CD Article: 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt

[ovr50]

It should not be a surprise that there an age-related preference to the choice of either the Bullitt Mustang or the STi. Those that are younger have zero nostalgia for the old muscle cars, US built (all of them) from the 60s. Those that are over (say) 50 have the memories. And let's face it. the Bullitt Mustang is a direct, in-your-face play on memories and collectibility (limited number built, only 700 in Canada, serially numbered, built as close as possible to look and sound like McQueen's 68 GT Mustang in the movie. The STi is a great car, not cheap either, and clearly a superior daily driver, and likely a more practical choice. The Bullitt is not about practical. Those that buy the Bullitt will do so for reasons totally unrelated to practicality and daily use.

If I were looking to buy (another) Bullitt, why would I even consider looking at other cars? Those that will drive away in the new Bullitt could care less if the STi or any other car is a "better car". It's not a Bullitt Mustang..end of story. 

[rrocket]

^^^^A bit of a blanket statement about the younger people not having an appreciation for those old cars.

Here's the 1970 Mach 1 we did a complete restoration on.  1 of 3 made that year equipped as this one is.




Our first one we did was a 1966 Mustang with a 289 Hi-Po and Pony interior.  I think I still have a set of pony interior seats kicking around in the garage.

I LIKE the old muscle cars. 

[Demosthenes X]

Once again, .  Given the time and resources, I would love to own an old muscle car and do a restoration - preferably on an old Challenger or GTO.  And an SRT8 Challenger would get serious consideration if looking in its category.

I'm not a big enough fan to say "I'd have one", but it would certainly be considered, not written off on account of it being a "muscle car". 

[ovr50]

^^^^A bit of a blanket statement about the younger people not having an appreciation for those old cars.

Here's the 1970 Mach 1 we did a complete restoration on.  1 of 3 made that year equipped as this one is.




Our first one we did was a 1966 Mustang with a 289 Hi-Po and Pony interior.  I think I still have a set of pony interior seats kicking around in the garage.

I LIKE the old muscle cars. 

There are always some exceptions to any generalization such as I made above. In the main tho, MOST younger ppl today have no more than a passing appreciation of the muscle and pony cars of the 60s. Thus, the new Bullitt is not targeted at younger ppl (who are often import oriented - another generalization, but still mainly true).

[Snowman]

I love muscle cars but at the end of the day I need one car that will deliver a balance. I would like nothing better than having a new Mustang GT and start modding it but as a family man I need a more practical vehicle. A sport hatch/wagon is a necessity and I am pleased that there are more of them available.

I wish the EVO came in a hatch or the G8 in a wagon. In the fall of 2009 there are only three cars on my short list:

2010 WRX
2010 STi
2010 CTS Wagon

[Bullet Blue]

It should not be a surprise that there an age-related preference to the choice of either the Bullitt Mustang or the STi. Those that are younger have zero nostalgia for the old muscle cars, US built (all of them) from the 60s. Those that are over (say) 50 have the memories. And let's face it. the Bullitt Mustang is a direct, in-your-face play on memories and collectibility (limited number built, only 700 in Canada, serially numbered, built as close as possible to look and sound like McQueen's 68 GT Mustang in the movie. The STi is a great car, not cheap either, and clearly a superior daily driver, and likely a more practical choice. The Bullitt is not about practical. Those that buy the Bullitt will do so for reasons totally unrelated to practicality and daily use.

If I were looking to buy (another) Bullitt, why would I even consider looking at other cars? Those that will drive away in the new Bullitt could care less if the STi or any other car is a "better car". It's not a Bullitt Mustang..end of story. 

Don't worry Ovr, once us younger guys get to the over 50 point in our lives, we'll probably be spurting the same thing about the nostalgia of the STI or something similar 

I wish the EVO came in a hatch or the G8 in a wagon. In the fall of 2009 there are only three cars on my short list:

2010 WRX
2010 STi
2010 CTS Wagon

Maybe this will be available by the time you're ready to buy:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080224.002/mitsubishi-lancer-prototype-s-hot-hatch-images-leaked

[Vmango]

It is unfair to say those who are younger have zero nostalgia for the old muscle cars. Indeed, I think it has little to do with nostalgia and more to do with the fact that the present Mustang GT isn't a very good car compared to other things in its price range at this point. It was good in 2004, but now it's considered underpowered - in combination with its poor handling and outdated interior.

