You're talking globally. I'm talking about the American market. Do you have any sales figures for America? While I know it sold very very well in Europe and moderately well here from what I know it never became an uber popular car(i.e. outsold the Mustang in America).
The 2005 mustang to me is how the car would have looked if it never strayed from the original feel. Like the porshe..they look almost idential to the old ones just freshed up and modernized. I feel this new stang is in the same vein. If the stang had never altered from the origianal 60's look I feel we would have ended up with a 2005 similar to this. As if it had "evolved" instead having been "redesigned".
I read that more woman buy Mustangs than men, especially when you factor in the higher V6 sales (men tend to favor the lower selling GT's, Cobras, and Mach 1's).
The Beetle stayed in production from the 1940's until 2003. It was the most basic transportation type car since the Ford Model T. The Beetle's saving grace was its simplicity and economy. It was stone reliable and was one of the first cars to achieve over 30mpg. The original Beetle had about 40HP the last ones off of the assembly line in Mexico had about 60 with modern emissions equipment.
VW kept it in production so long that it almost put them out of business. Basically they built it to death!
The modern Beetle has absolutely nothing in common with the original. It is based off of the FWD Jetta/Golf platform. It is purely a marketing ploy.
The T-bird flopped because it was underpowered, overpriced, and has sloppy ride and handling. NOT because it was retro styled. This mustang will succeed like no other Mustang in recent years. It has styling that can reach a broad range of deemographics as well as a modern chassis and a superb engine, all for a similar price to the SN95. It's superior to the old mustang in every way (styling is subjective), how could it NOT succeed?
I have been asking the same question. It doesn't really matter if you like the new mustang or not. The question is will the retro look have long appeal. I read a couple stories last summer in USA Today that said the retro look was going out and all retro cars sales were suffering a lot. And yes, the artical did say Ford felt the T-Bird was a victum of retro as well. Not the engine, price or two seat design. Although, I would have bought one if it where $10000 less.
I've been comparing the new Mustang to the New Corvette and watching the responces. Corvette went the opposite direction and built a car with a more future design. They even dropped the hidden headlights going against the majority of Corvette owners who felt that was part of the Corvette heritage. At least since the 1968 anyway. Personally I think that GM made the safer move.
I like the new Mustang, but mostly because I was ready for a new look. I'm glad the Mustang still looks like a, well a Mustang. But I wonder how hard it would been to take GM's approach and make the Mustang look like a 2010 version of the Mustang instead of a 1968 version.
I do agree that price, not hp, will set the pace of sells. Most Mustang owners do not know how much HP they have under the hood, but do remember how much the paid. Most folks who know the hp also belong on a forum.
This Thunderbird is really bizarre in the way as it mirrors the original. The original car was too heavy and required a supercharger to be competitive. It also didn't last long as a two seater. Ford made it a fourseat luxury/sport to really get sales out of it.
If it were up to me I would build a Thunderbird that was more Cobra like in function if not appearance. In fact, splash Shelby's name on it for good measure and shoe horn the biggest engine possible or supercharge it.