Ford Mustang - Poor ANCAP Safety Ratings

prophet on 31/08/2020 - 12:11
Last edited 31/08/2020 - 12:15

I've been wondering whether Mustang owners/buyers know that the car has very poor safety ratings, especially considering how sprightly they typically like to drive.

Present Mustangs only have a 3 star ANCAP safety rating, which is the same rating given to LDV work vans. They've been rated poorly for both passengers and pedestrians. Older Stangs are not the safest either; the 2015-2017 models were only 2 star.

  1. Adult Occupant Protection: 72% (27.7 out of 38)
  2. Child Occupant Protection: 32% (15.8 out of 49)
  3. Pedestrian Protection: 78% (32.8 out of 42)
  4. Safety assist: 61% (7.4 out of 12)

https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/releases/updated-…

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/mustang/be8eed

Keep in mind that ANCAP ratings are based on 50-60kph crash tests. So you can imagine how bad it will be at higher speeds.

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-testing-explained

Poll Options

  • 114
    Who cares about safety ratings?? It's a Stang!!!
  • 26
    What the.. Are those ANCAP ratings for real? HAHAHAHAHAH
  • 76
    Of course I knew. Who doesn't check ANCAP ratings? HAHAHAH
Automotive

Comments

  • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 31/08/2020 - 12:21
    +21

    Not an owner of one but I’d certainly want at least 4-5 stars from a vehicle.

    • CocaKoala on 01/09/2020 - 23:01
      +21

      That last one star could make the difference between you walking away from a crash and perishing in one. I will never buy a car with less than 5 stars safety rating.

      • daleroy1234 on 03/09/2020 - 15:54

        Everyone's different. I don't think I've ever checked the safety rating on any car I've bought. I'd be surprised if my 90 series Prado even had a rating :D

  • Zachary on 31/08/2020 - 12:26
    +9

    Thought Mustangs were for show and go…and not for safety…..?

    • Zondor on 01/09/2020 - 17:22
      +17

      They're not even for speed anymore given the Stinger is faster and cheaper lol

      • Kangal on 03/09/2020 - 07:41
        +1

        Are you comparing the i4 Turbo (Stinger) to the i4 Turbo (Mustang) ?
        Or the V6 Turbo (Stinger GT) to the V8 (Mustang GT) ?

        Doesn't the Kia lose out on both counts, at least in terms of power?
        I don't know how they match up when talking actual performance like 0-100 figures though.

        edit, just googled it:
        Apparently the 2.0L Turbo Kia does it in around 6.0 seconds, the V6 Turbo Kia does it in 4.9 seconds manufacturer claimed. Whereas the Mustang does it in around 5.5 seconds for the EcoBoost Turbo, and stepping up to the V8 GT it does it in 4.3 seconds manufacturer claimed.

        Independent testing shows it's closer to 6.3 seconds for Kia Stinger, and 5.1 seconds for the Stinger GT, and it's about 5.4 seconds for the Ford Mustang, and 4.6 seconds for the Mustang GT.

        • Euphemistic on 03/09/2020 - 07:58
          +3

          Yes. The numbers show one is faster than the other. I’ll bet a seat of the pants test can’t tell the difference 90% of the time though. It’s a fraction of a second difference.

        • Spam Service on 03/09/2020 - 09:50
          +3

          Depends on which numbers you use though. 0-100 the mustang is faster, but the kia is quicker over the quarter mile. Motoring.com.au put the quarter mile of the stinger GT at 12.83 vs 13.32 for the mustang GT. Not bad considering the stinger is 4-door with a 5-star ancap rating.

          Really though, the numbers are different for each test, but they're both just fast cars. The biggest factor is probably driver and road rather than the car if you're going to compare them in the real world.

          Having said all this, I think it would be more embarassing to be out-perfomed by a kia than a mustang.

    • CocaKoala on 01/09/2020 - 23:03
      +9

      There are plenty of other cars that can do the show and go better, and still keep it safe. Show and go is not an excuse to manufacture a safety shitbox.

  • Drakesy on 31/08/2020 - 12:38
    +33

    Natural selection at it's finest

    • kaleidoscope on 02/09/2020 - 21:17
      +3

      Well if you hit a pedestrian how does this work?

