The Stripper Model

[sperold]

I have 90 SHO. It has no sunroof, no keyless entry, no delayed headlight shut down....no frills. It is like a not-too-optioned Taurus LX, with the mighty Yamaha engine. They did it in 1990, should they do it now? I am sure the price tag is holding some people back, and in Canada, the price is worse. If the price were cut 5 to 10K (from mid 40's in Canada), would that help? In the true sense of cost reduction, I would be willing to give up the all wheel drive (and all the weight). Along with that, delete some of the Lincoln type options, lighten the car up and give it the silver colour they don't want you to have. Why, if necessary, turn the engine around, slap a manual tranny behind it and give me rear wheel drive, if that is what it takes to get the cost down. If there is no money to be saved, leave it a front wheeler. Leave the brakes and suspension untouched as much as possible as I understand they are superbe. And leave the Ford development costs out of it. They lost more money selling off all the European car companies their MBA's just had to have, than they will ever spend in development costs in our lifetime. So, is there an appetite for a no-nonsense, low cost SHO (in a less luxurious form), or not.

 

[SeanMc]

Starting with the Gen 2, the SHO has always been the top of the line Taurus. They seem to be continuing this with the Gen 4. The "stripper" would be the non track pack version.

 

[RonPorter]

I have 90 SHO. It has no sunroof, no keyless entry, no delayed headlight shut down....no frills. It is like a not-too-optioned Taurus LX, with the mighty Yamaha engine. They did it in 1990, should they do it now? I am sure the price tag is holding some people back, and in Canada, the price is worse. If the price were cut 5 to 10K (from mid 40's in Canada), would that help? In the true sense of cost reduction, I would be willing to give up the all wheel drive (and all the weight). Along with that, delete some of the Lincoln type options, lighten the car up and give it the silver colour they don't want you to have. Why, if necessary, turn the engine around, slap a manual tranny behind it and give me rear wheel drive, if that is what it takes to get the cost down. If there is no money to be saved, leave it a front wheeler. Leave the brakes and suspension untouched as much as possible as I understand they are superbe. And leave the Ford development costs out of it. They lost more money selling off all the European car companies their MBA's just had to have, than they will ever spend in development costs in our lifetime. So, is there an appetite for a no-nonsense, low cost SHO (in a less luxurious form), or not.

Well, I (and many others) had 'stripper" '89s with no additional options. Remember that it still included the mandatory options like power windows/locks, a/c, cruise, etc.

The new SHO is the same way for the base price. You would probably have to order one that way. And I would still want the 12s package on it for the gearing.

FWIW, I wouldn't be interested in the package you describe. Never will have a manual, and the AWD is mandatory for the power, and makes the car.

Yeah, Canadians get screwed on new car pricing. It was comparable when your dollar was half of ours, but with it now near parity, your prices didn't drop.

 

[1993MTXSHO]

365hp/350tq + 4000 lbs + fwd = no traction

 

[SuperHO]

screw it...if the damn thing's runnin 12.70s at 4400lbs with a mild tune and shiny air filter, i'll take mine fully loaded with the two tone heated and cooled, butt massaging seats , thank you.

 

[PonySHO]

I guess the target market is the European Touring Sedan type people. They're competing with Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc. It would probably hurt the SHO's image if they came out with something like Mopar had in the muscle car days with the bottom end Roadrunner and Super Bee. Those cars were like taxi cabs on the inside, but were under $3000.

 

[YZF-Ford]

Because the car manufacturers think everyone wants to spend thousands more for a luxury car instead of an affordable one.

 

[RonPorter]

It "IS" an affordable car. Cars below $30K are econo models. A decently-equipped SLO will run close to mid-30s. My LGT ran me $34K out-the-door 5 years ago, and I felt it was a deal for the money.

The new price of today's SHO, adjusted for inflation, is what the '89 SHO cost in '89. At the time, my stripper model listed for about $20,200. New SHOs have never been cheap cars. Even my new '99 was $29,600 in '99.

Euro models that are comparable are $10-30K more, comparably equipped.

I guess if you have never been in the new-car market, it sounds like a lot. But, since 5 years ago when I got the LGT, polls on the Legacy Forum show that the average age of the new LGT buyer was 27 years old, with not a lot of us over 30. It's the reality of the car market. Which is not represented by folks buying 10-20-year-old cars for under $3K.

