HOT: Get a Mustang Coupe or Ranger Edge for $5/day

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cleaner

Senior member
Feb 11, 2002
887
1
0
Ok just got off the phone with a Ford salesman. Heres the dealio. You have to put and I quote "$2,574 cash due at signing on Ranger, $2,823 cash due at signing on Mustang after $3,000 cash back. Includes security deposit, exclude taxes, title and license fees." The salesman said that the initial costs would be in the range of about $4000 after tax, title, and license fees! I told him that this kind of kills this deal and he agreed. He said it was a 48 month lease with 12,000 miles per year. You do get $3,000 back but this deal is still not hot. The problem is the 10% down. I've never leased a car before is that standard? Seem kind of high to me. It seems more like a security deposit on the car to me. Regardless this kills this deal for me. Ahhh back to my grocery getter - 1993 Dodge Caravan LE!
 

numatrix

Member
Feb 16, 2001
116
0
0
Originally posted by: TimeKeeper
How can one believe Toyota Camry is American?
Stop lying to ourselves!!!!!!!! Those profit goes to Japan.

It is like you telling me Mercedes ML , BMW X3 is American!

The profits from Japanese car makers go to stock holders, whom by the way, are many Americans. If you participate in a 401k plan, you may own shares of Toyota or Honda.

Most Auto makers are global companies with publicly traded stocks. Do you really think only Americans own GM or Ford stock?

Buying a Camry will support this country, because the car buyer will PAY SALES TAXES and FEES to the State. The US Salesperson and the dealership will make a PROFIT on the sale. The auto mechanic will be employed by the repair jobs from the sale of a Camry over the next 10 years and 200k miles later.

People should buy a superior product no matter who makes it. If GM or Ford continues to have profits slide, do you think they will listen to consumers more?
 

thescram

Senior member
Jun 12, 2001
309
0
0
I would imagine the 03 cobra motor and tranny can handle those big power numbers. It has the same tranny as the Viper and plenty of those are around running high HP numbers with the stock tranny. The motor has forged internals and is not comparable to other years. Now, running those numbers on the 2v or other years would not be advisable without some bottom end work.
 

edsmith42

Member
Nov 8, 2001
55
0
0
Originally posted by: anazoal
They are merely _assembled_ in the US by US drones. The vast majority of the high paying jobs (engineers, designers, etc) and money go to the people in Japan.

I'd pay to see you say that at a Toyota, BMW, Ford, or GM auto plant!


ROFL, Yeah, it's funny how "Support the American worker!" turns into "assembled in the US by US drones" as soon as a company he doesn't like starts hiring Americans...
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Japanese car companies have been running an ad campaign for years that tries to imply that buying one of their cars assembled in America supports Americans.

Let me explain this as simply as possible. A SERVICE job != an ENGINEERING job.

Money is in Engineering. The country who has the engineering jobs dictates to everyone else how things work. And those cars they are building at those assembly plants are not American engineered cars. Neither are their managers American, or their corporate bosses American. So when a Japanese company does extremely well, they'll happily build another assembly plant here in the states while they hire the folks who do the actual decision making in JAPAN.

Can ANYONE here truthfully say they think a car assembled in Mexico by a US company somehow helps Mexico more than us? I thought not.

The reason ASSEMBLY workers (ie, UAW) workers were paid so much for so long is because the US had a virtual monopoly on the NON-service jobs. Engineers were American, managers were American, and the profits from the corporation (you know, the half a billion Ford earns, the 2 billion GM earns) went directly back to investing in MORE engineering and assembly jobs here in the states.

Once the US completes it's current transition to all Assembly / Service jobs, Japan and other ENGINEERING countries (or technology countries, if you like, the same applies to IT and electronics) own the engineering jobs, there are is no reason to keep manufacturing things here where workers get high wages.

Want an example? Look at the electronics industry. Where was your hard-drive made? Taiwan? Japan? Korea?