As for loving Muscle cars, I'm 27 years old and I've loved Muscle cars my whole life. The new Camaro is on the short list for my next car and I think just about everyone on here knows of my love for Corvette.

I just think a lot of younger buyers, who are more savvy, consider everything when looking at cars. The are a lot of options out there between 35 and 45 thousand dollars. To bring up this STI argument again....the STI does everything the Mustang can do...and do it better - while allowing one to drive worry free year round and having more "everyday" usable space. That's why a lot of us would choose it.


OVR, you ARE right about older people buying the Stang though.....that is the one true fact.....at least here in Canada

Now, I'd choose a Camaro cause it has over 400 horsepower, an LS3, decent handling, and because it's a Camaro.

[evil_twin]

To bring up this STI argument again....the STI does everything the Mustang can do...and do it better

But it doesn't have the sound of 8 cylinders rumbling out of the exhausts (especially a Borla catback ).

And that's all that matters to some folk.  Again, it will be mostly those in their late 40s, 50s, 60s range and they aren't buying it as a daily driver.

Also, in terms of price the standard mustang GT lines up with the WRX265.  I'd choose the WRX265, but not if it were my 2nd or 3rd car...and I loved the Blue Oval (which i don't).

[Edstock]

I'd like an RS Focus 2-dr. hatch with RevoKnuckle, myself, and I'm almost 60.

Hau Thai-Tang a Vietnamese-American was chief engineer, did a brilliant job, moved the engine a couple of inches further back, and stiffened the car. At 3,600 lb, it's about 4-500 lb lighter than the Camaro and Challenger, IIRC.

I might be wrong, but I believe the Bullit comes with different suspension bits, including caster/camber adjustment plates for the front struts, that aren't on the GT, but available at the Ford parts site.

Considering the all-alloy OHC V-8, not bad, at the price, and the 2K10 model should be even better, and hopefully, a little lighter.

I really love the AWD WRX/EVO's, and I love watching WRC. But the cars sound like little fart wagons. The Bullit sounds like there's flaming bowling balls coming out the back. The point is, somehow, it must be possible get a decent exhaust note out of the small stuff. Hire BOSE, or Klipsch, somebody.

[Honda Owner]

With Ford stock now a whopping $4.39, and GM hovering around a whopping $10, I wonder if muscle cars are the way forward. Methinks the market is really too sophisticated to fall for moxie, pizazz and trying to generate  "showroom traffic" in an era where most buyers have made up their minds what they want before they walk in the door.

[Giant Dwarf]

The Bullit sounds like there's flaming bowling balls coming out the back.

Now THAT's a description! 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

With Ford stock now a whopping $4.39, and GM hovering around a whopping $10, I wonder if muscle cars are the way forward. Methinks the market is really too sophisticated to fall for moxie, pizazz and trying to generate  "showroom traffic" in an era where most buyers have made up their minds what they want before they walk in the door.

Locally, when the current generation Mustang was introduced, the local dealers had Mustang unveiling nights. I went, as did a few hundred others at each dealership. It was even more impressive when they unveiled the Ford GT, standing room only, and lined up out the door.

There are still a lot of people who love their cars, and aren't merely appliance shopping.

[Honda Owner]

There are still a lot of people who love their cars, and aren't merely appliance shopping.

Perhaps, but the main problem Ford has in North America is their product line does not attract enough customers for Ford to a) make a profit, b) maintain their stock price and c) pay dividends to their shareholders. This is kind of what business is all about. And believe you me, as someone who spent years in the car biz, they may as well be selling freezers because the bottom line is what it is all about. The whole idea of cars like the Bullitt is to make a huge profit per unit. This has been Detroit's philosophy since the 1950s and one that hasn't been working recently.

