💵 Official: 2024 Mustang U.S. Pricing Starts at $32,515 and Dark Horse Priced at $59,565

[IceGamer]

So your suggestion of reducing prices would reduce the investment they could make even more....

Companies that make losses don't last long, they run out of cash very quickly. How would you fill that $2billion hole in the balance sheet? It will not just magic away, it needs profits to fill it back in.

I would be very happy if Ford actually HAD invested in the S650 but they really didn't. It's a renamed refresh with increased prices. The current price hike is decent and would be somewhat acceptable for a new generation but since the S550 prices were increased way above inflation it's a cash grab. Maybe you're ok with that but I'm not. The value is just not what it once was - especially here in Europe.

Sponsored

 

[dfwford]

So your suggestion of reducing prices would reduce the investment they could make even more....

Companies that make losses don't last long, they run out of cash very quickly. How would you fill that $2billion hole in the balance sheet? It will not just magic away, it needs profits to fill it back in.

To add to your post...

Even *IF* Ford were profitable, they would still raise the price of their product as the cost to engineeer/assemble/market them has gone up, exponentially in fact with the COVID and Russia/Ukraine Supply Chain constraints plus labor shortges.

Their shareholders most certainly won't eat up the additional expense with a smaller return on their investment if there's an eager customer base who will.

I can understand complaining about the prices increases given that a lot of consumers are being squeezed in so many other ways right now (even I admitted they were a bit steep). But anyone who thinks a for-profit business should and will operate as some charity because what they're doing may be morally wrong in their eyes is, respectfully, being unrealistic about how business and the world works.

 

[Gregs24]

I would be very happy if Ford actually HAD invested in the S650 but they really didn't. It's a renamed refresh with increased prices. The current price hike is decent and would be somewhat acceptable for a new generation but since the S550 prices were increased way above inflation it's a cash grab. Maybe you're ok with that but I'm not. The value is just not what it once was - especially here in Europe.

Clearly Ford have invested in the S650 as well as elsewhere. Ford invested $2 billion on the S650, not exactly loose change.

Michigan will receive $2 billion of that investment, which will go directly to building the all-new Ford Mustang at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant, its current home base.

S650 Mustang, T6.2 Ranger Investment Announced By Ford In USA (musclecarsandtrucks.com)


The difference between the 2015 car and today is huge.

They sell a limited number in Europe, and they all sell. If you don't like it don't buy it.

 

[IceGamer]

Clearly Ford have invested in the S650 as well as elsewhere. Ford invested $2 billion on the S650, not exactly loose change.

Michigan will receive $2 billion of that investment, which will go directly to building the all-new Ford Mustang at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant, its current home base.

S650 Mustang, T6.2 Ranger Investment Announced By Ford In USA (musclecarsandtrucks.com)


The difference between the 2015 car and today is huge.

They sell a limited number in Europe, and they all sell. If you don't like it don't buy it.

That’s just wrong. It clearly states that the $2 billion are not solely spend on the Mustang but are split between the S650, the new P703N Ranger and production increase of the F150 lightning. The article doesn’t specify any further numbers but I would bet my a$$ that the absolute vast majority goes towards the Range and the Lightning. In addition, the S550 was never limited in Europe.

Besides, the S650 and S550 are almost identical under the hood. Same frame, slightly updated engine (most improvements were already implemented for the F150 so there are only minimal twerks left for the “brand new S650”), new sheet metal, a few overdue updates like LEDs, heated and cooled Recaros… Everything looks new but most isn’t. It’s just updated. Why does Ford not offer AWD or hybrid trains again? Maybe because that old D2C platform doesn’t support it and implementing it would be too costly on that old platform. Missing 360 camera or front parking sensors, no optional HUD and so on… I bet that the rooftop of the convertible will still have the same old a$$ mechanism to open and close it…

But please be marketings darling and listen to what they have to sell. The difference between a MY19-23 and MY24 are substantial on the outside but really are minimal on the inside. 0-100 may improves by 0.2 seconds?! Yeah, that is what we are looking at…

Anyhow, I’m done arguing. If you can justify the price/performance value for yourself then so be it. I don’t mind. My take on this is that it’s no longer a great value performance car but an overpriced GT that Ford could still sell at a much lower price. Over 50% price increase in a couple of years is not justifiable for reasonable customers.

 

[Tinpot]

It isn't. It is losing $billions.

If you were earning £3billion a year would you be a rich person if you were spending $4billion a year? Clearly not.

Please tell me how REDUCING the price (and hence income) would help Ford make a profit / break even?

Farley himself said it ‘ increase quality and reduce costs’. On the face of it that statement appears to be a two pronged approach but looking deeper into it, increasing quality in and of itself means reduced warranty claims = costs. However, given that Ford’s historical quality control has left a lot to be desired, I can’t see that happening soon. So their recourse appears to be that a lot were willing to pay ADM so let’s jack up the price and see if we can get a slice of that pie. It’s a risky gamble ie more profit per unit but less units sold. The alternative is less profit per unit - reducing or holding the price - but more units sold. I’d have thought that increasing quality, in turn reducing costs AND holding the price making it appear a real performance bargain would be the best approach but perhaps that’s much too simplistic a view.

