Mustang Competition

[BlackHorse]

Sorry BH, you can't sway my opinion. Another "Blackhorse is right", eveyone else is wrong post. You mention according to the "industry", and you link to NADA which can accept many different configurations, in fact your link doesn't work the way you would have liked it to. When I select V8, 2 doors, RWD, I get a ton of cars that don't match that configuration. Hmm..wrong again Mr. NADA, the list of cars doesn't match the criteria of the category. I never said that NO OTHER CAR can compete with a Mustang. I said, the Mustang has no competition in it's CLASS. You should learn to understand what you read instead of feeding your ego by posting all of your nonsense.

 

Oh it's not about ego 02Mustang. It's just that you are a dumb ass. lol Go to NADA and tell the website to search all new cars by 2 door coupe. Isn't that what you said? Let me see.

 

2-door coupe, 4 seats, available V8.

 

Yes it says 2 door coupe buddy. So you pick 2 door coupe and after that the only question is "price range". As I said a number of posts ago. The primary criteria that people shop by is type of car and price range. But you obviously weren't listening then either. Now you didn't give a price range so it brings up all 59 cars in the category.

 

But ok, lets search by the price rang 25 to 35 thousand as that's the price range roughly of a Mustang GT. Ok, here goes.

 

Oh gee man, there's 18 cars in that price range. Go figure.

 

Yeah I know you can break things down and configure them differently at NADA. Then you can get all anal if you want to and tell it all the bullshit like number of cylinders and passengers and all that garbage. It doesn't change the fact that there are 59 cars in the same category as Mustang overall.

 

It also doesn't change the fact that not everyone shops that way. Who the hell do you think you are to try and tell everyone else how they are supposed to shop for a car? As if they have broken some cardinal rule of they set out to buy a 2 door coupe and end up in a midsize sedan.

You preach to me about my ego? lol

[BlackHorse]

This is so fun watching BH get all worked over this. I have never had so much fun posting messages to a thread then watching someone with all their energy try to convince others his point of view is correct and everyone else is wrong.

 

BH, get a life. Not sure what your particular hatred is with Ford, but you have not made any valid points other than to try to bash what others are saying. You sound like a democrat. Always saying the republican way is wrong yet never comes up with a way of their own. What a shame.

 

There maybe be a million hits to the Nissan website but since you are the expert, how many clicked on the little 350Z picture? Hmm?

 

As far as the backseat is concerned, its not so much that is has one in that it offers space for utility of the car. Understand this? If you compare the 350Z and Mustang by all stats, e.g (E.G. means "for example" in case BH didn't know) dimensions, power, features, performance, etc., the only thing that 350Z has in commone with the Mustang would be performance numbers.

 

I guess you and I have a different viewpoint of competition but to me, in order for something to be competition or in marketing terms, a substitue product, it better be virtually indentical in all aspects. The 350Z and Mustang have only performance numbers in common, nothing else. Therefore, the Mustang offers the consumer something that the 350Z cannot. It offers more car. More for less = value.

 

This takes no energy from me man. Telling a couple of dumb asses they are dumb asses is pretty effortless really.

 

Gee I don't know how many people clicked on the 350Z part of the Nissan website buddy, I'm not the site moderator there. But I bet there's a lot of them.

 

You got a back seat that's big enough for a 2 foot tall person with no knees for utility? Clearly you need to figure out what utility really means.

If you compare the 350Z and Mustang by all stats, e.g (E.G. means "for example" in case BH didn't know) dimensions, power, features, performance, etc., the only thing that 350Z has in commone with the Mustang would be performance numbers.

 

I had to repost that part of your post because it is especially dumb. So you guys who are all about what a great performance car the Mustang is especially for the money are now going to tell me it can't be compared to a 350Z because the only thing the two have in common is great performance? LMAO. Jesus you really are a dipshit buddy.

 

We don't have different viewpoints about competition by the way. I just understand there are more then one kind of competition. You guys want to claim the Mustang has no "sales" competition because of the very narrow set of parameters you assign to its physical configuration. I'm trying to make you understand that it's physical configuration is not the end all and be all when it comes to selling cars. You can't get that through you thick heads because this is how you have been all your life and you are conditioned to think that way. But in the end, as a matter of fact, yes you are wrong and yes I am right.