All of the recent muscle cars, the Bullitt, the Challenger and the Camaro, were all conceived with cheap gas, about four years ago. Even then, domestic dealers were screaming for a reliable, decent small car to compete with the Civic, Corolla and the Mazda 3. In that period, I have had two dealers go bust under me for the lack of a decent, efficient people mover. Small cars don't have to be cheap, either. Honda does very nicely on the high Civic models. The Acura-Civic is absurdly priced for what it is but the dealers sell a ton of them.

And while Detroit looks for the big hit on the next new Big Splash With Moxie (TM), the mostly Japanese competition has been churning out those appliances by the gazillion and making a higher unit profit with every one they sell, all the while eating into the former "Big Three" market share. And now that we have another spike in fuel prices, it is amazing to see Detroit in exactly the same situation they were in circa 1973.

And how many actually bought?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Ford had moved one hell of a lot of the last generation Focus even with the recall laden first two years taken into account. They had also been moving one hell of a lot of Escorts prior to that. Both were competitive with what the Asian manufacturers were putting out, the Escort being a re-bodied Mazda Protégé and the Focus being European with a cheaper interior. The problem with them was not sticking to a 5 year life cycle and trying to wring profits out of the lines by keeping them far after the tooling had been paid out.

Small cars simply don't have much profit in them. The Asians can make a bit more profit on them because of lower labour costs, but they were fairly quick to get into SUVs and trucks when they had the chance, not to mention luxury brands. I doubt very much if Honda could be profitable with only the Civic and Fit lines.

[Snowman]

Ford had moved one hell of a lot of the last generation Focus even with the recall laden first two years taken into account. They had also been moving one hell of a lot of Escorts prior to that. Both were competitive with what the Asian manufacturers were putting out, the Escort being a re-bodied Mazda Protégé and the Focus being European with a cheaper interior. The problem with them was not sticking to a 5 year life cycle and trying to wring profits out of the lines by keeping them far after the tooling had been paid out.

Small cars simply don't have much profit in them. The Asians can make a bit more profit on them because of lower labour costs, but they were fairly quick to get into SUVs and trucks when they had the chance, not to mention luxury brands. I doubt very much if Honda could be profitable with only the Civic and Fit lines.

What about the Escape?

RAV4
2008 Year to date: 96,433
2007 Year to date: 117,534

Escape
2008 Year to date: 116,511
2007 Year to date: 116,605

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Ford had moved one hell of a lot of the last generation Focus even with the recall laden first two years taken into account. They had also been moving one hell of a lot of Escorts prior to that. Both were competitive with what the Asian manufacturers were putting out, the Escort being a re-bodied Mazda Protégé and the Focus being European with a cheaper interior. The problem with them was not sticking to a 5 year life cycle and trying to wring profits out of the lines by keeping them far after the tooling had been paid out.

Small cars simply don't have much profit in them. The Asians can make a bit more profit on them because of lower labour costs, but they were fairly quick to get into SUVs and trucks when they had the chance, not to mention luxury brands. I doubt very much if Honda could be profitable with only the Civic and Fit lines.

What about the Escape?

RAV4
2008 Year to date: 96,433
2007 Year to date: 117,534

Escape
2008 Year to date: 116,511
2007 Year to date: 116,605

I liked the Escape I had as a rental, though it was harder on fuel than I'd like. The new one is better all around with the revised power train.

On the sales side it's been consistently strong even though the initial version was 7 years old, and the current version is a refresh. It certainly has been a money maker for Ford and Mazda. It seems to be an exception to the 5 years cycle, and I have no idea why.

[Edstock]

and the current version is a refresh.

Not to argue, but the "refresh" is more rigorous than the word "refresh" suggests. The new 2.5/3.0/6-speed powertrains didn't just drop-in, the floor pan had to be modified, so a host of other stuff was done too. So, while the top-hat is almost unchanged, the vehicle underneath has been significantly improved.

That might be why it appears to defy the year-cycle.

[Honda Owner]

Small cars simply don't have much profit in them. The Asians can make a bit more profit on them because of lower labour costs, but they were fairly quick to get into SUVs and trucks when they had the chance, not to mention luxury brands. I doubt very much if Honda could be profitable with only the Civic and Fit lines.

