GM's Pseudo GTO

Actually, although that is a very common conception, FWD vehicles are more expensive to build than a RWD vehicle of the same size. The reason being FWD vehicles require more of the relatively more expensive off line pre assembly of more components, than RWD vehicles. FWD. vehicle are much more expensive to insure as well as the things you mentioned.

mike hunt

noyap wrote:

Reply to
MikeHunt2
Loading thread data ...

Can you prove that? I'd like to use it in my never ending "FWD sucks" tirade. ;)

Reply to
ray

As a retired automotive engineer, I can not reveal trade secrets such as cost figures. you can prove it to yourself by doing some research of the prices of the FWD cars that replaced RWD cars. The much smaller FWD Chrysler 4cy 'K' cars sold for as much or more than the larger 6 cy and V8 RWD cars they replaced for example. The smaller FWD Cadillac was more costly, same was true of the other GM FWD vehicles. 1981 Escort sold for much more than the 1980 Pinto it replaced. The RWD LTD that was sold alongside of the first Taurus, sold for $4,000 less, etc.

mike hunt

ray wrote:

Reply to
MajorDomo

I thought that the 2005 Mustang was a shortened version of the LS platform (I forgot the designation of it) from which the TB was based also.

"01 May 03 Matt Joseph "We have always planned to build it for four model years, and that's what we are going to do. It would be wrong to keep building it and erode its value. It's a collectors [sic] vehicle."

Ford Division President, Steve Lyons, announcing that Ford would stop making the new Thunderbird in 2005 or 2006

Quoted from an interview with the Detroit News, 4-22-03

It never ceases to amaze me, the penchant that some political and industrial leaders have for enhancing their failures by dissembling ridiculous explanations to avoid blame for the bad situations hatched by their blunders.

I am absolutely certain that the reasons for ending production of Ford's failing new Thunderbird, after one model iteration, have entirely nothing to do with "doing the right thing" by car collectors, to prevent the erosion of the values of their collector car investments.

Or is that why Lincoln built the short-lived and ill-fated Blackwood? Was that marketing disaster intended to create instant collector cars? Get serious..

The day that a top official of a major car company earnestly entertains such a consideration is the day that its shareholders have some responsibility to come after him or her, mumbling by torchlight and brandishing hatchets and burlap bags.

A more plausible reason for ceasing production of the new T-Bird, after only four or five years, may be that it is selling way below expectations.

Inventories this year have bulged as high as a 183-day supply, and now stand around 130-days. That is more than two times the "ideal" 55-day supply, and despite Ford applying large cash incentives to coax consumers to buy the Bird.

Attempted exculpatory fictions aside, there are three reasons that the new Thunderbird is failing in the marketplace. Almost all "retro cars" enjoy very short half-lives of success. Besides, the new Thunderbird is far from a great car, and its recent marketing was botched. That one-two-three punch is proving fatal.

Around the turn-of-the-millennium, some form of bizarre corporate vanity seems to have overcome common sense and experience, causing car company executives to approve the production of numerous retro cars that hearken back to vehicles or themes from their companies' salad days.

At or near the turn-of-this-century, the New Beetle, Audi TT, PT-Cruiser, new Mini and new Ford Thunderbird tumbled out of this retro car-new-copia.

With the exception of the PT-Cruiser and the new Mini, each of these has failed badly enough in the marketplace that none of them is likely see a second generation.

Consider the present state of things.

The Puebla, Mexico line that builds the New Beetle is shut down, due to what is rapidly becoming chronic excess inventory.

The T-Bird is in serious oversupply, and will engender a second iteration.

Audi's Bauhaus-inspired TT is in huge supply, and now requires heavy incentives to sell. TT is unlikely to see a revision.

Only the PT-Cruiser and new Mini have avoided market failure, to date. While PT-Cruiser sales have cooled, they remain respectable. The new Mini is too new on the market to predict its sales durability.

Two conclusions flow from this. The less expensive a mass-produced retro car is, the better seem its chances of success. PT-Cruiser and new Mini are low on the automotive price scale, while TT and Thunderbird are upscale.

The New Beetle is such a wretched automobile that even its low price cannot save it.

Its very concept, building a front-engine, front-wheel-drive, liquid-cooled automobile to do homage to a rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive, air-cooled car openly assaults sensitivity, not to mention defying reason.

