honda 4 wheelers but in my estimation they are more durable. Anyway, I didn't mean to get off on a tangent there. Just thought I'd point that out.

The only problem I have with the local Ford and Chevy dealer with respect to test drives is just that the salesperson insists on riding in the car with me. This of course gives them opportunity to discuss my trade in while I'm driving their car. I HATE THAT!!!!!! I'm test driving your car to determine if I like your car. It is a little difficult to formulate an opinion about your car if you are pestering the devil out of me about what I'm trading in for it. Don't talk to me!!! In fact it would be best if you weren't in the car at all!!! I'm 35 years old, I'm pretty sure I can handle your sedan without any problems. The chevy dealer is even worse. Not only do they insist on riding with you, they tell you where to drive. The whole trip is something like, "Ok, right up here turn right. So, are you planning on trading in your car?" "Possibly." "Ok, turn here and follow that road. What year is that car?" "2004." "Great, now at the next light turn right. How many miles?" "Mister, if you want to have a prayer at selling me this car I suggest you quit telling me where to drive and quit asking me about my trade in." I actually had to do that once with my chevy dealer. They wonder why I won't buy cars from them.

I don't work for Ford motor company, nor in the auto industry at all for that matter. So as someone on the outside looking in and applying a modicum of common sense let me make some assumptions here. I'm assuming that GM or Toyota or any other manufacturer did "not" pay for this study. Logically so right, because if this Harbor group had shown up at Ford headquarters and said "Hi, we've been hired by general motors to conduct an in depth study about your cost ratios." they would have had the door slammed in their face. Assumption 1. Second, I'm assuming that this study was not paid for by labor because, why would they? Why would they want to give themselves a black eye right? Additionally I don't think management would have allowed this level of unfettered (or so it appears) access to the data that's presented. Unless, they knew ahead of time that the data would paint labor in an unfavorable light and that was their desired objective. Either way you look at it, everything comes back to Ford Management. The data can't be accessed without their say so, it can't be released without their say so and to that end, it can be released in increments or in parts rather than as a whole if they so choose to right? So is it possible that the data was gathered by this Harbor group and released in such a fashion as to portray the labor costs per vehicle as much higher than other auto makers? Was it designed to give labor some bad PR? Could it be that labor gets some pay and health perks that are better than the average American worker? Could it also be that management does too? Could it be that everyone involved here has gotten pretty greedy over the years, the American consumer has picked up the tab and now the finger pointing has begun?

Who paid Harbor or whoever this company is to conduct this study? Foundations like this still have to pay people and the money doesn't appear out of thin air. Who funded the study? Typically if you follow the money trail it answers a lot of questions.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. This one statement drives the nail right to the core of the problem with American automakers in general. They got by for too many years making cheap products and charging just as much as everyone else out there. But the American consumer is getting pretty sophisticated and will no longer accept the blue light special interiors of the 1970's, 80's and 90's.

Get that doggon horse Pioneer!!!!! Whip it!!!!! lol

Taste is subjective so what one person finds to have no creative style another person might see as really attractive. Making statements in absolute about the creative style of any given subject matter is usually not a good idea because it assumes that everyone shares the same taste as you. That's almost never going to happen. Some people might say that you're in a glass house throwing stones about the creative style of this car given that Ford is the company that made the 500 and it is hardly a success in the style department by most accounts. From my own point of view I have to agree that this new Hyundai doesn't look like it's going to stop me in my tracks, and that is an unusual name. However, to be fair about it guys, there's an awful lot of covering on the car in these photos that prevents us from seeing much of the car and it's details. So we might want to withhold our judgment until we see one with much less cladding on it.

You guys talk about this stuff like you read it in a spy novel. Ask yourselves something, do you guys have a job? Do you also have a mortgage? Do you also buy groceries and make car payments and pay your utility bill? Do you also cut the yard and make sure the garbage gets to the street and clean out the swimming pool (those that have one)? If you answered yes to these questions then you already understand why during the course of being President that Bush has time to ponder both the war in Iraq and CAFE standards. It's not like he needs to spend every waking moment pouring over what's going on in Iraq, that's why we have military commanders, who by the way also pay their mortgage payments. lol Seriously, if the government was so one dimensional that everytime a military conflict rolled around they could focus on nothing else we would have been wiped out as a nation long ago. With respect to the new CAFE standards, I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing to be honest. From a common sense point of view it seems like a good idea to reduce the amount of gasoline we use and expand our usage of clean diesel and biofuels. Everyone will have an opinon about the matter, we will not all agree. But the status quo is certain not to work out to well so we need to do something.

