RE: Ford Mustang is best-selling sports car on earth

[willisit]

big_rob_sydney said:

It must be me, but 4,500 cars doesn't seem like a lot for such a big company, nor for a country of around 65 million people.

How do we compare with domestic US purchases on a per capita basis? I think with our high fuel costs, the figures are pretty low, and surprisingly low, considering we've had so much pent up demand for these cars with the steering wheel on the "right" side.

Frankly, I would have thought we'd have bought 10 times as many, considering how much noise and general carrying on there's been over these.

4000 was all Ford intended to sell, and all they made, hence the wait list. Since they had no idea if it'd sell at all (and history with other marques said it wouldn't) I think they were hesitant. Seems to have paid off though.

[cerb4.5lee]

300bhp/ton said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Obviously not a sports car due to its weight and it's not something you would want to throw around, but boy I still have so much want for one for sure.

You can throw them around perfectly fine

At 1700kg for me it wouldn't be much fun, love them for what they are though big time.

[Onehp]

Was waiting in my car parked in a parking garage next to a green previous shape Mustang 5.0 today. Just within a few minutes, several people walking from their cars stopped at it to admire it and take pictures. My grey estate didn't get a second look even though it's lighter and faster down a track. The general public doesn't give a sh*t, the mustang is for sure a sports car in the general public perception. Impractical, cool, coupe, fast, V8.

[Yipper]

The Crack Fox said:

Selling more than the MX-5?

Both great cars. Not that sporty, really, though.

MX-5 sells around 30-50k units worldwide a year. Mustang around 150-175k. Mustang is cheap, and sold pretty much everywhere in some parts of the US, like Texas.

[maddog-uk]

Well, I am an owner and I have the GT convertible. So how does it compare to previous cars I owned. Well my previous "sports car" was a Red Rose TVR Tamora which was so much fun. The mustang though is equally impressive.

Pound for pound they cost me within £5 of each other after all the extras.

I am 350 miles in so clearly not in crazy mode yet, but honestly, it's a amazing. I love the drive, the performance is smooth, the ride is firm but good and I have honestly not smiled this much for a long time. Only downside is the noise, stock, it's a little quiet, but even ford get that.

For me the appeal was really it's a great second car, which I am in a position to run. I wanted it so I can have it tuned and the options range from a few to if you feel so inclined an uplift to 825bhp by Clive Sutton.

V8 versus ecoboost, well honestly we are all living the mustang dream, and its personal preference or circumstances. Any regrets? None. Go for it, and join the revolution.

[Pothole]

So ugly though.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

I suspect that 4500 is more than total GT86 sales in the U.K. And a heck of a lot more than 370z sales.

And going back in time, I think Honda used to sell 6-10 NSX's a year in the U.K.

And just think how many TVR's and Lotus' there are. 4500 annual sales is probably a lot for such a car.

E.g. It took TVR 9 years to sell 5200 Chims!

I'd say the obvious current comparison is things like the M4, C63 coupe and RS5. I know the Mustang is cheaper but it matches them quite closely otherwise. I've no real idea of the UK sales figures of those, though.

It's certainly out-selling niche cars, but I thought the whole point of a "world" Mustang was that it's meant to be as mainstream in Europe, etc. as it is in America. In that regard, I think 4500 sales is about what I'd have expected and I suspect that number will ultimately rise if they stick with it.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 24th May 06:34

[CaptainSensib1e]

Pothole said:

So ugly though.

Are you for real? Should have gone to Specsavers

[croyde]

Gareth79 said:

leedsutd1 said:

can someone explain to me why you can buy 2016 mustang convertible and coupe from $18,000 dollars plus $1,000 title /tax in the states ,that converts to £14,650 over here ,there are lots to choose, dont have leather seats i think its Lux pack ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,http://www.ebay.com/sch/eBay-Motors/6000/i.html?_from=R40&_dcat=6236&Model%2520Year=2016&_nkw=ford+mustang&_sop=15

Import duty, VAT, transportation, EU homologation, warranty/training, support and marketing costs. Many of those are fixed so it doesn't matter if they sell 4, 4,000 or 4 million. Chevrolet and Cadillac brands were sold here in the past and I think the total sales were three digits? I'm amazed they are even trying, possibly everybody involved is viewing it as a curio/toy at the dealership to excite buyers of other models if nothing else.

Edited by Gareth79 on Tuesday 23 May 21:55

I was in LA for a bit last year driving a Passat CC. Not my choice but it was at my disposal, whilst my own Mustang GT sat outside my house in the UK.