      • shazzadabazza on 03/09/2020 - 09:05
        +3

        They should know better than to walk near a Mustang

  • Seasoned Salt on 31/08/2020 - 12:55
    +62

    Depends if it is $73,000 or if you can get it a bit cheaper.

    • pegaxs on 31/08/2020 - 16:19
      +53

      And it has to be a specific build spec. I dont want anything else. It has to be this build spec. Dont talk me into anything else, only this build spec. So, please dont suggest anything else, only in this build spec…

      • MrBear on 01/09/2020 - 09:26
        +35

        And I want it for a good price but the price doesn't matter.

        • skywards on 01/09/2020 - 18:15
          +19

          Could I put roof racks on these for my kayak? 🤔

          • CocaKoala on 01/09/2020 - 23:04
            +7

            @skywards: That depends on whether you're a disabled pensioner or not. Also, you are jumping the gun here as the norm is to buy it first and then think about it later.

      • ass3ts on 01/09/2020 - 20:44
        +3

        Red with white stripes…red with white stripes only…would pay 20K more…LOL

      • blitz on 02/09/2020 - 13:25
        +7

        I'm happy to pay $75K and the dealer offered $73K but that's just not good enough.

    • El cheepo on 01/09/2020 - 18:21
      +3

      Depends if it classed as a high yielding investment car.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/09/2020 - 09:20
      +1

      Has to be a 4k rev limited V8. I seldom go above 4k. Doing that is for losers with small body parts.

  • Halo375 on 31/08/2020 - 12:59
    +1

    I'm sure people are aware - they just don't care!

  • Bid Sniper on 31/08/2020 - 13:11
    +13

    Boomer car…

    • brad1-8tsi on 31/08/2020 - 15:01
      +8

      Boomers and up & coming drug dealers and those folk that won't let the police see their drivers licence.

      It's very funny to spend some time in Crows Nest and see all the old blokes (70+) with Mustangs and loud exhausts idling around the shopping strip. I think they might be reliving their youth. They do sound good. :-P

  • apple2016 on 31/08/2020 - 13:13
    +5

    ANCAP ratings focus more on "active safety systems" which in my opinion are rubbish!…

    • perhaps on 31/08/2020 - 13:59
      +3

      I mean the wrangler went from 1 star to 3 with active safety tech. just shows how much more importance its given now by EURONCAP and ANCAP

    • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 09:12
      -2

      Totally agree,I did not purchase mine just on that criteria.It is no worse than the majority of marques out there.

    • bmerigan on 01/09/2020 - 21:41
      +8

      I wouldn't call actively avoiding a crash "rubbish".

    • Zephyrus on 01/09/2020 - 22:15
      +4

      It's a good thing your opinion isn't important though. Personally I'd prefer avoid crashing over a safer crash, clearly you disagree with that statement and enjoy a good bit of touch driving

    • trongy on 01/09/2020 - 22:36
      +2

      The OP lists the four ANCAP rating categories, only one of which is based on active safety systems.

    • CocaKoala on 01/09/2020 - 23:07
      +3

      ANCAP ratings focus more on "active safety systems" which in my opinion are rubbish!

      While there's truth to your statement, the Mustang also did crash like a croak of shit.

      Even if you disregard the active safety wizardry, the Mustang is an extremely poor performer in the crash safety front.

    • randomthought on 02/09/2020 - 16:18

      I mostly agree, ANCAP certainly made more sense when the focus was on crashworthiness. Now a car can't get 5 stars unless it has blind spot monitoring and lane departure warnings and so on. These might be worthwhile things to have or know when comparing cars, but to me are in a different category to if the car crumples like tissue paper in a crash.

      • Kangal on 03/09/2020 - 07:53

        I reckon they should've kept the usual 0.0 to 5.0 star rating for the crash outcomes.
        The active safety tech should be a bonus, and as such, should be added on the scores.

