TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone else think Ford is seeing too many dollar signs now.

Look at the performance cars they make now the Mustang GT for last year cost more than the Camaro Z28, and the Z28 was faster and nicer inside.

The Mach 1 is equal to the SS Camaro in price and the SS is faster with more HP and Torque.

The Cobra (this years) is actually faster than the Camaro SS but not faster than the Z06 Vette, or the Viper yet it is 40K. :eek: It also has a SC that only adds 70 HP (pathetic)*!

The Ford GT is $100,000 and it is slower than the new Viper or the Z06 (recent numbers shown), and we are below its price range.

THe 2005 Mustang is supposed to be even more expensive which is sad because they have a chance in cornering the market



*The 2001 Cobra has the same engine without an SC but pushes out 320 HP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
Look at the sales numbers... Ford was outselling the F-Body, which is why GM cut them. Even costing more, who cares... they sold like hotcakes.

The Mach 1 is a collector car, nothing more... that's why its more expensive.

The Ford GT is also a rarity... which explains to high prices.

The 2005 Stang is supposed to go head to head with Chevrolet's flagship, the Corvette. But I'd rather have a Vette over that horribly designed 2k5 Stang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
True that Ford knows how to market a product but personally I just don't see the cost equaling the performance. As far as the Mach 1 being a collectors car I think Ford took some trade mark items off the Mach 1 and just did a rip off car. Similar with the GT, but at least the GT can perform if Ford would just drop the price of their vehicles we would see less rice on the road and more American Muscle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
You compare the GT-40 with the ZO6, we will see what GM actually does with the next ZO6, last I heard it wasn't going to be til the year after the C6 Vette starts and it is going to have the camless engine, so, you can't compare anything to that, because it is a few years away. The GT-40 will definitely beat the last ZO6, which got beat by the Viper. The GT-40 costs more than the Viper yes, but the GT-40 should outpeform the Viper if Ford is publishing accurate numbers for the engine. And if it outperforms the Viper, it will be outperforming Ferraris at twice its price tag, the GT, really a good deal.

The Mustang...you think a Mustang should be competitively priced with Ricers? The Focus is compeitively priced with ricers and it is in their class, apples to apple, not apples to oranges for comparison. So, the Cobra costs 40k it beats Vettes, Ford is going good there, that car is a steal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Anyone know why the Thunderbird was made..what it was made to compete with??

Well I do and I think it should be that way again..hehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
ASSASYN said:
Anyone know why the Thunderbird was made..what it was made to compete with??

Well I do and I think it should be that way again..hehe
Agreed! Can you imagine if Ford had taken the Tbird the same direction that Chevy took the Corvette? Talk about Muscle-Car wars. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Wolf Guard's LX 5.0 said:
True that Ford knows how to market a product.....
You're kidding me, right? Look at the NEW Tbird and the Marauder!

Both are great cars, both with faults (underpowered), but priced WAY to high.

They don't advertise either one much, so nobody knows much about them - people have NO clue when I tell them about Marauder.

At least they're outdoing Chevy with the trucks :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
What I am trying to do is build up my bird to beat Z06's (stock) going to take a while to buy what I want and do as is needed. The history of the Tbird is what inspired me to compete with that car. Don't get me wrong I love Ford cars I just find it funny that their muscle cars are more expensive then cars that are faster then them.

From what I have read the Corvette ZO6 2002 quarter was 12.3-12.4 and that is the same numbers I have read for the 2003 Cobra. Wether or not a car has an OHC engine or not they will be compared to each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
I meant the next ZO6, I didn't realize you were talking about an old ZO6...I was in the mindset of 03 Cobra and there was no 03 ZO6 so it doesnt' make sense to price compare because they weren't both availiable as new cars at the same time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well since you could actually buy the 2003 Cobra halfway through 2002 that is why I compared them.

As far as interior goes no offense but if you are gonna compare interior you have to be fair about it and show both upgraded packages not just the upgraded mustang package, and the standard camaro.

Mustang


Camaro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
I work at a car dealer and have driven everything with wheels from Geo's to Corvette's to Porsche's.
The F-body interior, no matter what package, is just about one of the worst quality interiors in any car you can buy. As a matter of fact, I drove a loaded LS1 Trans Am the other day and I along with a bunch of other people couldn't believe that'is what you get with a car costing that much money. I am not saying that Ford builds high quality cars or anything, but Mustangs' interiors are much better. In fact, the interior is a big reason that many muscle car buyers who can't decide between cars settle with the Mustang over the F-body.
Granted, a $80K Viper interior is pretty much crap also, but that just follows the theme of American auto makers.

