The Ford Mustang Mach-E Handily Outsold The Gas Mustang In 2024

[02MustangGT]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

So what’s your solution if it’s that simple?

Sell more F150’s?  Oh wait…your POV regarding CAFE rules being a major factor in lack of Mustang sales defies logic.  I suppose when the new administration relaxes CAFE requirements, we should expect a notable increase in Mustang sales?

[Sherminator98]

5 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:

It’s not due to CAFE either according to Said Deep (it’s due to supply constraints if you recall).  Folks can speculate all they want, but Ford would gladly sell every Mustang (Mach-E included) they can build.  There are many factors for the decline in sales for an “all new model”.  

 

So since you want to use facts here:

 

Mustang sales the past couple of years:
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/ford-mustang-sales-figures/

 

Mustang Sales from last month:

 

So if Ford didn't experience Supply constraints last month, the would have actually sold about 3-4K more Mustangs (using December 2023s numbers) this past year vs 2023s yearly total. 

 

What this all boils down to is manufactured outrage using the Mach E as ammunition when it was just a fluke month that screwed yearly sales totals up.

As for the CAFE comments-Mustang sales have been on a downward trend since 2015...so depending on how the CAFE enforcement has changed since then, that would just add smoke to support that fire.

 

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said:

Sell more F150’s?  Oh wait…your POV regarding CAFE rules being a major factor in lack of Mustang sales defies logic.  I suppose when the new administration relaxes CAFE requirements, we should expect a notable increase in Mustang sales?

Morgan20 spelled out mustang’s CAFE issue with facts fairly well and he worked for Ford.  Did you even read it?  Selling more F150s is irrelevant.

 

It’s not that they don’t want to sell any Mustangs.  But raising prices and pushing more high end models like dark horse raises profit and limits CAFE non compliance at the same time,  If they added more low end sales through price reductions or made cheaper base models then any added profit could be offset or surpassed by CAFE fines.  That’s why Ford is favoring larger vehicles because they get lower CAFE targets.

 

No exec is ever going to say we’re limiting sales due to CAFE.  That would be stupid.  They do it by raising prices   If Mustang wasn’t an Icon it would have been killed already.

 

My old company did this with services they didn’t want to sell but weren’t allowed to discontinue.  Make it less desirable and make as much profit on whatever was left.

 

Auto mfrs do all sorts of contortions and gyrations for CAFE.  I remember in late 1999 they deleted the rear headrests on the Lincoln LS v8 sport models because the weight savings dropped them into a different CAFE category.

[02MustangGT]

9 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

So if Ford didn't experience Supply constraints last month, the would have actually sold about 3-4K more Mustangs

Thanks for proving my point and agreeing with the comments from Said Deep.  Multiple factors are contributing to lower sales and CAFE is not the primary factor. 

[DeluxeStang]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I have no proof but something tells me that no amount of change would pump prime Mustang sales. If Ford wants to keep it around, they really need a second vehicle at Flat Rock to keep enough volume for at least one shift.

Heck, I can see a future where flat rock becomes the hub for all the low slung passion products, not just 2, but maybe 3-4 different products, all selling in lower volumes, but with decent profit margins. That plant during its peak had a production capacity of like 300k units right? Or something close to that. Leaving it producing 15% of it's max capacity is terrible for business. 

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

Morgan20 spelled out mustang’s CAFE issue with facts fairly well and he worked for Ford.  Did you even read it?  Selling more F150s is irrelevant.

 

It’s not that they don’t want to sell any Mustangs.  But raising prices and pushing more high end models like dark horse raises profit and limits CAFE non compliance at the same time,  If they added more low end sales through price reductions or made cheaper base models then any added profit could be offset or surpassed by CAFE fines.  That’s why Ford is favoring larger vehicles because they get lower CAFE targets.

 

No exec is ever going to say we’re limiting sales due to CAFE.  That would be stupid.  They do it by raising prices   If Mustang wasn’t an Icon it would have been killed already.

 

My old company did this with services they didn’t want to sell but weren’t allowed to discontinue.  Make it less desirable and make as much profit on whatever was left.

 

Auto mfrs do all sorts of contortions and gyrations for CAFE.  I remember in late 1999 they deleted the rear headrests on the Lincoln LS v8 sport models because the weight savings dropped them into a different CAFE category.

Also why they're pushing more Ecoboost variants like this upcoming RTR. Not just providing customers with excellent value, but also pushing them towards lower emissions variants of the mustang. 

[SoonerLS]

12 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:

Why wouldn’t Ford admit to CAFE regulations being the only factor in not building/selling more Mustangs.

Because saying “we don’t want to sell more Mustangs due to CAFE compliance issues” is a really good way to not sell even more Mustangs. 
 

