2007 GT/CS Photos!
4/21/06, 08:56 AM
#184
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tres Wright @ March 3, 2006, 3:34 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I LOVE the GT/CS!!! I didn't think I would, but upon seeing the pictures and hearing about the two-tone leather seats I'm digging it.
I think anyone that complains about the scoops not being functional is being hypocritical, you can't tell me that none of you have ever put a mod on your car simply to make it look better. Why pay the extra money for IUP, it doesn't help the performance! Why put different wheels on there if it doesn't help the performance! Why put a rear spoiler on, it doesn't help the ... etc. etc. etc. There's no end to that line of thought. If all you were interested in was "performance" and looks meant nothing, you'd be better off getting a GTO.
I'm also amazed at the weird line of thought expressed by several here that any development time spent with appearance items takes development time away from performance. That's absurd. It is highly unlikely that the appearance development team within Ford even knows the people on the performance development team. It is also doubtful that money spent in one area would impact money spent in the other. It is safe to say that development is taking place in both camps simultaneously.
Now, when can I order my GT/CS? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
My problem with the falsie scoops and whatnot as stylistic enhancement(?) is, well, their very falsehood, that they're pretending to be something they're not, they stylistic equivalent of a stuffed bra or sock in front of your trousers. Packages such as the IUP have an inherent honesty and integrity to them in that they are what they are, stylistic packages, and not trying to pretend to be something else to impress or con the gullible. These codpieces simply erode the stylistic integrity of the Stang no less so than those so derided on "Ricers." It's all about "keeping it real" with the Stang.
As for draining bucks from more substantive engineering enhancements, I highly suspect that the Stang development budget is not bottomless. Rather, I presume the Stang is budgeted a set quantity of money that the Stang team then has to decide how to divy up among competing enhancement projects, i.e., pretty much a zero-sum situation year to year. Given that scenario, I, for one, would rather see Ford devote their develpment budget more towards actual functional enhancements for the powersliding performance crowd rather than surface fluff and jewelery for the preening poser crowd.
But hey, that's just me [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
I LOVE the GT/CS!!! I didn't think I would, but upon seeing the pictures and hearing about the two-tone leather seats I'm digging it.
I think anyone that complains about the scoops not being functional is being hypocritical, you can't tell me that none of you have ever put a mod on your car simply to make it look better. Why pay the extra money for IUP, it doesn't help the performance! Why put different wheels on there if it doesn't help the performance! Why put a rear spoiler on, it doesn't help the ... etc. etc. etc. There's no end to that line of thought. If all you were interested in was "performance" and looks meant nothing, you'd be better off getting a GTO.
I'm also amazed at the weird line of thought expressed by several here that any development time spent with appearance items takes development time away from performance. That's absurd. It is highly unlikely that the appearance development team within Ford even knows the people on the performance development team. It is also doubtful that money spent in one area would impact money spent in the other. It is safe to say that development is taking place in both camps simultaneously.
Now, when can I order my GT/CS? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
My problem with the falsie scoops and whatnot as stylistic enhancement(?) is, well, their very falsehood, that they're pretending to be something they're not, they stylistic equivalent of a stuffed bra or sock in front of your trousers. Packages such as the IUP have an inherent honesty and integrity to them in that they are what they are, stylistic packages, and not trying to pretend to be something else to impress or con the gullible. These codpieces simply erode the stylistic integrity of the Stang no less so than those so derided on "Ricers." It's all about "keeping it real" with the Stang.
As for draining bucks from more substantive engineering enhancements, I highly suspect that the Stang development budget is not bottomless. Rather, I presume the Stang is budgeted a set quantity of money that the Stang team then has to decide how to divy up among competing enhancement projects, i.e., pretty much a zero-sum situation year to year. Given that scenario, I, for one, would rather see Ford devote their develpment budget more towards actual functional enhancements for the powersliding performance crowd rather than surface fluff and jewelery for the preening poser crowd.
But hey, that's just me [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
4/21/06, 09:59 AM
#185
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rhumb @ April 21, 2006, 8:59 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
These codpieces simply erode the stylistic integrity of the Stang no less so than those so derided on "Ricers." It's all about "keeping it real" with the Stang.
