EBONY STRIPED SHELBY PHOTOS NOW UP
4/21/06, 11:46 AM
#3
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SVTpower @ April 21, 2006, 7:48 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
that's why we have the aftermarket..........Eibach. Ford is not going to slam a car and then lose money on warranty repairs.
[/b][/quote]
I have heard this over and over but still see other manufacturers building performance cars with a lower ride height/less tire to fenderwell gap. I love everything about this car except for the ride height. The ride height should resemble the GT500's shown at SOME of the auto shows this year (ie Detroit).
that's why we have the aftermarket..........Eibach. Ford is not going to slam a car and then lose money on warranty repairs.
[/b][/quote]
I have heard this over and over but still see other manufacturers building performance cars with a lower ride height/less tire to fenderwell gap. I love everything about this car except for the ride height. The ride height should resemble the GT500's shown at SOME of the auto shows this year (ie Detroit).
4/21/06, 12:30 PM
#4
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SVTpower @ April 21, 2006, 7:48 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
that's why we have the aftermarket..........Eibach. Ford is not going to slam a car and then lose money on warranty repairs.
[/b][/quote]
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
that's why we have the aftermarket..........Eibach. Ford is not going to slam a car and then lose money on warranty repairs.
[/b][/quote]
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
4/21/06, 12:34 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rampant @ April 21, 2006, 1:33 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
EXACTLY! Well, with one correction, I think it was discovered that the GT/CS is not 1.5" in lower overall ride height than the GT. I believe they are referring to the front fascia being 1.5" lower than the stock GT's.
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
EXACTLY! Well, with one correction, I think it was discovered that the GT/CS is not 1.5" in lower overall ride height than the GT. I believe they are referring to the front fascia being 1.5" lower than the stock GT's.
4/21/06, 04:00 PM
#6
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rampant @ April 21, 2006, 11:33 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
Exactly. Maybe if Ford actually "completed" their cars, they'd get more initial buyers...hence more sales...hence increased profitability.
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
Exactly. Maybe if Ford actually "completed" their cars, they'd get more initial buyers...hence more sales...hence increased profitability.
4/21/06, 04:13 PM
#8
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
Dayuuuuuuuuuum!!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/jaw.gif[/img] That looks good! Thanks for posting. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
It's back to the color chart selection. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
It's back to the color chart selection. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
4/21/06, 05:29 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stang22 @ April 21, 2006, 6:14 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Stangs unleashed,..best stang site on the internet!! They always get the scoop before everyone!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
Scoop, whether it's true or false. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
Stangs unleashed,..best stang site on the internet!! They always get the scoop before everyone!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
Scoop, whether it's true or false. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
4/21/06, 06:26 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: December 29, 2005
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rampant @ April 21, 2006, 12:33 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
02MustangGT just explained it, the GT/CS is not!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(02mustangGT @ April 21, 2006, 11:49 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I have heard this over and over but still see other manufacturers building performance cars with a lower ride height/less tire to fenderwell gap. I love everything about this car except for the ride height. The ride height should resemble the GT500's shown at SOME of the auto shows this year (ie Detroit).
[/b][/quote]
I understand your frustration but wait until the production version is really out and then complain if it's too high, I'm not because if the final product is that high, I will order a $300 well engineered lowering Eibach kit. End of story
Then how do you explain the GT/CS being 1.5" lower?
Afterall, having "low" cars has just destroyed the profitability of Nissan (Z), Chevy (Vette), Honda (S2000), Lexus(IS), BMW (3 series), Mini, VW (Beetle), Pontiac (Solstice),Mitsubishi (Eclipse), etc., etc.
Ford has no excuse. This is a sporty car and it should look the part -- especially the high-end, ultra-expensive GT-500. Heck, even the Fusion looks like it has a better stance.
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
02MustangGT just explained it, the GT/CS is not!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(02mustangGT @ April 21, 2006, 11:49 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I have heard this over and over but still see other manufacturers building performance cars with a lower ride height/less tire to fenderwell gap. I love everything about this car except for the ride height. The ride height should resemble the GT500's shown at SOME of the auto shows this year (ie Detroit).
[/b][/quote]
I understand your frustration but wait until the production version is really out and then complain if it's too high, I'm not because if the final product is that high, I will order a $300 well engineered lowering Eibach kit. End of story
4/21/06, 07:01 PM
#12
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(02mustangGT @ April 21, 2006, 7:32 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Scoop, whether it's true or false. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl2.gif[/img]
Scoop, whether it's true or false. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl2.gif[/img]
4/21/06, 07:06 PM
#13
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SVTpower @ April 21, 2006, 7:29 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
02MustangGT just explained it, the GT/CS is not!!!
I understand your frustration but wait until the production version is really out and then complain if it's too high, I'm not because if the final product is that high, I will order a $300 well engineered lowering Eibach kit. End of story
[/b][/quote]
I won't complain either way, the GT500 is still a great looking car. I'm just making a point, the fenderwell gap is not about "warranty repairs" as other manufacturers seem to have no problem lowering a factory performance vehicle.
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
02MustangGT just explained it, the GT/CS is not!!!
I understand your frustration but wait until the production version is really out and then complain if it's too high, I'm not because if the final product is that high, I will order a $300 well engineered lowering Eibach kit. End of story
[/b][/quote]
I won't complain either way, the GT500 is still a great looking car. I'm just making a point, the fenderwell gap is not about "warranty repairs" as other manufacturers seem to have no problem lowering a factory performance vehicle.
4/21/06, 07:08 PM
#14
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
Look at the bright side. It has the '68 GT's stance.
4/22/06, 10:23 PM
#18
GTR Member
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Posts: 4,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That car does not have a 4x4 ride height, It sits perfect enough for a set of 20 inch CCW classic's and the northeast's brutal roads [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mark0006
GT350
35
9/5/15 12:14 PM
Detroit Steel
1964-1970 Mustang
7
8/20/15 08:13 AM