Ford Sales Up 43%

[FordPaul]

Good job Ford, keep plucking away at the market share increase. Hmmmm, Toyota needs massive incentives to move their iron, didn't the pundits chastise the big 3 for that not too long ago? Gotta love the double standard.

[ausrutherford]

My sentiments and hope exactly. MKZ, Milan, and Fusion sold at a rate of 350,000 units/year in March; and that does not include the fact that March is not one of the stronger selling months of the year, and does not include Mexican and Canadian sales.

 

And Brazil (729 units last month), Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Saudie Arabia...etc.

Edited April 3, 2010 by ausrutherford

[silvrsvt]

If experiencing its worst sales in the 46 years it has been in production isn't "rotting" then I don't know what is. If the new engines don't bump the sales up, the Mustang is in trouble.

 

Um Mustang Sales are up 62% this year without the new engines...but they've also had incentives on them to clear them out for 2011 models.

 

And the sales where in the middle of the worse economic crisis since the 1930's too

[Pioneer]

Maybe if they had not voted NO to new work commitment in last year's,(October) contract modification their future might look better.

 

They are going to one shift so they can transfer workers to plants that need more people because of vehicle launches, not because we turned down the third concessionary contract in three years.

 

Besides, Ford didn't need it anyway. Haven't you heard? Alan, IIRC, is the highest paid automotive CEO in the world and all white collar workers are getting tuition assistance and bonuses back.

[Pioneer]

I doubt Flat Rock is going to get much of anything from Ford. Even Mustang's future there seems to be anything but certain.

 

On the contrary. I can think of 3 plants in the Ford NA system, not including STAP and TCAP, that would close before AAI for the simple fact they have no stamping plant on site and their body shops are grossly outdated. AAI is one of the most flexible, modern plants in NA, right after DTP.

 

The only way Ford wouldn't stay at AAI is if Mazda buys them out.

[Noah Harbinger]

Well, uh, OK, it was an increase from 1 to 11, but don't you love how statistics can lie..

 

 

You know the old saying "Guns don't kill, people kill"? It's kind of like that. Statistics never lie. People use statistics - factually true ones, such as that 1000% increase - to hide inconvenient facts, to lie to themselves and others.

[smok]

If experiencing its worst sales in the 46 years it has been in production isn't "rotting" then I don't know what is. If the new engines don't bump the sales up, the Mustang is in trouble.

 

The Camaro is kicking ass. Sold about 9,000 last month. I think it looks better than the Mustang, sportier....Mustang looks OLD, it needs a refresh. The last one wasn't extensive enough.

[MY93SHO]

The Camaro is kicking ass. Sold about 9,000 last month. I think it looks better than the Mustang, sportier....Mustang looks OLD, it needs a refresh. The last one wasn't extensive enough.

 

Bloated and cartoonish is sportier?

[LastMercury]

Mustang and Challenger look miles better than the Camaro to me. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[2b2]

...I think it looks better than the Mustang, sportier....Mustang looks OLD, it needs a refresh. The last one wasn't extensive enough.

 

imho the Mustang looks darn fine - - Fomoco just needs a COUGAR for a new look :D

 

re: the other "C..." models

Camaro looks great outside but inside I feel like the giant A-pillars are gonna fall on me & crush me :eek:

Challenger just looks ordinary to me inside-&-out - best part is the front bumper

[jpd80]

The Camaro is kicking ass. Sold about 9,000 last month. I think it looks better than the Mustang, sportier....Mustang looks OLD, it needs a refresh. The last one wasn't extensive enough.

Good for GM but the 2010 Mustang still sold 5,829 most of them being V6 cars

as buyers eagerly await the 2011 Mustang with kick ass 3.7 V6 and 5.0 V8 engines.

 

So far this year, GM has sold 20,757 Camaros but Ford as still sold 15,691 Mustangs

and while that may be reason for GM to pop the champagne corks, Ford can smile

knowing the Mustang sales have improved 62% compared to 2009 Q1.

 

GM will make its money back on Camaro, I only wished they had the guts to follow

through and build the Zeta sedan at Oshawa, Chevy Impala on RWD for a couple

of years until the new large Epsilon II FWD/AWD sedan is ready.

Edited April 3, 2010 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

Um Mustang Sales are up 62% this year without the new engines...but they've also had incentives on them to clear them out for 2011 models.

 

And the sales where in the middle of the worse economic crisis since the 1930's too

 

Yeah, up 62% from one of its worst months ever. You can make excuses for it if you want, but if Mustang sales don't improve, it's in trouble. Whether or not the economy is to blame is another matter.

[NickF1011]

On the contrary. I can think of 3 plants in the Ford NA system, not including STAP and TCAP, that would close before AAI for the simple fact they have no stamping plant on site and their body shops are grossly outdated. AAI is one of the most flexible, modern plants in NA, right after DTP.

 

The only way Ford wouldn't stay at AAI is if Mazda buys them out.

 

Bolded the part that I think is far more likely than Ford adding anything there. I never suggested that it would actually close.

Edited April 5, 2010 by NickF1011

[grbeck]

Yeah, up 62% from one of its worst months ever. You can make excuses for it if you want, but if Mustang sales don't improve, it's in trouble. Whether or not the economy is to blame is another matter.