 

[dfwford]

Farley himself said it ‘ increase quality and reduce costs’. On the face of it that statement appears to be a two pronged approach but looking deeper into it, increasing quality in and of itself means reduced warranty claims = costs. However, given that Ford’s historical quality control has left a lot to be desired, I can’t see that happening soon. So their recourse appears to be that a lot were willing to pay ADM so let’s jack up the price and see if we can get a slice of that pie. It’s a risky gamble ie more profit per unit but less units sold. The alternative is less profit per unit - reducing or holding the price - but more units sold. I’d have thought that increasing quality, in turn reducing costs AND holding the price making it appear a real performance bargain would be the best approach but perhaps that’s much too simplistic a view.

The bolded has worked for GM.

The big elephant in the room for American automakers, and why they can't go the Japanese/German route you're suggesting, are the unions. The only real option is for them to run fewer plants at lower capacity to keep their labor costs under control (hiring fewer workers), and also build high-margin vehicles in these plants, to remain competitive & cover their expenses.

And yes, you're correct that this won't be a quick fix for Ford. It's festered for way too long (between all the internal fiefdoms they've let settle in and the suppliers they've burned) that it's going to be like trying to turn the titantic. Alan Mulally was on the right track, but even he couldn't work miracles during his relatively short tenure.

 

[Gregs24]

That’s just wrong. It clearly states that the $2 billion are not solely spend on the Mustang but are split between the S650, the new P703N Ranger and production increase of the F150 lightning. The article doesn’t specify any further numbers but I would bet my a$$ that the absolute vast majority goes towards the Range and the Lightning. In addition, the S550 was never limited in Europe.

Besides, the S650 and S550 are almost identical under the hood. Same frame, slightly updated engine (most improvements were already implemented for the F150 so there are only minimal twerks left for the “brand new S650”), new sheet metal, a few overdue updates like LEDs, heated and cooled Recaros… Everything looks new but most isn’t. It’s just updated. Why does Ford not offer AWD or hybrid trains again? Maybe because that old D2C platform doesn’t support it and implementing it would be too costly on that old platform. Missing 360 camera or front parking sensors, no optional HUD and so on… I bet that the rooftop of the convertible will still have the same old a$$ mechanism to open and close it…

But please be marketings darling and listen to what they have to sell. The difference between a MY19-23 and MY24 are substantial on the outside but really are minimal on the inside. 0-100 may improves by 0.2 seconds?! Yeah, that is what we are looking at…

Anyhow, I’m done arguing. If you can justify the price/performance value for yourself then so be it. I don’t mind. My take on this is that it’s no longer a great value performance car but an overpriced GT that Ford could still sell at a much lower price. Over 50% price increase in a couple of years is not justifiable for reasonable customers.

It was $3.7b on the total with $2bn on the Mustang - pretty clear when you read it

The Mustang is absolutely limited in Europe. CO2 averages mean that Ford cannot sell very many as they need to sell a lot of EV's / PHEV's to keep the fleet average below 95g/km. In the UK we have a specific RHD model that is nothing like any US spec car and is made in 4 batches a year of a specific number.

0-60 is not a differentiator of build costs!

Not sure why you are getting so exercised on a Mustang forum when you don't even seem to have one ?

 

[Gregs24]

The bolded has worked for GM.

The big elephant in the room for American automakers, and why they can't go the Japanese/German route you're suggesting, are the unions. The only real option is for them to run fewer plants at lower capacity to keep their labor costs under control (hiring fewer workers), and also build high-margin vehicles in these plants, to remain competitive & cover their expenses.

And yes, you're correct that this won't be a quick fix for Ford. It's festered for way too long (between all the internal fiefdoms they've let settle in and the suppliers they've burned) that it's going to be like trying to turn the titantic. Alan Mulally was on the right track, but even he couldn't work miracles during his relatively short tenure.

Quality is much better from European plants, maybe they should build the Mustang here!

 

[IceGamer]

It was $3.7b on the total with $2bn on the Mustang - pretty clear when you read it

The Mustang is absolutely limited in Europe. CO2 averages mean that Ford cannot sell very many as they need to sell a lot of EV's / PHEV's to keep the fleet average below 95g/km. In the UK we have a specific RHD model that is nothing like any US spec car and is made in 4 batches a year of a specific number.

0-60 is not a differentiator of build costs!

Not sure why you are getting so exercised on a Mustang forum when you don't even seem to have one ?

Do me the favour and reread the article....



"The total investment value is a staggering $3.7 billion, to be split into three locations that will each perform specific tasks and build new vehicles.

