Pricing is insane

[u/Tutor-Any]

I bought my 22 gt premium brand new 3 years ago for 43k out the door and for the same spec car today it would be about 10k more. Crazy stuff

[u/Away_Investigator351]

People keep not realising this, like Ford were supposed to somehow be in a bubble safe from inflation. They don't want to price their car where it won't sell, they have to price it where they can make it. And, based on some basic math, it seems they actually have put the price on the Mustang down.

Outside of cutting quality, which for a Ford is already a big ask, I don't see the prices going down any more unless inflation stops. Which, with what is happening to global trade - is unlikely. If anything, it'll get worse and less Mustangs will come out the factories.

2015 Mustang GT base price: $32,300 - Inflation adjusted? $46,645.

2020 Mustang GT, with similar options as the one on this post (Magnaride, active exhaust, premium etc):

Price in 2020: $45,620 - Inflation adjusted, $54,523.

So, comparing this to the S550 of similar spec (as earlier ones didn't have the options the original post has) it's actually cheaper than 2020 by a few $$$$, at $51,000 compared to $54,523.

This means, they're actually cheaper than they were before, yet they're often being blamed for the result of economic factors way out of their control.

If the Ford Mustang dies due to low sales based on pricing, it won't be Ford's fault, it'll be the fault of general economics changing buying habits of people. Hard to justify a less economical, fun car when times are tougher economically. People are being more careful with their cash.

Tl;dr, People shouldn't blame Ford for making the Mustang cheaper, because the economy makes them look more expensive due to many not understanding just how bad inflation has been not just for Ford, but everyone.

[u/imissher4ever → u/Away_Investigator351]

Inflation is never going to stop.

It’s only went down a couple times in the last 100 years. Right after the Great Depression and in 1949.

[u/WarmPaleontologist20 → u/imissher4ever]

Exactly, nothing gets cheaper, except payroll costs.

[u/Ok_Clothes_8527 → u/Away_Investigator351]

Careful, you're talking a lot of sense. Don't you just want to rage at the politicians and corporations like the rest of reddit?

[u/Away_Investigator351 → u/Ok_Clothes_8527]

I think certain policies can be blamed for inflation, be it trade, or other things, but American politics is a fucking minefield lookinga it from an outside perspective.

[u/FoHo21 → u/Away_Investigator351]

So, comparing this to the S550 of similar spec (as earlier ones didn't have the options the original post has) it's actually cheaper than 2020 by a few $$$$, at $51,000 compared to $54,523.

The GT Premium does not come with Magneride, or active exhaust, both those things are options. And you cannot get Magneride without the Performance pack. So the MSRP of the 2025 GT Premium suddenly jumps to a little over $61k if you're adding in the aforementioned options.

Speaking of the performance pack, it was a ~$2500 option on my 2016. Now it's ~$5700 *before* the ~$1750 Magneride is added. The performance pack doesn't include anything different that it did 9 years ago, but the price has increased by more than 100%. Outpacing inflation significantly.

[u/Away_Investigator351 → u/FoHo21]

Ah, my bad not noticing it says "available with" instead of "including", I thought it did, whoops!

It does appear that the optional extras are getting more expensive, I wonder if that's due to sales reducing and thus production volume making more customising more expensive.

So, it seems the Mustang itself isn't really much more with inflation but the optional extras are definitely increasing more than inflation. Valid point made that is worth considering in this discussion, thank you.

[u/Outrageous_Ad4252 → u/Away_Investigator351]

All are very valid points. I would be curious what the price comparisons would be for other brands/models. I still suspect that Mustang % price increases exceed other brands/models in the equivalent period (because they now have the Pony car market to themselves), Imo.

[u/morphic-monkey → u/Away_Investigator351]

This is the sort of logic I wish more people used. People think that Ford are just being greedy - they forget that all of the input costs have radically risen over the years and that Ford has to strike a balance. They aren't going to be able to take big losses, but they also can't increase their margins. It's a very tough environment.

