MPG over emphasis

[morgande]

And there is where you are wrong. The Mustang never was and never will be a sports car -- especially the base model. People buy the V6 because they want something that seems sporty without the sacrifices of the V8 engine -- mainly price and fuel economy. Here Ford is offering you 31 MPG, which makes it appeal to an even wider market who thought that even the V6 engine in such a sporty vehicle couldn't possibly be efficient.

 

Was just speaking with a few co-workers and one of them mentioned the 300+ horsepower and 31 mpg Mustang. His remark? "I had no idea they were getting over 30 mpg." Why did he know? That commercial.

 

Argument fail.

 

Well lets see....there is no more Ford GT. No TBird. Not much else in blue ovals arsenal to call a sports car. So the Mustang IS a sports car for FoMoCo and it has been so for some time. People buy the V6 because its cheap. It has nothing to do with fuel economy. It has EVERYTHING to do with price of the freaking car.

 

Again....31 mpg should not be focus on selling this car. It should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Ford is showcasing the icing, and forgetting about the cake.

 

Argument stands.

Edited June 7, 2010 by morgande

[papilgee4evaeva]

Again....31 mpg should not be focus on selling this car. It should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Ford is showcasing the icing, and forgetting about the cake.

 

And for some people, the icing is the best part of the cake. Why market to just one category of consumer?

[morgande]

In the history of cars, one has had to go for either performance or fuel economy. Ford is showing that, in their V6 model, that now you can have both.

 

Heck, Ford is saying that now, as compared to the previous V6, both are actually available! :P

 

I will say this, Morgan... if the GT ads emphasize that their MPGs are better than the outgoing V6, then you'll have more of a valid case.

 

You can get 26mpg on a 430hp vette. So the Stang isn't the first to produce both high performance and still have some decent MPG to boot.

 

As I said before, the new V6 gets 45% more power over the outgoing model. That is a feature that should stand alone. It warrants its own text fly-by in the commercial. It need not be combined with 31mpg in order to sell to public, it can sell itself alone.

 

For every spot in that commercial that said '31mpg [insert here]', it should have read "305 hp [insert here]". And then in the last spot, show the Mustang parked in a green pasture full of trees and state "31mpg green". It would be the last feature that is advertised. It hits home. Its the last thing you see, but it doesn't overshadow the fact that this is a 300+ hp sports car...its not the puny Mustang V6 from before ".

[silvrsvt]

People buy the V6 because its cheap. It has nothing to do with fuel economy. It has EVERYTHING to do with price of the freaking car.

 

And how is the V6 Mustang "cheap"? Seems like your stuck in the past my friend....keep in mind the V6 Mustang pays the bills for the GT and GT500...if it didn't sell...there would be no Mustang. The 11 Mustang V6 is now a very respectable car...it has as much HP as a 2005-2009 Mustang GT and gets 31 MPG too boot. Not to mention the V6 Mustang doesn't carry the same stimga of insurance costs that the GT model has either.

 

 

Again....31 mpg should not be focus on selling this car. It should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Ford is showcasing the icing, and forgetting about the cake.

 

Argument stands.

 

 

I think you need to pull your head out of your rear end...

 

 

 

 

[NickF1011]

Well lets see....there is no more Ford GT. No TBird. Not much else in blue ovals arsenal to call a sports car. So the Mustang IS a sports car for FoMoCo

 

Land Rover doesn't sell any 2-seaters either. Does that make the Range Rover Sport a "sports car" because it's the closest thing to it they sell?

 

People buy the V6 because its cheap. It has nothing to do with fuel economy. It has EVERYTHING to do with price of the freaking car.

 

Again....31 mpg should not be focus on selling this car. It should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Ford is showcasing the icing, and forgetting about the cake.

 

Argument stands.

 

Gee. Maybe now that people know that it gets 31 mpg, they'll buy it for more reason than it just being cheap. Fuel efficiency is a big part of vehicle cost of ownership. You don't think people just ignore that, even when shopping for a sporty car, do you? If you do, you just don't get it.