"....The Cobra (this years) is actually faster than the Camaro SS but not faster than the Z06 Vette, or the Viper yet it is 40K. It also has a SC that only adds 70 HP (pathetic)*!..."

The Cobra is $35K for the hard top. If a person pays a dealer markeup at $40K, thats their problem. The SC adds much more then just 70HP. Thats only what its rated at, and real world figures put the Cobra closer to 425HP, stock. Thats a 105hp gain. And thats not to mention giving a fairly torqueless motor huge low and mid range torque.
What about the completely forged motor that will handle 20+ psi of boost. And a stock fuel system thats good to ~ 600HP.
With a chip, filter, pulley, exhaust and slicks, they'll go well into the 11's consistantly and safely. Thats whooping a ZO6 in the 1/4 for less then $2K in mods. Doesn't sound like too bad of a deal to me.

But I will agree that Ford see's too many dollar signs and has to stop focusing all their resources on Trucks. There is not one Ford car besides the Mustang that I would want to buy. And Ford's quality as compared to the imports is way lower.
If American cars didn't have V8's, I wouldn't be driving them. But since some do.......
:znanner: :zbeer: :znanner:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
I agree that F-bodies interiors suck. A friend of mine used to own a 95 Z28 and it was a hoot to drive... lots and lots of power (at least it did before he beat the snot out of it). But there was a hump on the floor on the passengers side that I didn't care for. It more or less made you sit at a bit of an angle. Another thing that I really did't like was the use of vinyl in some area's of the interior and in other area's they used really cheep plastic. Kind of reminded me of my sisters old Kia:thumbsd: :zpuke: :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Well I still feel that the last real RDW, 2door, V8 that was made by an American company were the tbird, cougar, mk8's of the 90's

oh yeah and you could get a tbird for less than $20K with a V8.

now if you want all of those you better like trucks :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
SC_Steve said:
...there was a hump on the floor on the passengers side that I didn't care for. It more or less made you sit at a bit of an angle...
EXACTLY. Who here has had to sit at an aquard angle in a mustangs front two seats? I rest my case.

F-Body interiors are just SUCH crap. Whistling creaking rattling piles...

GM
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
:uppoint:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
538 Posts
I'd

I agree with jack....Some of you should probably drive the camaro's or vette's....sure they are great in performance.
But, the comfort of a ride in A Ford is much better.

In a Camaro or Vette, you feel like your riding on the floor, and you feel every little crack.....your so low to the ground.
In a ford, you can be in a high performance vehicle, and have the luxury of comfort as well....the ride is so smooth

Ford combines sports performance cars and luxury together.

For guys who have over 100k on their speedo, I want you to compare the ride of your car, with a vette or Camaro that has over 100k, see which one feels better.

Also, the one thing about Ford...If something goes wrong, even if your not mechanically inclined....you'll know what it is.

BeirutsFinest
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Wolf Guard's LX 5.0 said:
The Mach 1 is equal to the SS Camaro in price and the SS is faster with more HP and Torque.
However, why is it that the Mach 1 goes faster then the SS? Read the new MM&FF, it states that the Mach 1 they drove ran a 13.13 in the 1/4 Doesn't the SS run mid-low 13's? like 13.2-13.5? There was a guy on corral that said he ran a high 12 in his Mach 1. The SS might have more HP but why does the Mach 1 beat it then? Weird huh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Re: I'd

BeirutsFinest said:
For guys who have over 100k on their speedo, I want you to compare the ride of your car, with a vette or Camaro that has over 100k, see which one feels better.


BeirutsFinest
Just a little off track, but...... ride quality in newer vehicles really blows, IMO. My lifted 95 F150 4X rides better than my brothers 2X 2001. And my '93 Bird rides better than about anything else I've ever driven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Re: Re: Ford off their rocker

BlackTbird96 said:


However, why is it that the Mach 1 goes faster then the SS? Read the new MM&FF, it states that the Mach 1 they drove ran a 13.13 in the 1/4 Doesn't the SS run mid-low 13's? like 13.2-13.5? There was a guy on corral that said he ran a high 12 in his Mach 1. The SS might have more HP but why does the Mach 1 beat it then? Weird huh
The SS was tested in the middle of a bitter hot summer day the only wayt to truely test both would get them both together same track same day and then test them. The numbers I have seen on SS are high twelves to low 13s.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top