So enjoy deluding yourself into buying a Japanese product. You may have bought a product assembled in the Us, but you also just bought a product that was engineered and managed in JAPAN, and you may have just put your American son or daughter engineer out of work.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.
 

anazoal

Senior member
May 30, 2000
421
0
0

Several "non-US" automakers have engineering and styling studios in the US -- staffed by Americans. The head of BMW design is an American.

The merit of the car should be the deciding factor, not the location of the manufacturer's HQ.
 

Oakenfold

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
5,740
0
76
If all you like about the leasing is the low payments then contact your local credit union or bank and ask if they have any "lease" look alike programs.
IMO leases are RIPOFFS because of all the cash you have to put down etc, and you don't own the vehicle.

There are programs out there that actually give you ownership of the auto without the 10% down and you still have low payments, they incorporate them with a ballon note generally.
 

StanG

Member
Mar 27, 2000
194
0
0
went directly back to investing in MORE engineering and assembly jobs here in the states.

You are kidding, right??? The money went directly to stock holders and upper management's pockets.
Engineering and US manufacturers should not be used in the same sentence... That certainly quilifies as oxymoron...

As long as US manufacturers keep cutting corners left and right, I will continue spending my money on superior products from Japan and Europe.

Happy Acura 3.5RL & Audi A4 owner :)
 

StanG

Member
Mar 27, 2000
194
0
0
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
If all you like about the leasing is the low payments then contact your local credit union or bank and ask if they have any "lease" look alike programs.
IMO leases are RIPOFFS because of all the cash you have to put down etc, and you don't own the vehicle.

There are programs out there that actually give you ownership of the auto without the 10% down and you still have low payments, they incorporate them with a ballon note generally.

That's not necessarily true... One needs to look at total cost of ownership (i.e. cost per year, or $/mile, etc...) in order to determine which is better.
While I don't like leasing cars, there are situations when leasing is far more feasible than buying. Buying a Saab??? Silly... :) Leasing it??? Oh, yeah.... ;)

 

Swoosh

Junior Member
Apr 4, 2003
16
0
0
I own a V6 Mustang with the 5spd tranny and have made some simple bolt-on modifications to the car. I have never been beat by an import and have run a 14.4 ET in the quarter mile at Moroso Motorsports park in Florida. When I ran the car in stock form it posted a 15.1 ET. According to Tekdemon, this car runs 16 second quarter mile times and can be beat by a Civic SI. That's all good if he's refering to the V6 Mustang equipped with the automatic transmission. In stock form with both cars having a manual transmission and a compitent driver behind the wheel, the Mustang should have no problem beating the Civic SI in 0-60 and 1/4 mile ET. As far as braking is concerned, I can't argue with you on that subject. The car is a lead sled and has alot of nose dive under hard braking. Also, did anyone consider that the insurance on a V8 Mustang is pretty steep. That's the only factor that kept me from buying the GT. Anyone who is under 25 and wants a V8 powered sports car better be prepared to pay dearly for insurance, unless they plan on having mommy and daddy cover them on that part. I can't think of the last time I saw a souped up Hyundai that was actually fast. The only thing currently in the V6 Mustang's price range right no that can beat it from the showroom floor is the Dodge Neon SRT4, however, please remember that the Mustang is still on a 9 year old platform and isn't considered a sport compact car. But then again, neither should the Neon, since it has 4 doors. By the way, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords Magazine tested the V6 Mustang 3 years ago and it ran a 14.96 1/4 mile ET IN STOCK TRIM. I would say that's respectable for a 3,200 lb. car with a pushrod V6 that only generates 190hp. Let's see your Honda pull that off from the factory.IN STOCK TRIM
 

Oakenfold

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
5,740
0
76
Originally posted by: StanG
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
If all you like about the leasing is the low payments then contact your local credit union or bank and ask if they have any "lease" look alike programs.
IMO leases are RIPOFFS because of all the cash you have to put down etc, and you don't own the vehicle.

There are programs out there that actually give you ownership of the auto without the 10% down and you still have low payments, they incorporate them with a ballon note generally.

