S650 cancelled?

[silvrsvt]

.

Of course they were "inferior" compared to the latter models...but since sales and profits are the ONLY metrics that count, I stand by my statements.

 

So since when is a nearly 50K loaded Mustang GT not Profitable?

 

Ford was making a profit on the stand-alone Mustang back 12 years ago when they first came out in 2005..why did they sink so much money into the 2009 update if they didn't?

 

Mustang sales have been cyclical for along time...they built 166K of them in 2006 with zero competition. In 2000 it was 200K and the next best sales number was back in 1988 with 211K of them. Given how much the market place has changed, Mustang sales always hover around 70K at the low point and 150K+ when times are good.

[twintornados]

 

So since when is a nearly 50K loaded Mustang GT not Profitable?

.

Not as profitable as, say 50K loaded F150's...point is, what we think is a good profit margin and what Ford execs think is a good profit margin is widely disparate...Ford Heavy Truck was making a profit when Jack nASSer sold it off to Daimler... Why?? Because it wasn't making enough profit to count...

Edited December 27, 2017 by twintornados

[StangBang]

 

From the standpoint of sales, perhaps. But in all other areas, no way! The Pinto-based Mustang II and the Fairmont-based Fox-body Mustangs are inferior in every way to the "stand alone" architecture based Mustangs, which debuted in 2005, 2010, 2015, and now 2018. SN-95, S197, and S550. Looking at aspects such as engine performance, braking, handling, ride dynamics, interior design, and quality, these "stand alone" Mustangs are far, far superior.

Let's not forget too that the SN-95 is the Fox-4 platform. They literally took the Fox platform and redesigned the suspension and body structure to optimize it for the 1994 Mustang. The only parts left that carried over intact was the floorpan and front suspension crossmember. There were a few parts modified from their original design but about 60% of the vehicle was all new. I have a picture in a historical Mustang book that shows all the unit body structure parts painted by color code to indicate which parts are carried over, modified and all new. Edited December 27, 2017 by StangBang

[30 OTT 6]

Let's not forget too that the SN-95 is the Fox-4 platform. They literally took the Fox platform and redesigned the suspension and body structure to optimize it for the 1994 Mustang. The only parts left that carried over intact was the floorpan and front suspension crossmember. There were a few parts modified from their original design but about 60% of the vehicle was all new. I have a picture in a historical Mustang book that shows all the unit body structure parts painted by color code to indicate which parts are carried over, modified and all new.

SN-95 suffered from the continued use of the Quad Link rear suspension. Ford should have modified the chassis for a 3-Link w/ panhard bar like S197. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ford Engineers were looking at a better rear suspension setup for SN-95 but the accountants stepped in.

[1984Poke]

(Deleted posting by author.)

Edited December 27, 2017 by 1984Poke

[jpd80]

SN-95 suffered from the continued use of the Quad Link rear suspension. Ford should have modified the chassis for a 3-Link w/ panhard bar like S197. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ford Engineers were looking at a better rear suspension setup for SN-95 but the accountants stepped in.

No, that was S197, Phil Martens cancelled the IRS at the last minute and went 3-Link and then Ford cancelled him

After the initial IRS was canned the team contacted Ford Aus to see if the Control Blade IRS could be changed to fit

but unfortunately the pick up points on the links were incorrect for mustang and FOA's Territory was at design lock in.

 

This is where some of the blog reports on the internet get mixed up, an engineer with links to the project used to post here

and would often help discussions by filling in the blanks or at least point us in the right direction...god bless you Austin. .

Edited December 27, 2017 by jpd80

[ice-capades]

 

So since when is a nearly 50K loaded Mustang GT not Profitable?

 

Ford was making a profit on the stand-alone Mustang back 12 years ago when they first came out in 2005..why did they sink so much money into the 2009 update if they didn't?

 

Mustang sales have been cyclical for along time...they built 166K of them in 2006 with zero competition. In 2000 it was 200K and the next best sales number was back in 1988 with 211K of them. Given how much the market place has changed, Mustang sales always hover around 70K at the low point and 150K+ when times are good.