        Examples;
        -Best active safety tech = 0.5 - 2.0 bonus score
        -Good active safety tech = 0.2 - 1.0 bonus score
        -Poor active safety tech = 0.0 - 0.5 bonus score

        -a car with 5.0 crash spec + best active safety tech = 7.0 overall score
        -a car with 4.0 crash spec + best active safety tech = 5.0 overall score
        -a car with 3.0 crash spec + best active safety tech = 3.5 overall score

        -a car with 5.0 crash spec + good active safety tech = 6.0 overall score
        -a car with 4.0 crash spec + good active safety tech = 4.5 overall score
        -a car with 3.0 crash spec + good active safety tech = 3.2 overall score

        -a car with 5.0 crash spec + poor active safety tech = 5.5 overall score
        -a car with 4.0 crash spec + poor active safety tech = 4.2 overall score
        -a car with 3.0 crash spec + poor active safety tech = 3.0 overall score

        …that scaling seems much more balanced.
        If automanufacturers are going to get stingy with the safety by saving money on the steel and fundamentals, then they're also going to cut corners with the active safety tech, which is going to hamper their real-world performance significantly. Besides, it's easy for their marketing departments to lie and deceive people about this new category "active safety tech", it's much harder to exaggerate the shell and characteristics of a car's chassis in an accident. One is much easier to criticise than the other.

        • pegaxs on 03/09/2020 - 13:59

          Or a twin safety rating similar to what electric appliances have on them for energy use.

          A star rating out of 5 for how well it fares in actual crash tests and then maybe a number out of 100 for implementation of safety features and how well these safety features perform.

          Crashes well and occupants survivability is high, 4.5… only comes with 1 Takata airbag, no ABS, AEB, ESP, lap sash seatbelts and a parachute… that’s a 16/100 for features. (8 of those points is 1 for each cup holder with beverage support anti-spill)

  • wallet72 on 31/08/2020 - 13:16
    +9

    I found this interesting about the ANCAP test results…

    https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/ford-boss-highlights-m…

    there are other examples of this type of thing, but it does point out that test results like these need to be taken in context? Losing points for no seatbelt reminder for the backseat? Not sure I would care too much about that for something like a Mustang.

    • bmerigan on 01/09/2020 - 21:40

      Exactly

  • camelfarmer1 on 31/08/2020 - 13:24

    Hey 72% is pretty good!

    Doesn't bother me. I'd rather it was less safe and sexier.

  • k-rokfm on 31/08/2020 - 13:34
    +5

    Its been discussed to death in other forums. Anyone researching a mustang is easily going to find the information which they will choose to take the risk or not.

    Honestly we dont need more discussions on this

  • Gnostikos on 31/08/2020 - 13:58
    +9

    It's an American car. No sh*t.

    American vehicles tend to be like that, along with their trademark piss-poor build quality and interior trim finish and their terrible reliability.

    You want safety and reliability? Buy economical Japanese cars.

    • earth worm jim on 01/09/2020 - 18:45

      True that. Why the negs.

      • Quantumcat on 01/09/2020 - 20:09
        -2

        Casual racism perhaps

      • Gnostikos on 01/09/2020 - 20:55
        +7

        Why the negs.

        Salty American car owners?

        Or people interpreting my post to mean I dislike America/Americans?

        Nothing against America as a nation or a population, but their cars have literally been a running joke of the automotive industry for about 40 years now and anyone who has driven any pedestrian American vehicle or worse yet, America's attempts at competing with high-performance Japanese/European vehicles can tell within about 10 minutes that they're just not in the same galaxy as the former cars when it comes to quality workmanship, longevity and safety (the Jeep Wrangler is another notorious example, especially models prior to 2019).

        America's engineering tradition is quite bipolar like that: they make unparalleled military hardware that is absolutely unmatched at wiping the floor with the rest of the world's feeble arsenals and their aerospace industry is similarly a global leader, but they just cannot make anything with 4 wheels for the average Joe that isn't a complete sh*tbox.

        • mrvaluepack on 02/09/2020 - 11:39

          U sure about the aerospace part? 737max (ahem)…

          • netjock on 03/09/2020 - 13:43

            @mrvaluepack: Only reason Boeing is so big is military contracts. See Boeing thrown a fit when Airbus won US military aerial refueling tanker contract and them pushing for trade tariffs on Airbus.

            So Amar89 is right about the military side. US spends so much money on military hardware, treatment of their armed forces veterans are a joke.

    • tomleonhart on 02/09/2020 - 13:48

      I disagree based on my experience with the Ford Mondeo. Still going strong after 12 years =)

  • brad1-8tsi on 31/08/2020 - 14:57
    +26

    Yes, the poor ANCAP ratings are well known and were heavily publicised when they ANCAP ratings were released. Note that when ANCAP did the test, Mustang had already been on the market for 2 years, so Ford had a reasonable idea what the outcome would be.