That's not necessarily true... One needs to look at total cost of ownership (i.e. cost per year, or $/mile, etc...) in order to determine which is better.
While I don't like leasing cars, there are situations when leasing is far more feasible than buying. Buying a Saab??? Silly... :) Leasing it??? Oh, yeah.... ;)

It would depend on the lease, I have yet to come across one that is a good deal.
I don't see how buying a Saab justify's it with numbers, come up with some and I'll discuss it.

;)

If you can buy the car for the same payment of a lease and have a balloon note but have the option to turn it back in, refinance it and keep it, or sell/trade the car WHY LEASE? It doesn't make sense, there are just too many pre-lease fee's.


 

flythunderbird

Senior member
Jun 19, 2002
320
0
0
Originally posted by: Swoosh
The only thing currently in the V6 Mustang's price range right no that can beat it from the showroom floor is the Dodge Neon SRT4, however, please remember that the Mustang is still on a 9 year old platform and isn't considered a sport compact car. But then again, neither should the Neon, since it has 4 doors.[/H]

Um, actually the Mustang platform goes back to 1979(with upgrades along the way), and the base Fox platform on which the Mustang sits started production back in 1978 as the Ford Fairmont. ;)
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Leasing is obviously a better deal for the buyer, because, well, because the banker and dealer are grinning from ear to ear when you go for the lease option.

If what Cleaner posted is true (about $4000 up front, 2 year lease), this deal works out (for the mathematically challenged) to:
$4000 up front
$5 a day (or $149 a month or whatever it is, so I'll use $5 per day)
$5 per day, times 365 days, times 2 years = $3650.

So, your up front costs are more than what you're even paying during the lease! It works out to $10 per day in the long run. ($10.48 actually, assuming $5 per day, 2 years)

So, $5/day = $10.48/day. Too bad they're so careful with advertisements that they always add in the "does not include 10% down, tax, title,.... feeees"

I still can't figure out why people lease though... $5 a day may be worth it, that's what caught my attention for this thread, but $300 a month for something I won't own? No way. I see some people in this thread remembered to add in the insurance costs... right now, I'm hardly paying anything for insurance (for 2 cars, I pay $60ish a month... wife writes the check so I don't know it exactly, it may be a bit less). This deal would raise my car costs from $50 a month average (maintenance, oil, wax, etc) by a huge amount, since I'd then be obligated to purchase all sorts of insurance that in all likelihood, I won't use. If I replace both of my cars with leased cars, I'd have to spend an extra $9000 per year for something I wouldn't own (including the extra insurance). Gee, I just convinced myself that I'll continue taking 5 or 6 vacations a year at the expense of owning an older car. Did I convince anyone else? Seems to me the people in Hot Deals wouldn't be throwing their money away on cars that depreciate in value. I do have to get rid of the gas hogging SUV though. After I sell it, I can get a car 4 or 5 years newer for only about a grand more than what I can sell the SUV for. (Far less than the upfront costs of the Mustang) (and save that grand in gas costs in 3 years)-making it another hot deal for me :)


 

StanG

Member
Mar 27, 2000
194
0
0
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
Originally posted by: StanG
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
If all you like about the leasing is the low payments then contact your local credit union or bank and ask if they have any "lease" look alike programs.
IMO leases are RIPOFFS because of all the cash you have to put down etc, and you don't own the vehicle.

There are programs out there that actually give you ownership of the auto without the 10% down and you still have low payments, they incorporate them with a ballon note generally.

That's not necessarily true... One needs to look at total cost of ownership (i.e. cost per year, or $/mile, etc...) in order to determine which is better.
While I don't like leasing cars, there are situations when leasing is far more feasible than buying. Buying a Saab??? Silly... :) Leasing it??? Oh, yeah.... ;)

It would depend on the lease, I have yet to come across one that is a good deal.
I don't see how buying a Saab justify's it with numbers, come up with some and I'll discuss it.

