What all of you anti-Shelby people, who really know NOTHING other than the musings of rumor and "a source of a friend of a source said...", and let's not forget the ramblings of our SAAC friends, who by the way are angles without fault, is that people that get things done are often not very nice about it! Look at Steve Jobs at Apple, or Bill Gates or Steve Balmer at Microsoft, they are all known as jerks to work for or with. But they make things happen. As we used to say at Apple, he's a %$#! but luckily he's our %$#! In short you take the good with the bad and in the end business is business. I'm a VERY happy customer and until Shelby Ford wasn't building a Mustang that really excited me and I've probably owned more than most of you.

 

What I am disappointed, or relieved in is the fact that I can buy a Mustang GT, save the mark up cost for the shelby branding and spend that money on upgrades I choose.

For instance save the 30k markup for a shelby GT500, throw on the $12,000 suspension upgrade from Griggs racing, $6,000 turbo from powerhouse, clutch and hell even throw in a built engine for posterity sake and end up with a car that can hang with cars that the shelby could only dream of. Then, with the extra money I saved and spend it on some exterior changes that would truly make the car MINE vs a car that anyone with a few extra bucks can buy off the showroom floor.

Let's face it, the shelby gt 500 will never reach the collectable value that the old GT500 has reached in recent years, production numbers are too high. So then I ask you, why? Because it is easy?

 

You can assume such a position and to a certain point it makes sense. Shelby and his representatives have made several recent mistakes but it is not like they have not had their chances to redeem themselves. Our society is a forgiving one to the humble but usually not to the arrogant. If they would have done the right thing the critics would have nothing to complain about, nowhere to go.

What if they would have or wouldn't have...
- had one of their top reps visiting enthusiasts sites and appearing knowledgeable while scolding the ones who are?
- sponsor the very sites they use for promoting their products?
- offered to replace the front grilled of the GT-H and '07 SGT?
- made the hood and side scoops functional?
- refrained from stating the GT500 is was not a true Shelby?
- sided with the enthusiasts rather than supporting dealers on ADMs?
- admitted mistakes on the lastest two public relations nightmares rather than proclaim innocence and persecution?

The bottom line is money is favored over good will and customer loyalty.



I think we got more than even with them, don't you agree?

 

The things that you are detailing above are Shelby corporate issues, not Carroll Shelby issues.

What has he done that is so bad?

1. He sued the Superformance types for making money off his Cobras. Even though he did not design the AC cars, it is his version of them that are being copied.

2. He sold Chili.

3. He broke his relationship with SAAC. His account of it sounds like he should have cut the ties. I/We don't know what really happened or who is at fault there. So, it is not fair to just side with SAAC or Carroll.

Anything else? I'm sure there is more. I just don't remember anything else.

 

Could you elaborate further on this one? i.e. what specifically are you refering to? It seems to contradict the position of TeamShelby, which desires to be inclusive of the GT 500s.

I've seen a wide range of opinions on the Shelby name on the GT500 from owners. Some are very proud of it and defensive if someone says it not a "real/true Shelby", while other would love nothing better than to replace Shelby with SVT.

 

That might their position now but it wasn't in the autumn of 2006. I guess every posted comment should be associated with a link for the sake of validation. As always, I mean what I say and say what I mean, word for word. I have a good memory and post on factual events without twisting or exagerating facts to accomodate a comment and will not spend hours searching to provide a link to substantiate one of my points and to satisfy you. If you are that interested then do your own research.

 

That's because Germany is the USA's honorary 51st State (rebuilt w/US Tax dollars)!

And Japan is our honorary 52nd State (Made a world powerhouse with US Tax payer dollars)!!

 

I wasn't questioning the validity/truthfulness of your statement. I was just interested in it's origin as it runs counter to TeamShelby's position. Do your remember if it was said on TMS or another site (so I know where to search)

 

This holds true of any car made today on this planet. In my opinion, no car built today will ever reach the collector interest and increased investment value of the most coveted of the old musclecars. Having said this, however, I do think you would agree that the latest GT500 will certainly be a car that holds it value far better than most others being made today. There are a lot of very boring, cookie-cutter cars made today that will be forgotten quite quickly, I am sure of it.

 

A valid point Tantal, but who would have dreamed that certain older cars would fetch the money that they are getting today? My 1984 edition "Official Mustang Black Book" lists the retail value of a '68 GT500KR Vert as low as $3450 in poor condition, and as high as $13000 for one in perfect condition. You couldn't buy a rusted out junk yard shell for $13k now, and a nice one could go over $200k. I also have a 1988 Motor Trend magazine with an article that tried to predict the collector cars of the future. It listed the V6 Pontiac Fiero worth as much as $60k by the year 2000. I guess my point is that only the market will decide how much a car will be worth in the future, and no one can accurately predict where that's going. (good guesses maybe?)

Let's blame Barrett-Jackson.

 

Here you go Mark.

__________________________________________________ _____________

From SVT Enthusiast:

GT500: SVT or Shelby?
The Real, No-Spin Story Behind Today's Cobra

"Maybe it was because Ford SVT had just about gone silent after the 2004 model year. Perhaps it was the fact that going from a badged SVT Mustang Cobra in '04 to a Shelby Mustang wearing a Cobra for '07 without any explanation is confusing. And certainly - having a high-ranking Shelby official go on an online forum and post something to the effect that the new GT500 isn't a "real" Shelby because it is made by Ford and does not go through the Shelby Las Vegas shop - or some such... well, that just adds fuel to the fire..."

__________________________________________________ ______


Take a wild guess who the online poster was and where it was posted.

 

Thanks for finding that George.

I think I can figure who posted it, but not sure where. Let me do my own search.

EDIT: Found these quotes from Amy B. in reference to the GT 500 on the Shelbyautos.com forums but not the one in question.
12 May 06
12 May 06
21 Aug 06
16 Sep 06
Most of us have said things online we regret...I know I have.

 

The month of May is not in autumn, no GT500s were delivered during that period, and no GT500 owners had pics of their future cars to post and register on different enthusiasts' sites. The difference of opinions surfaced after GT500 owners started taking delivery which took place during the late summer/early autumn of 2006.

 

OK thanks.

 

Yes, but most of us (at least most of the long term TMS members) don't have a permanent surgically attached concrete block on our shoulders either.

 

Under the heading of "coulda, shoulda, woulda"...in 1983-84 I could've bought a 1969 GT500 with only 17,000 miles on it. All original, in fantastic condition. The asking price was $17,500. Back then that was a fair amount of money.
But noooo, I had to sink my money into fixing up a 67 fastback.

 

Shelby GT: Wards Top 10 Engines:
http://wardsauto.com/reports/2007/te...ford_4-6L_V-8/

 

What a bunch of crap

 

Despite the 'everything is subjective' standard of our current society this really isn't subjective. We can argue semantics about my use of the word better all day, but the reality is that that a ride which responds less arubtly to road imperfections is typically considered better than one which doesn't. And typically consensus says that a vehicle which behaves more predictably and which responds more accurately to driver input is better balanced better too.

Some may argue that they find performance to be better as acceleration slows since better is a relative term, but the notion in itself is ridiculous and the term better would certainly almost never be used to claim the same. Some guys think 400 pound women are hot but I'm not going to redefine my usage of the terms 'good looking', 'hot', 'pretty', or even 'better looking' to accomodate that fringe. Enthusiasts have decided what they largely expect from a car in these areas and we judge them accordingly.

 

I will be the first to admit that the SGT ride is not for everyone. It is on the firm side. I would recommend test driving one prior to purchase.