[02MustangGT]

Who the hell are you trying to tell everyone else how they are supposed to shop for a car BH? It's your opinion that the Mustang has direct competion, it's mine that it does not, end of story. NADA's site will allow you to break it down into the category that I mentioned. And that's exactly what you said the NADA site doesn't do in your previous post.

 

"Because NADA doesn't get all stupid and have some bullshit criteria like 2 doors and 4 seats and a V8..."

 

Hmm..My display tells me that you are wrong. I know it's tough to swallow, considering that you are never wrong, right?

[timmm55]

Now, for the eleventy billionth time, get this through your head. (Note if everybody else isn't getting it, maybe it's YOU) Ford doesn't care that you bought a Mustang because it has a back seat. All they care about is that you bought their car. They make a product and if that product happens to appeal to you more then anything else at the time, you buy it. That's all they care about, selling cars. That is the only competition that matters. All of this other bullshit about categories and run times and back seats is the semantical bullshit that rank and file work a day joes (edit: don't????) worry about.

 

Have you heard of product development? This might surprise you, but they actually design cars that appeal to certain people/demographics! Ford learned that a back seat in the 58 Thunderbird appealed to more people....shocking isn't it? An appealing product doesn't just "happen" as a lot of research goes into it. The result is sometimes a flop, the 58-60 Edsel, sometimes a home run, the original Mustang.

 

Rank and File work-a-day Joes do care about the perfromance stats of their PERFORMANCE cars. Trucks are about payload. Minivans are about seating capacity.

 

I have a friend who is looking for either a used Ranger or a Mark VIII. Or maybe a Magnum wagon. Are these vehicles competitors? NO. Are they competing for his money? If and only if he buys something. How do you design a vehicle for the 10% of impulse/vague stray buyers? You don't. They are the least likely to buy your car. You design the best possible car for the other 90% who know what they want. That's why they have design clinics every step of the way. Who do they invite to these clinics? Current owners of that vehicle and people who own similar COMPETITIVE vehicles, that is the target audience.

 

But what does every buyer care about? The top two are usually styling and performance for that vehicle segment. Then comfort, reliability, etc. Nobody expects a minivan to look and perform like a Ferarri. Any vehicle is expected to be comfortable and reliable.

[BlackHorse]

Who the hell are you trying to tell everyone else how they are supposed to shop for a car BH? It's your opinion that the Mustang has direct competion, it's mine that it does not, end of story. NADA's site will allow you to break it down into the category that I mentioned. And that's exactly what you said the NADA site doesn't do in your previous post.

 

"Because NADA doesn't get all stupid and have some bullshit criteria like 2 doors and 4 seats and a V8..."

 

Hmm..My display tells me that you are wrong. I know it's tough to swallow, considering that you are never wrong, right?

 

 

I'm not tryiing to tell you how to shop for a car dumb ass. If you want to shop by your narrow silly parameters go ahead. In fact I've already said that on a previous post here. Once again you're not paying attention.

[02MustangGT]

No BH, I am paying attention. You are the contradicting poster here. You post one thing and then post another that totally blows your arguement up. Not everyone that disagrees with your unbelievable results is a dumb ass. You are one of those people that is never wrong, so I guess it's useless to talk some sense into you. As I said, your opionion on this subject differs from mine, end of discussion.

[BlackHorse]

Have you heard of product development? This might surprise you, but they actually design cars that appeal to certain people/demographics! Ford learned that a back seat in the 58 Thunderbird appealed to more people....shocking isn't it? An appealing product doesn't just "happen" as a lot of research goes into it. The result is sometimes a flop, the 58-60 Edsel, sometimes a home run, the original Mustang.

 

Rank and File work-a-day Joes do care about the perfromance stats of their PERFORMANCE cars. Trucks are about payload. Minivans are about seating capacity.