;)

If you can buy the car for the same payment of a lease and have a balloon note but have the option to turn it back in, refinance it and keep it, or sell/trade the car WHY LEASE? It doesn't make sense, there are just too many pre-lease fee's.


The reason I brought up Saab is that their resale value truly sucks, so when you buy a new one, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose lots of $$$ - espacially if you plan on selling the car in just few years. The reason you would rather lease one is that their lease programs are sometimes subsidized, where the financing is really inexpensive AND their residual values are artificially high.
 

Oakenfold

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
5,740
0
76
Originally posted by: StanG
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
Originally posted by: StanG
Originally posted by: Oakenfold
If all you like about the leasing is the low payments then contact your local credit union or bank and ask if they have any "lease" look alike programs.
IMO leases are RIPOFFS because of all the cash you have to put down etc, and you don't own the vehicle.

There are programs out there that actually give you ownership of the auto without the 10% down and you still have low payments, they incorporate them with a ballon note generally.

That's not necessarily true... One needs to look at total cost of ownership (i.e. cost per year, or $/mile, etc...) in order to determine which is better.
While I don't like leasing cars, there are situations when leasing is far more feasible than buying. Buying a Saab??? Silly... :) Leasing it??? Oh, yeah.... ;)

It would depend on the lease, I have yet to come across one that is a good deal.
I don't see how buying a Saab justify's it with numbers, come up with some and I'll discuss it.

;)

If you can buy the car for the same payment of a lease and have a balloon note but have the option to turn it back in, refinance it and keep it, or sell/trade the car WHY LEASE? It doesn't make sense, there are just too many pre-lease fee's.


The reason I brought up Saab is that their resale value truly sucks, so when you buy a new one, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose lots of $$$ - espacially if you plan on selling the car in just few years. The reason you would rather lease one is that their lease programs are sometimes subsidized, where the financing is really inexpensive AND their residual values are artificially high.

Programs are out there that offer you a guaranteed residual for ownership with option to turn back in and owe nothing, you still have the mileage issue and condition of the auto to deal with however.
;)

 

StanG

Member
Mar 27, 2000
194
0
0
Programs are out there that offer you a guaranteed residual for ownership with option to turn back in and owe nothing, you still have the mileage issue and condition of the auto to deal with however.
;)

Absolutely, that's why I have 2 rules of thumb:
1 - NEVER buy a new car.
2 - NEVER lease.
There is also a third one, that I'm especially proud of:
3 - Unless the car has factory warranty, NEVER take it to the stealer...


All these rules have allowed me to change cars quite frequently, while not causing me to go broke :)
Now, if I could only stop myself from visiting this forum... :D



 

mikeford

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2001
5,671
160
106
The reason I lease is that SOMETIMES thats the best deal, ie you get to screw the bank.

Lease calculations often mess up when you are getting very large discounts, or the cars value will be much lower than they predict at the end of lease. I bought a $30k sticker price Lincoln once, paid zero down, plus got the dealer to pay for a $2500 Alpine stereo system, no payment of any kind for first month, and after that monthly payments of $281 including taxes. After 5 years the end of lease value on the banks books was $14k, but they accepted my offer of $6100 (which was about the current wholesale auction value). and I drove it paid in full for another 7 years (ie cost me LESS than $5/day). Secret to the low price is that I bought at the very end of the model year, like 2 days later and the lease company would consider it as one year old (huge whack on end of lease value).

Oh yeah, other reason to lease is that you plan to get money later on, but happen to be totally broke cashwise. One year I didn't have the money to pay the license fee on my car, so I leased a new Porsche with no payments for a couple months. Worked for me.
 

Oakenfold

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
5,740
0
76
Originally posted by: StanG
All these rules have allowed me to change cars quite frequently, while not causing me to go broke :)
Now, if I could only stop myself from visiting this forum... :D

We could start a support group.