Edited June 7, 2010 by NickF1011

[Kev-Mo]

So I am a troll? How do tell...am I a troll?

 

 

A troll COULD be someone who makes a strong reference to Ford CEO Alan Mulally, but does not post with care to make sure they get his name correct. This is a great way to instantly lose credibility.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Kev-Mo

[morgande]

Land Rover doesn't sell any 2-seaters either. Does that make the Range Rover Sport a "sports car" because it's the closest thing to it they sell?

 

Really Nick? This is not a debate on the purist concept of what is and is not a sports car. The Mustang is considered a sports car in terms of its category for most of the buying public. It sure the hell isn't a sedan.

 

Jay Leno's Garage calls it a sports car - http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/sports-cars/2011-ford-mustang-gt/

Amazon sells a book called "Mustang: The Affordable Sportscar" - http://www.amazon.com/Mustang-Affordable-Sportscar-John-Gunnell/dp/0873413105

MSN's Most popular sports cars (mustang is #2) - http://editorial.autos.msn.com/listarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=434651

 

Get the point?

 

Gee. Maybe now that people know that it gets 31 mpg, they'll buy it for more reason than it just being cheap. Fuel efficiency is a big part of vehicle cost of ownership. You don't think people just ignore that, even when shopping for a sporty car, do you? If you do, you just don't get it.

 

I never said that people ignored fuel efficient. I said its not the most important selling point when selling a performance car. Key word: Performance. Nobody is going to pick a Mustang V6 over a Camaro V6 because the stang has better fuel efficiency! Its not a bad thing...buts not the selling point!

[morgande]

A troll COULD be someone who makes a strong reference to Ford CEO Alan Mulally, but does not post with care to make sure they get his name correct. This is a great way to instantly lose credibility.

 

But if you took the time to actually READ my post, you would see that I'm not trolling. I dont come on BON and state something trollish like "Nobody wants to by a piece of crap Ford" or something else idiotic like that. I posted this last night after watching game 2 of the NBA finals (when I saw the Mustang commercial) and I typoed the spelling of his name by accident. Flag me for not fact-checking his name...fine. But to call me a Troll because I did, without actually reading my post and trying to get an idea of where I'm coming from....makes you a lemming in my book!

[NickF1011]

Get the point?

 

Yes I do. I get that most people don't know what a sports car is. You (or Jay Leno) referring to it as a sports car doesn't make it so either.

 

Nobody is going to pick a Mustang V6 over a Camaro V6 because the stang has better fuel efficiency!

 

 

Really?? REALLY?????????

 

You lost your entire argument right there. Please. Comment no further on this subject, as you don't have a freaking clue as to what you are talking about.

[morgande]

And how is the V6 Mustang "cheap"?

 

Cheap compared to the GT..it most certainly is!!!!

 

V6 base: $22,195

GT base: $29,645

 

What other 300 hp SPORTS CAR do you know of that can be had for under $22k ($500 rebate will bring this under 22)?

 

I think you need to pull your head out of your rear end...

 

My heads not in my rear end. I'm arguing my point. Surely you can argue yours without any needless rhetoric or immature insult? Or is such a reasonable request beyond your feeble brain's ability to comprehend, let alone honor?

[morgande]

Yes I do. I get that most people don't know what a sports car is. You (or Jay Leno) referring to it as a sports car doesn't make it so either.

 

Guy owns more cars than anyone else I can think of...Im sure he knows what he was talking about. Again, this is not a purist argument here...

 

 

 

Really?? REALLY?????????

 

You lost your entire argument right there. Please. Comment no further on this subject, as you don't have a freaking clue as to what you are talking about.

 

So let me see...a person (guy or gal) is going to say to themselves: "I would get the Camaro V6 but the Mustang has 1 mpg better fuel economy so I'm going to go that route instead". You would never in your life see a 1mpg improvement. You'd never notice it. Its purely bragging rights. Period.

