why would they make an extra option when you could spend 5 min and take them off yourself?

 

Kevin and Andy I agree, the car is not perfect, there are some options and omissions that were made but overall the car is going to be a certain hit. I'm very happy to see SVT back in the business of producing high performance cars!!

 

I am very disappointed with the 07 Shelby colors!! I mean, Black, White, Red, Silver, its the same boring crap they always use! Yes, the new Orange is nice and Blue is my favorite color, but Ford's Vista Blue is just nasty! Where are the GREEN colors? Everyone loves the 67-68 in Highland Green. Where's something exciting like Royal Maroon and Gulfstream Aqua or even some Grabber colors? Red, White, Black, blah blah blah! Oh, and putting the SVT name anywhere on the car is tacky!

 

I don't like the Highland Green.

 

They are calling it Valincia [sic] "Yellow"

 

When I talked with some SVT engineers they stated the first year run would be the more common colors. The second year run would be more unique colors including a "possible" green.

I think overall the car is a homerun. Is it perfect? No, but neither is any other car is far as I am concerned. It is close enough to perfect for me ... and the aftermarket companies.

 

Ditto

 

I kinda have to argue with you on that one. While I am very impressed with the car, it's not what HTT "promised" us.

He promised IRS, 99% of the concept car, and a BMW M-esque type of performance.

I see the power and I love it. I am a big fan of the looks (save for the hood, and the blank spot opposite of the Shelby on the back, I still think it should say GT500). Handling wise, we will see, but BMW-M...I am not holding my breath considering weight and suspension (I am NOT starting a weight/IRS arguement).

However, I don't think this is the car he promised.

Happy, yes...forgetful, no.

P.S. I especially like the car in white with vista blue stripes!

 

Really? I know he talked about IRS but I didn't remember a promise I could have very well missed that though Jim. But like you said, NO DISCUSSION ON WHICH IS BETTER!

I guess you'll just have to come and see me to drive one right?

I can't wait to see what the real world perf. specs are.

Thanks for the input Jim

 

HTT can't actually promise anything since he doesn't run Ford. He very well may have been vetoed from above due to cost constraints. I don't think it's fair to cricify HTT when we don't know what transpired in regards to the internal politics at Ford, especially given the financial situation they're in.

 

Anyone know exactly what the coupe weighs ?? :scratch: Figure the lbs. : power ratio to be about 8.2 : 1 That is one fast car :worship:

 

3920 pounds according to ford media

 

I remember HTT saying it did not need an IRS due to the performance and the added cost. I also remember the 95% complete figure not a 99%.

I may have missed revised stats but to me that looks pretty close to 95%. They changed the ducktail, hood, Shelby across the back...and the SC. However, the SC was due to the Lysholm company not being able to keep up with required production so I can't blame Ford for that.

I also agree if things were cut I think it was the bean counters above HTT pay grade that forced him to accept those cuts. All in all I am very please with what we did get for the price point they mentioned from the start. MSRP that is, I know that the dealerships will have a hand in it as well.

 

I love Highland Green. That's what I would order if I could, or Dark Moss Green. I think there is definitley a lack of color selection on these cars. I would love to see a Maroon, Turquoise, something other than all the "blah" colors that are out there today. I like a nice Charcoal Grey color, but there are so many grey and silver cars out there that I'm tired of them. I am tempted to wait until next year and see what colors they offer, but with my luck it would be worse than this year! I do like Vista Blue, and White with Blue stripes always looks good, and it's kind of the Shelby trademark color scheme. Red and White looks great, but I have a feeling there's gonna be a bunch of those out there!

 

Just to give everyone a reminder of what we'll have for a motor in the GT500, use the link below and play the "60 second TV spot for the GT". We may be detuned 50 hp, but I'm sure the aftermarket will provide a chip that will bump horsepower right back up there (even with the smaller S/C).

Enjoy - Tim

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/featu...?release=16812

 

Tim, Your link didn't work for me, but I think this is the one you meant for us to see:

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_dis...m?release=16812

 

I wasn't taking a shot at HTT, I was just saying I didn't necessarily agree with Andy's statement that he had "kept his promise."

When the GT came out, we were promised an IRS on the SVT.

Then we were told that the concept was 99% (or 95%, it doesn't really matter they are close enough). Since then they changed: the supercharger, the wheel size, the front splitter, the hood, the Shelby lettering, interior appointments (I think that's it). So while is close, it's different.

I am not trying to say I don't like the car. I think it's great.

I just personally felt the concept was amazing.

To be honest, I was still suprised by some of the features they kept.

Like I said, I am very happy, just not so blinded with joy that I am forgetful (not that any of you are). I can't wait to see the write ups!

P.S. I am really digging the gauges.

 

I haven't read the other 8 pages of posts, yet, to see if this was addressed, but I'd question the source of this info. I've been told by the Sales Mgr. at Galpin that I am #3 on the list for this car (I called the morning it was unveiled). No pre-sales, no auction, no deposit. They've called me quite a few times throughout the last 8 months, keeping me updated. While I wouldn't be completely surprised if they tried to tack on a dealer mark-up, I would be surprised (and pissed) if they went and pre-sold cars out from under those of us on the list.

PW

 

Why can't people post the precise link to url's that the refer to? A person could search for a half an hour for a particular video on "media.ford.com". Why can't they just provide the complete link? Is that to much to ask?

 

Is it too much to ask to read to read the first thing on the page that took you here?

It's even under the heading of "Important Topic."

Here's the page that brought you to the thread you are in now:

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showforum=140

Here's the sticky at the top of the page:

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=42284

If it took you half an hour looking just to end up posting here...I don't know what to say.