The "small cars have no profit" is the classic Detroit mantra. It is the reason they have given up enormous market share over the last thirty years. Get a copy of John DeLorean's classic, "On a Clear Day you Can See General Motors."  You will get an excellent insight to how Detroit works and it hasn't changed a bit since the book was published.

Honda makes very little on the Fit DX but there is plenty in the LX and the Sport. The same goes for the Civic, especially the Si which makes tons of money for Honda. They also provide a solid entry level product to get buyers in the door.

Besides, you can't argue with success. Honda's 2007 profit was US$4.85 billion on 3.395 million units. You do the math. It doesn't get much better than that. Ford lost $3.5 billion in the same year and is now selling off assets to stay out of bankruptcy.

Ford had moved one hell of a lot of the last generation Focus even with the recall laden first two years taken into account.

Glad they did. They should also never had released cars as bad as the first Focus models were. Detroit does this all the time. When the Cobalt was released, they came back by the ton. This is not the way to make your entry level customer happy and btw, these are the most important customers on the lot. Unfortunately, they have never been a priority for Detroit.

The problem with them was not sticking to a 5 year life cycle and trying to wring profits out of the lines by keeping them far after the tooling had been paid out.

They did. The 2000 Focus was produced basically unchanged for seven model years. The 2008 is basically the same but a make over, because Ford spent all their R&D money on high profit gas guzzlers like trucks and the Edge and the Flex. Now they cannot even hope to move them without discounting them so much they lose tons of money on every unit they sell. And why not have a long product cycle? As long as customers keep buying it, you make more profit on every one you sell and they get even more reliable. Have a look at Fit and Civic reliability ratings vs say, Aveo and Cobalt. Customers HATE warranty work and recalls.

Detroit is in such a mess now it is looking for loan guarantees to retool their factories to produce small, fuel efficient cars, which is a total crock because they already make them overseas. There is almost zero R&D on these things since European specs are practically the same as ours. And finally, look were the new GM "import fighter" is being produced: it is not Oshawa. Good work with your blockade, CAW. Hope you have a good retirement, Buzz.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Small cars simply don't have much profit in them. The Asians can make a bit more profit on them because of lower labour costs, but they were fairly quick to get into SUVs and trucks when they had the chance, not to mention luxury brands. I doubt very much if Honda could be profitable with only the Civic and Fit lines.

The "small cars have no profit" is the classic Detroit mantra. It is the reason they have given up enormous market share over the last thirty years. Get a copy of John DeLorean's classic, "On a Clear Day you Can See General Motors."  You will get an excellent insight to how Detroit works and it hasn't changed a bit since the book was published.

Honda makes very little on the Fit DX but there is plenty in the LX and the Sport. The same goes for the Civic, especially the Si which makes tons of money for Honda. They also provide a solid entry level product to get buyers in the door.

Besides, you can't argue with success. Honda's 2007 profit was US$4.85 billion on 3.395 million units. You do the math. It doesn't get much better than that. Ford lost $3.5 billion in the same year and is now selling off assets to stay out of bankruptcy.

Ford had moved one hell of a lot of the last generation Focus even with the recall laden first two years taken into account.

Glad they did. They should also never had released cars as bad as the first Focus models were. Detroit does this all the time. When the Cobalt was released, they came back by the ton. This is not the way to make your entry level customer happy and btw, these are the most important customers on the lot. Unfortunately, they have never been a priority for Detroit.

The problem with them was not sticking to a 5 year life cycle and trying to wring profits out of the lines by keeping them far after the tooling had been paid out.

They did. The 2000 Focus was produced basically unchanged for seven model years. The 2008 is basically the same but a make over, because Ford spent all their R&D money on high profit gas guzzlers like trucks and the Edge and the Flex. Now they cannot even hope to move them without discounting them so much they lose tons of money on every unit they sell. And why not have a long product cycle? As long as customers keep buying it, you make more profit on every one you sell and they get even more reliable. Have a look at Fit and Civic reliability ratings vs say, Aveo and Cobalt. Customers HATE warranty work and recalls.