 

I have a friend who is looking for either a used Ranger or a Mark VIII. Or maybe a Magnum wagon. Are these vehicles competitors? NO. Are they competing for his money? If and only if he buys something. How do you design a vehicle for the 10% of impulse/vague stray buyers? You don't. They are the least likely to buy your car. You design the best possible car for the other 90% who know what they want. That's why they have design clinics every step of the way. Who do they invite to these clinics? Current owners of that vehicle and people who own similar COMPETITIVE vehicles, that is the target audience.

 

But what does every buyer care about? The top two are usually styling and performance for that vehicle segment. Then comfort, reliability, etc. Nobody expects a minivan to look and perform like a Ferarri. Any vehicle is expected to be comfortable and reliable.

 

Hey timm, for once you got something right. Congratulations. Yes, car companies build cars in certain categories, often with demographic input. Absolutely true. However none of it is any guarantee of how the vehicle will sell and it still does not change the fact that when it comes to competing for sales dollars all bets are off, anything goes.

[BlackHorse]

No BH, I am paying attention. You are the contradicting poster here. You post one thing and then post another that totally blows your arguement up. Not everyone that disagrees with your unbelievable results is a dumb ass. You are one of those people that is never wrong, so I guess it's useless to talk some sense into you. As I said, your opionion on this subject differs from mine, end of discussion.

 

Do please provide evidence where I contradicted myself. Also I never claimed to be never wrong. I've been wrong about many things in life. You live and learn. But about this, I am not wrong.

Who the hell are you trying to tell everyone else how they are supposed to shop for a car BH?

You

 

 

 

 

Bully for you old boy, you bought the Mustang because it has a back seat. You must know a lot of midgets because any normal size person doesn't look forward to spending time in the back seat of that car. But regardless, this was your criteria, the reason you bought the car over a 350Z for instance.

Me.

 

That sure doesn't look like me telling you how to buy a car. No it looks like just the opposite. I said buy the car by the criteria you so desire in essence. I've also said don't project your shopping criteria on everyone else and try to tell them they are wrong if they don't jive with your line of thought.

Edited September 3, 2007 by BlackHorse

[02MustangGT]

Evidence:

“Because NADA doesn't get all stupid and have some bullshit criteria like 2 doors and 4 seats and a V8”

 

“Yeah I know you can break things down and configure them differently at NADA.”

 

Edited September 3, 2007 by 02MustangGT

[timmm55]

What is it with you and the sky thing man? It was just a joke, just a jab, get over it. I don't need a run down on all the colors one might see in the sky. Why are you so hung up on it?

 

Anyway, with respect to this 0 to 60 time thing. We both know it's just a gauge. Goodie. It has nothing to do with this discussion and therefore this thread need not be carried off in that direction. This whole thread was started in order to prevent another thread from being carried off in the wrong direction. If you happen to mention the 0 to 60 thing once or twice in order to help make a point that's one thing. But now what we are getting into is changing the entire topic of the thread. I'm not interested. If you want to start a whole thread about 0 to 60 times I'd be happy to discuss it but lets make it it's own thread shall we, perhaps under automotive open topic would be best.

 

 

The "sky thing" is a perfect example of your misunderstanding. And you started it to show your superiority. LMAF indeed. I post a lot of photochops here and do other automotive art. If you don't know what you are talking about, keep quiet.

Please note the sky in my watercolor is PINK ;-) in my friend Becci's Mustang GT.

 

0-60 is a part of performance and the Mustang is a PERFORMANCE car. Get it? If it took 10 seconds to get to 60 do you think anyone would consider the Mustang GT a modern musclecar?

 

If you want to talk crap, I'm happy to spoon feed it back. If you're not interested in what you post....why bother?

Edited September 3, 2007 by timmm55

[BlackHorse]

Evidence:

“Because NADA doesn't get all stupid and have some bullshit criteria like 2 doors and 4 seats and a V8”

 

“Yeah I know you can break things down and configure them differently at NADA.”

 

 

NADA doesn't break them down dumb ass, you have to do that. If NADA did you wouldn't have 59 cars in the same category as Mustang.