 

Mustang sales always seem to take off when the new generation (2005, 2010, 2015) versions hit the market and then drop as the years go by until the next generation comes out. With the new "global" Mustang and its success it seems Ford was ready and wiling to make the investment for all the changes we're seeing in the 2018MY version. Traditionally, the only real competition was the Camaro and the two would keep trying to outdo each other with performance and other improvements. And while Camaro outsold the Mustang for a period of time, it's regained the domestic sales crown with a substantially improved, refined and sophisticated vehicle. At the same time, all the new features come at a price and Ford's not being bashful when it comes to raising prices. Want the new digital instrument cluster? You have to upgrade to a premium model, etc. How many of us would have thought just a few years ago that a Mustang GT Fastback could hit $50,000+ MSRP? For sure, Ford's making a profit on the Mustang, especially with the global sales. And when you look at Shelby's... each dealer, with the exception of the large volume Mustang stores, gets only one a year. Dealers pay a fee just to be able to sell the Shelby Mustang and Ford's cut the markup on the Shelby's. Then Ford complains when Shelby's are sold with ADM's!

[jpd80]

FYI on the RHD Export Mustangs, they are the premium trim version in Ecoboost and GT,

 

Short story is that they retail at USD+$10,000 above MSRP for the comparable domestic US LHD versions.

So every one of them is solid cash back on the RHD development investment and the '17s are still selling

here at 700/mth which is +9,000 for the year, double what Falcon sold at for the last two years of production.

( Australia's population is 24 million and our SAAR is ~1.1 million)

Edited December 28, 2017 by jpd80

[SteelyD]

.

Ford GT is a "halo car" that showcases technology that will trickle down to the rest of the line eventually so it is platform to display future tech....As we have all seen, motorsports has a lessening impact on todays buyers as the buyer gets more tech savvy and less "go-fast" savvy...I can agree that image building with better performing Mustangs is always a good thing, the average Mustang owner has another vehicle to drive during inclement weather so as to preserve the 'Stang from the ravages of Ole Man Winter and his buddy, the Salt Monster...I am a fierce and loyal Ford guy and would not consider another brand, ever...but at the end of the day, if it ain't selling and the company ain't making $$$ on the product, either move on, or close the doors..and I seriously do not EVER want to see Ford close the door...so they need to sell more Mustangs to keep Mustang relevant and to keep Mustang relevant, they need to increase its appeal while staying pure to roots of Mustang heritage...but, if Ford can improve the chassis that underpins Mustang and bring those improvements to other cars that utilize said chassis, all the better...which is why CD6 is likely to supplant S550 or see some sort of melding of the two going forward eliminating the case for S650 altogether.

RWD/AWD

[StangBang]

 

I am not saying that the Mustang couldn't share a platform with a sedan but it better be an extremely good platform.

The Fox platform was developed to optimize it for the Mustang. It was never an afterthought to put the Mustang on a Fox platform. All the first Fox vehicles were developed congruently. They knew if they optimized the platform for the Mustang it would greatly benefit the other Fox platform vehicles.

 

So no one can say the 1979 Mustang was developed from a Fairmont like previous generation Mustangs were afterthoughts being Falcon based then later Pinto derived. The Fairmont showed up first because replacing the Maverick was more crucial at the time when the compact and midsize segments of the market were fast growing and Ford needed new product.

Edited December 28, 2017 by StangBang

[twintornados]

The Fox platform was developed to optimize it for the Mustang first. It was never an afterthought to put the Mustang on a Fox platform. All the first Fox vehicles were developed congruently. The knew if they optimized the plaforn for the Mustang would benefit the other Fox platform vehicles

.

Nope....Fox chassis debuted with Fairmont/Zephyr in 1978...Mustang/Capri were derived from it a year later and debuted as 1979 models.

 

ADD ON: Kinda similar to 2019 Ranger and then 2020 Bronco...history repeats, hopefully to the same sales success....

Edited December 28, 2017 by twintornados

[CurtisH]

.

Nope....Fox chassis debuted with Fairmont/Zephyr in 1978...Mustang/Capri were derived from it a year later and debuted as 1979 models.

 

ADD ON: Kinda similar to 2019 Ranger and then 2020 Bronco...history repeats, hopefully to the same sales success....

StanBang is correct. They knew the Fox would be used for the Mustang when they were developing it. That wasnt the case with either the Falcon or Pinto platforms. Edited December 28, 2017 by CurtisH

[brucelinc]

The Fox platform was excellent when it debuted and remained competitive for many years thereafter. I had two Fox body Mustangs. They were light, strong and nimble and had huge aftermarket following. Fox body Mustangs are still very popular at the dragstrips.

