Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

I agree alot had to do with the fact that a Mustang was always more "user friendly" than a camaro in its last generation... I always joked that an 80s mustang GT was like a "bigger" Escort GT with RWD, and in alot of ways thats why it sold so well with women, and people who planned to use the car as a sole vehicle on a daily basis. I have a 1997 Camaro, and must admit, it would suck as an "only car", and is much more of a "sports car" in layout than a Mustang is or was. If you didnt care about HP, and were buying a daily commuter with a 6 cylinder engine, and had no brand loyalty, most would choose the upright, easy to get in and out of, easy to SEE out of, Mustang over the low slung Camaro... and most of those production stats for BOTH cars were likely 6 cylinder cars that were just bought for daily commutes to work by folks who were not "car people". Another BIG thing in addition to the lack of advertising was the fact that you could drive into a chevy dealership and not even SEE a camaro on the lot for about the last 7 years of production. Most people go to a dealer and drive home a car on the lot... if you wanted a camaro, youd have had to order it, or specifically know thats what you wanted going into the dealer... with Ford, you'd go to the dealership and see a row of 10-20 Mustangs ont he lot at any time, which would make them much more likely to sell IMO. With all that said, I still won't be trading my 30th Anniversary SS on a new 'Stang any time soon!

Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

Plus... Chevy also has the vette for true performance guru's... and face it, if youre gonna spend 30K+ for a top of the line performance camaro, odds are good you could afford to spring for the extra monthly payment to drive a Vette.

Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

I think Joe kinda hit the nail on the head here. The Camaro and Firebird were always cramped, "form over function" designs that had some acknowledged quality control problems and, if anything were maybe a little "too edgy". The Stang has always worked better as a "real car".

Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

Good point about no Camaros on the lot Joe. I don't think there was any real difference between a 200hp 289 Mustang and a 210hp 327 Camaro though. Both companies made very limited quantities of high performance versions(I wouldn't call an SS350 high performance). But I still believe a lot goes to brand loyalty. Ford sold almost a million Mustangs before the Camaro even hit the road. I know a lot of people that owned a 60's or 70's Mustang and upgraded to an 80's or 90's Mustang. But anyone buying a rwd car as a daily driver nowadays isn't a very conscious consumer so the 6 cyl Mustang thing is very difficult to understand. I think those people want it to look like they own a sports car. A rwd car in today's driving and weather just doesn't make much sense. I know I had fun when it snowed and I tried to get home in my 93 Z28 Indy 500 Pace Car or my 91 SS454 pickup. But I accept the fact that I won't make it to work in bad weather and so does my company so it's not a problem for me. I just hope Ford can keep the price down under $30K for the GT so the affordable V8 rwd market will stay alive.

Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

I really don't think the fact that the mustang was intoduced in 65 vs 67 for the camaro had a whole lot to do with Mustangs outselling camaros in the late 90s. I do know what its like to try to drive a RWD car in the snow... and even spun a 1990 454SS around once to prove its not a good idea to drive one between November and April around here... https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ins/tongue.gif

Re: New 2005 Mustang GT Commercials - a must see
 

Joe and Jeff, I respectfully disagree with you both about RWD vs FWD.

First I agree that driving a big block pickup truck with no weight over the rear wheels in the snow is a bad idea. It's not even a very good idea in the rain.

BUT, my best car ever in the snow was a 1975 Caprice - I owned it when I lived in New Hampshire in the mid-80's, and I went through an entire winter without snow tires.

I used to drive my '78 Z/28 four speed in the snow, too. Although WITH snow tires.

You actually have more control of your car with RWD than with FWD. After all, when the drive wheels start slipping on your Jetta or Civic you can no longer turn - you are just going to continue sliding in the same direction. With RWD, you can steer with the front, and use your throttle to steer with the rear. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/wink.gif You noly lose your steering if you lock the brakes.

With a good set of siped (not studded) snow tires, and taking care not to overpower the available traction, I would much rather have a rear drive car in any snow or ice conditions. Just add today's anti-lock and traction control technology, and that goes double!

Check out this article for more info on FWD vs RWD... http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194/

-Sam