[02MustangGT]

You said it..

[BlackHorse]

You sound like a democrat. Always saying the republican way is wrong yet never comes up with a way of their own. What a shame.

 

I almost forgot about this little gem. First let me say that old Al Gore is going to be pissed when he finds out I voted for W, . . . twice.

Second I don't recall saying anything about republicans, democrates or any other political affiliation in this thread. Third, what the hell do any of them have to do with people buying cars?

[timmm55]

Hey timm, for once you got something right. Congratulations. Yes, car companies build cars in certain categories, often with demographic input. Absolutely true. However none of it is any guarantee of how the vehicle will sell and it still does not change the fact that when it comes to competing for sales dollars all bets are off, anything goes.

 

 

That makes my average 1000% better than yours You're the most uninformed and inarticulate self styled "expert" I've seen.

Edited September 3, 2007 by timmm55

[el norte]

I almost forgot about this little gem. First let me say that old Al Gore is going to be pissed when he finds out I voted for W, . . . twice.

Second I don't recall saying anything about republicans, democrates or any other political affiliation in this thread. Third, what the hell do any of them have to do with people buying cars?

i'm sure he's going to be pissed at you!

[2005GTP]

I don't recall in any of my posts using profanity so if you are genuinely trying to have an argument, refrain from using terms like "dumb asses". That way, you don't come across like an idiot and maybe can get some respect.

 

That being said, what's interesting is how BH cut down people for posting links or quoting other websites regarding comparo's but he is living and dying by his NADA site link. WTF?

 

BH again is missing the fundamentals behind breaking down & comparing 2 opposing products. In simple terms, compare all the specs of the products which include performance, size, price, roominess, etc. etc. and which ever has more of the pros for you, buy it. Simple, right? So try this, go to Edmunds, pull up a 2007 Mustang and 350Z (2008 Z's aren't listed yet) and compare base to base. Base 350Z is at a minimum 2k more. Performance specs are basically even. Overall space inside the cars goes to the Mustang in every category.

 

So, unless you do not like the looks of the Mustang, it trumps the 350Z is most categories including the most important, price. Sorry, but the 350Z does not stack up high enough to compete with the Mustang.

[suv_guy_19]

I don't recall in any of my posts using profanity so if you are genuinely trying to have an argument, refrain from using terms like "dumb asses". That way, you don't come across like an idiot and maybe can get some respect.

 

That being said, what's interesting is how BH cut down people for posting links or quoting other websites regarding comparo's but he is living and dying by his NADA site link. WTF?

 

BH again is missing the fundamentals behind breaking down & comparing 2 opposing products. In simple terms, compare all the specs of the products which include performance, size, price, roominess, etc. etc. and which ever has more of the pros for you, buy it. Simple, right? So try this, go to Edmunds, pull up a 2007 Mustang and 350Z (2008 Z's aren't listed yet) and compare base to base. Base 350Z is at a minimum 2k more. Performance specs are basically even. Overall space inside the cars goes to the Mustang in every category.

 

So, unless you do not like the looks of the Mustang, it trumps the 350Z is most categories including the most important, price. Sorry, but the 350Z does not stack up high enough to compete with the Mustang.

 

 

None of that means that they aren't competitors. When it really comes down to it, 2k is not much of a difference anyway. Why not compare it to the RX8 or any other Coup. When the Mustang came out, I remember the auto rags saying it was Faster than the RX8 or 350Z, but had poorer handling, and was made of slightly lesser stuff. No, the Mustang is not better in every way.

Edited September 3, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[el norte]

None of that means that they aren't competitors. When it really comes down to it, 2k is not much of a difference anyway. Why not compare it to the RX8 or any other Coup. When the Mustang came out, I remember the auto rags saying it was Faster than the RX8 or 350Z, but had poorer handling, and was made of slightly lesser stuff. No, the Mustang is not better in every way.

i think he said it beat them in room, in every way!

[suv_guy_19]

i think he said it beat them in room, in every way!