[twintornados]

StanBang is correct. They knew the Fox would be used for the Mustang when they were developing it. That wasnt the case with either the Falcon or Pinto platforms.

.

I disagree....there may have been a plan to include Mustang in the development process, but Fox chassis was designed for mass market appeal and a low cost to manufacture by spreading development cost over several models....two door, four door, wagon models were all derived from Fox chassis...Mustang was just one facet of a flexible (metaphorically speaking) chassis.

[Sevensecondsuv]

As far as production vehicles/chassis go, it's still hard to beat the fox chassis for a dedicated drag car.

[StangBang]

Damned double post!

Edited December 28, 2017 by StangBang

[StangBang]

.

I disagree....there may have been a plan to include Mustang in the development process, but Fox chassis was designed for mass market appeal and a low cost to manufacture by spreading development cost over several models....two door, four door, wagon models were all derived from Fox chassis...Mustang was just one facet of a flexible (metaphorically speaking) chassis.

I was not writing an opinion piece. I was stating historical facts. You need to read the history book on the Mustang by Gary Witzenburg which was written from sources being actual Ford designers and engineers who were working on the project at the time. It covers in depth how Ford developed the Fox platform to replace the Maverick, Mustang and Pinto.

 

The Fox platform was indeed developed with the needs of the Mustang foremost in mind because it was going to be an influential product of which its important attributes could not be designed in later as an afterthought. They decided that anything they did to benefit the Mustang it would be quite beneficial to the other vehicles sharing the platform. The sequence in which the vehicles debuted is not relavent as they were all developed at the same time. The archaic Maverick needed replacing first because it was the oldest design based on the Falcon platform. It's a good thing it did because it came just in time for GMs debut of its downsized A-body cars.

 

It was only a year later the Mustang debuted on the Fox platform so it wasn't like Ford decided to add the Mustang after the Fairmont was locked in. It was developed as a family of short and long wheelbased vehicles. The Pinto was dropped from the program when it was decided that it would be replaced with the FWD Erika project that resulted in the Escort. The Fox Mustang pretty much served duty replacing the Pinto in configuration being sold at a low enough base price with 4-cyl drivetrain that was carried over from the Pinto and Mustang II.

 

Now, about developing the platform for mass market appeal? Yes of course and the Mustang was still a mass market vehicle in those days selling decent numbers. The goal of the Fox platform was to improve many aspects of a vehicle platform to include modern suspension designs with MacPherson struts, multi-link coil spring rear suspension, improved handling and rack and pinion steering. The platform was also developed to be lightweight and fuel efficient. These were all things new to domestic Fords and for many domestic vehicles in general. Back then it was never the goal to make the Mustang perform like a supercar closer to how they are designed today. The targets were not as high in those days so it was not unrealistic to optimize the Fox platform for certain Mustang goals according to standards that applied for that era. The late 1970s was still a time when good handling cars were in an infancy continually being improved over the following decades. The fact that Ford had to redesign the Fox platform so extensively for the 1994 Mustang and then make more geometry changes for the 1999 model demonstrates how much they needed to improve the Fox platform to reach the ever changing goals for being a better handling and performing Mustang.

 

What I never said is that Ford developed the Fox platform exclusively for the Mustang, which is what you made it sound like I said.

Edited January 3, 2018 by StangBang

[StangBang]

As far as production vehicles/chassis go, it's still hard to beat the fox chassis for a dedicated drag car.

I stay connected with folks with their old Fairmonts, Zephyrs, Granadas, Cougars, LTDs and Marquises and they love the fact that you can improve them so much with Mustang mods that bolt right in place. I'm personally more enthusiastic about the resto-mods of these cars. The Fox body diversity including the sedans and wagons is more interesting to me.

Edited December 28, 2017 by StangBang

[StangBang]

____

Edited December 28, 2017 by StangBang

[ehaase]

I wonder if the Fox platform Thunderbird, Cougar, Continental, and Mark VII were afterthoughts. Ford did some great things with the Fox platform.

[StangBang]

I wonder if the Fox platform Thunderbird, Cougar, Continental, and Mark VII were afterthoughts. Ford did some great things with the Fox platform.

