I tell you what I think would have happened to Mustang, it would have gone the way of Camaro…..and then it was only brought back because GM couldn’t stand the thought of Mustang unopposed….GM had to be the best but even with discount V8 model, the sales just didn’t come for Camaro.

Backup a bit-If you have good/decent credit, you could get 0% financing on nearly any popular product for the past 15 years or so.    If you didn't get zero percent, the average was about 2-3%...my Bronco is financed at 2.29%. My wife, who has a 800+ credit score could only get like 4.5% this past September for her Bronco Sport. Her two past Escape she got (2013 and 2017) both had zero percent financing on them.  So lets do some math: 50K car loan with nothing down at 5% interest over 60 months is roughly $754.85 a month At 2.5% it is $709.89 At 0% it is $666.67, so almost a $100 bucks a month savings, which is pretty significant.    As for inflation: I paid $47k for my Bronco, same trim (without a V6 now) is 50K, but the 2025 Big Bend (which removes more options like modular bumper and Higher end headlights) is now again at $47K, which is a bit surprising to me.    According to the CPI calculator, as of November, 47K in May 2022 is now worth 50K.   The argument could be made that the Bronco was underpriced due to it selling with an ADM when it first launched, but even with rising pricing, outside of the dip in sales in 2023, it had its best selling year last year, with 138K units sold, which was 21K more then 2022.     

Interest rates were between 4% and 5% from 2014 through 2021.  Only dropped to 3.5% briefly before shooting up to 8%.  They sold plenty of cheap cars in 2014.  Your theory is baseless.

I guess in Ford's view it is not a recall...nothing wrong with the truck, just not strong enough as built to withstand the rigors imposed by  a Back Rack...the old Ranger was.  And to "2005E"s point, Back Rack has never listed a rack for the new Ranger. So it is not a new issue.  Although the way the Back Rack mounting system is built it transfers a lot of stress to the box bed rails.  It looks like that $88 bracket is designed to beef up the downward load imposed by what ever is resting on the Back Rack

You really do have diarrhea of the mouth, don't you?

Yes, to some, not all IMO.  The higher the top gets, the more the entry level option may feel like settling for bottom of barrel.  It may not be rational but I think it applies to many buyers, and not just with cars.  Example: Owning one of the first Mustangs was really cool, sold 100,000s, and since they were all pretty much the same, all owners therefore felt cool and proud.  Soon after the cool Mustang to have was a GT with 390, or later 428 Cobra Jet, or Boss 429, etc., and all of the sudden a regular Mustang was too ordinary to feel proud about.  Before you ask, no, I can’t prove what would have happened to sales longer term if Ford would have not pursued higher-priced Mustang variants.  Granted, Chevy, Dodge and Plymouth competition would have made the status quo hard to maintain.

The Dodge boys are doin' that with their new muscle car, Charger Daytona. They're askin' 60 grand for the R/T and 74 grand for the Scat Pack  

Ford needs to reinvest in the mustang. The s650 is a great car, but it's also the kind of car where you say "60 grand for this, really?" whereas something like the c8 you say "70 grand, that's it?!" See the difference?   Despite selling for a much higher average price than the mustang, the c8 was only something like a thousand or a few thousand units behind it in sales volume, and it's because it's insane value for the money. The market is there, just give us more zing, more passion, more design, more of everything. It won't take mustang back up to selling 200k units a year, but it'll convince more people to drop 60 grand on one. 

Look at historical interest rates for yourself.  They are a matter of fact, not opinion.  The “why” of lower rates touches on politics and I won’t get drawn into political discussions.  Anyway, the point I was trying to reply to in previous statement by Sherminator98 was that without extremely low interest rates, manufacturers wouldn’t have been able to increase prices so high and so quickly regardless of pandemic-induced shortages.  For example, there wouldn’t have been as much demand for $100,000 vehicles in the first place if not for unusually low interest rates lowering monthly payments.  It was a golden opportunity for manufacturers.  IMO if interest rates had not gone so low, manufacturers would have been forced to build lower-priced vehicles.   For clarity, my post regarded statements below by Sherminator98; and IMO rates already seem fairly low, so for them to go much lower would not be a good thing.   “To be honest I think lots of talk about "affordable" cars is just because they can't offer low interest financing on vehicles that cost more. If rates go low enough again, those "cheap" cars will disappear.”

Aha, serpentine belt was not in my thoughts so I'm glad you mentioned.  Do you think these 20 deg F temps might be causing it to slip some not spinning the alternator as fast as it should?   Got some more testing done.  With engine running the batt shows 14.73 V.  With the engine running and high beams and high fan on shows 14.49 V.  Took it to Advanced for their test and they said the alternator looks good but the battery shows weak, but not so bad the warranty would kick in.  Wonk.