Then get the ultra-mega Escalade! (no joke) here

I remember Ford was talking about a super Navigator based on the Expedition a few years back (and even a 6-door version) but it was axed due to better judgement. Say what you will, but these will sell and be featured in every rap video for the next few years! LOL

I think Bruno already put a down-payment on one!

Is that 4mpg or 5?

Calvin

Only 4 BUT it comes with a spare Tahoe in case you run out of gas. (can't find link to old Onion article about this... hehe)

Try this one on. July 2002

http://www.hummer.com/flash.html

Oh, it's either that or the mouth-watering Buick Rendezvous (ugh!)

And I was just in the GT40 thread... Yeah, Ford went real far in coming up with a "modern" exterior. Ugh again. I don't think Daimler-Chrysler has anything to worry about.

Bruno

And I was just in the GT40 thread... Yeah, Ford went real far in coming up with a "modern" exterior. Ugh again. I don't think Daimler-Chrysler has anything to worry about.

There are plenty of *real* automotive abominations to take a shot at, and if a few pellets dented the new Thunderbird, I could care less, but why hit the beautiful GT40 while you're firing away? Who *cares* if it's modern-looking? Given a windfall of a few mill, I'd buy one (and a very dated E-type, too) without getting hung up on the "modern" thing. Geez, it's not like it's a Prowler or something!

My personal ``favorite'' is the Lincoln Navigator. It might be smaller volume-wise than some others, but its massive flat rear-end is bound to take the cake in pure vision-blocking surface area.

And I feel certain that Ford is not looking for something modern with the GT40. Since the exterior is barely changed from the late-60s GT40, I'd think the retro-ness is intentional.

Some cars that people love because they are European, but if they were American, they would hate because they aren't modern:

1. Any Porsche... (this thing hasn't changed its shape in.... 40 years? And JUST went air cooled?!
2. The Audi TT that borrows from older, some say Porsche, roadsters.
3. The Mini - nuff said.

For the record, I do love all of these cars. I am a fan of classic design, but I also insist on such basics as power windows... what a perfect match!

There is talk that the GT40 may be hand built in Italy. I forget the studio that is going to build it (again, this isn't carved in stone yet.) I won't get into it with Bruno in the other thread, but I have to admit I sorta baited him with this one hehe.

I would rather companies re-do old makes properly like this than make blasphemies like the new Malibu and Impala... :P

That's why I put "modern" in quotes. It was a comment on what was written in the article linked in the other thread. It looks completely like a retro muscle car. From the small images and the fact that I haven't read any other details, it doesn't look like competition for any supercars. 500/500 bhp/ft-lbs is pretty impressive in any car of course.

I'd still stick with a Modena for style though.

Bruno

I've never been a big fan of that sort of fastback-y design that Ferrari has had over the past decade or so. (I don't really like the GT40, either.) My favorite car design has always been the 60s English sportscar look, its ultimate, in my mind, being the 427 S/C Cobra (unfortunately not English, and more unfortunately, for you, anyway, sponsored by Ford). I'm also a big fan of the 50s-early 60s American sports cars, epitomized, again, in my mind, by the Corvette of that period (53-62).

Yeah, Ford went real far in coming up with a "modern" exterior. Ugh again. I don't think Daimler-Chrysler has anything to worry about.

Ah, Bruno, I just figured it out, looked at your picture on the profile page: you're just a youngster, you're too young to understand.

The GT-40 is a piece of history, certainly one of the most important and revered racing cars in the history of automotive competition. When the GT-40s finally beat the all-conquering Ferraris at LeMans, not only beat them but finished first-second-third, it was... I don't have the words. I'm guessing this happened before you were even born, so I don't really expect you to understand the significance, the the total charisma and desirability that the reincarnation of such a treasured icon would have for one of my generation.

No, it's not "modern" looking -- it is a classic shape from a bygone era that despite all rational bean-counting objectives Ford has decided to bring back. I feel that if Ford produces 100 of them a year, sells them for $100,000 apiece, and loses $100,000 on each and every one of them, it will nonetheless be money very well spent in terms of image and prestige.

tanstaafl.

Ah, Bruno, I just figured it out, ...

What Doug said.

Bringing back a classic seems to be the "in" thing to do. I think the price is too steep for a Ford and we'll have to see if they can deliver the goods when it comes to the total package.

I very much "get" the concept and the car. But, again, read the article linked in the first thread. BTW, if you look at my pic profile you'll also see another thing. The Candian flag. I dont' sit around talking about how great Canada "was" at hockey. You have to get out there and do something now. It's a shame Ford hasn't been able to do that. Chrysler has done the most to move the lumbersome giants from Detroit into the 21st century.