Ford Motor Company: S650 Mustang And P703N Ranger Investment
Michigan will receive $2 billion of that investment, which will go directly to building the all-new Ford Mustang at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant, its current home base. Just as well, the money will go towards the new P703N Ford Ranger at the Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, also the truck’s current home alongside the Ford Bronco. In addition, that money will be used to increase production of the F-150 Lightning to 150,000 units per year at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center.

Another $1.5 billion will be allocated to Ohio, where an all-new EV commercial vehicle will be assembled. An additional $100 million will go into the Lima Engine and Sharonville Transmission plants.

Finally, the state of Missouri will receive a $95 million investment to increase production of the Transit and the all-new E-Transit electric van, as well as add a third shift at the Kansas City Assembly Plant."



$2 for S650, Ranger and Lightning
$1.5 for Ohio
$0.1 goes into the Lima Engine and transmission plant
$ 0.095 for the Transit

And there was no limit on the S550. The end. If you wanted to buy 100 you would've gotten 100 Mustangs. Ford can, could and will be able to sell as many S650s as they like. They may have to pay a fine at a certain point but that does not limit the number cars that can be sold. Maybe the UK is different but then again we're talking about Europe. There were no limits in Germany.

 

[Evo1986]

Ford's annual earnings are constantly increasing. They're making more money than ever and yet there are people out there trying to justify cash grabbing price increases...
They have almost zero development cost, reuse quite substantial parts of the car and did some minor improvements here and there. Overall I wouldn't be surprised if the car is cheaper to produce than the S550 was. There is literally no reason to increase the price unless you want to continue milking the cash cow. No reason for customers to justify such a behavior if revenue is up by roughly 100%.

Since you are referring most of the times to BMW:The all new BMW M2 (which looks afwul from the front tbtw) costs 15K more than the previous generation. I could argue the same, that not a lot has been done since. (Albeit I have to admit the performance with 90BHP more is very solid). It is 200kg heavier and if you put a lot of accessories in there, you are looking beyond 90K which is a joke tbh.

 

[Evo1986]

 

[Evo1986]

FYI

 

[MidwayJ]

2023: You can no longer buy a GT for under $40k

2011: You can no longer buy a GT for under $30k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $40.8k

1998: You can no longer buy a GT for under $20k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $37.3k

1986: You can no longer buy a GT under $10k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $28.9k

Prior to 2021 it was generally possible to buy at considerably below MSRP, but not any more. The true prices customers are paying have increased by more than the change in MSRP. I realize that's not an S650 issue (I looked at '22 and '23 Mach 1 prices ), but it's another factor besides interest rates that has impacted overall affordability.

 

[Hack]

2023: You can no longer buy a GT for under $40k

2011: You can no longer buy a GT for under $30k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $40.8k

1998: You can no longer buy a GT for under $20k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $37.3k

1986: You can no longer buy a GT under $10k
Equivalent MSRP after inflation: $28.9k

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.

I don't know why we debating about price increases? Have you ever bought something new or later than before which was cheaper? I don't think so. EVERYTHING became more expensive since Covid. Whether it is food, fuel, electricity...you name it.

So what did you expect? Buying the newest GT for less than 40K? Come one, give me a break. Had an argument with a guy today on Facebook who was moaning about prices and seriously comparing it with his 2015 Stang.....

So looking at the prices, if a fully loaded GT premium fastback costs as nearly as much as a DH, I would probably go for the DH, because with the DH most options are already included (such as magne ride etc.)

Inflation only happens if you decide you want to pay the price. If many people refuse to buy at the higher price, prices will come down. Of course there are some goods such as gas and food that you have to buy, but you can still decide between hamburger and steak.

Cars you have a choice on whether they are worth it.

To add to your post...

Even *IF* Ford were profitable, they would still raise the price of their product as the cost to engineeer/assemble/market them has gone up, exponentially in fact with the COVID and Russia/Ukraine Supply Chain constraints plus labor shortges.

Their shareholders most certainly won't eat up the additional expense with a smaller return on their investment if there's an eager customer base who will.

I can understand complaining about the prices increases given that a lot of consumers are being squeezed in so many other ways right now (even I admitted they were a bit steep). But anyone who thinks a for-profit business should and will operate as some charity because what they're doing may be morally wrong in their eyes is, respectfully, being unrealistic about how business and the world works.

I agree 100%. Ford has to sell for a price where they will make money. Ford also has to figure out how to prevent their costs from getting too high. If they are unable to do it, they won't compete with other new car offerings or the used cars already out there.

I like Ford and I've mostly owned Fords, but if their products aren't worth the money to me I'm not going to buy. I might support them by purchasing a PP3 for my 2017, but I'm not going to spend $90K on a DH.

 

[dfwford]

Yeah...no way in heck am I paying over $8K for some fancy wheels and over $5K for a fancy paint job, lol...

Sponsored