[OAC_Sparky]

The average Mustang customer ...

 

These Mustang commercials aren't supposed to be preaching to the converted.

 

Exactly. You're not making commercials to advertise to Mustang buyers. You make commercials like these to appeal to people that wouldn't previously consider a Mustang. And in part that's because of gas mileage.

 

Really, why would anyone want to own a boring car that gets good mileage when you can have a cool car that does?

[NickF1011]

So let me see...a person (guy or gal) is going to say to themselves: "I would get the Camaro V6 but the Mustang has 1 mpg better fuel economy so I'm going to go that route instead". You would never in your life see a 1mpg improvement. You'd never notice it. Its purely bragging rights. Period.

 

I think you're looking at it wrong. Someone who wants a Camaro is going to buy a Camaro regardless and is going to make some sacrifices to get it. It would take a lot more than a small difference in fuel economy to deter them.

 

Could someone who is undecided between the Camaro and Mustang very well be swayed by the Mustang's better fuel economy? AB-SO-FREAKING-LUTELY. If you don't think so, you've never been in sales.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Since 1964, Mustang has been a "Sporty Car" designed to have wide appeal. The original formula had bargain basement 6 cylinder 3 speed strippers to K-Code 271 hp V-8 with mandatory 4 speed Top Loaders and everything in between.

 

There is a market for the V-6 Mustang where fuel economy is one of the primary considerations. Many people who did not know a Mustang was capable of 31 mpg will consider a Mustang. For the V-6 buyer the 305 hp is the icing on the cake. There are lots of cars to choose from. The Mustang's unmatched longevity as a continuously produced car nameplate is based on the ability to be accessable to everyone.

[Deanh]

I thought the "305hp, 31mpg" Mustang commercial was pretty good. The cars racing through town were what caught my attention, they looked exciting. The 31mpg part was just icing on the cake.

exactly, and in this case one can have the cake and eat it too............

[morgande]

...Could someone who is undecided between the Camaro and Mustang very well be swayed by the Mustang's better fuel economy? AB-SO-FREAKING-LUTELY. If you don't think so, you've never been in sales.

 

By 1 MPG? Two completely different cars? Different manufactures. Different looking body styles. Different colors. Different interiors. Different equipment options. And 1mpg is going to be a difference maker? I can say you neglect to inform a person that the delta is only 1mpg. That's just capitalizing on the fact that the customer wasn't very informed. But you want to sit here and tell me that someone would walk away from one vehicle over another...in this case of a Mustang and a Camaro...over 1mpg?????????

[NickF1011]

By 1 MPG? Two completely different cars? Different manufactures. Different looking body styles. Different colors. Different interiors. Different equipment options. And 1mpg is going to be a difference maker? I can say you neglect to inform a person that the delta is only 1mpg. That's just capitalizing on the fact that the customer wasn't very informed. But you want to sit here and tell me that someone would walk away from one vehicle over another...in this case of a Mustang and a Camaro...over 1mpg?????????

 

Yes. Absolutely yes. Nobody said carbuyers were logical.

 

And here's the other thing: If the buyer hadn't seen the Mustang commercial touting the 31 mpg, they might not even know it's even close to the Camaro's mpg and not even put it on their radar. After all, the 2010 V6 Mustang wasn't even close to the Camaro V6's mpg. Consumers know that. Now they will know that the new 2011 V6 is better than the Camaro's mpg.

 

I just don't see why you are making such a fuss out of one commercial. Yes, if Ford's entire marketing campaign for the 2011 Mustang was "31 mpg" then I might sort of see your point. But as others have pointed out, this is one tv spot. One. ONE!!! You're making way too much of a big deal out of it.