I'm not an enormous fan of Ferrari, but the Modena is one sweet automobile, in every incarnation. I'm sure it's destined to be in the shop far too many times like other Ferraris, but it's still a nice car on paper and in the flesh.

I don't think Ford will be losing money on the GT40 at $100K per. Not a chance. Even in the small production run. Has anyone bothered to find out if it has a DIN stereo (or better, double-DIN?)

My favourite daily-driver-capable sports cars (legal in NA) (none of which I own yet): Any Porsche 911 variant and Honda/Acura NSX.

Bruno

I very much "get" the concept and the car.

Now, now, now. Remember, you said:

It looks completely like a retro muscle car.

It does not. It looks like a GT40

I take your point (I think) as to whether manufacturers can actually do something new or whether they can only trade on their past glories. I'd say that all of the big 3 struggle in that regard, GM especially. Honestly, I don't see where Daimler/Chrysler (at least the Chrysler part) is very far ahead of GM or Ford. OK, I'd *love* a Viper Coupe in blue with those Cobra-esque white stripes, but is it cutting edge? I'd still take the GT40 on looks. I wonder how it would feel at Le Mans after 30+ years. Not too bad, I expect!

And what did the original GT40 look like? A muscle car. Certainly a more streamlines muscle car than many others, but when I think LeMans, I think of stuff with a body style closer to the Porsche 917 of the early 70's.

The new Viper seems to be a nice improvement from what I've read. Maybe too much big-blockiness though. 8.3L engine. I much prefer more sophisticated wolves in sheep's clothing cars, like the last generation RX-7.

Chrysler has the best looking new cars of any of the big 3. Then Ford. GM is dead last. It has no hope with any current models. The Vette has been tired since the 70's - the last redo was just a styling rip-off from cars like the NSX and RX-7.

The state of cars this year is still puzzling me. I mentioned the new Camry in another thread (borrowing again from the same lame tail light configuration as so many other cars (neon, etc..) Now Toyota have gone and released a Honda Civic under the name "Corolla S." Watching the commercials makes me think they took a weekend, applied a little fibre to a Civic along with a few badges and filmed their commercial.

The hottest selling SUV, as far as I know right now, is probably the Acura MDX. Wonder what will happen once the Honda Pilot is on the street. My favourite SUV body styles are the BMW X5, Jeep Cherokee and Nissan XTerra. Three different price points. Probably all the same level of reliability, which is rather funny. If we weren't talking about SUVs, I'd guess the Nissan would probably have the best resale when factored on percentage. Now what ever happened to that Porsche SUV that was supposed to be around the corner? Personally, I thought their 959 was SUV enough. If you'd consider it both sport and utility kicking everyone else's ass.

Bruno

And what did the original GT40 look like? A muscle car.

I highly suspect it's the other way around.

The Porsche Cayenne? They've got a teaser up for it at the Porsche web site. Unfortunately. And they do specifically refer to it as a ``sport utility vehicle'', if you look in the right places.

Actually, it was bbspot

"And what did the original GT40 look like? A muscle car."

i would suggest you take a better look at some older muscle cars, because I dont see very much simularity between a GT40 and a Camaro, Chevelle, or even a Cuda. not to mention the design differences where all muscle cars had huge big block motors, usually anything from a 427 to a 454 and were all front engine vehicles, whereas the GT40 is a mid engine car that had a 4.2 litre engine, in orginal use and a 4.7 litre which was used around 66 & 67.For those who can't do the math is 256 and 289 cid respectively
I apologize for ranting and raving but saying a gt40 is a muscle car is like saying a honda is in the same league as a viper

Yikes! I want to reply to so many parts of this thread.... hmm... Others have said what I feel much better so I'll just say this:

1. The Viper is what put Dodge back on its feet. I feel the GT-40 will do the same. It is an image builder. I mean how many people actually own vettes or vipers? Not many. But people have pride in brands because of them.
2. Ford WILL lose money on this thing. Think about it: 100 cars x $100,000 = $100,000,000. Sounds like a lot of money until you think of how much they are going to have to spend to make a factory to build this thing, the materials involved, government crash and emisions testing and design studies.
3. The original GT-40 had an "unobtainable" price and is considered MORE than successful.
EDIT: 4. Almost forgot! : All of Chrystler's designers jumped shipped when Daimler "merged" with them. Most of them work for Ford now and a handful work for GM. Ford also has J Mays who was one of Audi/VW's most influencial designers. It will be a few years before their designs hit the road - but the GT40, Bullett Mustang and Ford FourtyNine are good examples.