Retro cars are a fad market. They are not "hot, gotta have" products for very long after arrival. Each one assumes center stage under the hot white spotlight of fame and impulse buying. After six months, or so, it is pushed off the stage to cool, and the next retro car arrives under that white, center stage spotlight.

Despite the apparent love that auto company executives have for building retro cars, the market reality is that relatively few car buyers want to express themselves that way. When you mass produce the things, you tend, quickly, to saturate the market for them. Pretty soon, everyone who wanted and could afford one has taken the plunge.

The second coming of the Thunderbird suffered from all of those structural marketing problems, introduction in a weakening economy and added a few issues of its own.

It is terribly cramped inside. That is a serious concern, since at between $35,000 and $40,000, it is designed to appeal to well-heeled baby boomers. The problem is, many in that now affluent group are well-girthed, in addition to being well-heeled.

Then there was a production botch which delayed T-Bird's new, electronic throttle engine by months. Reviewers noted that the early new T-Birds were deficient in off-the-mark performance.

Ford remedied that with a 10% torque and power upgrade for 2003. But delays in producing the improved engine created a glut of '02s last fall and winter, when people were demanding the improved '03s. That tarnished T-Bird's image as a "hot item," and resulted in Ford putting incentives on the car. That further degraded its image.

However, in the best tradition of car company hyperbole, after announcing the 2005 or 2006 demise of the new T-Bird, Ford Division President, Steve Lyons, promises, "We could bring it back."

Against which I advise, and to which I add, "Give it a (very long) rest." "

formatting link

Reply to
Phillip Schmid

Unfortunately, that doesn't work either as cost to build and sale price often have nothing in common. Take pickup trucks. Not exactly very high tech - they make a TON of profit on them and yet I don't see them on clearance very often. How many cars come out that cost LESS than the vehicles they replaced?

Reply to
ray

That is true to some extent. Ford sold the first Escorts to dealers for less than the build cost for CAFE. The profits on the larger cars still subsidize small car retail price today. You would be surprised to know how relatively little more it cost to build a Town Car than a Taurus or a RWD Lexus over a Camry.

mike hunt

Reply to
MajorDomo

ray wrote in news:_CUib.29400$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.mts.net:

No, FWD means you do a 180 and go into the ditch backwards if you let off the gas.

Reply to
tango

RWD fun factor: forward donuts FWD fun factor: reverse gear donuts AWD fun factor: drag racing on heavy snow full 4WD fun factor: 4x4 tug-a-war

they can all survive snow. the limiting factor is how fast you can go. ABS braking is fun in the snow...

-a|ex

Reply to
127.0.0.1

I don't understand this whole "let off the gas" thing? Maybe that's why I sucked at doing 360s. ;)

Reply to
ray

You got that right! It's a Grand Am, not a GTO! I'm ashamed of GM.

Reply to
mrkoko

It's just a Holden. They've been promising to bring it to the US for a while. It's about damn time.

The new GTO does nothing for me either, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

- Andy

Reply to
Andy Smith

They are doing it because Bob Lutz wants to do it and because it was a fast, cheap, expedient thing to do.

GM's history of 'mericanizing their foreign designs and trying to sell them in the states has been a flop every time.

The Cadillac Catera was a warmed over Opel ... and a flop. The CTS which replaced it is doing great.

The Saturn L series is a warmed over Opel ... and Saturn is having to bargain basement price them to sell any.

Further back in time there were the Opel by Isuzu for Buick embarrassments.

Why should the GTO be any different?

John

Reply to
John Horner

The IS, you're right. The G35, maybe, maybe not. It's pretty quick.

Besides, if all you want is to go fast you can pick up a turbo Neon or WRX STI that will leave the new GTO for dead for less or a LOT less, and the latter will even get you to work after a heavy snowfall. And both will look like what the purport to be.

The point is that this GTO, ain't. Hopefully enough will sell so that next time around GM will make a real GTO that looks like a GTO and then everyone will be happy.

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Reply to
GRL

The problem with the SRT-4 neon is that its just that, still a neon, so poor interior. Your paying for the motor, drivetrain and suspension.

WRX's are about $25K out here, and the GTO's are 30K MSRP. I'd rather spend the extra $5-10K and get something with a nice interior and a fast ass motor.

resemblance

Reply to
Paradox

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.