Detroit is in such a mess now it is looking for loan guarantees to retool their factories to produce small, fuel efficient cars, which is a total crock because they already make them overseas. There is almost zero R&D on these things since European specs are practically the same as ours. And finally, look were the new GM "import fighter" is being produced: it is not Oshawa. Good work with your blockade, CAW. Hope you have a good retirement, Buzz.

I've read the book.

The reality is that small cars don't make much profit for anyone, especially in North America, where most people still want larger vehicles to justify the higher price. Special versions do have a higher mark-up, but their sales are very limited. The vast majority of Civics are DX or LX. That's why Honda moved into sales of Accords and Preludes, then later on Odysseys, Pilots and Ridgelines.

Economically, Ford was more than justified in spending development money on SUVs. The profit on the sale of one Excursion was $18000, over $20k on a Navigator. They'd have to sell around 20 Focus to get the same return. It's a strategy that worked well through the 1990s. In 2000 they made a profit of over $7 billion. During that decade, their European division was a consistent money looser.

Fast forward to now. The European operation is making record profits and sales in South America are doing well, while the North American operation is hurting. They were not prepared for how rapidly the market would shift from trucks to cars. But so was Toyota (new Tundra and Sequoia and the plants to build them), and everyone else. The difference was that Ford had spent the bulk of development money on their profit centres, and overextended the life of their cars, while Honda and Toyota and Mazda had fairly fresh cars. That'll be rectified over the next year or two and it will be back business as usual.

Honda's profits may be up, but their sales look to be declining pretty quickly at the moment.

As for the Focus recalls, that is correct, but it's hardly a Ford only problem, Ask Toyota about the Tacoma buy-back, or the Tundra. It should be noted that for the last number of years, Ford launches have been very good. The Fusion/Milan has been above average in reliability since year one, as has the Edge.

[Honda Owner]

The European operation is making record profits

On cars that would be considered "small" in our market.

the profit on the sale of one Excursion was $18000,

That's right, it was. It isn't now. Unfortunately, when the sales of these monsters tanked, there was no entry level product to take up the slack and generate cash flow. Those sales went directly to the Civic, Corolla, Yaris and Fit because these companies realised that keep a strong, fuel efficient product available was a good business decision . Well done Ford and good luck getting those customers back.

but their sales look to be declining pretty quickly at the moment.

Yes, Honda sales are down, but not nearly as much as the Detroit makers.
Honda in the USA was down 9.2% in July 2008 vs July 2007. In the same period, Ford was down 26% overall, and their "high profit" SUVs down 54%.  Chrysler was down 29%.The largest selling vehicle in North America is the Honda Civic. The subcompact Honda Fit and the Civic Hybrid broke previous sales records, rising 78.5% and 27.4%, respectively.
Toyota is down 9% as well but moving the Yaris and Corolla as fast as they can make them.

Ford launches have been very good. The Fusion/Milan has been above average in reliability since year one, as has the Edge.

Unfortunately, they do not sell enough of them to actually generate a) a dividend, b) maintain their stock prices or c) declare an operating profit. This is kind of the whole object of doing business.

So, the Japanese makers make a smaller profits per unit but they make profits. Lexus is obscenely profitable. Making profits is  something that none of the US based automakers actually do. For example, Toyota has downgraded its 2008 profit estimate to a paltry $11.43 billion, this is about the worst year the industry has had in the last 20 years. Using the Detroit model of business isn't exactly a recipe for success.

Ask Toyota about the Tacoma buy-back, or the Tundra

Very true. Here is some inside info: They also canned the entire US based team that was responsible for the fiasco and will now do all the product planning either, get this, in Cambridge or Japan. Most of them were former GM types, which means that any company is capable of f-ing up. . All North American senior managers have been replaced with Japanese. These people do not suffer failure lightly. They are all about product and customer service.The secret is learning from your mistakes and not making them again, something that Detroit has never learned since 1973. And now they are looking for handouts!

Finally, try to get GM or Chrysler to buy anything back.