I stopped by a Ford/Lincoln dealer and had a nice ol chat with the sales guy there.

Mustangs to my cars spec were on the lot at $52,000 not including sales tax.

At the time that must of equated to £30k so only a bit less than the £33k I paid for mine.

A lot of car for the money and you can throw it around

[bobchevy]

It is a Muscle car ! a term we do not seem to use a lot in Europe the Americans have used the muscle car name for years.

A AMG Merc M3 M4 ect I regard as muscle cars as well.

If we adopted that term it could save a lot of debate.

[Onehp]

swerni said:

Do people only stare at sports cars ?
Everyday's a school day

I overheard them, 'what a cool sportscar'. And mostly, yes, people react to the low, wide shape of a coupe.
For the same money, across the pond the here mentioned MX-5 'isn't a sportscar' for the 'PH' crew there because it has a small 4pot with almost no power...

Compared to most cars bought, both most definitely are 'sports cars', such things are defined by general perception, not some tech attributes only us nerds care about.

[RemarkLima]

bobchevy said:

It is a Muscle car ! a term we do not seem to use a lot in Europe the Americans have used the muscle car name for years.

A AMG Merc M3 M4 ect I regard as muscle cars as well.

If we adopted that term it could save a lot of debate.

I recall Forza on the Xbox having a category of Pacific muscle, so supra's, GT-R's, RX-7's etc... And from that point, I'm like you and think of the M3, C63, RS4 (and the bigger and smaller sizes) to be German muscle.

That is, big engine, big power, in a fairly standard body.

Given that, in days of yore, an Austin Healey sprite with a whopping 1.1 litre engine was a sports car, as was the MG-A and B, the term sports car has always been loose and more implied some frivolous specific nature...

Like running shorts, you can run in any shorts, but specific running shorts a) make you look the part and b) offer some slight advantages.

So it's a muscle car, but hey, why not be a sports car?

[Garvin]

I've put just under 1k miles on my GT Fasback/Coupe (or whatever the non convertible is called).

Is it a 'sports car'? In the accepted meaning of the term on this side of the pond the answer is no - it's just too big. It can, however, shift itself around very quickly and can be thrown about if you have some experience of powerful rear wheel drive cars.

What is it then? It is what it says on the badge - a great GT car. It is also enormous fun, the type of car that just puts a smile on your face every time you drive it and you can't quite pin down why? It is that magic yet elusive combination of sound, feel, go, looks, history, badge and pride of ownership. Also, nearly all non-owners have a form of affection for it, again a thing that is difficult to explain!

[VladD]

"Sports car" is now just a marketing term. Porsche say the Macan is a sports car, whereas I don't even consider the 911 to be a sports car because it has too many seat and a fixed roof.

[300bhp/ton]

bobchevy said:

It is a Muscle car ! a term we do not seem to use a lot in Europe the Americans have used the muscle car name for years.

A AMG Merc M3 M4 ect I regard as muscle cars as well.

If we adopted that term it could save a lot of debate.

The Mustang has never really been a muscle car. It's always been known as a Pony car in America.

[VladD]

300bhp/ton said:

bobchevy said:

It is a Muscle car ! a term we do not seem to use a lot in Europe the Americans have used the muscle car name for years.

A AMG Merc M3 M4 ect I regard as muscle cars as well.

If we adopted that term it could save a lot of debate.

The Mustang has never really been a muscle car. It's always been known as a Pony car in America.

So to educate the ignorant like myself, the difference between a Pony car and a Muscle car is?

[VladD]

ash73 said:

AndySheff said:

Front mounted V8. Coupe or Cab. RWD. Manual box (if you want it). 0-60 in well under 5 seconds. Nope. Not a sports car.

Good point, well presented

Despite neatly forgetting to add the "almost 2 tonnes" bit.

[aeropilot]

swerni said:

bobchevy said:

It is a Muscle car ! a term we do not seem to use a lot in Europe the Americans have used the muscle car name for years.

Not wanting to be pedantic, but it's not a muscle car, it's a pony car and Americans have been calling it that for year.

Just sayin

I was about to post the same.

Yes, its not a sports car by any definition, no Mustang has been a sports car.

And no, nor is a M3 or anything else similar to it, a sports car either.

[GranCab]

1/ M4s, C63 Coupes, RS5s et al are variants of saloon cars and could never be classified as sports cars.

2/ At least the Mustang is a stand alone model.

3/ Muscle cars have more power than pony cars.

[99dndd]

Of course it's a sports car, it was built for motorsport. Drag racing to be precise.