Also, I don’t see where anyone is saying that CAFE is the only (or even a primary) factor in lower sales, they’re just saying it is a factor in why Ford is not overly concerned about it. 

[02MustangGT]

13 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

Also, I don’t see where anyone is saying that CAFE is the only (or even a primary) factor in lower sales, they’re just saying it is a factor in why Ford is not overly concerned about it. 

CAFE has been mentioned as the reason Ford “doesn’t want to sell more Mustangs” multiple times in this thread.  Ford shouldn’t be concerned about sales, Mustang is an icon and they can just continue to invest in big profit vehicles like the F-series.  It’s not like the Mustang is all that impactful to the bottom line, especially considering the decrease in volume throughout the years.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:

Thanks for proving my point and agreeing with the comments from Said Deep.  Multiple factors are contributing to lower sales and CAFE is not the primary factor. 

Nowhere did I say it was the primary factor, just that Ford isn’t upset with lower sales as long as profit margins stay high.  Meaning they won’t drop prices or spend a lot of extra money just to increase sales.  It’s a combination of pricing, supply constraints and a shrinking market.  

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, 02MustangGT said:

CAFE has been mentioned as the reason Ford “doesn’t want to sell more Mustangs” multiple times in this thread.  Ford shouldn’t be concerned about sales, Mustang is an icon and they can just continue to invest in big profit vehicles like the F-series.  It’s not like the Mustang is all that impactful to the bottom line, especially considering the decrease in volume throughout the years.

Just admit you don’t understand how CAFE works and let’s move on.

Edited January 18, 2025 by akirby

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Heck, I can see a future where flat rock becomes the hub for all the low slung passion products, not just 2, but maybe 3-4 different products, all selling in lower volumes, but with decent profit margins. That plant during its peak had a production capacity of like 300k units right? Or something close to that. Leaving it producing 15% of it's max capacity is terrible for business. 

 

I read someplace that Flat Rock was designed to be a 250,000 unit factory.  I wonder how many Mustangs Flat Rock builds in a year for sales outside the U.S?  Add that to the U.S. sales to get an idea of yearly production.  But you're right, this factory is big-time underutilized.  The UAW contract said that another vehicle will be built there, pending program approval. So far I've heard nothing.

Edited January 18, 2025 by mackinaw
clarification

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

So what’s your solution if it’s that simple?

Never claimed or suggested it was simple.  No doubt there are risks involved and IMO Ford is taking the safest short-term approach to keep the iconic brand alive regardless of profitability, or lack thereof.  That should work for a while, but I think eventually the Mustang name will fade in popularity if something big isn’t done.  Hence why I think there is risk for Ford with Mustang brand no matter what.  Doing more of the same also has associated risks IMO.

 

I “personally” (i.e. — hence opinion without proof) believe Mustang became an icon because it was a cool, affordable American version of the people’s car.  I know it’s controversial and risky, but would like to see the next all-new Mustang move back some in that direction.  To be clear, I don’t expect that to happen at all, but you asked what I would do, and there you have it.

 

 

P.S. — I’ve wondered if Ford used Mustang name for Mach-E as much to keep “Mustang” brand going longer-term thinking Mach-E was going to be a huge success regardless, based on its own merits, versus giving it Mustang name to help it sell better.  Had Mach-E been huge success, perhaps Mustang’s future would be very different.

[02MustangGT]

43 minutes ago, akirby said:

Nowhere did I say it was the primary factor, 

Sure…but you did imply it.  

Anyway, I agree that lack of sales is due to a combination of factors which is exactly what I stated earlier in the thread.   Have a great day!

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

I “personally” (i.e. — hence opinion without proof) believe Mustang became an icon because it was a cool, affordable American version of the people’s car.  I know it’s controversial and risky, but would like to see the next all-new Mustang move back some in that direction.  To be clear, I don’t expect that to happen at all, but you asked what I would do, and there you have it.

 

The first Shelby gt350 was in 1965.  Performance and racing has been in mustangs dna almost from day one.   Sales won’t fall that far - Ford will adjust pricing before it gets that bad.

 

If you compare older GT prices with current ecoboost prices I think you’ll find Ecoboost to be close or cheaper in price (adjusted for inflation) with much better performance.  It’s already affordable.  Making it cheap with no performance just to increase sales would be stupid.

[Rick73]

49 minutes ago, akirby said:

The first Shelby gt350 was in 1965.  Performance and racing has been in mustangs dna almost from day one.   Sales won’t fall that far - Ford will adjust pricing before it gets that bad.

 

If you compare older GT prices with current ecoboost prices I think you’ll find Ecoboost to be close or cheaper in price (adjusted for inflation) with much better performance.  It’s already affordable.  Making it cheap with no performance just to increase sales would be stupid.