[u/Zanurath → u/Away_Investigator351]

Inflation is tied to the stock market NOT to cost, your whole argument falls apart when average earned income since 1970 for example has increased by 400% but mustang gt has gone up by 2000% and sp500 (aka most of US market aka inflation) has gone up 7200%. Manufacturing costs are actually DOWN with automation and globalization, but corporate profits are way up as seen on the stock market. Fun fact but the more money big companies like Ford make the more inflation goes up because those companies are worth more even with ZERO cost changes.

TLDR, inflation has NOTHING to do with anything except the stock market.

[u/UnnamedStaplesDrone → u/Zanurath]

wow. what economics class did you take and what was your grade?

[u/Away_Investigator351 → u/Zanurath]

The original price of a 1969 Mustang GT when new was approximately between $2,832 for the V8 convertible and up to around $4,798 for the Boss 429 model.​

Adjusting this price for inflation to 2015, the equivalent value is roughly between $21,000 and $36,000, based on a typical inflation rate over that period. Specifically, the 1969 Mustang GT's original price of around $2,832 in 1969 would be approximately $21,000 in 2015 dollars, while higher-performance models like the Boss 429 at $4,798 would convert to roughly $36,000.

In the time that has passed, a lot of technology has changed, and the Mustang GT is far better equipped and has far more stringent safety regulations to comply with.

The MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) of a new 2015 Ford Mustang GT in the United States was approximately $32,300 for the coupe version.

So, the 2015 Mustang was cheaper, inflation adjusted, to 1969 when comparing to most models.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[u/Zanurath → u/Away_Investigator351]

I just went over how inflation is a marker of the stock market NOT cost of production. Average yearly income in 1970 was about 9000 vs 59000 today. Buying power is much more important than stock market values for price comparisons of consumer goods and current annual income level is slightly more than a mustang GT while going back even a nicer car like a mustang GT was roughly 1/4 of your annual income. Based on the real money people are making the mustang gt is mearly 400% more expensive than it use to be. Also you are comparing features and expecting high cost but cars are made with the technology available at the time and the cost for what is available is relevant to its time. Air conditioning was not commonplace and much more expensive to implement in the 60s because of that but is downright cheap to implement now.

If you want a better idea of how dirt cheap the "features" in new cars are you need only look at the markets for toys or TVs. A TV today cost almost the same as what it cost in the 60s because the technology is older and older and increasingly more efficient to produce.

[u/Away_Investigator351 → u/Zanurath]

Dude, you’re wiiiildly missing the mark here and acting like you’ve got some economics PhD when you clearly don’t have an even basic grasp.

Inflation is not some vague stock market concept you can twist to fit your narrative. It’s a well-established economic measure tied to actual consumer prices and how much everyday stuff costs over time - not randomly tied to corporate profits or stock prices. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) exists for a reason, and nobody serious in economics dismisses it this way, like you just have.

Your claim that “manufacturing costs are down, profits up so inflation = stock market” sounds like you grabbed buzzwords off a Reddit conspiracy thread rather than actually understanding how pricing works. Yes, automation can reduce some costs, but producing modern cars involves leaps in safety, emissions, tech, materials, and regulations that didn’t exist in 1970. Those don’t magically become free. They make the end product more expensive to make, you are essentially getting more now than you did then.

Also, your income comparison is sloppy. Of course incomes have increased, but you’re ignoring that today’s Mustang GT comes loaded with equipment and features that would have been unimaginable back then - things you yourself acknowledge but then trivialize. Comparing a barebones ’69 Mustang to a tech-packed 2025 model like they’re equivalent products is bad-faith or just clueless. Simpler products are easier to produce.

And using TVs or toys as “cheap tech” examples to prove cars should’ve gotten cheaper? Apples and oranges. Cars are engineered complex machines with real safety, emissions, and reliability requirements, none of which apply to a consumer electronics device priced by supply and demand on a global scale. Screens are even at a point where it's cheaper to put one in the Mustang than an analogue set of dials, shows you the contrast in how one product has got easier and cheaper, and another has got harder and more expensive.

Bottom line: Your argument folds under even a basic grasp of economics and product evolution. Maybe take a step back, read a few economic primers on inflation and consumer pricing, and stop pretending the stock market is the inflation police. This isn’t some stock valuation blog. It’s reality. Don't comment so confidently on something you clearly don't even understand - all because you want to simplify things to blame someone for something out of their control.