    One should delve into the 2 star result to understand why it was so bad in relation to similar size vehicles at the time. One should also understand that a 5 star small car like a VW Polo isn't as safe as a 5 star large car like a VW Passat. Similarly a vehicle that achieved 5 stars in 2010 may not be as safe as a 3 star car in 2020 as the testing procedure and points system is continually modified which makes it extremely difficult to compare cars of different ages.

    Why did the Mustang only get 2 stars?
    The Safety Assist section only achieved 2 points out of 12 (16%). It was missing speed assistance systems, lane support systems, autonomous emergency braking, forward collision warning and rear seat belt reminders. Personally, of these, I'd only miss the AEB/FCW combo. The others I don't have a use for but YMMV.
    In the dec 2017 update they added AEB & LSS to improve the score to 61%. Will those make your driving that much safer?

    Pedestrian protection increased from 64% to 78%. I assume because of the slightly redesigned front sheet metal. Does this help the occupants? Nope.

    Adult and child occupant protection remain unchanged.

    In a frontal impact the driver & passenger outcomes are acceptable to good. It's the rear passengers that cop a hammering. My back seat is for the dog so I don't see this as an issue but if you have rear seat passengers then it's worth considering. Keep in mind if they are comfortable it's probably because they are already missing their legs.
    All the other crash tests the front passengers have acceptable/good outcomes and the rear passengers fair badly.

    It is very likely that if the rear seat area had no seats this would be a 4 star car (IMO).

    So for any vehicle, look beyond the simplified, quick fix star rating and see how it was achieved. You might be surprised.

    • Pipih on 02/09/2020 - 09:47
      +1

      Well said !!! finally someone understand why mustang only have 3 star ANCAP ratings, to anyone who don't understand please read brad1-8tsi comment above.
      I used to live in US for 8 years, the only reason I know most of 2 doors coupe has seat in the back is to make the insurance cheaper.

    • Twilight on 03/09/2020 - 12:08

      Yeah, nah.

      Look at some real crash tests. Ancap still do not appear to include the (in my opinion) super critical 'small overlap front' test. ie what you get when you lose control and clip a power pole.

      https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Ford/mustang-2-door-cou…

      Structure and safety cage - Marginal

      The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.

      The dummy’s face remained in contact with the frontal airbag, but its head still rolled around the left side of the steering wheel toward the intruding A-pillar because the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the head and torso

  • Mechz on 31/08/2020 - 15:02
    +3

    Children? Don't care. Pedestrians? Don't care. The rest of the safety is fine.

    Also, welcome to 5 years ago.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2020 - 15:08
    +1

    Sucks to be a child driver

    • brad1-8tsi on 31/08/2020 - 19:12

      child back seat driver

  • Oz8argain on 31/08/2020 - 15:53

    should be ok, Mustangs only run into crowds of soft flesh. Drivers are not in danger.

  • pegaxs on 31/08/2020 - 16:17

    especially considering how sprightly they typically like to drive.

    I don't rev my Mustang over 4,000rpm…

    • SBOB on 01/09/2020 - 06:24

      Yeah, where is the statistical break down based on rpm :)

    • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 09:08
      -2

      Love that “typical”.Nothing makes me more amused with a comment(& uninformed )like that. A lot(& I mean a lot) are older guys who own them(fact) true,you will always get a “certain element.They are on the whole,really nice guys who are sensible & passionate owners.Same could be said I guess for Corolla owners?There are certainly a few out there who are complete idiots who drive those.So,please don’t point the finger @ one section of the car community.You don’t own one,so your comment is baseless. Ok?Njoy your day.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/09/2020 - 09:26
        -1

        ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2020 - 16:20
    +4

    Worth noting that the Mustang got a 5 star rating during NHTSA crash testing, so I guess it shows the flaws in both systems. IMO relative crash testing employed by NCAP is misleading, and gives drivers in VW Polos a false sense of security that they are as safe as someone in a Range Rover. It's just not true. I'd hazard a guess that in a head on collision between a Polo and a Mustang, the Mustang drive would likely walk away with less injuries than the smaller and lighter Polo.

  • Melb69 on 31/08/2020 - 18:25

    Don't put anyone in the back seat.

  • Euphemistic on 31/08/2020 - 19:06
    +4

    People still drive the original Mustang, probably some without seatbelts.

