• Welcome to Mustang7G!

    If you're joining us from Mustang6G, then you may already have an account here!

    As long as you were registered on Mustang6G as of March 10, 2021 or earlier, then you can simply login here with the same username and password!

OppoLock

RWD Addict
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
3,117
Reaction score
1,568
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT, 2020 GT350
The 2011 GT had an engine that gained 200 HP over the 1998 model (225 to 420 if my google was correct). That was why I was interested and purchased a 2011 Mustang GT (used for $20k).

2023 the GT gains about 60 HP vs. the 2011 model. Not much by comparison. So it makes justifying an expensive purchase a lot more difficult.
That’s valid in isolation, but would you expect there to be 200hp increments every 10 years? Should the GT have 600hp at this point?

The brunt of modern ICE evolutions took place during the 80s-2010s. What’s the expectation nowadays? Increase displacement and/or RPMs in an age where even having a high revving 5L V8 is remarkable because of emissions regs? Standardize superchargers or turbochargers across the range? They’re already squeezing out nearly 100hp/L on their volume models with near-500hp. I don’t think it’s apologetic to say that those are excellent efforts for the newest volume models.

Would be honestly curious what you think they should be pumping out at this point for a GT.
Sponsored

 

Dub347sbf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Threads
41
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2024 Mustang Dark Horse
That’s valid in isolation, but would you expect there to be 200hp increments every 10 years? Should the GT have 600hp at this point?

The brunt of modern ICE evolutions took place during the 80s-2010s. What’s the expectation nowadays? Increase displacement and/or RPMs in an age where even having a high revving 5L V8 is remarkable because of emissions regs? Standardize superchargers or turbochargers across the range? They’re already squeezing out nearly 100hp/L on their volume models with near-500hp. I don’t think it’s apologetic to say that those are excellent efforts for the newest volume models.

Would be honestly curious what you think they should be pumping out at this point for a GT.
Also, a GT PP should outperform a 2011 Boss 302 in pretty much every performance metric, and blow the standard 2011 GT out of the water. Just because horsepower didn't increase that much, doesnt mean overall performance didnt.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
9,052
Reaction score
374
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
That’s valid in isolation, but would you expect there to be 200hp increments every 10 years? Should the GT have 600hp at this point?

The brunt of modern ICE evolutions took place during the 80s-2010s. What’s the expectation nowadays? Increase displacement and/or RPMs in an age where even having a high revving 5L V8 is remarkable because of emissions regs? Standardize superchargers or turbochargers across the range? They’re already squeezing out nearly 100hp/L on their volume models with near-500hp. I don’t think it’s apologetic to say that those are excellent efforts for the newest volume models.

Would be honestly curious what you think they should be pumping out at this point for a GT.
Well, if there's a significant price increase, yes I would expect a performance hike to go with it. It doesn't cost much more to build a 600 HP engine versus a 400 or 500 HP engine. It's super easy to do. Yes, design changes cost money, but right now all the design changes are cosmetic and quite limited at that.

I would prefer a transaxle as a significant change that would improve the performance of the car vs. throwing more power at an already porky setup. Even better would be shrinking the car and making it lighter.

However, for nearly $90K yes, 600 or 700 HP would make me want the car and I would find it very tempting and attractive, even if they still had the stupid DI/PI on the engine and the dumb locked ECU. Those last two changes are significant disincentives for me versus my older vehicle that's easily tuned and has port only injection. Also the new engines with the spray bores are cheap.

Yes I agree 100 HP/liter is a lot. It makes the engine less reliable and longevity is impacted. Adding displacement should have been done years ago.

Can you blame me for wanting value for my money?
 

Marty1000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
73
Reaction score
53
Location
massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
SOLD: 2016 Mustang V6
Looks to me like FOMOCO can charge as much or if not more then the competition (Camaro/Challenger) since they are the only game in town now with 6 speed manual and 500hp!! As long as there are buyers willing to pay the price they will keep making the product. I am amazed that they can't add additional color choices for the DH for extra charge to make some more money!
BTW - The current color choice for the ~90K car is a joke. Just 9 colors with 4 shades of blue, white, black,red and shades of gray/black. No green, no orange, no dark red or yellow. Also the GT should get the TREMEC 6 Speed as an option since Stellantis and GM are no longer TREMEC volume customers.
The GT needs a good manual tranny not that China made unit.

S650 Mustang đŸ’” Official: 2024 Mustang U.S. Pricing Starts at $32,515 and Dark Horse Priced at $59,565 DH_color
 

OppoLock

RWD Addict
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
3,117
Reaction score
1,568
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT, 2020 GT350
Well, if there's a significant price increase, yes I would expect a performance hike to go with it. It doesn't cost much more to build a 600 HP engine versus a 400 or 500 HP engine. It's super easy to do. Yes, design changes cost money, but right now all the design changes are cosmetic and quite limited at that.
Baffling oversimplification. You want more power? Cool. Pay for stronger internals, more complex engines and accessories, bigger brakes, bigger tires, beefier suspension components, and stronger chassis construction, ALL which would significantly impact weight, fuel economy, and cost. Your GR86 is literally the perfect example of why low power equals low weight, low cost, and low running expenses.