. . .
surface fluff and jewelery for the preening poser crowd.
[/b][/quote]
Are you serious?!!! "The stylistic integrity of the stang!???" Now, while I personally think that the concept was killer and the production version is a reasonable compromise which still looks pretty good, especially with the right modifications, there is no way you can claim this car has any stylistic intergrity. Ford gladly sold that when they resurrected the 67-68 body style and resold it 30 years later. Your pompous postings are ludicrous.
And calling aesthetic mods "surface fluff and jewelry for the preening poser crowd," come on man. How does wanting something to look better equate to making you a poser. That's a little dippooty. [OWNED BY THE LANGUAGE FILTERS].
I'll agree that I'm not entirely sold on the side scoops. However, it seems to be becoming more and more apparent that Ford is unable or incapable of producing a performance model pony that anyone will be able to touch for less than $50 large. I personally dont think these cars are worth that, not even the mightly GT500, assuming you could get one for $50K.
With that said, this car is becoming more and more appealing as an alternative. One reason for me is that it solves two of the biggest dislikes I have about the stock GT. First, the stock GTs looks like you could traverse the Rubicon trail with 33" mud tires on them. They sit WAY too high. The info page on this site says the GT/CS will be 1.5 inches lower. That is a much better stance in my opinion and will be warrantied. So I dont have to worry about monkeying up the suspension and losing related warranty coverage if I drop the car. Just let Ford do it.
Second, I personally would prefer a lower fascia, on both ends of the car, as the stock fascias simply contribute to the 4x4 look in my opinion. I'm not talking about a big riced out and gaudy valence, but something lower and tasteful looking, similar to the 3D carbon kit. This car already takes care of that as well, with lower fascias coming from the factory and warrantied, so I dont have to worry about whether the paint will match or whether the installer will crack the 'glass when they are installing it.
And an upgraded interior and seemingly nice looking two tone interior with heated seats are just gravy.
But I guess I'm just a poser...
These codpieces simply erode the stylistic integrity of the Stang no less so than those so derided on "Ricers." It's all about "keeping it real" with the Stang.
. . .
surface fluff and jewelery for the preening poser crowd.
[/b][/quote]
Are you serious?!!! "The stylistic integrity of the stang!???" Now, while I personally think that the concept was killer and the production version is a reasonable compromise which still looks pretty good, especially with the right modifications, there is no way you can claim this car has any stylistic intergrity. Ford gladly sold that when they resurrected the 67-68 body style and resold it 30 years later. Your pompous postings are ludicrous.
And calling aesthetic mods "surface fluff and jewelry for the preening poser crowd," come on man. How does wanting something to look better equate to making you a poser. That's a little dippooty. [OWNED BY THE LANGUAGE FILTERS].
I'll agree that I'm not entirely sold on the side scoops. However, it seems to be becoming more and more apparent that Ford is unable or incapable of producing a performance model pony that anyone will be able to touch for less than $50 large. I personally dont think these cars are worth that, not even the mightly GT500, assuming you could get one for $50K.
With that said, this car is becoming more and more appealing as an alternative. One reason for me is that it solves two of the biggest dislikes I have about the stock GT. First, the stock GTs looks like you could traverse the Rubicon trail with 33" mud tires on them. They sit WAY too high. The info page on this site says the GT/CS will be 1.5 inches lower. That is a much better stance in my opinion and will be warrantied. So I dont have to worry about monkeying up the suspension and losing related warranty coverage if I drop the car. Just let Ford do it.
Second, I personally would prefer a lower fascia, on both ends of the car, as the stock fascias simply contribute to the 4x4 look in my opinion. I'm not talking about a big riced out and gaudy valence, but something lower and tasteful looking, similar to the 3D carbon kit. This car already takes care of that as well, with lower fascias coming from the factory and warrantied, so I dont have to worry about whether the paint will match or whether the installer will crack the 'glass when they are installing it.
And an upgraded interior and seemingly nice looking two tone interior with heated seats are just gravy.
But I guess I'm just a poser...