And as someone pointed out, the GT-40 is the exact opposite of a muscle car. Muscle cars are basically family type cars with huge V8's thrown into them meant to go in a straight line very fast. Their charm is that they are easy to afford and work on and a blast to drive.

Roger, thanks! I was going nuts looking for that thing! haha Everyone, check out the link in Roger's post to see what I was getting at with the "spare Tahoe" comment.

"The hottest selling SUV, as far as I know right now, is probably the Acura MDX" -hybrid

I almost laughed when I read that. I've never even seen one of these on the road. I would say the top-selling suv is the Explorer. By the way, the top-selling automobile in the world (not US, but world, as in planet earth) is the Ford F-150. I'm almost postive the Explorer was in the top ten, and I think ford had about 4 vehicles total in the top ten. Can anyone find this list? I haven't been able to find it on the internet.

By the way, the top-selling automobile in the world (not US, but world, as in planet earth) is the Ford F-150.

Top-selling by weight, or by volume?

Peter

Ah, Bruno, I just figured it out, looked at your picture on the profile page: you're just a youngster, you're too young to understand.

Me too, I'm afraid. To me, the Ford GT40 is "the car Noel Edmonds has", which makes it less cool than, for instance, the Mustang ("the car in Bullitt").

Peter

33 is correct that the Explorer is still the best selling SUV and the F-Series trucks are the best selling vehicles (commonly mis-quoted in publications as just the F-150) in the world....

But if popularity was a measure of quality, then WWF and Nascar Driving In Circles All Day (oops, I mean Nascar Racing) would be fine arts.

Me too, I'm afraid. To me, the Ford GT40 is "the car Noel Edmonds has", which makes it less cool than, for instance, the Mustang ("the car in Bullitt").

Truer words were never spoken.. Although I wasn't all that impressed with the Mustang Bullitt models that were released last year. Another example of our fascination with cars from the past.

So are you saying ford trucks aren't high quality? To me, they are the highest quality truck you can buy. Have you ever been inside a fully decked out $40,000 F-350? Very nice. Very dependable and powerful. Now I'm not saying chevy and dodge aren't nice too; I just prefer Fords. The big three are the big three for a reason.

I did say "look."

It has more than a passing resemblance to Camaros and Firebirds and Vettes. When I think muscle car, I don't just think Mustang or Grand National.

Of course it also shares some elements of some other more exotic cars.

With a run of only 100 it won't do for Ford what the Viper did for Chrysler/Dodge. But I'm sure their early numbers are based on their estimated capacity (anyone know how they'll be putting these things together?) and not demand. They should be able to sell a fair number more than 100.

Bruno

Don't put down Honda by comparing the Viper to something they'd produce.

It has more than a passing resemblance to Camaros and Firebirds and Vettes

NO WAAAAAAY!

Now I'm starting to think you are nursing a grudge. OK, so it's not an Aston Martin. It's a little more on the utilitarian side of things, but *that* kind of utility I can use. It's beauty enough for me!

Firebird. Sheesh.

Hottest Selling=They can't build them fast enough. I didn't say you'd see the most of them on the road. I also didn't say it would be true in your neck of the woods.

I can go to any Ford dealership and have my choice of Explorer on the spot.

I have never seen many F-150's in Europe. Now, why is it Ford sells soo many trucks? Maybe because they last a couple of seasons before they rust to the ground? Maybe all the hillbillies buying them crash a couple of them per year...

I think you should look into the sales numbers of the VW Bug. And the Austin Mini while you're at it.

Bruno

Jim, are we looking at the same pictures? The same car? There's something about the GT40 that speaks utility to you (other than going pretty fast)?

Hmm.. I still respect everyone's opinion of course. Except yx33d... He's got the Ford bug too far in the blood. Trying to associate the word "quality" with a Ford truck. Almost fell out of my chair. Maybe he should get into a BMW or Mercedes at the same $40K price point and check out what "quality" looks, feels and smells like. I put most Fords far above any GM I have ever been in, granted.

Bruno

Jim, are we looking at the same pictures? The same car? There's something about the GT40 that speaks utility to you (other than going pretty fast)?

Yes, by utility I mean "built to stay low and go very fast" and I'm just trying to admit that it might not drip the same sex appeal of an Aston, an E-type or some Ferraris or others. Hell, you might even park a GT40 outside of a Borders and not attract any women! That being said, *I* think it is very sexy and I'd be the first to place my order once I knock over a large bank.

