Re: NEAT! Ford to display 400hp Eco-Boost powered '34 Ford at SEMA
I'm sorry that my words aren't persuading you.
I will agree that the majority probably doesn't know enough to care about what's inside the engine or how many cylinders or cams it has or much of anything else beyond price, reliability and fuel economy. (Marketers often count on such indifference)
And there are some who don't mind rolling the dice with a supercharger pressing on cheap reciprocating parts that often fail in a spectacular and expensive fashion when pushed too far.
So if we're going to slouch to the lowest common denominator, I guess your side will always win. (And that's the kind of thinking that got Detroit into trouble . . . GM was the dominant auto maker in the world back when they got caught up in to arrogant "85%" thinking)
But we're talking about a performance oriented car that's not selling as well as it should in 2010. One that has a worse power-to-weight ratio than its chief competitor. One that uses engines with arguably less aftermarket support and "buzz." One that's fighting the headwinds of a hot rodding culture which orbits all things Chevrolet.
And you're ignoring the opinion leader effects I wrote about earlier. What the 15% does can influence the choices of the other 85,%
What I said was that there's about 15% hard core original owners. Remember the cars are in the stream of commerce for ~ 15 years or more. As they age, the percentage of modified Mustangs tends to increase. And Ford ought to keep these subsequent users/hot rodders in mind.
Why?
Because used cars are how most people develop their impressions of a brand. Almost no one starts out with a new car in their formative years. And the slow, unreliable, rust-prone junk that Detroit sold in the 1970s and 1980s -- which got handed down to kids -- has innoculated an entire generation against American automobiles. Every Detroit brand has to fight against this bias.
The first Mustang that most Mustangers will ever have is a used one.
If the scuttlebutt on the street is that the used Mustang's engine doesn't trounce Chevy, Toyota and everyone else in both O.E. and modified forms, Ford stands a better chance that the "loyalty seed" fails to take root. And if the engine isn't adequately supported by the aftermarket, or is weaker and less reliable in modified form than the competition (think Chevy 305), then it's more likely that potential customer will move on. Part of the reason that hot rodders gave the 5.0 a chance in the 1980s was the poor quality and potential of GM's competing products.
Of course possibly the worst result would be if the young used Mustang owner feels he has to put a Chevy engine in to maximize the "bang for the buck." And if Ford doesn't take the LS and GMPP threats seriously, that's likely to become more commonplace in the future.
If you don't think I'm right, just consider how many times some "appliance motorist" has asked for your opinion on a car . . . and imagine how many times you've "talked up" your brand and "dissed" "Brand-X."
Product quality, brand image, and owner bragging rights aren't things that can always be converted into dollars and cents. But I do think a case can be made for increased residual values. Increased residuals improve brand perception better than a billion dollars of advertising.
Ford's position in the American market isn't secure enough we can boast about beating Toyota (yet). Most certainly, my issues stated in this thread are minor compared to the challenges facing Ford. But Ford shouldn't discount or neglect its "base" (its most loyal and enthusiastic customers -- most of which are high performance oriented).
I'm glad some of you are satisfied. Same power to 'ya, I guess. But some of us believe Ford can do better.
I'm sorry that my words aren't persuading you.
I will agree that the majority probably doesn't know enough to care about what's inside the engine or how many cylinders or cams it has or much of anything else beyond price, reliability and fuel economy. (Marketers often count on such indifference)
And there are some who don't mind rolling the dice with a supercharger pressing on cheap reciprocating parts that often fail in a spectacular and expensive fashion when pushed too far.
So if we're going to slouch to the lowest common denominator, I guess your side will always win. (And that's the kind of thinking that got Detroit into trouble . . . GM was the dominant auto maker in the world back when they got caught up in to arrogant "85%" thinking)
But we're talking about a performance oriented car that's not selling as well as it should in 2010. One that has a worse power-to-weight ratio than its chief competitor. One that uses engines with arguably less aftermarket support and "buzz." One that's fighting the headwinds of a hot rodding culture which orbits all things Chevrolet.
And you're ignoring the opinion leader effects I wrote about earlier. What the 15% does can influence the choices of the other 85,%
What I said was that there's about 15% hard core original owners. Remember the cars are in the stream of commerce for ~ 15 years or more. As they age, the percentage of modified Mustangs tends to increase. And Ford ought to keep these subsequent users/hot rodders in mind.
Why?
Because used cars are how most people develop their impressions of a brand. Almost no one starts out with a new car in their formative years. And the slow, unreliable, rust-prone junk that Detroit sold in the 1970s and 1980s -- which got handed down to kids -- has innoculated an entire generation against American automobiles. Every Detroit brand has to fight against this bias.
The first Mustang that most Mustangers will ever have is a used one.
If the scuttlebutt on the street is that the used Mustang's engine doesn't trounce Chevy, Toyota and everyone else in both O.E. and modified forms, Ford stands a better chance that the "loyalty seed" fails to take root. And if the engine isn't adequately supported by the aftermarket, or is weaker and less reliable in modified form than the competition (think Chevy 305), then it's more likely that potential customer will move on. Part of the reason that hot rodders gave the 5.0 a chance in the 1980s was the poor quality and potential of GM's competing products.
Of course possibly the worst result would be if the young used Mustang owner feels he has to put a Chevy engine in to maximize the "bang for the buck." And if Ford doesn't take the LS and GMPP threats seriously, that's likely to become more commonplace in the future.
If you don't think I'm right, just consider how many times some "appliance motorist" has asked for your opinion on a car . . . and imagine how many times you've "talked up" your brand and "dissed" "Brand-X."
Product quality, brand image, and owner bragging rights aren't things that can always be converted into dollars and cents. But I do think a case can be made for increased residual values. Increased residuals improve brand perception better than a billion dollars of advertising.
Ford's position in the American market isn't secure enough we can boast about beating Toyota (yet). Most certainly, my issues stated in this thread are minor compared to the challenges facing Ford. But Ford shouldn't discount or neglect its "base" (its most loyal and enthusiastic customers -- most of which are high performance oriented).
I'm glad some of you are satisfied. Same power to 'ya, I guess. But some of us believe Ford can do better.
Comment