Big Fast Fords is there a Market
Discussion
JDMDrifter said:
Everyone loves a fast ford but it will never have the refinement of the Germans.
Ironically both the Granada and the Vauxhall/Opel Commodore/Carlton/Senator ranges were effectively part of the Germans products from around the late 1970's on.While even the previous Mk1 'Essex' Granada was every bit as 'refined' as the BMW opposition at least.Which just left that issue of the lack of credible V8 powered options to match,if not beat,the highest powered options in the BMW and Mercedes ranges.The VXR8 shows what is still possible from a volume manufacturer like GM.It's just that it's running costs mean that it's not possible to sell it in the numbers required to get the purchase price right.Which effectively means that it's the right large volume product being sold at the wrong price.Which is probably now ever increasingly being the inevitable result,in all cases,where the volume manufacturers turn out the right products,in the form of decent rwd cars,which could otherwise easily compete with the established products of the so called 'premium' sector manufacturers.
IE it's all about the bottom line in regards to running costs and purchase price not the badge.
XJ Flyer said:
The 'petrol heads' have always been there.It's just that the average working class 'petol head' can't afford to run a decent Ford or Vauxhall.Therefore the demand isn't there to create the required economies of scale to produce big engined cars in the required volumes to create the right purchase price.IE unfortunately it's a self defeating circle for all concerned both for the volume manufacturers and their potential working class customers.Which explains why those working class buyers have been forced into 'hot hatches' based on economy poverty spec shopping cars and for the company car users and the rich buyers it's all about having the 'right badge' not what's under the bonnet.
I agree that there have always been petrolheads, it's just that a few years ago a car like a Mondeo was a typical family car, so the dad who was a petrolhead could opt for an ST24. These days it isn't and families buy people carries instead.However as I said, most people aren't petrolheads and they buy a diesel because in terms of costs and peformance it suits their needs better. Look at how many Mondeos are diesel, in fact look at how many new cars of any tyre are diesel.
LuS1fer said:
It's also a VED issue for most. Big Fords and vauxhall appealed to people who liked power but "normal" running costs. Mr Mondeo would have an apoplectic fit if he had to pay £900 VED, it's just not in his nature. I paid £400 first year on a Mondeo 2.0 petrol but only because the car itself was half price.
To anyone,as in my case,who's not familiar with the new car VED regime those figures together with typical insurance costs would be horrific !!.IE I think it's expensive to pay around £200 VED for a 6 litre V12 Jaguar although the £300 pa classic insurance for a car with 165 mph performance is very agreeable.Those are the types of figures which would be the maximum and esential in manufacturers like Ford or GM being able to shift cars like the VXR8,in sufficient quantities,to ensure their long term production viability.Which still leaves the issue of excessive fuel costs. I'm the ideal target market for stuff like this,
late 20s, slightly above average family, interested in my cars, need something practical and much prefer 'blue collar' stuff over the competition. No real hatred of German stuff, just not into paying for a badge when a perfectly good alternative exists.
In the 90s I would a kid in a candy shop withm what was available to buy, my typical salary as a well qualified and experienced IT Support Professional, and the running costs at the time. I'm a big Vauxhall fan so would have loved to own and cherish V6 Cavaliers, Vectras, Omegas, I'd also have to have a go in a Mondeo V6.
Sadly today I just can't compete, I can't afford a house with a garage to put it in to look after it, the insurance costs would be pretty hard even at 28 (but no impossible), £400 VED, 20 mpg and the complete lack of any performance options before the VXR with out of this world running costs...and a complete lack of any new petrol cars on the used market in a family saloon type model.
If they'd manage to eek 35+ mpg out of a V6 Insignia or Mondeo or something, without it being biblical on insurance, and I'd have it. Sadly its all the same 4 banger in different ecu maps which juts makes the car enthusiast inside me die a little.
The time for enthusiasts of more humble means in motoring has well passed unfortunately (once the older stuff is scrapped / banned), not even an interesting performance diesel between the two marks, just an extra / bigger turbo and a map which means the gearbox will need rebuilt every 30k miles....oh wait they made it auto only so they can control your driving for the benefit of the warranty dept.
Even buying a grands worth of v6 something results in expected running costs compared to my other outgoings that would be enough to prevent me enjoying it.
late 20s, slightly above average family, interested in my cars, need something practical and much prefer 'blue collar' stuff over the competition. No real hatred of German stuff, just not into paying for a badge when a perfectly good alternative exists.
In the 90s I would a kid in a candy shop withm what was available to buy, my typical salary as a well qualified and experienced IT Support Professional, and the running costs at the time. I'm a big Vauxhall fan so would have loved to own and cherish V6 Cavaliers, Vectras, Omegas, I'd also have to have a go in a Mondeo V6.
Sadly today I just can't compete, I can't afford a house with a garage to put it in to look after it, the insurance costs would be pretty hard even at 28 (but no impossible), £400 VED, 20 mpg and the complete lack of any performance options before the VXR with out of this world running costs...and a complete lack of any new petrol cars on the used market in a family saloon type model.
