Muscle Car Owners Are Dumping Mustang, Camaro, Challenger for Jeep Wrangler, FCA Boss Says

[silvrsvt]

8 hours ago, itguy09 said:

Diedard was a wrong choice on my part but I doubt many cross shop sports cars and Jeeps.  Those that buy a 2 door sports car know what they are getting into - an impractical vehicle that's fun.  The Wrangler is marginally more practical but definitely a totally different type of vehicle and one I doubt many cross shop.

 

Some may bitch about the expansion of Mustang but I say bring it on as long as it performs.  Porsche did that with the SUVs and even the Panamera.  They are Porsche through and through.  I love my Mustang but for all intents and purposes it's a 2 seater.  If it had 4 doors, handled, sounded, and looked like the current generation I bet they would sell tons more.  

 

Here is the rub with this-what it boils down to is there more options out there for People to buy a vehicle and "less money to do so". 

 

Vehicles are expensive-a well Equipped Mustang GT is $40K+, back about 13 years ago it topped out at around 30K-yeah certain things weren't as nice but it was much cheaper. 

 

So using that price as a guideline-lets use the upcoming Bronco as our example-You can get a vehicle that can drive in all weather, most likely will be a convertible in shape or at least have a large opening in the roof and be able to fit four people plus cargo in it. Its a far more practical vehicle and LOTS of people are interested in it.

 

It boils down that it can be a fun vehicle, more profitable then a Mustang (costs spread over Ranger, then power trains shared with the F-150/Explorer/Aviator) and more practical.

 

The Mach E is going to be the 4 door Mustang all but in name-then again it might actually be a Mustang. The talk about FRAP closing is concerning on multiple levels, with the biggest one being what would happen to the Mustang? Ford would be seriously shooting themselves in the foot with that.

 

 

images (1).jfif

[jpd80]

On 11/5/2019 at 10:35 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

Here is the rub with this-what it boils down to is there more options out there for People to buy a vehicle and "less money to do so". 

 

Vehicles are expensive-a well Equipped Mustang GT is $40K+, back about 13 years ago it topped out at around 30K-yeah certain things weren't as nice but it was much cheaper. 

 

So using that price as a guideline-lets use the upcoming Bronco as our example-You can get a vehicle that can drive in all weather, most likely will be a convertible in shape or at least have a large opening in the roof and be able to fit four people plus cargo in it. Its a far more practical vehicle and LOTS of people are interested in it.

 

It boils down that it can be a fun vehicle, more profitable then a Mustang (costs spread over Ranger, then power trains shared with the F-150/Explorer/Aviator) and more practical.

 

The Mach E is going to be the 4 door Mustang all but in name-then again it might actually be a Mustang. The talk about FRAP closing is concerning on multiple levels, with the biggest one being what would happen to the Mustang? Ford would be seriously shooting themselves in the foot with that.

 

 

images (1).jfif

IMO, Ford chickened out on closing down FRAP and intsead offered the UAW the promise of

a next gen Mustang there. Maybe the thought of the Union going on strake over FRAP closure

was too great of a loss but in my mind, they really should make FRAP the survivor car plant and

just do the CD6 cars as originally planned and put the mid sized BEVs over in Oakville in three years

time.  That would make more sense.

Edited November 9, 2019 by jpd80

[ice-capades]

51 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

IMO, Ford chickened out on closing down FRAP and intsead offered the UAW the promise of

a next gen Mustang there. Maybe the thought of the Union going on strake over FRAP closure

was too great of a loss but in my mind, they really should make FRAP the survivor car plant and

just do the CD6 cars as originally planned and put the mid sized BEVs over in Oakville in three years

time.  That would make more sense.

 

Ford may really  just be buying themselves time with FRAP and future Mustang production until they see what their future production needs are with utilization at other plants, etc. As discussed many times, FRAP has serious production constraints and would require a major overhaul in order to produce many of the vehicles the market is demanding and planned for the future. And a decision to finally overhaul FRAP would likely require closing the plant for an extended time, forcing them to move Mustang to another facility. Should Ford move Mustang production it would have to be to another U.S. plant to avoid the outrage and bad press that would ensue otherwise. Just a few thoughts. 

[jpd80]

49 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

Ford may really  just be buying themselves time with FRAP and future Mustang production until they see what their future production needs are with utilization at other plants, etc. As discussed many times, FRAP has serious production constraints and would require a major overhaul in order to produce many of the vehicles the market is demanding and planned for the future. And a decision to finally overhaul FRAP would likely require closing the plant for an extended time, forcing them to move Mustang to another facility. Should Ford move Mustang production it would have to be to another U.S. plant to avoid the outrage and bad press that would ensue otherwise. Just a few thoughts. 

Correct, it looks like Ford just chose the easy option for now and probably hope that the situation

will sort itself out in a few years, depending on buyers support an evolution of the current Mustang

seems like the wisest move...