 

[PonySHO]

Ron, I'd have to disagree with you on the SHO being an affordable car. Today's median income is probably around $53K, the base SHO is $38K. It's probably not wise to spent that much money on a car. The SHO is definitely the best bang for the buck though.

 

[RonPorter]

Ron, I'd have to disagree with you on the SHO being an affordable car. Today's median income is probably around $53K, the base SHO is $38K. It's probably not wise to spent that much money on a car. The SHO is definitely the best bang for the buck though.

You missed my point.

If you call it "unaffordable" today, it has NEVER been affordable since 1989.

I don't want to sound cocky, but, for folks with a professional job with a decent income, today's SHO is the same "budget hit" as it was in 1989 or 1999.

The SHO has NEVER been a car for middle-income folks. I have more in common with new SHO buyers than with 90%+ of the folks on this forum.

Just as it was in 1989.

As I mentioned previously, 5 years ago, the bulk of buyers for $35K LGTs and STIs were folks in their 20s. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[typhoon5000]

I drove a current "stripper" model SHO last Thursday at one of my local dealerships. They were having a Taurus event that night with free food, so I was in lol. The salesman I had been talking with before offered if I wanted to drive a SHO since it was Taurus night and he knew about my '95. So he grabbed some keys and it turned out to be a base 400A with just the 12S package in Steel Blue. It was really optioned just like a base gen2 (ie. power seats, auto climate control and that's about it). It stickered just under $40k US. I was really surprised to see it as a dealer stock vehicle and not pre-ordered.

 

[expy916]

damn, I thought this thread was going to be about strippers.

 

[PonySHO]

You missed my point.

If you call it "unaffordable" today, it has NEVER been affordable since 1989.

I don't want to sound cocky, but, for folks with a professional job with a decent income, today's SHO is the same "budget hit" as it was in 1989 or 1999.

The SHO has NEVER been a car for middle-income folks. I have more in common with new SHO buyers than with 90%+ of the folks on this forum.

Just as it was in 1989.

As I mentioned previously, 5 years ago, the bulk of buyers for $35K LGTs and STIs were folks in their 20s. Draw your own conclusions.

Ron, I now see your point. My first impression when you said affordable was for the general masses. When you consider the target market, yes, the SHO is quite affordable and a bargain.

 

[sperold]

So things are just as good as 1989 in 2010. If that were true, it still bodes poorly for the new model. In 1989, Ford projected sales of 40,000 units..... they sold 15,000 and that was their best year. So if that lofty reality is really the "target", then good luck to Ford. If they can make back all the production costs incurred with a 15,000 first year production run and 10,000 a year for four more years, then it must not cost too much to bring a new model into existance.
Now lets talk about comparative pricing between the two dates. Earned income may be the same number when reported inflation is calculated from 1989 to 2010, but disposible income is another reality. Take house prices, insurance costs, fuel costs, even food costs and apply the same arithmetic and you will see that they are galloping way ahead of the reported inflation escallators. And we all know that reported and real inflation numbers are not the same thing.
Then lets talk about the taxes that have increased, like income, sales and a million hidden ones, and the pockets are less full with the same numbers between the years. And then there are the things we do to ourselves, like monthly payments for cell phones, satellite hook ups, cable TV, you name it. If cars are equally affordable between 1989 and 2010, then why has the average age of a car on the road gone from 4 years to 12 years in Canada? Everyone still loves a new car.

In 1989, you did not have a whole generation of people that would not be caught dead in a domestic car.

Today, established Audi, BMW and Mercedes will not be talked out of their vehicles. The emerging youth market have a strong brand loyalty to everything but domestics. Try preaching domestic car rebirth through improvement on a university campus, and all you will hear are howls of laughter.

Good luck to Ford with this effort if they are matching numbers to 1989. It is a much different world, where they no longer king.

 

[beefcake]

mustang guys have been crying for a base lx type mustang for years, won't happen there, wont happen here

 

[SoonerLS]

damn, I thought this thread was going to be about strippers.

You should have known better when you saw it wasn't HRK who posted the thread.

