I think the main reason the Mustang sold so much faster than the Corvette
is that it's a more practical car. After all, most people have little use
for a two-seater, even though a Mustang's back seat isn't really suited to
holding more than kids. Our cars, for example, may have been a lot less
expensive than Corvettes, but they probably didn't sell much better, which
may have been because few people would own one as a first car, families
almost entirely unlikely. You can't say from sales figures that the
Mustang is a better car than the Corvette. They just show that people
have had more use for Mustangs.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 CC79338U
Bloomington, IN
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Joe Curry wrote:
> fred thomas wrote:
> >
> > Interesting note on vettes, watching the speed vision channel on the dish
> > Sun. and this question was asked, What did Mustang do in less than 2
> > years that it took vettes 40 years to do ?? One Million sales.
>
> That begs for the assertion that cheap cars usually sell more than
> expensive ones. But lets look at the competing vehicle. I think it
> took the Camaro far less than 40 years to top One Million.
>
> Also, one must note that collector value is much higher on the Corvette
> because of the limited numbers produced (by design).
>
> Joe Curry '63 Spit (previous Vette owner)
>
|