    Sometimes you choose a vehicle for other than safety ratings.

    • CocaKoala on 02/09/2020 - 09:59

      Fully agreed with you, and you are being just honest and straightforward here.

      What I don't like on this thread is ignorant comments like "oh, it's safer than an 70s corolla", "nah, ANCAP testing is faulty" and so on.

    • Boogerman on 01/09/2020 - 11:27
      -1

      LOL. Downvoted.
      Like Exxon being booted from the Dow Jones index & Tesla soaring to the most valuable US company in history being admitted to the S&P 500, the baton is being passed from dinosaurs to the new generation & the boomer worldview is being obliterated. About bloody time

      • pegaxs on 01/09/2020 - 13:20
        +8

        How do you know someone owns a Tesla??? Don't worry, they'll tell you…

        • Boogerman on 01/09/2020 - 18:38

          How do you know someone owns a Mustang? They wear a cardigan

          • tomleonhart on 02/09/2020 - 13:52

            @Boogerman: I don't wear a cardigan ???

          • brad1-8tsi on 03/09/2020 - 11:11

            @Boogerman: if I owned a Mustang I'd wear an open neck polyester shirt, heavy gold chains and a merkin.

            if I owned a Tesla I'd wear a hair shirt and whip my balls with stinging nettles just to make sure they were the biggest in town.

  • thrillhouse on 01/09/2020 - 07:51
    +11

    I still drive our 1966 Mustang which I can assure you would not be classified as safe for road use if it were scored today. Lap seatbelts, no ABS (I have changed the drums to discs), absolutely zero crumple zone. It is a death trap, but that's not why I drive it.

    You take risks every day in life. If we all based our decisions on safety ratings, we'd all be walking around in bubble wrap. Find a balance that works best for you, compensate your actions relative to what you're doing at the time; eg. I drive far more cautiously, leave huge buffers in front of me (and get immensely shitty when others see that as an opportunity to tuck in), never take risks, when I'm in the Mustang.

    A modern day Mustang, with it's 3 stars, is going to be far safer than some of the 90's econoboxes on the road still; and those cars even safer than the generation preceding that. Cars continue to get safer, and we need to reflect on just how far they have come.

    • CalmLemons on 01/09/2020 - 21:02

      How hard was it to change the drums to discs?

      An interesting history lesson, did you know that drums brakes were actually invented after disc brakes? go figure lol

      • resisting the urge on 01/09/2020 - 22:22

        Its very easy on many cars like an old 'stang, as FoMoCo just fitted later models (falcon and others too with the same diffs) with discs so its a bolt on changeover, the hardest bit is replacing the handbrake cable.

        • thrillhouse on 02/09/2020 - 07:42

          Correct! A lot of it is retrofitted from more modern Falcon and Mustang models. Ours has Falcon discs.

  • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 09:02

    It is no worse than your average Corolla.

  • Bob Svargis on 01/09/2020 - 09:38
    +2

    My understanding about the test is that most of the issues were related to rear passenger safety.

    NSW Police Force were considering the Mustang for their pursuit/Highway Patrol requirements however rear passenger safety was the issue for them. Imagine if their Highway Patrol had captured a crook, put him in the back seat and then had a frontal collision. Alleged criminal dies and NSWPF are sued for negligence because they knowingly chose a vehicle that was not as safe for rear passengers as another option…

    I would suspect that most Mustang fans aren't buying the vehicle with rear seat usage (while on the road anyway!!) as a driving factor seeing that it's a 2-door coupe anyway.

    • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 10:50

      They are in fact going ahead with the Mustang.

      • Bob Svargis on 01/09/2020 - 11:33

        They didn't go ahead with the 'stang. They went with the Chrysler 300 and the BMW 5-series diesel instead.

        https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/motor…

        • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 12:10

          Read an article that surfaced on one of the FB Mustang forum,which says it will be.I know they went ahead with the other two.(have a few in or region.)But I have to agree,because they canned it.Very confusing.Thx.

          • Bob Svargis on 01/09/2020 - 12:25
            +1

            @Hackney: Yeah I agree, it's a bit confusing. They still have a couple of them in Police decals/livery which adds to the confusion too! I see them around Sydney from time to time.