 

 

Yes, but, he also believes its better in every way. I love the Mustang, and based on my posting history, no one can accuse me of being anti Ford. All I am trying to say is that there are other cars that compete with the Mustang, and I don't see much wrong with admitting that.

[el norte]

Yes, but, he also believes its better in every way. I love the Mustang, and based on my posting history, no one can accuse me of being anti Ford. All I am trying to say is that there are other cars that compete with the Mustang, and I don't see much wrong with admitting that.

me neither, but if you are looking for a v-8 without breaking the piggy bank, the mustang is a good buy! i just put some oem tokico hp's on, and the handling has improved dramatically.

[suv_guy_19]

me neither, but if you are looking for a v-8 without breaking the piggy bank, the mustang is a good buy! i just put some oem tokico hp's on, and the handling has improved dramatically.

 

 

Of course its a wonderful car with great value in a segment thats getting more competitive.

[el norte]

Of course its a wonderful car with great value in a segment thats getting more competitive.

my wife and i test drove an rx-8, and it is a nice car, i really liked it, but it didnt have that beautiful exhaust note, and it didnt have a sweet ass 1000 watt sound system! lol

[Deanh]

my wife and i test drove an rx-8, and it is a nice car, i really liked it, but it didnt have that beautiful exhaust note, and it didnt have a sweet ass 1000 watt sound system! lol

hows this for Blasphemy...I think the Rx8 would be a superior car with a small V6 turbo underhood.....

[BlackHorse]

I don't recall in any of my posts using profanity so if you are genuinely trying to have an argument, refrain from using terms like "dumb asses". That way, you don't come across like an idiot and maybe can get some respect.

 

That being said, what's interesting is how BH cut down people for posting links or quoting other websites regarding comparo's but he is living and dying by his NADA site link. WTF?

 

BH again is missing the fundamentals behind breaking down & comparing 2 opposing products. In simple terms, compare all the specs of the products which include performance, size, price, roominess, etc. etc. and which ever has more of the pros for you, buy it. Simple, right? So try this, go to Edmunds, pull up a 2007 Mustang and 350Z (2008 Z's aren't listed yet) and compare base to base. Base 350Z is at a minimum 2k more. Performance specs are basically even. Overall space inside the cars goes to the Mustang in every category.

 

So, unless you do not like the looks of the Mustang, it trumps the 350Z is most categories including the most important, price. Sorry, but the 350Z does not stack up high enough to compete with the Mustang.

 

I'm not living and dying by NADA 2005GTP. If you'll go back and read you'll note the part where I used it to "humor you".

 

 

Look, how many times do I have to tell you this before you get it. If you, you as in you personally 2005GTP, you want to shop for a new car with the parameters of "It has to be a 2 door coupe, 4 seats and V8" then by all means you go shop a car that way. All I'm telling you is that not everyone shops for cars that way. Many people don't shop for cars that way. Many people have a much more broad set of parameters and in the course of shopping for a car might still consider buying a Mustang. Therefore any car that they consider in addition to the Mustang is also competition for the Mustang. That is the reality of shopping for cars. That is the reality of the market place. You are so hung up on trying to equate the physical configuration of the car with it's sales potential. The two are entirely different. Some people shop for cars just like you do. Some people do not. How come you think your way to shop for a car is right and theres is wrong? That's pretty arrogant to me. So you know if I drop a few colorful metaphors on you here and there its because I don't like arrogant pricks who try and tell the rest of us how we ought to be shopping for cars. I'm neither asking for nor do I need your forgiveness nor anyone elses for doing that. If you don't like it, too bad. Grow up, quit crying about it and quit tryinig to tell the other half of the population how they are supposed to shop for cars and what counts as competition for their money and what doesn't.

[BlackHorse]

hows this for Blasphemy...I think the Rx8 would be a superior car with a small V6 turbo underhood.....

 

Well I wouldn't call that blasphemy deanh, they are still both Ford in the end right? As it happens I agree with you. The RX8 as it is configured right now is actually a better choice for real world day to day spirited driving then the Mustang. The Mustang has that low end seat planting torque that pins you off the line and of course the throaty exhaust note if you're into that.