I have to agree that a coupe model of the Fusion would be a great idea. I don't think it would hurt Mustang sales. A lot of potential customers would like a two door coupe without the "I'm a boy racer." stigma that is attached to the Mustang and cars of it's ilk. A two door Fusion would be a sedan and would appeal to a different kind of taste in car buyers. There are plenty of potential buyers out there who would prefer the more conservative styling of the Fusion but the two door option still lets them convey that sort of single person image while four door cars tend to convey more of a family oriented taste. Hey BMW offers a two door 3 series right? I think Ford should do it. Also I didn't know that Toyota was getting rid of the Solara. Maybe I can get a good deal on one now. hmmm.

The report I saw on the crawler was 6.5 million, not 5 million.

I'm glad that DCK brought up the double standard issue so that everyone will yell at him instead of me. Just remember while you're yelling that he's right. So clean your claws upon him if you must, I'm sure he expects it. But when you get done buy him a beer for interjecting a little reality back into this one. With respect to the Camaro it seems to me there's a number of issues that should be addressed. First of all with respect to the style. Taste is subjective, some people will like it, others won't, such is the nature of human beings. Some people like the new Mustang, others think it's ugly. Such is life. Personally I think both look good from the exterior. How will the interior be; that's a question I would have. From the photos I've seen it's pretty minimalistic. But then so is the Mustang by and large. That alone would preclude me from spending the big dollars on a car like this. I'm sure everyone will throw all kinds of insults at me about that. Everything from "These cars aren't supposed to have lavish interiors you big dummy!!" to "Go buy a luxury sedan you candy ass!!!" . Heard it all before guys so don't worry about it. For my money, if I'm going to spend this kind of money on a car, I expect some respectable refinement in the interior. From what I see, neither the Mustang nor the upcoming Camaro offer that. I couldn't care less that your Mustang GT or Z28 can get to 60 mph 1 second quicker than my well appointed sedan. I don't like driving like a jerk anyway so I'm not hammering the gas pedal out of every light. But that's me. I understand that some guys out there will be absolutely happy to pay 30 plus thousand for acres of bare plastic interior and big motor that goes vroom! vroom! because he thinks all the other guys in traffic are looking at him and thinking "Now that guy is cool." and all the girls are thinking "I wish I could ride with that big stud." I promise you most of the men out there are thinking "What a dick." and most of the women are thinking "What a little dick." lol In these cars, the V6 offering is the only one that's even remotely worth the money. I could see a V6 Mustang for 20 to 22 K because you go in understanding that it's going to have a cheap interior. The V6 is still a delivers pretty decent performance and the rugged good looks of the exterior. Now the fake hood scoops on the new 2007 Mustang are just cheesy in my opinion. Anyway, if GM can deliver a V6 Camaro that is price competitive with the Mustang, that will make it a reasonable purchase, but they have to keep it in the 19 to 22K price range. In my estimation, price is what is killing these cars already. The original idea of both the Mustang and the Camaro was to bring an affordable sports car to the masses. Those original cars were V8 powered, although I know many were inline 6 cars. At any rate, the Mustang now averages about 30 thousand dollars. This is not an affordable sports car, this is an expensive car and given it's lack luster interior, I just couldn't justify to myself buying one. In the V6 package I can see it. If I was going to buy a Mustang it would be a V6. But to most people that's not what these cars were originally all about. They were about the V8's and now you have to spend 30 grand for your V8 Mustang. I suspect the Camaro will easily be that expensive, possibly more. I don't think people are going to come up with that much money for a car with a lack luster interior just so they can say they have a Z28. I stopped by my Ford dealer the other night after work to see if they had any of the new Edge in yet. Lots of Mustangs just sitting on the lot guys. Lots of them.

Actually I've heard that the average markup in the industry is something like 100%, but you are right, the actual markup is a closely guarded secret, which leads me to believe it may be even more. When you are unwilling to tell the buying public what your percentage markup is to the point that it's a closely guarded secret it leads me to believe the reason is because if they knew there would be some pretty upset consumers. Something to the tune of "That's price gouging!!!" No one is advocating that a business shouldn't make a profit. It seems as if everytime someone questions the profit margins of a given business the next thing you know someone will be calling you a communist. I'm not saying you did that Deanh, but I can see where this line of thought was headed. Someone would have. It's not that we are anti-capitalism, quite the contrary, I think the free market economy is the best there is. But it doesn't mean it's perfect and like any system there will always be people who figure out how to take advantage of it to their own benefit. It's about what's right and I believe most people realize in their heart of hearts what the right thing to do is regardless of the situation. So you can see how it's tempting for the auto industry to mark up a car 100% when they sell it to a dealer. I'm sure they make all kinds of justifications to themselves about why they do it. Things like "Hey, we have to recoup our R&D cost's right away in case this particular car is a flop." Of course on down the line when they have recouped their costs the price doesn't come down any. It could even be as simple as "It's our car and we'll charge what we want to for it." It's not just the auto industry though. American consumers would be really surprised to find out how many items they buy are marked up 100%, 200% or more. It's not that it's illegal, it's just that it leaves you wondering "Gee guys, how much is enough?" People wonder why it's getting so expensive to live in this country. Greed is the reason.