            I know that if I were a NSWPF copper I'd prefer to be driving around in a 'stang all day compared to those big Chrysler 300CC's. In the US, they call those a "medium sized car" can you believe?!?!?

            • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 13:42

              @Bob Svargis: You have to wonder what is going on.:):)

            • greatlamp on 01/09/2020 - 22:11

              @Bob Svargis: If I had to be in a car 10 hours a day, my pick would be the 530D

              "The BMW authority pack has been stripped of most luxuries but fitted with bigger brakes and is said to cost police close to half the $120,000 list price."

              It's a bit sad we can't get these retail at the price they are actually worth. In comparison a 70k mustang is a great deal

            • brad1-8tsi on 03/09/2020 - 11:22

              @Bob Svargis: I've had a Chrysler 300 V6 as a hire car. They are no bigger than a Commodore or Falcon. They are a nice floaty boat to drive. Quality not so great.

    • bmerigan on 01/09/2020 - 21:38

      You could never get a perp in and out of the back seats of a Mustang.
      It would be limited to being a high visibility highway patrol

      • Bob Svargis on 02/09/2020 - 08:40

        It would be difficult, that's true, you're correct. However the problem is that quite often, the HWP are the first responders to a crime scene due to the fact that they're always on the road. So they need the ability to put a perp in the back sometimes rather than having to call for backup.

        I know they used to use 2 door Valiants (I think?) in the 70's for the Highway Patrol so it's not something that hasn't been done before, but when the safety issue is primarily revolving around the back seat occupants, I guess it was probably enough to tip the argument in favour of the Chrysler.

    • brad1-8tsi on 03/09/2020 - 11:19

      Rear passenger safety was not the issue. It was mechanical.

      The automatic transmission overheated and put the car into limp home mode. I believe later tests also overheated the differential (or was that the SRT8?).

      Those issues have been addressed by Ford USA in some of the newer, high performance models sold in Trumpland.

  • Mark1159 on 01/09/2020 - 11:48
    +1

    Love my Stang - looks and goes like a muscle car. My soundtrack to the sixties- when the world was good.

    Btw Barina is 5 star

    • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 12:12

      I am “starry” eyed about mine it has thousands of stars!But on a serious note,yes,fantastic things.Just about to get the Harrop oil cooler kit fitted.Cheers:):) PS: sorry did not mean to “down vote” you.Think the finger slipped!

    • Bob Svargis on 02/09/2020 - 08:42

      That's the thing isn't it. I love the 'stang also. I wouldn't choose whether to buy it or not for safety reasons (or lack of). It's just a car that brings about a certain emotional response.

      It's just that noise and the aggressive look. I'm amazed at how many women drive them too.

    • Yaren24 on 02/09/2020 - 10:56

      I would rather have 50 barinas than a mustang

  • OzHunterNSW on 01/09/2020 - 12:23
    +1

    It's simply an American bolted together piece of rubbish…

    Note how the depreciation is 40k in two years…. why would you evert buy new

    • Hackney on 01/09/2020 - 12:53
      +1

      It’s funny though,the things have gone up on the 2nd market.Work that one out.I purchased mine off a elderly gent(much like yours truly) he did not use it,10,000ks in just under 3years.It was definitely a “bargain”,@ the time.Bolted together rubbish? Would not go that far,sure it is not up to “Lexus standard”,but mine is fine.Panels are very well aligned.Inside is fine,no probs with it @ all.Depreciation?If you purchase a car because of that,you are in the wrong business,that has never come into the equation for me when purchasing a car,could not care less.I purchased because I wanted one,very happy with it.So much better than a “mundane” Toyota etc…I guess you probably just don’t get the passion behind the marque.Guys who buy them don’t really care what people say about them.

    • Mark1159 on 01/09/2020 - 12:59
      +2

      Actually they’ve appreciated about $8k in last couple of months. I’m looking to buy a hardtop to pair with my convertible.
      When Covid first hit, could get a low km 18 GT for $47k driveaway. Now the dealers asking $55 k.
      The reasons appear to be less being shipped from US and potential uncertainty over RHD program.
      I believe all used Car prices have also risen during Covid - people shunning public transport.

      Agree, I hate new car pricing and depreciation. Only second new car I’ve bought in 46 years driving.

      I bought new cos second hand ones were commanding more than new, didn’t want one that had been thrashed, and my colour only available in update - not available used.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join