Agree today’s base EcoBoost is as fast as older GT V8s, and at comparable prices after adjustment for inflation.  What’s missing though is today’s equivalent to older base Mustang, both in performance and price.  I understand you are saying such a Mustang isn’t needed, and would be stupid, though not sure why.  Are you concerned a “slow” Mustang will hurt Mustang image?

 

There are literally millions of cars/vehicles sold annually with O-60 times in 7~8 second range, which is still faster than many original Mustang variants, but maybe that’s no longer good enough for a base Mustang.

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Agree today’s base EcoBoost is as fast as older GT V8s, and at comparable prices after adjustment for inflation.  What’s missing though is today’s equivalent to older base Mustang, both in performance and price.  I understand you are saying such a Mustang isn’t needed, and would be stupid, though not sure why.  Are you concerned a “slow” Mustang will hurt Mustang image?

 

There are literally millions of cars/vehicles sold annually with O-60 times in 7~8 second range, which is still faster than many original Mustang variants, but maybe that’s no longer good enough for a base Mustang.

It won’t handle well, it would be slow by comparison and would sound terrible.  More importantly it would yield little if any profit and make the CAFE situation worse.  In what universe is that a good idea?

[jpd80]

Sales profile for the last decade or so has shown that retail buyers prefer

the premium trim versions of Ecoboost and GT over the base versions.

 

Ecoboost and GT buyers are definitely different sub groups of buyers 

with a bit of crossover but mostly know what they want/prefer.

 

So glad that Ford avoided following Camaro down the 1LE rabbit hole,

that didn’t generate significant sales over the very popular V6 versions.

The V6 was a good performer and for many buyers that was enough

leading to less and less buyers paying extra for the V8 versions.

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

7 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

I read someplace that Flat Rock was designed to be a 250,000 unit factory.  I wonder how many Mustangs Flat Rock builds in a year for sales outside the U.S?  Add that to the U.S. sales to get an idea of yearly production.  But you're right, this factory is big-time underutilized.  The UAW contract said that another vehicle will be built there, pending program approval. So far I've heard nothing.

It was apparently just a hybrid s650. But no one knows if it's moving forward or not. A hybrid mustang has been something Ford's talked about since like the late 2010s, yet never seems to come to fruition. 

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The V6 was a good performer and for many buyers that was enough

leading to less and less buyers paying extra for the V8 versions.

Good observation.  Appears Chevy dropped 4-cylinder turbo for 2024, making the V6 the base engine.  Prior to 2024 they had 3 very distinct engine choices; the 2.0L turbo, 3.6L NA DOHC V6, and 6.2L pushrod V8.  Interesting enough EPA shows the V6 as only choice that burns regular gas, so fuel cost is significantly lower than 4-cylinder turbo.  The V6 was also more powerful and accelerated faster, though torque rating was slightly lower.  I don’t see why many would buy the 4-cylinder turbo over V6 given those conditions, which likely explains turbo 4 getting dropped.

 

As to V8, yeah it’s really fast but more expensive to buy and a gas guzzler by comparison to V6; plus requires premium fuel making it even more expensive to operate.  Test data showed V6 could hit 60 in 5 seconds, so agree many buyers likely felt that was more than enough power.  Just pointing out that many buyers sometimes do see a middle ground when it makes sense because it offers practical value.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Good observation.  Appears Chevy dropped 4-cylinder turbo for 2024, making the V6 the base engine.  Prior to 2024 they had 3 very distinct engine choices; the 2.0L turbo, 3.6L NA DOHC V6, and 6.2L pushrod V8.  Interesting enough EPA shows the V6 as only choice that burns regular gas, so fuel cost is significantly lower than 4-cylinder turbo.  The V6 was also more powerful and accelerated faster, though torque rating was slightly lower.  I don’t see why many would buy the 4-cylinder turbo over V6 given those conditions, which likely explains turbo 4 getting dropped.

 

As to V8, yeah it’s really fast but more expensive to buy and a gas guzzler by comparison to V6; plus requires premium fuel making it even more expensive to operate.  Test data showed V6 could hit 60 in 5 seconds, so agree many buyers likely felt that was more than enough power.  Just pointing out that many buyers sometimes do see a middle ground when it makes sense because it offers practical value.

If buyers wanted value and better mpg they would have bought the 4 cylinder but apparently that didn’t happen so they dropped it.  So that should tell you that Ford doesn’t need to go that route with Mustang.  And the reason buyers chose the V6 over the v8 is price.  You call it value but it’s really just that it’s the cheapest engine that still provides good performance and pony cars are known for high performance not mpg.  That thinking applies to cheap sedans but not pony cars.

Edited January 19, 2025 by akirby

[Sherminator98]

14 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It was apparently just a hybrid s650. But no one knows if it's moving forward or not. A hybrid mustang has been something Ford's talked about since like the late 2010s, yet never seems to come to fruition. 