:D
 

Mysterie

Senior member
Jan 7, 2000
881
0
0
Hey I have a 2002 V6 Stang (Premium with leather, stick, ABS and traction control) and I love it. I did my research and I previously drove a 95 V6 Stang. I am fine with the braking and acceleration (course I would love it to be better, but why bother since I don't race or anything else). Resale value seems decent (never get an ecilpse btw, horrible resale value), it loses less than half it's value in five years (used edmunds). I loved the Jetta 1.8T I test drove but couldn't afford it, along with the fact it didn't have the .9% financing. Drove the Mistu Lancer but the price versus what I could get with the mustang (not to mention Mistu dealers markup everything) wasn't worth it. Looked at the Accords and found no good deals on them, and the Camry's well sorry but I find them very ugly (coupes yes but their pre 2003 sedans are fine, family has a few of them). Yes seating capacity could be better but as my younger cousin said as he drove off with my old 95 Stang, it keeps people outta his car and asking for rides :D

One point - don't compare the gas milage of a Solara to the Mustang. The V6 Solara eats the same amount of gas as the V6 mustang and remember you need 91 octane (Solara 20/28, Mustang 20/29, Accord coupe 21/30). I have a friend with a Accord Coupe, non v6 and when we compare the miles we get per gallon, his seems kinda bad for a inline 4 compared to my V6 Stang. He get less than 300 mostly surface streets on a 17 gal tank (he is supposed to have 26/34), I get 300 alot of surface streets (not as much as him thru) on a 15.7 gal tank (but mine is stick and his is auto). Could be the way he drives thru, but I like to gun it at 1st gear :D.

Another point - Insurance for the Stang is expensive. But I recommend the Vert. The convertibile's insurance is cheaper because most of them are driven by women 30 years or older, it's actually cheaper to insure than a coupe (worked for insurance company for a while and this was what I saw when I did a quote), but you have to be able to shell out that extra $5000. BTW, I read somewhere most mustang drivers are women (me included) and alot are older (my 95 was first owned by my 40+ mom, who still loves the stang but only just slightly less than her Escape), go figure.
 

perfectfire

Member
Apr 1, 2003
25
0
0
Originally posted by: edsmith42
Originally posted by: sixt7gt350
Originally posted by: Triggerhappy007
They're built in the US, by Americans.

Just like the new VW Beetle is a Mexican car, since it's built in Mexico by Mexicans?
Where do the profits go?
Where are the headquarters?
What is the social pecking order at the manufacturing plant?

To the Japanese, America is like we consider Mexico.
They build here because our labor is much cheaper than theirs. They can also avoid higher import tariffs.
Japanese cars built in America are NOT American cars. (Nor are Japanese cars rebadged with American nameplates.)

By the way, Toyota builds the Camry in Georgetown, KY.

Sorry man, I just gotta call you on this. Do you really believe that American labor is cheaper than Japanese?

The ONLY reason there are Japanese badged cars being built in the U.S. is that Congress doesn't believe that U.S. manufacturers
are able to compete on an even playing field so they passed a law a few years ago that said, "If you dont manufacture a certain percentage of your cars in the U.S. we will charge you a massive additional fee for importing your cars here. "

So basically, the U.S. manufacturers suck so badly at running their businesses that they had to go run to Congress to give them an artificial boost.

bleh...

How true, I was just about to post the same thing. I'd like to add thatI think another reason we forced Japanese car makers to manufacture here is because we buy buttloads of their cars(because they're good), and they don't buy any of ours(because they're not as good, except maybe for the trucks, but nobody in Japan owns trucks for personal use), which means that they're making money off of us but we ain't making anything off of them. I don't even know if Japanese labor is any cheaper, it's probably just cheaper to build stuff there because they do a better job faster. If we start buying stuff for reason's like "it's made in the US", even when the compitetion's product is cheaper and better, we start to destroy the whole point of capitalism. Dave Barry wrote a humorous bit about the state of American cars before Japan entered the market in "Dave Barry Does Japan". It may be overexagerated but it's true. I wonder what cars would be like today if Japan and Germany had never entered our market. . .
 

TekDemon

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2001
2,296
1
81
Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
Japanese car companies have been running an ad campaign for years that tries to imply that buying one of their cars assembled in America supports Americans.