4/21/06, 01:52 PM
#186
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess by stylistic intergrity, I mean more the underlying form and lines of the Stang, which I think, generally, are quite good, and that various added adornments far more often than not, detract from rather than enhance the Stang's bod. Wanting a car to look better is great.
However, I think that is rarely actually achieved simply by tacking stuff on ***** nilly as is often done. "Less is more" is most often a good adage for car design, emphasizing a more qualitative approach the a size/parts-count, quantitative approach.
As for the aesthetics of surface mods, I adhere to a strong "form follows function" creed, especially when it comes to performance cars. I am not against any and all serface decor, per se, as long as they aren't masquarading as something they are not, which I find visually dishonest (hence my stuffed bra analogy). But something like the center stripes on the GT 500 are simply what they are, graphic elements, and I even rather like them as "honest" design element.
Probably the best current representation of my design ideal would be the Aston Martin V8 Vantage that I and more than a few others consider perhaps the prettiest car being made today. It is a stunning but very clean design overall with any spoiler'esque elements fully integrated into that basic form. It does have some vents, but these are completely functional and again, perfectly integrated into the basic form. Of course you're not going to get the same level of hand finished detailing of a $108K AM on a $28K production line Stang, but the design approach is certainly applicable.
The GT/CS's lowered ride height does seem to be the one functional and visual enhancement -- there's that form follows function thing -- and I agree that it does help the Stang's looks a bit. That should help, too, with you desire for lower f/r facias by, well lowering the whole car, facia and all.
However, I think that is rarely actually achieved simply by tacking stuff on ***** nilly as is often done. "Less is more" is most often a good adage for car design, emphasizing a more qualitative approach the a size/parts-count, quantitative approach.
As for the aesthetics of surface mods, I adhere to a strong "form follows function" creed, especially when it comes to performance cars. I am not against any and all serface decor, per se, as long as they aren't masquarading as something they are not, which I find visually dishonest (hence my stuffed bra analogy). But something like the center stripes on the GT 500 are simply what they are, graphic elements, and I even rather like them as "honest" design element.
Probably the best current representation of my design ideal would be the Aston Martin V8 Vantage that I and more than a few others consider perhaps the prettiest car being made today. It is a stunning but very clean design overall with any spoiler'esque elements fully integrated into that basic form. It does have some vents, but these are completely functional and again, perfectly integrated into the basic form. Of course you're not going to get the same level of hand finished detailing of a $108K AM on a $28K production line Stang, but the design approach is certainly applicable.
The GT/CS's lowered ride height does seem to be the one functional and visual enhancement -- there's that form follows function thing -- and I agree that it does help the Stang's looks a bit. That should help, too, with you desire for lower f/r facias by, well lowering the whole car, facia and all.
4/21/06, 02:11 PM
#187
Don't know why this gets so much hatred towards it. I really like the Hood scoop,despite it's non functioning status(they did this for the 2003's too) and I really like the side scoops, that tail that was shown in those older pics was the only part I did not like and I don't even know if they are going to use it.
4/21/06, 04:16 PM
#188
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here are my next questions on this car:
What are the stock wheels it will come with, Brad’s pics show blades, but the publicity pics show bullitts...?
Are we confirmed on the 1/5 inch lower ride height, it does not look lowered to my untrained eye in either set of photos.
Will it be out in summer or fall Brad, you posted fall recently but your info page says summer...
Oh yeah, is the lower center of the front fascia painted black as in the recent pics, or left body colored as in Brad’s pics?
Do the regular ordering options still apply? For example can I delete the nasty GT spoiler?
I hate to say I agree with Rhumb, but I have never been a big fan of that spoiler, on the S197, or even on the last gen.
Is the GT spoiler shown in the pics the spoiler it will come with, or is it going to have the spoiler shown in the grabber orange spy pics?
Finally, I kinda dig the hood scoop. It looks a lot like the Roush/ 65-66 hood scoop. It also helps break up the big slab of an empty hood that it otherwise there...
Also, what are the stripe options for different colors?
Last but not least, ANY NEW PICS?
What are the stock wheels it will come with, Brad’s pics show blades, but the publicity pics show bullitts...?