 

As for me, I think it's a kick-ass commercial. Tires shredding. Engine revving. And it's not like the ad DOESN'T mention the power. It certainly does. It just emphasizes what is the most important change to the 2011 Mustang -- the FUEL ECONOMY. People weren't (and still won't in large numbers) buy the V6 Mustang for its power.

[NickF1011]

Oh, and FYI: It's 2 MPG better than the Camaro V6, not 1. (In the frame of reference to the commercial -- which is highway)

Edited June 7, 2010 by NickF1011

[jpvbs]

The Mustang has always been a compromise between practicality and sport. They don't sit too low slung to make getting in and out difficult, the suspension doesn't beat you up, they aren't too small for the driver, the back seats are useable in a pinch, and the trunk can hold enough groceries and luggage to make it as useful as most other cars. The Mustang besides being sporty, is good at being a "regular car." People could consider a Mustang instead of a bland boring jelly mold car and not feel like a goofball for having compromising everything to have a sporty car. Since mpg has now moved high up the list of things people consider when shopping for their "regular cars," I think it is important that people know they don't have to compromise mpg to have a Mustang. In my opinion, for entry level V6 buyers, practical concerns outway the need for sportiness.

[Kev-Mo]

But if you took the time to actually READ my post, you would see that I'm not trolling. I dont come on BON and state something trollish like "Nobody wants to by a piece of crap Ford" or something else idiotic like that. I posted this last night after watching game 2 of the NBA finals (when I saw the Mustang commercial) and I typoed the spelling of his name by accident. Flag me for not fact-checking his name...fine. But to call me a Troll because I did, without actually reading my post and trying to get an idea of where I'm coming from....makes you a lemming in my book!

 

 

I read your post all the way to the Alan Murphy statement. I have made lots of errors posting here as well, so I understand.

 

Commercials are subjective. I hate beer commercials that have nothing to do with good beer (Bud Light, you know who you are). But at Super Bowl time, that is what everyone talks about, and people love them. I am indifferent to the Mustang commercial, mainly because I strongly dislike silver, and cars and dark wheels. So, in my opinion, this is the worst a Mustang can possibly look. But I have heard many positive remarks about that ad, so I leave it be. I think the Fiesta commercial hits its intended audience -again, it is all subjective.

[timmm55]

When my wife and I first saw the commercial, I said "They are making the V6's look pretty entertaining." She said, "Wow, that's a lot better mileage than I thought Mustangs got."

 

 

Bingo! That's what it was supposed to do. Guys are watching the Mustang haul ass, women are thinking "yeah but who can afford the gas" and are suprised at the MPGs.......so it appeals to both senses.

[StevenCaylor]

People don't buy Mustangs for fuel economy? Nonsence. When it came time to retire my previous ride, a 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, I was still driving 72 miles round trip to work. I wanted a vehicle that got better economy than the T-Bird (16/24 using todays standard). The 2000 V6 Mustang at 17/26 (again, using todays standards) fit the bill perfectly. It was also quicker with a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds versus the T-Bird's 8.5 (that was the frosting on the cake). Today's Mustang does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and is rated at 19/31. Even the convertable is rated at 19/30.

[rmc523]

Nobody is going to pick a Mustang V6 over a Camaro V6 because the stang has better fuel efficiency!

 

Ok.....

[one2gamble]

and you have to admit that color choice is awesome

[J-150]

And there is where you are wrong. The Mustang never was and never will be a sports car -- especially the base model. People buy the V6 because they want something that seems sporty without the sacrifices of the V8 engine -- mainly price and fuel economy. Here Ford is offering you 31 MPG, which makes it appeal to an even wider market who thought that even the V6 engine in such a sporty vehicle couldn't possibly be efficient.

 

Was just speaking with a few co-workers and one of them mentioned the 300+ horsepower and 31 mpg Mustang. His remark? "I had no idea they were getting over 30 mpg." Why did he know? That commercial.

 

Argument fail.

 

 

bingo.

 

Without the V6 daily driver, there would be no Mustang.