 

I think the biggest issue with a Hybrid setup for the Mustang is how does it fit as a performance vehicle. 

 

Using the Ranger PHEV as the Hybrid setup for the Mustang, you have 275hp with 509 ft lb of Torque with the R10 transmission

 

The Ecoboost Mustang is rated at 310 HP/315 ft lbs and I'm not sure if a huge increase in torque would be a good selling point for a Mustang.

 

You have the rumors of FWD/AWD setup, so using the Nautilus as base line-the two motors on that add 60HP to the base Ecoboost. 

 

So if you use the Nautilus style Hybrid motors on the Mustang, you'd get around 400HP-but would the additional weight off set any performance gains? 

 

Just using these two examples, I don't see a reason for Ford to use a hybrid setup in the coupe Mustang unless they are forced too.

A hybrid setup would be a far better setup for a Sedan or off road influenced Mustang, if they ever come about. 

[morgan20]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

I don't see a reason for Ford to use a hybrid setup in the coupe Mustang unless they are forced too.

 

There isn't any reason for Ford to use a hybrid setup in the coupe Mustang. Nobody is forcing that setup.

 

A combination of EcoBoost, V8, and full electric versions of coupe Mustang will cover all bases for many years to come

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Good observation.  Appears Chevy dropped 4-cylinder turbo for 2024, making the V6 the base engine.  Prior to 2024 they had 3 very distinct engine choices; the 2.0L turbo, 3.6L NA DOHC V6, and 6.2L pushrod V8.  Interesting enough EPA shows the V6 as only choice that burns regular gas, so fuel cost is significantly lower than 4-cylinder turbo.  The V6 was also more powerful and accelerated faster, though torque rating was slightly lower.  I don’t see why many would buy the 4-cylinder turbo over V6 given those conditions, which likely explains turbo 4 getting dropped.

 

As to V8, yeah it’s really fast but more expensive to buy and a gas guzzler by comparison to V6; plus requires premium fuel making it even more expensive to operate.  Test data showed V6 could hit 60 in 5 seconds, so agree many buyers likely felt that was more than enough power.  Just pointing out that many buyers sometimes do see a middle ground when it makes sense because it offers practical value.

In spite of everything GM did, the Camaro failed to get sufficient sales,

some put that down to the styling looking too much like the previous version.

That could be a factor or, people may have worked out that the Camaro is 

not great to live with for day to day use compared to a utility… or the V8 buyers

may have decided to progress to Corvette…….i really don’t know either way but

maybe the answer is general wastage of buyers for whatever the reason is also

affecting Mustang…..

 

In summary, maybe whatever people have suggest

ed that Ford do to

Mustang may not affect the outcome all that much……

 

Edited January 19, 2025 by jpd80

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

If buyers wanted value and better mpg they would have bought the 4 cylinder but apparently that didn’t happen so they dropped it.

I said lower cost, not higher MPG.  There’s a difference because premium fuel adds more cost than 4-cylinder turbo reduces by providing greater MPG.  It obviously made little sense to buy a 4-cylinder turbo Camaro that was slower, sounded horrible according to reports, and cost more to fuel.  You keep using word “stupid”; and IMO choosing a 4-banger Camaro over V6 would have almost been crazy if planning to use premium fuel to get full power rating out of engine.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, akirby said:

So that should tell you that Ford doesn’t need to go that route with Mustang.

As you know I happen to believe Mustang should have a 6-cylinder Naturally Aspirated engine option; preferably a new modular I-6.  If not available, old V6 would have to make do.  The fact that many Camaro buyers chose V6 engine option in lieu of turbo-4 or V8 tells me the very opposite, that there is demand for a middle-ground engine.  However, I know and accept that demand alone is not enough to compel Ford to offer a six again.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I said lower cost, not higher MPG.  There’s a difference because premium fuel adds more cost than 4-cylinder turbo reduces by providing greater MPG.  It obviously made little sense to buy a 4-cylinder turbo Camaro that was slower, sounded horrible according to reports, and cost more to fuel.  You keep using word “stupid”; and IMO choosing a 4-banger Camaro over V6 would have almost been crazy if planning to use premium fuel to get full power rating out of engine.

 

 

As you know I happen to believe Mustang should have a 6-cylinder Naturally Aspirated engine option; preferably a new modular I-6.  If not available, old V6 would have to make do.  The fact that many Camaro buyers chose V6 engine option in lieu of turbo-4 or V8 tells me the very opposite, that there is demand for a middle-ground engine.  However, I know and accept that demand alone is not enough to compel Ford to offer a six again.

The fact that Ford had both turbo I4s and 3.5/3.7L NA v6s available side by side for several years in multiple vehicles (and 3.3 NA vs 2.7 turbo in F150) and they chose to drop the NA v6s says all you need to know.