The Fairmont came for 1978, the Mustang came for 1979 and the Thunderbird for 1980. The Thunderbird certainly was not an afterthought as the debut time was only two years later. As a matter of fact the Fairmont Futura coupe was the original Fox-based Thunderbird design but it was instead pulled ahead and marketed as a junior companion to the intermediate Thunderbird which set sales records being downsized to the Torino platform at a much lower price. The eventual 1980 Fox Thunderbird got an alternate skin instead which was awkwardly proportioned and sold poorly prompting an emergency redesign for 1983 to boost sales of a once record selling nameplate. The 1980 Thunderbird was praised in the press for being so much improved in handling.

 

The Continental Mark VII was indeed an afterthought after the Panther based Mark VI sold so poorly, mostly because the Continental Town Car was the same car at a lower price minus the Mark series hidden headlamps, trunklid hump and oval opera windows. The prototype design of the Continental Mark VII is what saved the Thunderbird as the proposal was restyled into a Tbird and allowed to debut ahead of the Mark VII a year ahead of time. The Mark VII was built on a longer wheelbase than the Thunderbird/Cougar XR7.

 

The Granada and Monarch was replaced for 1981 with new Granada and Cougar sedans with alternately styled front and rear clips on the Fairmont/Zephyr body, so they were likely an afterthought, possibly even being originally a mid-cycle update intended for the Fairmont. Nevertheless, they sold poorly until they were restyled and rebadged to LTD and Marquis for 1983.

Edited December 29, 2017 by StangBang

[30 OTT 6]

No, that was S197, Phil Martens cancelled the IRS at the last minute and went 3-Link and then Ford cancelled him

After the initial IRS was canned the team contacted Ford Aus to see if the Control Blade IRS could be changed to fit

but unfortunately the pick up points on the links were incorrect for mustang and FOA's Territory was at design lock in.

 

This is where some of the blog reports on the internet get mixed up, an engineer with links to the project used to post here

and would often help discussions by filling in the blanks or at least point us in the right direction...god bless you Austin. .

No. I meant SN-95. I'm well aware that the same 'cheapening' occurred with S197.

 

Prior to the release, there were magazine rumours that SN-95 would be riding on a shortened MN12 (Thunderbird) chassis, which was pretty exciting as that meant IRS. I also read somewhere, late one night in that past five years in one on the many Mustang forums, that a better solid rear axle setup with a panhard bar was being looked at.

[StangBang]

No. I meant SN-95. I'm well aware that the same 'cheapening' occurred with S197.

 

Prior to the release, there were magazine rumours that SN-95 would be riding on a shortened MN12 (Thunderbird) chassis, which was pretty exciting as that meant IRS. I also read somewhere, late one night in that past five years in one on the many Mustang forums, that a better solid rear axle setup with a panhard bar was being looked at.

I remember all the photos of the shortened Thunderbird which had a big chunk removed behind the doors and ahead of the rear wheels. That development was cancelled because it would have made the Mustang too costly and heavy. The Thunderbird itself was already severely chastized by management for being overweight and way over budget to the point people lost their jobs.

Edited January 3, 2018 by StangBang

[Stray Kat]

Too bad the vast majority of Fox and SN94 bodies are being gobbled up by Chevrolet people to which they install their junkyard LS or recycled big block chevies into.

 

I know no one cares but I kinda think that sucks. It's like a great big message, "hey Mustangs are cool but their engines suck".

 

Never mind that the 5.0 Fox Mustang launched the modern muscle car era and the whole "heads up outlaw" style drag racing movement.

 

Ford seemed interested in the 80's and 90's but I just don't see a great amount of care focused there anymore.

 

The stock 5.0 block gets sketchy over 500hp and with today's technology 500 horsepower is just a signpost along the way.

 

Sure the Coyote is a better engine but the average guy seems to be afraid of them. Hence it's pushrod Chevy's everywhere.

[silvrsvt]

Too bad the vast majority of Fox and SN94 bodies are being gobbled up by Chevrolet people to which they install their junkyard LS or recycled big block chevies into.

 

I know no one cares but I kinda think that sucks. It's like a great big message, "hey Mustangs are cool but their engines suck".

 

I saw someone ranting about this on a video...and it doesn't make any sense...your going to put a cheap chevy V8 in a Mustang just in case you break it, because its cheap? If you build it right, it won't break in the first place-no matter what the engine is in it.

 

The Fox body is fine for going down a dragstrip, but its been far surpassed by what you can get off the showroom to drive every day and go to the track with.