suv_guy_19 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Duh, lol, I guess I should have thought to go look at it. It's interesting. It's too bad that the headlights have to be so hideous. I wonder how the canvas would hold up over time, and how loud it would make it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) It's interesting. It's too bad that the headlights have to be so hideous. I wonder how the canvas would hold up over time, and how loud it would make it? Well I just read and it answered most of the questions, I still wonder about it in the long run...then again, I don't plan to keep vehicles for long periods anyway. And yes, I suppose you could say I was just talking to myself. Edited October 3, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Nick, there are a bunch more people in the market for a 4 door sedan than a 2 door sports car. Umm...what's your point? The 2005 Mustang was still EVERYWHERE you looked when it debuted. It could have 17 doors and 6 windshields. If it was called Mustang it would garner huge attention from the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Umm...what's your point? The 2005 Mustang was still EVERYWHERE you looked when it debuted. It could have 17 doors and 6 windshields. If it was called Mustang it would garner huge attention from the media. That a lot of people saw the 2005 Mustang, said pretty, and forgot about it. A lot of people also saw the 300C, said pretty, then remembered it when they went looking for a new 4 door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The same argument could be made about the 2007 / 08 Escapes. Look I don't know, I couldn't care less about that so long as neither Ford nor Chrysler (or GM as well for that matter) go out of business. That's all I care about bud. Exactly where I am coming from. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 That a lot of people saw the 2005 Mustang, said pretty, and forgot about it. A lot of people also saw the 300C, said pretty, then remembered it when they went looking for a new 4 door. Umm...yeah...nobody bought 2005 Mustangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Umm...yeah...nobody bought 2005 Mustangs. Well, yeah, maybe they did, but they didn't think about them, or remember them. Edited October 3, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Umm...yeah...nobody bought 2005 Mustangs. Heck, I wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Ford sold 160,975 Mustangs in the 2005 calendar year. Does anyone have the Chrysler 300 numbers for the same period? I'm betting they aren't too much different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Umm...yeah...nobody bought 2005 Mustangs. Nobody could afford them with the $5,000 market adjustment the stupid dealer tacked on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Nobody could afford them with the $5,000 market adjustment the stupid dealer tacked on. Nobody except the 160,975 that got one that Ford sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Umm, when has a Volvo car ever looked cutting edge? Thats not the type of company they are, and IMO, the S80 is a very nice vehicle. Their is a difference between looking modern and looking cutting edge, There is more options than looking a decade old and being cutting edge. Your point is mute, based on Volvo's continuous 10% decline, its products aren't selling and it is time to look at the reason not defend the products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Umm...yeah...nobody bought 2005 Mustangs. Way to miss my point. The 300 halo'ed the Chrysler brand, the Mustang halo'ed the Mustang Brand. There are no Ford ovals on the Mustang are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Their is a difference between looking modern and looking cutting edge, There is more options than looking a decade old and being cutting edge. Your point is mute, based on Volvo's continuous 10% decline, its products aren't selling and it is time to look at the reason not defend the products. What is this nonsense about looking at reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Way to miss my point. The 300 halo'ed the Chrysler brand, the Mustang halo'ed the Mustang Brand. There are no Ford ovals on the Mustang are there? So you're saying that because the most well known Ford vehicle of all time doesn't have a blue oval on it, it doesn't halo the Ford brand? Edited October 3, 2007 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Way to miss my point. The 300 halo'ed the Chrysler brand, the Mustang halo'ed the Mustang Brand. There are no Ford ovals on the Mustang are there? The only reason for that is the overall retro styling of the car. The Mustang had no blue ovals in the 1960's, so it doesn't have them now. Regardless, EVERYBODY still knows it's a FORD. And a lot of Mustang owners own other Fords, so in that sense, it does quite a bit for brand, rather than nameplate, recognition. And don't get me started on the futility of trying to market a "halo" vehicle. Historically, it just hasn't worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 So you're saying that because the most well known Ford vehicle of all time doesn't have a blue oval on it, it doesn't halo the Ford brand? Not exactly. Look, I know this is a foreign concept to you, but there are some people that buy Mustangs that would not buy any other Ford. I know to people in Michigan and Ohio this is a shock. But in Europe people want the Mustang that would not take a Taurus. Honestly, if you can't see the difference between the 300 and the Mustang I'm done with this argument. This thread is now about clouds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 The only reason for that is the overall retro styling of the car. The Mustang had no blue ovals in the 1960's, so it doesn't have them now. Regardless, EVERYBODY still knows it's a FORD. And a lot of Mustang owners own other Fords, so in that sense, it does quite a bit for brand, rather than nameplate, recognition. And don't get me started on the futility of trying to market a "halo" vehicle. Historically, it just hasn't worked. Exactly, the 300 wasn't a "HALO" vehicle, but it had all the effects of a halo vehicle. It made Chrysler cars relevant again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Way to miss my point. The 300 halo'ed the Chrysler brand, the Mustang halo'ed the Mustang Brand. There are no Ford ovals on the Mustang are there? They're on the wheels shock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I will tell you one think, we can argue all day about which company is a bigger failure, chrysler or Ford, but as soon as everyone pulls their heads out of their asses they can see Toyota dominating the market, You can see the Japanese selling vehicles at a much higher price point. Argueing who bargained bin priced their products more to move the turd of the escape vs the nitro isn't going to solve either Ford's or Chrysler problems, all while Toyota and Honda ask a very high premium for the Rav 4 and CR-V and are selling many more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 They're on the wheels shock. Pic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Exactly, the 300 wasn't a "HALO" vehicle, but it had all the effects of a halo vehicle. It made Chrysler cars relevant again. No, the 300 made the 300 relevant. I sure as heck don't see any of the success of the 300 trickling over to the Crossfire, Aspen, Sebring, or Pacifica. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 I will tell you one think, we can argue all day about which company is a bigger failure, chrysler or Ford, but as soon as everyone pulls their heads out of their asses they can see Toyota dominating the market, You can see the Japanese selling vehicles at a much higher price point. Argueing who bargained bin priced their products more to move the turd of the escape vs the nitro isn't going to solve either Ford's or Chrysler problems, all while Toyota and Honda ask a very high premium for the Rav 4 and CR-V and are selling many more. I was arguing Ford isn't giving away vehicles anymore. Plus everytime you say to copy anything from Toyota on these boards you get bitched out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I will tell you one think, we can argue all day about which company is a bigger failure, chrysler or Ford, but as soon as everyone pulls their heads out of their asses they can see Toyota dominating the market, You can see the Japanese selling vehicles at a much higher price point. Argueing who bargained bin priced their products more to move the turd of the escape vs the nitro isn't going to solve either Ford's or Chrysler problems, all while Toyota and Honda ask a very high premium for the Rav 4 and CR-V and are selling many more. Escape is selling about as well as the Rav4. Ford's discounts are also closest to Toyota's of the Big 3. Toyota's actually seen a couple of kinks in its armor as of late too. I recall two or three months of sales declines for them so far this year. They aren't the unstoppable juggernaut some seem to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockFX Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 No, the 300 made the 300 relevant. I sure as heck don't see any of the success of the 300 trickling over to the Crossfire, Aspen, Sebring, or Pacifica. Do you? This is a stupid argument because I can't prove they would have been worse off without the 300. But if you honestly think the 300 didn't make Chrysler relevant you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.