Any chance Ford new about the gas hike?

merlinsteele

New Member

Nov 21, 2004

68

0

0

Oklahoma

Apr 30, 2005

#1

• Apr 30, 2005

• #1

I know this is a stupid question, and maybe I'm feeling a bit paranoid today, but just sitting here, realizing how many V6's there are 'still' around, and GT's hard to find, I'm wondering if possibly Ford had a tip or idea months ago that the gas was going to rise, so they decided, despite calls for more GT's, to make more V6's so that people would be more inclined to buy them? Sorry for the long and stupid question! Just wondering...any thoughts?

 

O

oohsoobad2

Banned

Dec 17, 2004

127

0

0

Apr 30, 2005

#2

• Apr 30, 2005

• #2

I have heard that the F150 trucks get first priority of V8 engines and thats why there arnt alot of GT's right now. It makes sense, Ford sells alot more V8 trucks than Mustangs.

 

W

WSD42

New Member

Mar 31, 2005

52

0

0

Madison, AL

Apr 30, 2005

#3

• Apr 30, 2005

• #3

Possible but doubtful.. There probably is a connection between the car makers and the oil industry......but thay may come and get me if I divuldge their secret plots.....whose that knocking at my door? Aaaarrrrggggghhhh!

But seriously...historically v6's have been approximately 70% of all sales for production of Mustangs, so most likely not. Ford stopped producing GTs briefly awhile back due to quality issues. Besides, the GT gets nearly as good a fuel economy as the V6, but better performance. If Ford produces all the '05 Mustangs they say they will, then there will be probably 60,000+ GTs (Coupes and Convertables) produced before the '06s start rolling out the door. These are spread all over North America (US, CANADA, Mexico) and there are those that are exported too. So, you will not see as many as you would think. I would be curious as to how many are in each state and elsewhere.

 

Adrenal

New Member

Mar 30, 2005

55

0

0

Scotts Valley, California

Apr 30, 2005

#4

• Apr 30, 2005

• #4

My guess is that it has more to do with the Federal mandate for automakers to attain a set goal for MPG for their entire fleet each year. Building too many GT's would probably upset the balance and put them in a negative situation.

 

W

wbstanggt

New Member

Apr 16, 2005

17

0

0

Washington

May 1, 2005

#5

• May 1, 2005

• #5

If ford had any inclination of a gas hike, they probably would be a resurgance of the late 70's stang and we'd have a choice between 4 and 6 cylinder engine. Fortunately, there are enough people at Ford that realize that regardless of the price of gas, people are gonna buy the V8. Unfortunately for them, they didn't quite realize how many.

 

martimus

New Member

Jan 2, 2005

104

0

0

'neath a cactus

May 1, 2005

#6

• May 1, 2005

• #6

Adrenal said:

My guess is that it has more to do with the Federal mandate for automakers to attain a set goal for MPG for their entire fleet each year. Building too many GT's would probably upset the balance and put them in a negative situation.

Click to expand...

The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard is an interesting read (well maybe NOT!!! ). It was first enacted in 1975 in response to the Arab oil embargo. When the law was passed it targeted a doubling of fuel economy by 1985. Needless to say we never got there.

In 2003 the standard was revised due to the increases in the number of trucks sold in the U.S. There are now two sets of CAFE standards in effect, one for cars and one for trucks. The more I read of it the more skeptical I'm becoming of CAFE effecting Ford manufacturing.

 

SVTdriver

Founding Member

Sep 2, 2001

3,319

0

0

Seattle Wa

May 1, 2005

#7

• May 1, 2005

• #7

I think everyone knew gas prices would go up. They do every year. And will likely go up even more next year. Now whether it effected Ford's decision to build less gt's. I doubt that.

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

May 2, 2005

#8

• May 2, 2005

• #8

The manufacturing mix of V6 vs V8 was chosen based on historical Mustang sales not on any knowledge of short term gas prices.

Ford has publicly stated that it is not going to putting much effort into the HP wars because Ford belives that gas prices will continue to rise and for most customers mileage will be more important than HP.

As far as increasing GT production, as oohsoobad2 said, F150s get priority on the V8s as Ford makes a LOT more profit on a F150 than it does a Mustang and Ford is really concerned about keeping F150 sales up for bragging rights.

 

merlinsteele

New Member

Nov 21, 2004

68

0

0

Oklahoma

May 2, 2005

#9

• May 2, 2005

• #9

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why there are so many V6's on the lots and no GT's! Went down to the local dealership today and there are 8 or 9 V6's down there. I guess there's not that much difference in gas mileage between a V6 and V8, anyway.

 

W

WSD42

New Member

Mar 31, 2005

52

0

0

Madison, AL

May 3, 2005

#10

• May 3, 2005

• #10

Most of the GTs are either ordered or you are on a list to get one. They do not stay on the lot very long. When mine came in, it was for someone else who took it for an overnight test (Sales Managers friend) and brought it back the next day to think about. No was put money down to hold it, I got a call on it, went down and put down cash to hold it. Went back the next day and did the deal. The only GTs I have seen stay at a dealer very long were automatics. The 5 spd's (like mine) don't last more than a day or two at most. If you want a GT now, then get to know a good salesman at your dealer or wait and order an '06. Good luck!

 

Edbert

Founding Member

Jul 13, 2002

3,548

32

109

Austin TX

May 3, 2005

#11

• May 3, 2005

• #11

When I read the subject I thought you were going to talk about the fact that these cars run on 87 instead of 93. I think that for a potential buyer who wants decent perfromance for under $30K it makes the Mustang even more of an obvious choice than it already was. The delta between 87 and 93 here is almost $.30. I saw on the way to work this morning:
87 = $2.02
91 = $2.15
93 = $2.29

30 cents may not sound like much but for the average driver of 18,000 miles a year, that come pretty close to a car payment, and will certainly finance a mod or two!

 

merlinsteele

New Member

Nov 21, 2004

68

0

0

Oklahoma

May 3, 2005

#12

• May 3, 2005

• #12

Edbert said:

When I read the subject I thought you were going to talk about the fact that these cars run on 87 instead of 93. I think that for a potential buyer who wants decent perfromance for under $30K it makes the Mustang even more of an obvious choice than it already was. The delta between 87 and 93 here is almost $.30. I saw on the way to work this morning:
87 = $2.02
91 = $2.15
93 = $2.29

30 cents may not sound like much but for the average driver of 18,000 miles a year, that come pretty close to a car payment, and will certainly finance a mod or two!

Click to expand...

Ha! You raise a good point. I hadn't even thought about that...

 

K

kcp203

Founding Member

Mar 27, 2002

222

0

0

Oak Ridge, NJ

May 3, 2005

#13

• May 3, 2005

• #13

There was an interesting article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal concering the downturn in the market for large SUVs.

Ford claims that sales for large pickups (F150) are steady, and somewhat immune to gas prices since many are used for work and towing.

However, there were quotes from Ford dealers in Texas (truck country), who said that track sales have plummeted, and that for the past few months it has been Mustang sales that are paying the bills.

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

May 3, 2005

#14

• May 3, 2005

• #14

kcp203 said:

There was an interesting article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal concering the downturn in the market for large SUVs.

Ford claims that sales for large pickups (F150) are steady, and somewhat immune to gas prices since many are used for work and towing.

Click to expand...

For the month of April 05, Ford's F-Series truck sales were up slightly (~2%) while SUV sales were down almost 20%.

Car sales did relatively well, thanks to the 500 & Mustang, Ford car sales were slightly up (~2%)