Is the Mustang doomed?
Dennis Smith
Is the Mustang doomed? And I mean in the next few years? Maybe. I started
this inquiry to find out what Ford (which is in business to SELL cars)
thought about the Mustang II (relating to another thread on this
newsgroup.) The data turned up some interesting things. First let me
present the sales history of the Mustang.
1965 680,989 (includes '64 1/2s)
1966 607,568
------------------------ average 644,279
1967 472,121
1968 317,404
------------------------ average 394,763
1969 299,824
1970 190,727
------------------------ average 245,276
1971 149,678
1972 125,093
1973 134,867
------------------------ average 136,546
1974 385,993
1975 188,575
1976 187,567
1977 153,173
1978 192,410
------------------------ average 215,020
1979 369,936
1980 271,322
1981 182,552
1982 130,418
1983 120,873
1984 141,480
1985 156,514
1986 224,410
1987 159,514
1988 211,225
1989 209,769
1990 128,189
1991 98,737
1992 79,280
1993 114,228
------------------------ average 173,205
1994 123,198
1995 185,986
------------------------ average 154,986
Now, for some conclusions.
1. There was an almost straight line decline in sales from 1964 through
1973 as the market became saturated.
2. The Mustang II was a huge success. The 1974 was the 4th best selling
year out of Mustang's 32 year history. It's 5 year model run average was
almost up to 1969-70 levels and much better than the woeful 1971-73 model.
It's 5 year average was higher than the 1979-93 Fox Mustang's average and
also higher than the 1994-95 SN95 Mustang's average. It was a big hit. You
may hate it, but Ford loved ($$$$) it.
3. The Mustang was in BIG trouble in 1991-92. If the SN95 project hadn't
already been underway at the time, the Mustang would probably be dead
already.
4. A big surprise is that the 1994-95 did not match the "new model" sales
surge experienced by the 1974 or 1979 Mustangs.
5. Prediction: If the Mustang returns to the sales levels of 1991-92, then
it is dead. The rear-drive Mustang will be too expensive for
"Front-Drive-Ford" to produce for less than 100,000 cars per year. Make no
mistake about it; Ford is not sentimental. If the dollars aren't there for
them, they will kill it in a heartbeat. (no Chevy reference implied ;-)
So, what do you think? Is image more important to Ford than profits? Is the
Mustang doomed?
Pete Lambertz
"Dennis Smith" <dsm...@eng.uab.edu> wrote:
--- CHOP
>5. Prediction: If the Mustang returns to the sales levels of 1991-92, then
>it is dead. The rear-drive Mustang will be too expensive for
>"Front-Drive-Ford" to produce for less than 100,000 cars per year. Make no
>mistake about it; Ford is not sentimental. If the dollars aren't there for
>them, they will kill it in a heartbeat. (no Chevy reference implied ;-)
>So, what do you think? Is image more important to Ford than profits? Is the
>Mustang doomed?
I believe Ford has planned to kill the Mustang a couple times already,
but from my understanding people inside Ford have stepped up and kept
it going. In the long run I'd have to agree with you. Many car lines
have been dropped by all of the manufactures Chevy Nova, Dodge
Charger, Chevy Malibu, Ford Galixie, Ford Torino.... I know you can
think of more.
Pressure from current Mustang owners can only do so much. If they
don't keep buying it won't matter how many letters or phone calls
Fords gets, Ford is around to sell cars not to keep a legacy or image
alive. As far as the 100,000 number goes, I wouldn't see that as the
magic sales number but I would presume Ford has one.
Any other thoughts?
Pete
Robert W. Hall
In article <01bb84ad$b8e6c240$3f501a8a@eedgs2>, "Dennis Smith" <dsm...@eng.uab.edu> writes:
|> Now, for some conclusions.
|>
|> 1. There was an almost straight line decline in sales from 1964 through
|> 1973 as the market became saturated.
True.
|> 2. The Mustang II was a huge success. The 1974 was the 4th best selling
|> year out of Mustang's 32 year history. It's 5 year model run average was
|> almost up to 1969-70 levels and much better than the woeful 1971-73 model.
|> It's 5 year average was higher than the 1979-93 Fox Mustang's average and
|> also higher than the 1994-95 SN95 Mustang's average. It was a big hit. You
|> may hate it, but Ford loved ($$$$) it.
It was the right car at the right time. The consumer demanded small, economical
sporty cars... During the '79-'93 era, the number of cars in the Mustang's market
grew quite a bit (particuarly fwd 'hot hatches'..) Thus the average is lower..
|> 3. The Mustang was in BIG trouble in 1991-92. If the SN95 project hadn't
|> already been underway at the time, the Mustang would probably be dead
|> already.
The whole point of the SN95 was to resurrect the Mustang..
|> 4. A big surprise is that the 1994-95 did not match the "new model" sales
|> surge experienced by the 1974 or 1979 Mustangs.
Again, the market of small, sporty cars is much broader now than in 1974. The
Mustang competes against the Camaro/Firebird and quite a few fwd sporty cars..
|> 5. Prediction: If the Mustang returns to the sales levels of 1991-92, then
|> it is dead. The rear-drive Mustang will be too expensive for
|> "Front-Drive-Ford" to produce for less than 100,000 cars per year. Make no
|> mistake about it; Ford is not sentimental. If the dollars aren't there for
|> them, they will kill it in a heartbeat. (no Chevy reference implied ;-)
I doubt it.. The Mustang (and Thunderbird) are fundamental to what Ford is.
I expect Ford to move to a single rear-drive V-8 platform for the Mustang, Thunderbird, Lincoln Mark IX, and an unnamed small Jaguar and small Lincoln.. (this is all speculated upon/discussed in this month's Automobile magazine..)
I do think, though Ford is being too cheap with the Mustang by not spending money
to offer a power moonroof (every other car in its class offers a moonroof or t-tops), IRS (adapted from the Thunderbird platform), and more HP for the GT.. The production of Cobras should meet demand, and not be artificially limited to
10 K per year..
Robert W. Hall rh...@eecs.umich.edu http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~rhall
Software Systems Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Kirk Rafferty
Pete Lambertz (lamb...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: "Dennis Smith" <dsm...@eng.uab.edu> wrote:
: I believe Ford has planned to kill the Mustang a couple times already,
: but from my understanding people inside Ford have stepped up and kept
: it going. In the long run I'd have to agree with you. Many car lines
: have been dropped by all of the manufactures Chevy Nova, Dodge
: Charger, Chevy Malibu, Ford Galixie, Ford Torino.... I know you can
: think of more.
: Pressure from current Mustang owners can only do so much. If they
: don't keep buying it won't matter how many letters or phone calls
: Fords gets, Ford is around to sell cars not to keep a legacy or image
: alive. As far as the 100,000 number goes, I wouldn't see that as the
: magic sales number but I would presume Ford has one.
It occured to me that if Ford truly were to stop production of the
Mustang, would we then start seeing high end Probe Cobras? I might be
tempted at that point to buy my first ever Camaro... :-)
--k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Rafferty (raff...@lewan.com) ## "You can't find a hermit to teach you #
Lewan and Associates, Denver CO # herming, because of course that rather #
Phone: (303) 759-5440 x355 # spoils the whole thing." ###############
http://www.lewan.com/~rafferty # ######## (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods) #
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kestrel
Don't sweat it dudes - as long as there is a Comaro, there will be a
Mustang.....
Personally, I'd like to see some high-end Ford monster developed as a
direct challenger to GM's Corvette.
Of course, this idea would not be compartible with Fords' current
managerial mindset: no more ***HIGH*** performance cars....
Kestrel