Let me explain this as simply as possible. A SERVICE job != an ENGINEERING job.

Money is in Engineering. The country who has the engineering jobs dictates to everyone else how things work. And those cars they are building at those assembly plants are not American engineered cars. Neither are their managers American, or their corporate bosses American. So when a Japanese company does extremely well, they'll happily build another assembly plant here in the states while they hire the folks who do the actual decision making in JAPAN.

Can ANYONE here truthfully say they think a car assembled in Mexico by a US company somehow helps Mexico more than us? I thought not.

The reason ASSEMBLY workers (ie, UAW) workers were paid so much for so long is because the US had a virtual monopoly on the NON-service jobs. Engineers were American, managers were American, and the profits from the corporation (you know, the half a billion Ford earns, the 2 billion GM earns) went directly back to investing in MORE engineering and assembly jobs here in the states.

Once the US completes it's current transition to all Assembly / Service jobs, Japan and other ENGINEERING countries (or technology countries, if you like, the same applies to IT and electronics) own the engineering jobs, there are is no reason to keep manufacturing things here where workers get high wages.

Want an example? Look at the electronics industry. Where was your hard-drive made? Taiwan? Japan? Korea?

So enjoy deluding yourself into buying a Japanese product. You may have bought a product assembled in the Us, but you also just bought a product that was engineered and managed in JAPAN, and you may have just put your American son or daughter engineer out of work.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.

You know why this entire post is silly? Because the average CEO salary in Japan is only 11-20x that of their lowest paid/average paid workers...whereas in the USA it's over 400X (I put 11-20 and lowest/average because this figure apparently varies depending on what source you're using...but both agree on the over 400x quote for the USA).
So saying it's somehow the evil japanese managers making the builders here into drones and sucking the money out of them is ridiculous...Ford's CEOs probably make WAY more than Honda's.
 

-Omen-

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2000
1,163
0
0
y is there soo much unrelated talk.
arent u supposed to limit to the deal, things about the deal, experience and ways to make it better for others? :confused:
 

MikeMAN

Senior member
Oct 26, 1999
743
6
81
Originally posted by: flythunderbird
Originally posted by: TekDemon The fact that the Stang offer probably excludes the GT, Mach1, and the SVT makes it kinda lame...I'm guessing it does exclude them since all of Ford's other offers exclude those =( plus those would cost more, so it'd be pretty silly to also be $5 a day =P
Not really; not everyone wants or needs a GT/Mach 1/SVT; besides, some of us can't afford the insurance. ;) 10% down and $150/month isn't bad for a new car nowadays.
The regular V6 stang is sloooooooooooow. So slow my slow Civic Si would outrun it in the 1/4 mile and have similar/lower 0-60s. It has the old pushrod V6 that delivers about 190HP...that has pretty lousy response too...
Comparing a V6 'Stang to a Civic Si? I would hope that the Si is faster; after all, it has a more favorable weight-to-power ratio ...
The new Mach 1's engine is pretty awesome though...300HP in the Mach 1 and it makes 390 in the SVT(supercharged), although I've heard on the SVT you can just swap out the supercharger without upgrading the fuel system(it already has a beefy one) and hit 700+whp easily...
At 700rwhp, I can't imagine that the drivetrain would last long without any modifications. 700rwhp is roughly equal to 1000 flywheel hp(30% power loss through the tranny and axle). 700rwhp is an enormous amount of power, and it would start destroying parts pretty fast. I'd like to see a 4.6 that made 1000 flywheel hp using stock parts(other than the blower).
Umm..uhh, yeah so unless you just want the stang v6 for some crazy reason it's probably not a good idea for the Stang...if you just want a daily driver coupe there are better choices.
Depends on the consumer ... I see a LOT of V6 'Stangs running around. The Mustang outsold the Camaro/Firebird combined by a 2-1 margin. Evidently they're not all bad. And $150 a month is hard to beat.

if u believe that cars on average loose 30% through drivetrain, god help us all. :D