If they'd manage to eek 35+ mpg out of a V6 Insignia or Mondeo or something, without it being biblical on insurance, and I'd have it. Sadly its all the same 4 banger in different ecu maps which juts makes the car enthusiast inside me die a little.
The time for enthusiasts of more humble means in motoring has well passed unfortunately (once the older stuff is scrapped / banned), not even an interesting performance diesel between the two marks, just an extra / bigger turbo and a map which means the gearbox will need rebuilt every 30k miles....oh wait they made it auto only so they can control your driving for the benefit of the warranty dept.
Even buying a grands worth of v6 something results in expected running costs compared to my other outgoings that would be enough to prevent me enjoying it.
People didn't want V8s back in the 70s. We had a fuel crisis. Even a 3.0 was a lavish engine. the UK had been raised on cars that were basically 1600 by default, 2000 if you were a bit more middle class and 2.5 and over if you were flush.
In the 70s, Vauxhall's staple was a 2.3 with the 3.3 Ventora being more a strangled 6 cylinder engine for refinement.
Austin had a 2.2 six as their flagship.
Ford had their 2.5 and 3 litre V6s.
VWs were 2.0 at best (if that)as were many Audis which were largely badge-engineered Passats.
Above that, you had your "premium sector" now dominated by Germans but then comprising Triumph 2.5, Rover 2000/3500, Jag XJ6 2.8, 3.4, 4.2 and 5.3, Volvo had their 164 and Saab had a 2.0 Turbo.
Alfa topped out at a 2.0 Alfetta (up from 1750)or 2.5V6 GTV
BMW had their 2800 and 3000 sixes.
So it's pointless to ruminate on a V8 Ford when every man and his dog was happy with a 3.0 V6 and thought that more than big enough.
In the 70s, Vauxhall's staple was a 2.3 with the 3.3 Ventora being more a strangled 6 cylinder engine for refinement.
Austin had a 2.2 six as their flagship.
Ford had their 2.5 and 3 litre V6s.
VWs were 2.0 at best (if that)as were many Audis which were largely badge-engineered Passats.
Above that, you had your "premium sector" now dominated by Germans but then comprising Triumph 2.5, Rover 2000/3500, Jag XJ6 2.8, 3.4, 4.2 and 5.3, Volvo had their 164 and Saab had a 2.0 Turbo.
Alfa topped out at a 2.0 Alfetta (up from 1750)or 2.5V6 GTV
BMW had their 2800 and 3000 sixes.
So it's pointless to ruminate on a V8 Ford when every man and his dog was happy with a 3.0 V6 and thought that more than big enough.
One of the problems with modern performance cars is that in order to compete in the BHP race and live up to the ever increasing performance expectations of the public while getting ever more complicated and heavy, hot hatches now have stupidy big and powerful engines. So advances in technology have not yeilded the improvements in ecomony that they otherwise would have. In the 1980s a 150 bhp V6 was enough to make the Sierra XR4i a fast car and 200 bhp in the Sierra Cosworth was enough to give it near supercar performance. These days people on PH wouldn't even describe either of these cars as fast.
Devil2575 said:
One of the problems with modern performance cars is that in order to compete in the BHP race and live up to the ever increasing performance expectations of the public while getting ever more complicated and heavy, hot hatches now have stupidy big and powerful engines. So advances in technology have not yeilded the improvements in ecomony that they otherwise would have. In the 1980s a 150 bhp V6 was enough to make the Sierra XR4i a fast car and 200 bhp in the Sierra Cosworth was enough to give it near supercar performance. These days people on PH wouldn't even describe either of these cars as fast.
Firstly even back in the day 6 cylinder Fords were never considered 'fast' in the way that V8 powered ones were.Which is why V8 conversions of UK built big rwd Fords were always common. Most performance car buyers know that there's no way of having both big power outputs and economy because the two things are incompatible.The fact that 'would be' performance buyers,at least in the blue collar sector,are being forced into eco poverty spec shopping cars is all about the deliberate political policy of ever increasing running costs.The knock on effect of that is that manufacturers like Ford and GM could no longer sell performance cars in large enough numbers to make the high volume idea work.IE it's obvious as in all cases that the idea of performance cars has always been a horsepower race.The fact that Ford went for a turbocharged 4 cylinder replacement in the form of the Cosworth Sierra,and then a few quick fwd Mondeos after that,instead of a big V8 replacement for the Granada and XR4i,was a symptom of that and was all part of the decline into mediocrity that followed.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 13th November 16:37
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 13th November 16:38
V8 Fettler said:
For the UK, Ford are stuck with the Ford image. Ford tried to break away from this image with the Mk3 Mondeo, but failed.
For premium cars, most punters will not consider purchase costs equivalent to Merc/BMW/Audi.
Wy would they price the same as ze Germans ? The point is you by an equivalent model with much better spec at a fraction of the cost that's what ford do.For premium cars, most punters will not consider purchase costs equivalent to Merc/BMW/Audi.
Mashedpotatoes said:
V8 Fettler said:
For the UK, Ford are stuck with the Ford image. Ford tried to break away from this image with the Mk3 Mondeo, but failed.