Yes, design changes cost money. They'd have to overhaul the entire car's formula. Spend what I would assume is at least double into developing a brand new powerplant in an era where literally nobody else is investing into volume ICE units because they're going extinct. NOT because it's "hard" for them to make high power engines, but because it needs to be 1) warrantied and 2) regulation compliant.

And good luck selling this thing anywhere outside of the US, where emissions laws are even stricter. If you weren't already aware, the GT500 can't be sold in Europe because it can't pass emissions regulations.

Unless you want Ford to downsize to a turbocharged 4 or 6 cylinder or rely heavily on hybrid tech like EU products, which I can bet my life savings on would be a huge no.

I would prefer a transaxle as a significant change that would improve the performance of the car vs. throwing more power at an already porky setup. Even better would be shrinking the car and making it lighter.
Shrinking the car would be nice, except the back seats are already tiny and storage is just sufficient. Didn't work out well for the Camaro. And it's not like they sell enough of them to justify amortizing the costs of aluminum like they do on an F-150 which sells 10-fold the volume.

You might be okay with no rear seats or a small trunk; I doubt the general, non-hardcore enthusiast population would say the same.

However, for nearly $90K yes, 600 or 700 HP would make me want the car and I would find it very tempting and attractive, even if they still had the stupid DI/PI on the engine and the dumb locked ECU. Those last two changes are significant disincentives for me versus my older vehicle that's easily tuned and has port only injection. Also the new engines with the spray bores are cheap.
What's nearly 90k?

Multiport injection's only drawback is that its design is technically more complex. But you get the benes of DI without worrying about clogged valves and carbon buildup. Assuming the fuel pumps are reliable, MPI is a better alternative than DI. And both are exceedingly more efficient than standard port injection.

And that thing you mentioned about how easy it is to build a 600hp engine? Good luck making a modern engine hit those numbers without DI/MPI that can pass emission regulations. You won't find one that's unless it's being force fed air with a supercharger or turbocharger, which WILL add more weight, more cost, and more complexity than the former.

Yes I agree 100 HP/liter is a lot. It makes the engine less reliable and longevity is impacted. Adding displacement should have been done years ago.
Well it's a good thing they didn't because then the car wouldn't sell internationally AND they'd have an even harder time passing CAFE standards considering higher displacement engines, with all other factors being the same, will produce worse fuel economy.

I urge you to learn up on road taxes around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax

The 5.0's already a big bertha across the seas. Most countries tax by displacement and the big penalties start after 2.0Ls.

Can you blame me for wanting value for my money?
I don't blame you for wanting the same buying power we all had 10 years ago but I think you need a perspective check.
 
Last edited:


Rag

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
26
Reaction score
17
Location
hawaii
Vehicle(s)
s550
A link to an inflation calculator follows:

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

A link to Ford's financials follows:

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/F?tab=financials

Revenue was $155B in 2019, took dips in 2020, 2021, then recovered in 2022, to $158B.

Ford has spent $7B on R&D each year in the last four years.

Ford spends about $6B in plant and equipment, each year.

While Ford's Costs of Goods Sold were lower in 2020 and 2021, they were higher in 2022.

Ford's net income:

2019: gain
2020: loss
2021: gain
2022: loss

Ford's earnings:

2019: gain
2020: loss
2021: gain
2022: loss

Ford's net cash flow has been negative three of the last four years.
Now do it with real numbers, not what they are "allowed" to use as "projectioned earnings".
They lost nothing, other that the real numbers didn't meet or beat the numbers "projected"
The real numbers were lower than "projected" so they are allowed to list that as a loss. it is unicorn fart math.
 

93-Oct Mayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
611
Reaction score
1,044
Location
DC
Vehicle(s)
2024 Mustang GT
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/revenue#:~:text=Ford Motor annual revenue for,a 18.45% decline from 2019.

Ford annual revenue increased in 2021 by 7,23% and the increase in 2022 was 15,93%. 2x 7.23 should be a 14.46% increase in revenue but it is even more... You just have to learn to read the numbers ;)

Anyhow, my point is Ford is making billions of dollars and there is literally no need to defend a cash grab. I know Americans love their capitalism and I’m the last that wants to get rid of it. However, I’m a realist myself and I don’t earn millions or billions of dollars. The problem is that everything is just getting more and more expensive but most people do not earn more money.
Ford could easily afford to decrease the price of several products to make them more affordable. Instead they increased the price for a Mustang in Europe by ~50% within a couple of years. That’s just mental and has barely anything to do with taxes but with Ford being opportunistic and milking their customers.
Financial analysis isn't your thing
 

Gregs24

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Threads
4
Messages
919
Reaction score
309
Location
Wiltshire UK & Charente FR
Vehicle(s)
Mustang V8 GT, Ford Kuga PHEV
Now do it with real numbers, not what they are "allowed" to use as "projectioned earnings".
They lost nothing, other that the real numbers didn't meet or beat the numbers "projected"
The real numbers were lower than "projected" so they are allowed to list that as a loss. it is unicorn fart math.
I think you will find big companies are audited. They can't make up 'unicorn fart maths' as you call it. I assume you are not a financial regulator or company accountant?