Are we confirmed on the 1/5 inch lower ride height, it does not look lowered to my untrained eye in either set of photos.
Will it be out in summer or fall Brad, you posted fall recently but your info page says summer...
Oh yeah, is the lower center of the front fascia painted black as in the recent pics, or left body colored as in Brad’s pics?
Do the regular ordering options still apply? For example can I delete the nasty GT spoiler?
I hate to say I agree with Rhumb, but I have never been a big fan of that spoiler, on the S197, or even on the last gen.
Is the GT spoiler shown in the pics the spoiler it will come with, or is it going to have the spoiler shown in the grabber orange spy pics?
Finally, I kinda dig the hood scoop. It looks a lot like the Roush/ 65-66 hood scoop. It also helps break up the big slab of an empty hood that it otherwise there...
Also, what are the stripe options for different colors?
Last but not least, ANY NEW PICS?
4/21/06, 05:28 PM
#189
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were a betting man, I'd say it'll come standard with bullitts and all the regular options (i.e. spoiler delete, blades, etc) will still apply. BTW, I also like the hood scoop but wish it had ben made functional.
4/21/06, 07:09 PM
#190
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(futuresvt @ April 21, 2006, 10:02 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
First, the stock GTs looks like you could traverse the Rubicon trail with 33" mud tires on them. They sit WAY too high. The info page on this site says the GT/CS will be 1.5 inches lower. That is a much better stance in my opinion and will be warrantied. So I dont have to worry about monkeying up the suspension and losing related warranty coverage if I drop the car. Just let Ford do it.
[/b][/quote]
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
First, the stock GTs looks like you could traverse the Rubicon trail with 33" mud tires on them. They sit WAY too high. The info page on this site says the GT/CS will be 1.5 inches lower. That is a much better stance in my opinion and will be warrantied. So I dont have to worry about monkeying up the suspension and losing related warranty coverage if I drop the car. Just let Ford do it.
[/b][/quote]
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
4/21/06, 10:25 PM
#191
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ April 21, 2006, 7:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
well this sucks...
is the rear fascia at least lower?
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
well this sucks...
is the rear fascia at least lower?
4/22/06, 04:44 AM
#192
Legacy TMS Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ April 21, 2006, 7:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
And interesting enough, if you look closely at the front fascia, it would appear that statement is not correct either. It looks like the same as the standard GT, except the part in the middle below the lower grille being different. In fact, it looks HIGHER up to me.
If this is true, they REALLY screwed up!
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
And interesting enough, if you look closely at the front fascia, it would appear that statement is not correct either. It looks like the same as the standard GT, except the part in the middle below the lower grille being different. In fact, it looks HIGHER up to me.
If this is true, they REALLY screwed up!
4/22/06, 05:52 PM
#193
The front facia looks lower to me, but not by a full 1.5".
Hard to tell on the rear, it does look like the "air extractor" hangs down more than the regular rear trim, but since it's black it's hard to compare.
Hard to tell on the rear, it does look like the "air extractor" hangs down more than the regular rear trim, but since it's black it's hard to compare.
4/22/06, 06:08 PM
#194
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ April 21, 2006, 7:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tony Alonso @ April 22, 2006, 4:47 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
And interesting enough, if you look closely at the front fascia, it would appear that statement is not correct either. It looks like the same as the standard GT, except the part in the middle below the lower grille being different. In fact, it looks HIGHER up to me.
If this is true, they REALLY screwed up!
[/b][/quote]
If you guys are right, then it looks like a significant (IMHO) amount of the info poasted on the info page for this car on this site is innaccurate.
Brad, can you shed any light on this???
Sorry, but the GT/CT is not 1.5" lower. The lackie who wrote the press release screwed it up. The only thing that is 1.5" lower is the front facia.
[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tony Alonso @ April 22, 2006, 4:47 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
And interesting enough, if you look closely at the front fascia, it would appear that statement is not correct either. It looks like the same as the standard GT, except the part in the middle below the lower grille being different. In fact, it looks HIGHER up to me.
If this is true, they REALLY screwed up!