 

I'm sure that more than a few people have been waiting for the new engines to debut.

 

Another problem is that the Mustang - especially in its V-8 versions - is hardly a cheap car anymore. The original Mustang was a very affordable car for its time, even with a V-8 engine.

 

The current GT models are inexpensive for V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive sporty car. But in the great scheme of things, it is no longer an inexpensive car. In some ways, it occupies the position held by the Thunderbird in the early and mid-1960s. It's definitely an upscale car.

 

The V-6 versions aren't that inexpensive, either.

[NickF1011]

I'm sure that more than a few people have been waiting for the new engines to debut.

 

Another problem is that the Mustang - especially in its V-8 versions - is hardly a cheap car anymore. The original Mustang was a very affordable car for its time, even with a V-8 engine.

 

The current GT models are inexpensive for V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive sporty car. But in the great scheme of things, it is no longer an inexpensive car. In some ways, it occupies the position held by the Thunderbird in the early and mid-1960s. It's definitely an upscale car.

 

The V-6 versions aren't that inexpensive, either.

 

Oh, I'm thinking the new engines will help considerably with sales also, but that's in the future.

 

As for the pricing, well, yeah, it's a bit pricier on the high end than it used to be, but it's also a lot more car than it used to be. I still think V6 pricing is pretty comparable to other vehicles on the market though. 6 cylinder Mustangs at their debut cost about the same as other comparably equipped midsize vehicles at the time like the Falcon. That still pretty much holds true today: V6 Mustang pricing isn't a whole lot different from V6 Fusion pricing.

Edited April 5, 2010 by NickF1011

[papilgee4evaeva]

I'm sure that more than a few people have been waiting for the new engines to debut.

 

Another problem is that the Mustang - especially in its V-8 versions - is hardly a cheap car anymore. The original Mustang was a very affordable car for its time, even with a V-8 engine.

 

The current GT models are inexpensive for V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive sporty car. But in the great scheme of things, it is no longer an inexpensive car. In some ways, it occupies the position held by the Thunderbird in the early and mid-1960s. It's definitely an upscale car.

 

The V-6 versions aren't that inexpensive, either.

 

Price of technology and inflation, I guess... those two factors make almost everything more expensive.

[silvrsvt]

I'm sure that more than a few people have been waiting for the new engines to debut.

 

Another problem is that the Mustang - especially in its V-8 versions - is hardly a cheap car anymore. The original Mustang was a very affordable car for its time, even with a V-8 engine.

 

The current GT models are inexpensive for V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive sporty car. But in the great scheme of things, it is no longer an inexpensive car. In some ways, it occupies the position held by the Thunderbird in the early and mid-1960s. It's definitely an upscale car.

 

The V-6 versions aren't that inexpensive, either.

 

 

 

Um this was taken from the FTC website on buying a new Car:

 

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400.

Going back to 1993:

Avg Cost of a new Car $16,871

1993 GT base price was $15850

So the starting price of a 2011 Mustang GT is only about 1500 more then avg with all the stuff it has in it vs the 1993 only being 1K cheaper.....

Avg Income for 1993

$64,537 (Bachelors)

 

Avg Income in 2003 (latest I could find)

$68,728 (Bachelors)

 

 

Just for giggles:

 

Income 50 percentile for 1967

 

$33,338

Standard price for a Fastback (not sure if its a V6 or V8) $2,692

 

 

Edited April 5, 2010 by silvrsvt

[NickF1011]

Just for giggles:

 

Income 50 percentile for 1967

 

$33,338

 

That sounds way high for 1967.

 

EDIT: Yeah, sounds like your number was adjusted for whatever year's dollars the report was from.

 

I'm seeing 1967's median household income as $7143 according to census.gov Mean was only slightly higher at $7989.

Edited April 5, 2010 by NickF1011

[suv_guy_19]

 

$68,728 (Bachelors)

 

 

As far as I know, the average weekly US earnings are just over $600.

 

That's probably a better measure.

Edited April 5, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[silvrsvt]

Yeah, up 62% from one of its worst months ever. You can make excuses for it if you want, but if Mustang sales don't improve, it's in trouble. Whether or not the economy is to blame is another matter.

 

The other worse year for the Mustang was 1992..it only sold 92K units a year before spiking back up to over 100K units a year. 1992 was a rotten year for the economy also.

 

I don't think we have to get too worried just yet about the Mustang selling or not selling...if its selling less then 100K units a year for a couple years...then lets worry then

[NickF1011]

The other worse year for the Mustang was 1992..it only sold 92K units a year before spiking back up to over 100K units a year. 1992 was a rotten year for the economy also.

 

I don't think we have to get too worried just yet about the Mustang selling or not selling...if its selling less then 100K units a year for a couple years...then lets worry then

 

I'm not too worried about it long-term. Just saying it's not doing well right now.

 

One of the other factors in 1992 was that there was an all-new Camaro on sale for much of that year with far more available power. Sound familiar? I want to say that was the last time the Camaro outsold the Mustang for the full year, although it's starting to seem likely for this year also.