Mustang In "Misery" As Mazda Goes Mexican

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Mazda has confirmed [to Reuters via Automotive News [sub]] what has been rumored for a while (especially in the Mexican media): open a new plant in Guanajuato, Mexico, near VW and GM’s Silao facilities. Production starts this fall and the line starts rolling in 2013, according to “people familiar with the matter.” In the meantime, Mazda6 production at the Flat Rock, MI joint venture plant continues until mid-2012, at which point Mazda will make a decision that it’s still “studying,” but it won’t be building the Mazda6. Interestingly, Mazda’s new Mexican plant is only being built for “at least” 50k units of

compact cars, initially for sale in Mexico and South America, and eventually export to North America.

Could the next-generation of Mazda midsizers be hecho en Mexico as well? It’s possible, but we won’t know until Mazda announces more details about the new factory. Meanwhile, nobody’s expecting Mazda to hang around Flat Rock… least of all Ford.

A separate AN [sub] piece gives J.D. Power analyst Jeff Schuster a chance to sum up the Mustang’s “misery,” and he spells out the situation in Flat Rock succinctly:

The Mustang on its current sales pace isn’t enough to sustain Flat Rock. The Camaro has a more modern feel and seems to draw more attention from a younger age group. Even with a boost from a redesign, because of what Camaro has achieved, you’re still looking at sales volume for the Mustang below 100,000 a year. The bottom line is something at Flat Rock will have to change.

The math goes something like this: Flat Rock can build 240k units. Last year the Mustang sold 73,716 units and the Mazda6 sold 35,662. This is why Mazda is (likely) going to leave, and it’s why Ford needs to completely re-think the plant. The Mustang isn’t getting a redesign until 2014, and if the Camaro doesn’t crash out (and it’s shown few signs of faltering this year) it will likely lose volume every year until then. Throw some rejuvenated competition from Hyundai’s Genesis Coupe, and Mustang’s chances of ever sustaining much better than 100k units seems unlikely.

The plant’s flexibility is cited as a key benefit, but unless Mazda is incredibly confident in its next-gen “Mazda-rati” midsizer, it’s hard to see the plucky automaker committing to over 100k annual units at a UAW plant any time soon. I’m guessing that this new Mexican plant site includes plenty of room to grow… and since Ford’s made big profits thanks in large part to its Mexican manufacturing footprint, they might not be far behind.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 33 comments
  • Advance_92 Advance_92 on Jun 17, 2011

    In Chicago I see almost no Camaros or Challengers, and only a handful of Mustangs. It's probably a regional (urban?) thing.

  • Panzerfaust Panzerfaust on Jun 17, 2011

    The Mustang has had the Ponycar market to itself for quite a while, so its not surprising that a repristinated Camaro is doing well, but those sales will taper off a bit once the market gets saturated, which I think is the issue with the Mustang, this basic model has been on the street for 6 years. It should have had a bigger refresh two years earlier. I think all Ford would need to do to pick up some extra production is to stretch the Mustang platform a bit and build a RWD two-door hardtop with more interior room than the Taurus and give it every drive train option that the Mustang has. Give Roush-Fenway some sponsorship and I bet you'd sell 100,000 units.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next