[/b][/quote]
If you guys are right, then it looks like a significant (IMHO) amount of the info poasted on the info page for this car on this site is innaccurate.
Brad, can you shed any light on this???
4/22/06, 06:23 PM
#195
GT Member
Join Date: January 21, 2005
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some hi-res pics here of a vert GT/CS....as well as some Hertz and Parnelli edition mustangs.
http://www.seriouswheels.com/index.html
http://www.seriouswheels.com/index.html
4/22/06, 07:04 PM
#196
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(futuresvt @ April 22, 2006, 6:11 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
If you guys are right, then it looks like a significant (IMHO) amount of the info poasted on the info page for this car on this site is innaccurate.
[/b][/quote]
Duh.
Although this site is pretty good compared to some other sites, it's full of misinformation.
One of the problems with the Internet - type first, never question the verasity of what you're posting.
When in doubt, you can always check the 07 Mustang dealer order guide (although it has errors too).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>o GT California Special (54C) which includes 18" Polished Aluminum Wheel (64W) Dove or Parchment interior
environments, Black leather seats with unique Cal Special contrasting Dove or Parchment "GT Leather" inserts,
California Special badged floor mats, unique front fascia, larger air intake, chin spoiler 1.5" lower than GT,
unique fear fascia with race care like "diffuser", side scoops, unique tape stripe, and bright rolled exhaust tips [/b][/quote]
It doesn't say anything about the GT/CS itself being lowered.
If you guys are right, then it looks like a significant (IMHO) amount of the info poasted on the info page for this car on this site is innaccurate.
[/b][/quote]
Duh.
Although this site is pretty good compared to some other sites, it's full of misinformation.
One of the problems with the Internet - type first, never question the verasity of what you're posting.
When in doubt, you can always check the 07 Mustang dealer order guide (although it has errors too).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>o GT California Special (54C) which includes 18" Polished Aluminum Wheel (64W) Dove or Parchment interior
environments, Black leather seats with unique Cal Special contrasting Dove or Parchment "GT Leather" inserts,
California Special badged floor mats, unique front fascia, larger air intake, chin spoiler 1.5" lower than GT,
unique fear fascia with race care like "diffuser", side scoops, unique tape stripe, and bright rolled exhaust tips [/b][/quote]
It doesn't say anything about the GT/CS itself being lowered.
4/22/06, 10:15 PM
#198
Dethroned Nascar Guru
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MustangDan @ April 22, 2006, 10:25 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I'm glad they put those fake scoops on the 05 GT.
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
05 doesn't have fake scoops. Maybe you were being sarcastic
I'm glad they put those fake scoops on the 05 GT.
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
05 doesn't have fake scoops. Maybe you were being sarcastic
4/23/06, 03:53 AM
#199
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AFBLUE @ April 22, 2006, 10:18 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
05 doesn't have fake scoops. Maybe you were being sarcastic
[/b][/quote]
You're right, I was sure how else to express my dismay. What is next Mustang Cobra 2 graphics? I's not that I don't enjoy seeing a Mustang 2 or an old CS, they are like an strange Uncle that never married, we love him but we are glad he never had any kids.
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
05 doesn't have fake scoops. Maybe you were being sarcastic
[/b][/quote]
You're right, I was sure how else to express my dismay. What is next Mustang Cobra 2 graphics? I's not that I don't enjoy seeing a Mustang 2 or an old CS, they are like an strange Uncle that never married, we love him but we are glad he never had any kids.
4/23/06, 10:00 AM
#200
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MustangDan @ April 23, 2006, 3:56 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
You're right, I was sure how else to express my dismay. What is next Mustang Cobra 2 graphics? I's not that I don't enjoy seeing a Mustang 2 or an old CS, they are like an strange Uncle that never married, we love him but we are glad he never had any kids.
[/b][/quote]
Now that's funny... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rollinglaugh.gif[/img]
You're right, I was sure how else to express my dismay. What is next Mustang Cobra 2 graphics? I's not that I don't enjoy seeing a Mustang 2 or an old CS, they are like an strange Uncle that never married, we love him but we are glad he never had any kids.
[/b][/quote]
Now that's funny... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rollinglaugh.gif[/img]