For premium cars, most punters will not consider purchase costs equivalent to Merc/BMW/Audi.
Wy would they price the same as ze Germans ? The point is you by an equivalent model with much better spec at a fraction of the cost that's what ford do.For premium cars, most punters will not consider purchase costs equivalent to Merc/BMW/Audi.
www.africanmusclecars.com/index.php/ford/sierra-xr...
Many 'normal' big cars are faster (better grip, handling, brakes, easier to drive and faster/just as quick accelerating when on the move) than many of the 'fast' versions of the olden days. Many also look 'aggressive' and have big wheels.
Modern cars, even fairly low powered ones, are almost all capable of being driven fairly briskly cross-country. Most people, even the PH contributors, don't really drive their cars briskly on the roads though....
The earlier comments about brands trading on the image of historical performance are fair enough, but most people don't need, or couldn't make much use of, the absolutely stonking performance available from some modern cars. 400/500+ bhp in a saloon, anyone? Potentially good fun, but how useful is it?
For most people it is all about the image and not really about performance -which is more than adequate for most people whichever car you choose.
The running costs of a 'fast' petrol car are high. How many people really want to spend twice as much on fuel, twice as much on insurance and £100's more on annual VED for a V6 family car that looks virtually the same and will travel just as slowly in traffic as a 2.0d (and also accelerate at motorway speeds in top gear similarly).
I'm happy to drive a Ford, because they are good car, but for the 'image-conscious', a Ford doesn't do it. They'd sooner have something that they think makes them look wealthy.
Modern cars, even fairly low powered ones, are almost all capable of being driven fairly briskly cross-country. Most people, even the PH contributors, don't really drive their cars briskly on the roads though....
The earlier comments about brands trading on the image of historical performance are fair enough, but most people don't need, or couldn't make much use of, the absolutely stonking performance available from some modern cars. 400/500+ bhp in a saloon, anyone? Potentially good fun, but how useful is it?
For most people it is all about the image and not really about performance -which is more than adequate for most people whichever car you choose.
The running costs of a 'fast' petrol car are high. How many people really want to spend twice as much on fuel, twice as much on insurance and £100's more on annual VED for a V6 family car that looks virtually the same and will travel just as slowly in traffic as a 2.0d (and also accelerate at motorway speeds in top gear similarly).
I'm happy to drive a Ford, because they are good car, but for the 'image-conscious', a Ford doesn't do it. They'd sooner have something that they think makes them look wealthy.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 13th November 19:43
MC Bodge said:
Many 'normal' big cars are faster (better grip, handling, brakes, easier to drive and faster/just as quick accelerating when on the move) than many of the 'fast' versions of the olden days. Many also look 'aggressive' and have big wheels.
Modern cars, even fairly low powered ones, are almost all capable of being driven fairly briskly cross-country. Most people, even the PH contributors, don't really drive their cars briskly on the roads though....
The earlier comments about brands trading on the image of historical performance are fair enough, but most people don't need, or couldn't make much use of, the absolutely stonking performance available from some modern cars. 400/500+ bhp in a saloon, anyone? Potentially good fun, but how useful is it?
For most people it is all about the image and not really about performance -which is more than adequate for most people whichever car you choose.
The running costs of a 'fast' petrol car are high. How many people really want to spend twice as much on fuel, twice as much on insurance and £100's more on annual VED for a V6 family car that looks virtually the same and will travel just as slowly in traffic as a 2.0d (and also accelerate at motorway speeds in top gear similarly).
I'm happy to drive a Ford, because they are good car, but for the 'image-conscious', a Ford doesn't do it. They'd sooner have something that they think makes them look wealthy.
That's yet another post which confirms the difference between the performance market as opposed to the average car user one in which running costs are the main priority or the image one which is all about the badge.The fact is performance car buyers on a working class budget don't generally buy a car with either of those priorities as you've described.IE what matters is the performance figures and how well it handles and stops and if manufacturers like Ford can provide that on a budget all the better. Modern cars, even fairly low powered ones, are almost all capable of being driven fairly briskly cross-country. Most people, even the PH contributors, don't really drive their cars briskly on the roads though....
The earlier comments about brands trading on the image of historical performance are fair enough, but most people don't need, or couldn't make much use of, the absolutely stonking performance available from some modern cars. 400/500+ bhp in a saloon, anyone? Potentially good fun, but how useful is it?
For most people it is all about the image and not really about performance -which is more than adequate for most people whichever car you choose.
The running costs of a 'fast' petrol car are high. How many people really want to spend twice as much on fuel, twice as much on insurance and £100's more on annual VED for a V6 family car that looks virtually the same and will travel just as slowly in traffic as a 2.0d (and also accelerate at motorway speeds in top gear similarly).
I'm happy to drive a Ford, because they are good car, but for the 'image-conscious', a Ford doesn't do it. They'd sooner have something that they think makes them look wealthy.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 13th November 19:43
In this case the issue is that of buyers in that budget performance car market being forced into the average car market by running costs not by choice.The obvious results of that being volume manufacturers like Ford having to drop their performance products because it's performance market customers simply can't afford to run them.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff