StevenCaylor Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Just for fun, went to my Mustang encyclopedia and priced a 65 Mustang as close as possible to today's base V6 in terms of performance, standard features and emissions. 65 Mustang fastback $2589 289-4V $162 A/C $283 (an expensive option, only 9% of Mustangs had this in 65) Heavy duty battery $8 Front disk brakes $58 Console $32 Equa-Lock differential $43 California emissions $5 Emergency flashers $20 Tinted glass $31 Backup lights $11 Power steering $86 AM radio $59 Rally-Pac $71 Deluxe seatbelts $8 Handling package $31 Padded sun visors $6 Four-speed manual $188 Visibility group $36 Styled steel wheels $122 Black nylon tires $16 Total $3865 You could also throw in dealer installed options like the Studiosonic sound system and matching passenger sideview mirror (don't have the price for those. Can anyone help out?). Using the inflation calculator, 1965's $3865 would be $27021 in 2011. Edited March 14, 2011 by StevenCaylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 seeing as jetlag, like from a daylightsaving's timechange, tends to make me (more) paranoid . . . ...As for the next generation Mustang, I expect that Ford is much further along in development than they're admitting regardless of their recent statements about seking global input. Time will tell! WHAT IF it isn't the Mustang itself they're all working on at all?!? but the LincStang cars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 seeing as jetlag, like from a daylightsaving's timechange, tends to make me (more) paranoid . . . WHAT IF it isn't the Mustang itself they're all working on at all?!? but the LincStang cars? Best I can tell, they're one in the same. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 ^ well I was thinking more about the styling and (re)packaging which I agree with ice-capades oughta be, if not fairly completed, very well-along for the nextgen Mustang... ..."global dynamcis"** would be much important for the LincStangs, too! + as I've said, I don't believe anything FoMoCo 'says' since last June so a bit of subterfuge is the least I'll expect from them ** Eureka reference (best SciFi show this century!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) I think you bring up an interesting perspective on this. Maybe the Mustang isn't getting more expensive. Maybe people just aren't making as much money in relation to inflation ... and affording a Mustang just isn't as easy for the typical American anymore. It's a definite possibility. There are many studies out there that support the notion of the shrinking middle class - the heart and soul of the Mustang demographic (at one time, at least). I know that with most people losing pensions and defined benefits these days that overall compensation on a yearly basis, for most of us, isn't as good as it once was. Many of us are putting possibly what might have been a monthly payment towards a Mustang into funding our own retirement. (I graduated into the 2008 recession, so I never saw any of that pension stuff anyway.) People are having to pear down, and it is, at times, painful ... You also have to consider that the Mustang is even more of a "specialty" car today than it was in 1964. At that time, a Mustang could serve as a second car, or even as a first car, to families with small children. You put the kids in the back seat and that was it. Today all children have to be restrained in a car seat until a certain age and/or height. Most of us simply have no desire to perform the contortions necessary to mount a child seat in the back seat, let alone put the child in there every time we take a trip. I'm sure that this limits sales. For many families, Mustang becomes, at best, a second car, or maybe even a THIRD car, and the third car is the first to go in a recession (or, in this economy, never gets bought in the first place). The specialty coupe market is relatively small, and not growing. Mustang is going to have to divide it with Challenger and Camaro...note that many of the Japanese specialty sport coupes have died (Honda Prelude, Toyota Celica). If I recall correctly, even the Mitsubishi Eclipse, which seemed to be a favorite of many 20-somethings about 10 years ago, is going to die, too. Coupe versions of regular sedans have faded as well...about the only two left in the mass market are the Honda Civic and Accord coupes. Edited March 14, 2011 by grbeck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whutever202 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 People are buying more of the Camaro because it is a new cool car in some people's eyes. Once the novelty wears off the Mustang will be back on top. Maybe they could fix the traction problems in the meantime though :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not heard anything about 2.5 Ecoboost. AFAIK, EB 2.0 is it and GEN 2 & 3 are promising much more power and torque. I seem to recall a 2.3 eco engine in a AWD Fiesta concept where the #350hp was being thrown around....BANZAI! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabfordeb Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think another reson why the older crowd who are buying these cars today might prefer the competition is that the Mustang feels pretty confined and cramped in the front seats. I haven't sat in a Camaro, but I sat in a Challenger this weekend when I was having my Rubicon serviced and it did feel a lot less confined, more spacious. I'm guessing the Camaro would be similar. A few more inches in interior width in the Mustang might make a difference for the Buyers who aren't already dedicated to Ford and pick the one that they feel the most comfortable in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish4newstang Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I agree with the blog and most of the following comments. I would suggest though a few issues I have with the Mustang, 2011 in particular. Granted a better car rhen 2010, but not where it matters to most people, the outside. I really think they should have made some cosmetic changes, for the average car shopper to see. I am sure most of you car nuts would know the difference, but would the average buyer see it. I still believe there needs to be a more price friendly model offered. I think alot of people would consider the mustang for a daily driver if they could get one at least in the teens. I know we dont want Ford to give them away, but would it not do Ford better if they could sale more? Just my thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Just for fun, went to my Mustang encyclopedia and priced a 65 Mustang as close as possible to today's base V6 in terms of performance, standard features and emissions. 65 Mustang fastback $2589 289-4V $162 A/C $283 (an expensive option, only 9% of Mustangs had this in 65) Heavy duty battery $8 Front disk brakes $58 Console $32 Equa-Lock differential $43 California emissions $5 Emergency flashers $20 Tinted glass $31 Backup lights $11 Power steering $86 AM radio $59 Rally-Pac $71 Deluxe seatbelts $8 Handling package $31 Padded sun visors $6 Four-speed manual $188 Visibility group $36 Styled steel wheels $122 Black nylon tires $16 Total $3865 You could also throw in dealer installed options like the Studiosonic sound system and matching passenger sideview mirror (don't have the price for those. Can anyone help out?). Using the inflation calculator, 1965's $3865 would be $27021 in 2011. Why were buyers financing 1965 Mustangs for 2 or 3 years and the average new car loan term today is 5 or 6 years? The inflation calculator proves everyone can pay their car off in the same or less time than in 1965. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Why were buyers financing 1965 Mustangs for 2 or 3 years and the average new car loan term today is 5 or 6 years? The inflation calculator proves everyone can pay their car off in the same or less time than in 1965. In 1965 your monthly costs were likely limited to food, housing, utilities, and a car (along with the occasional vacation). You ate at home for the most part and "going out" was a big deal. In 2011, you also probably have a cellphone, internet, and cable/sat TV along with a list of a hundred other "non-essentials" that seem to be necessities nowadays--and when you aren't shuttling your kids between Karate/Gymnastics/[insert some other costly activity here], you're likely eating out as much as at home. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Peoples shopping habits have changed too. I know people who have about $500 left over from paying all their bills, and thats what they use to buy their next vehicle, with no savings. I can't believe how many of my frinds have no savings accounts, and look for their children to help them after retirement (ha, a bad bet if little Johnny is a loser- and bad investment).... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I think another reson why the older crowd who are buying these cars today might prefer the competition is that the Mustang feels pretty confined and cramped in the front seats. I haven't sat in a Camaro, but I sat in a Challenger this weekend when I was having my Rubicon serviced and it did feel a lot less confined, more spacious. I'm guessing the Camaro would be similar. A few more inches in interior width in the Mustang might make a difference for the Buyers who aren't already dedicated to Ford and pick the one that they feel the most comfortable in. I've found the high door sills on the Camaro to have the exact opposite effect. It feels more cramped to me than the Mustang. The Challenger does feel more airy, but that's because it is. I certainly wouldn't want the Mustang to grow to the Challenger's proportions. If interior space was that big of a concern, the Challenger would be the best-selling of the three, but it's the worst. Edited March 15, 2011 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Just for fun, went to my Mustang encyclopedia and priced a 65 Mustang as close as possible to today's base V6 in terms of performance, standard features and emissions. 65 Mustang fastback $2589 289-4V $162 A/C $283 (an expensive option, only 9% of Mustangs had this in 65) Heavy duty battery $8 Front disk brakes $58 Console $32 Equa-Lock differential $43 California emissions $5 Emergency flashers $20 Tinted glass $31 Backup lights $11 Power steering $86 AM radio $59 Rally-Pac $71 Deluxe seatbelts $8 Handling package $31 Padded sun visors $6 Four-speed manual $188 Visibility group $36 Styled steel wheels $122 Black nylon tires $16 Total $3865 You could also throw in dealer installed options like the Studiosonic sound system and matching passenger sideview mirror (don't have the price for those. Can anyone help out?). Using the inflation calculator, 1965's $3865 would be $27021 in 2011. Thanks for the analysis StevenCaylor! A 2012 Mustang V6 Premium 6MT with the Comfort Package costs about the same as that 1965 Mustang fastback 289. What an impressive value the 2012 model is by comparison! Edited March 15, 2011 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Thanks for the analysis StevenCaylor! A 2012 Mustang V6 Premium 6MT with the Comfort Package costs about the same as that 1965 Mustang fastback 289. What an impressive value the 2012 model is by comparison! Sure it is so pay it off in 2 years like everyone did in 1965, with a small down payment your new 6-cyl Mustang will be about $1,100 per month. 46 years ago Mustangs were not loaded with standard equipment like they are today (see his note about how many had basic air conditioning) so comparing a high option V8 '65 to a standard V6 2012 is hardly apples to apples. In equipment, performance and price its like comparing a Grumman F6F Hellcat to an F/A18 Hornet. On the other hand clean '65s sure bring a lot more than their original prices today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 In equipment, performance and price its like comparing a Grumman F6F Hellcat to an F/A18 Hornet. On the other hand clean '65s sure bring a lot more than their original prices today. Lets see: A Hellcat went for 35K in 1945 A F-18 Super Horent goes for $55 million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Lets see: A Hellcat went for 35K in 1945 A F-18 Super Horent goes for $55 million But 1 F-18 will be more effective in combat than an entire squadron of Hellcats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 But 1 F-18 will be more effective in combat than an entire squadron of Hellcats. I dunno about that....maybe 5-10 of them. All depends on the situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I dunno about that....maybe 5-10 of them. All depends on the situation I can't see any situation where an F-18 pilot would even put himself within firing range of a F6F. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Two pilots were arguing one day about whether the F-16 or F-18 was better. The F-16 pilot said "Tell me one thing the F-18 can do that the F-16 can't". The F-18 pilot said "Go down to 5,000 feet 50 miles over the ocean and turn off one engine." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Two pilots were arguing one day about whether the F-16 or F-18 was better. The F-16 pilot said "Tell me one thing the F-18 can do that the F-16 can't". The F-18 pilot said "Go down to 5,000 feet 50 miles over the ocean and turn off one engine." Game, Set, Match! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Two pilots were arguing one day about whether the F-16 or F-18 was better. The F-16 pilot said "Tell me one thing the F-18 can do that the F-16 can't". The F-18 pilot said "Go down to 5,000 feet 50 miles over the ocean and turn off one engine." F-16s probably can't do this either..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 F-16s probably can't do this either..... Yeah I remember hearing about that one. 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.