 

[RonPorter]

So things are just as good as 1989 in 2010. If that were true, it still bodes poorly for the new model. In 1989, Ford projected sales of 40,000 units..... they sold 15,000 and that was their best year. So if that lofty reality is really the "target", then good luck to Ford. If they can make back all the production costs incurred with a 15,000 first year production run and 10,000 a year for four more years, then it must not cost too much to bring a new model into existance.
Now lets talk about comparative pricing between the two dates. Earned income may be the same number when reported inflation is calculated from 1989 to 2010, but disposible income is another reality. Take house prices, insurance costs, fuel costs, even food costs and apply the same arithmetic and you will see that they are galloping way ahead of the reported inflation escallators. And we all know that reported and real inflation numbers are not the same thing.
Then lets talk about the taxes that have increased, like income, sales and a million hidden ones, and the pockets are less full with the same numbers between the years. And then there are the things we do to ourselves, like monthly payments for cell phones, satellite hook ups, cable TV, you name it. If cars are equally affordable between 1989 and 2010, then why has the average age of a car on the road gone from 4 years to 12 years in Canada? Everyone still loves a new car.

In 1989, you did not have a whole generation of people that would not be caught dead in a domestic car.

Today, established Audi, BMW and Mercedes will not be talked out of their vehicles. The emerging youth market have a strong brand loyalty to everything but domestics. Try preaching domestic car rebirth through improvement on a university campus, and all you will hear are howls of laughter.

Good luck to Ford with this effort if they are matching numbers to 1989. It is a much different world, where they no longer king.

Not true. Houses, insurance, and fuel follow the same escalator. And I can see this in my own situation. Taxes are about the same. Federal is less with the Bush tax cuts, and MI income is the same. Although property taxes are HALF, with an increase in the sales tax.

And look at the prices for many other goods, like electronics, which have dropped dramatically. Getting all the extra toys like cable, cellphones, etc are a personal choice. And not necessarily more expensive.

Nonetheless, remember one point. The SHO was MTX-only. Look at what happened to sales in '93 when the ATX came out. In reality, the ATX was supposed to be out in '90, but they couldn't get one to live and perform properly (good friend of mine was on the Prod. Dev. team @ Ford for it).

Just about everything the the SHO performance sedan class all cost more. Cars close in price are smaller.

Ford is at a sweet spot in the market. It appears that this time, they will market it properly.

 

[sho'noffmtx]

Because the car manufacturers think everyone wants to spend thousands more for a luxury car instead of an affordable one.

You can buy a focus loaded for half the price if the new SHO seams over priced

It "IS" an affordable car. Cars below $30K are econo models. A decently-equipped SLO will run close to mid-30s. My LGT ran me $34K out-the-door 5 years ago, and I felt it was a deal for the money.

The new price of today's SHO, adjusted for inflation, is what the '89 SHO cost in '89. At the time, my stripper model listed for about $20,200. New SHOs have never been cheap cars. Even my new '99 was $29,600 in '99.

Euro models that are comparable are $10-30K more, comparably equipped.

.

I also happen to think that the 2010 is a price fair for what it offers. I thought the closest european car was $20k more the a SHO? It doesnt make any sense to me to pay more when your getting less car.

 

[RonPorter]

I also happen to think that the 2010 is a price fair for what it offers. I thought the closest european car was $20k more the a SHO? It doesnt make any sense to me to pay more when your getting less car.

As I just mentioned above, that is pretty much the case. The are cars like a G35/37 (or whatever the sedan is) which is priced the same, but less performace and Fusion-type space. A BMW 335, if you are very careful on the order form, can be close in price, but it's also Fusion size. SRT8 Chargers and 300Cs are priced about the same (are they still made?? if not, nevermind). G8 is now a dead issue.

 

[typhoon5000]

I was just scoping out the stock of new SHO's at a local Ford dealer (Taylor Ford) and they had at least 2 400A models with just the 12S pack. One in Atlantis Green and one in Silver. I was surprised again to see another dealer stock multiple "stripper" models of the 2010 SHO.



That's $38,990 total BTW.

They also had a Demo model on sale already that appeared to be a 401A (had heated seats) and def had the 12S perf pack (had the 20" Eagle F1's). It has 2500 miles on it, Tuxedo Black with all black seats and they're only asking $35,134 for it.