Ford are making people redundant, not just on a whim
 

Skye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
757
Reaction score
973
Location
≈39N
Vehicle(s)
"Skye" Mach1 N2144
Now do it with real numbers, not what they are "allowed" to use as "projectioned earnings".
They lost nothing, other that the real numbers didn't meet or beat the numbers "projected"
The real numbers were lower than "projected" so they are allowed to list that as a loss. it is unicorn fart math.
The numbers I posted are the real numbers, as part of the required Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). You can double-check any of Ford's financials by looking at the SEC filings or the Ford web site.

https://shareholder.ford.com/Investors/financials/default.aspx

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search-and-access

Any large, publicly-traded company has at least four checks against their financial filings:

1. The company's board certification of financial results
2. An outside, independent auditor's certification of financial results
3. Investor scrutiny of published financials
4. Investor confidence via the publicly-traded stock and bonds of the company

Projections are welcome and necessary; they are a best guess to the future (which none of us can accurately predict). But they give us confidence (or not) in the company and its leadership. Big-picture projections for Ford include EVs, sourcing materials, new product lines, etc; these are listed on their web site.

Pro-Forma accounting (different than GAAP) is sometimes used, not by Ford, but by smaller companies, especially start-ups, tech and highly volatile industries. "Our earnings sucked this year, but if you close your eyes to this one line item, things were great!" Ford's published numbers are GAAP.

Several books are available which describe in good, general terms, the lines published in financial statements, along with some GAAP and Pro-forma guidelines.

To the comment earlier of R&D funding, companies will publicly provide only top-line numbers; they won't go into incredible detail, as this could give competitors insight into future product launches or changes to models.

To the comment of Ford's financials, I'm comfortable with what they are doing. But if you're not, you shouldn't be buying their product.

To the comment on pricing in general, IMO, as part of a free market economy, buyer demand determines if a product will come to market. Buyers also determine the price. While anyone can set their sale price to what they like, previous sales and buyer interest will guide the seller to ultimately determine the amount. Price discovery; it happens with everything, everywhere all the time. Ford sold tens of thousands of Mustangs last year; they did so because both the buyer and the seller agreed to the price.

I'd encourage anyone considering a major purchase, investment, anything involving finances to check their belief systems and emotions at the door. You have to look at things in the most antiseptic way possible. Yes, we're following a passion and we all love our cars. But the numbers have to work for that to happen.

FWIW, if the current market has priced you out of a new S650, give it time; the model will be produced for a few years, with used units becoming available in the near future.
 
Last edited:

budman00000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2023
Threads
14
Messages
286
Reaction score
226
Location
pa
Vehicle(s)
2022 C8 2021 Kia Telluride 2021 Tucson and 06 350z
*IF* it comes with all of the options that a fully loaded GT Premium has (big *IF*), I *MIGHT* be convinced to buy the DH instead.
One dealer indicated to me they are adding 10k to dark horse model.
 

dfwford

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2023
Threads
6
Messages
722
Reaction score
635
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2024 Ford Mustang GT Premium
One dealer indicated to me they are adding 10k to dark horse model.
And even if you can find a dealer that's offering MSRP for the DH (such as Granger Ford), because of the limited allocations, you still might not get one at that price.
 
Last edited:

budman00000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2023
Threads
14
Messages
286
Reaction score
226
Location
pa
Vehicle(s)
2022 C8 2021 Kia Telluride 2021 Tucson and 06 350z
And even if you can find a dealer that's offering MSRP dor the DH (such as Granger Ford), because of the limited allocations, you still might not get one at that price.
I'm going to go with the same you mentioned GT Premium...Really like the interior, kinda reminds me of my C8 with the graphics and touch screen.
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
Would be honestly curious what you think they should be pumping out at this point for a GT.
AL chassis :)

Ok on a more realistic stance, put some effort into Magneride and make it the default, so too the standard GT brakes. Git rid of the vast majority of artificial trim level differentiation.
 

Biggsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Threads
1
Messages
286
Reaction score
19
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT PP, '02 4Runner
Probably won’t be able to afford it anyways but has anybody seen pricing for the Dark Horse S? I predicted around $120k but curious if there is anything official.
 

Bikeman315

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Threads
32
Messages
6,017
Reaction score
1,434
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT/CS
Probably won’t be able to afford it anyways but has anybody seen pricing for the Dark Horse S? I predicted around $120k but curious if there is anything official.
I wouldn’t suggest holding your breath as we just got the street models and they’re not due 3 months. Summer, maybe?
Sponsored

 
 




Top