Anyhow, I actually like the earliest, simple, Camaros ('67-'68), but to compare the GT40 to a Camaro or a (gag!) Firebird just isn't nice. In what way does it resemble a gawd-awful Firebird?

I think the BBS needs a new forum (with padded ropes) called "Pizza-Beer-Cars"!

Actually I think instead of asking if it's 4 or 5 mpg, you should be asking is it in "gpm".

hybrid:

"It has more than a passing resemblance to Camaros and Firebirds and Vettes"

If gt-40's resemble any of the above mentioned cars, then they copied off of the gt-40, not vice-versa. The gt-40 was styled years ahead of its time.


"Hottest Selling=They can't build them fast enough"

So if it took me 3 months to carve a piece of wood and then I sold it and I had a customer in line to buy another, then by your definiton I would have the hottest selling wood carvings in the world since it would take me another 3 months before I could meet the demand, right? I can see you're an avid fact-twister. You'd probably make a good politician.


"Trying to associate the word "quality" with a Ford truck. Almost fell out of my chair."

Yeah, and it's funny that half of the 'trucks' that you listed as your favorites are built on a car chassis.

33, I wasn't knocking what you said about the F-150, I was just saying that equating sales to quality doesn't prove your point. They are actually solid trucks. Maybe because there are so many on the road with over 500,000 miles on them they just LOOK like crap cuz they are 20 years old!

Oh and Bitt, not a big deal but it is GMAC.

edit: And about the only thing you can say bad about the original GT-40 is that it may have copied off of the Ferraris of the time in shape. Did the Shelby 427 (not the AC Cobra) come out before or after?

There is actually an interesting article about how J Mays and the other designers had trouble making the new GT-40 retain the old shape cues yet still be aerodynamic. The original one was designed before wind tunnel testing was in wide use. They just "eyed" it.

100 units not enough to help Ford's brand image?!? You really see THAT many Vipers on the roads? All it takes is a couple and then just put it in every ad. Notice how the Viper is even in Dodge Stratus models?

For the record, I'm only 26, but I appreciate the old Cobra's, the GT-40, the old Jag's and Astons (thank James Bond for that one!), the Stingray Vettes, etc etc.

Only two trucks Id own Toyota Tundra and Tacoma. The MDX is awesome my dad was gonna get one for my mom but she didnt want leather so he is getting the pilot.

I have to say Bruno, I don't know where you're coming from. First, I think the GT40 is beautiful, not beautiful like an italian sports car, but beautiful nonetheless. Second...the new Viper, an improvement? Have you seen the car? They killed it. The defining style of the Viper was it's over the top curviness, and they straightened just about every curve it used to have. At best, it is a decent looking car now (though I hear they've improved it under the hood).

I do agree with you about the third gen RX-7. That is one of my all time favorite cars, an absolutely sleek car. It makes me think of a tastefully understated Viper.

-Adam

This was actually a different subsidiary of GM. It might have just been MIC, now that I think of it. I was just doing a search on Google, and the only reference I could find was to ``Motors Insurance'' in Canada and Europe. It may be that that company doesn't exist anymore in the US (maybe it was folded back into GMAC as a whole as GMAC Insurance?), but, at the time, it was a separate subsidiary. She's been retired for probably ten years now, so there's easily been enough time for that all to change.

"And as someone pointed out, the GT-40 is the exact opposite of a muscle car. Muscle cars are basically family type cars with huge V8's thrown into them meant to go in a straight line very fast. Their charm is that they are easy to afford and work on and a blast to drive. "

I have to disagree with you on this one. While clearly the GT40 is not a muscle car and never was, I think it's styling is reminiscent of one, especially when compared to any supercar out on the road today.

Just my 2 cents.

-Adam

.the new Viper, an improvement? Have you seen the car? They killed it.

Well, if I had money to buy a Viper, it would be a used one. I'm not up on all the styling changes, but just the single one of trying to integrate the Dodge RAM cross motif into the grille was, IMO, an ugly, evil, unforgiveable mistake.

My personal ``favorite'' is the Lincoln Navigator. It might be smaller volume-wise than some others, but its massive flat rear-end is bound to take the cake in pure vision-blocking surface area.

And you haven't been horrified by the abomination that is the Pontiac Aztec? There is no car on earth that has more back end than that thing. It truly is one of the ugliest cars EVER BUILT. Yet somehow it passes testing phases and people are driving them. Then again, it seems that more people have won them on game shows than any other car. Is that saying something??

I've never had the joy of being behind an Aztec, but I have seen a couple from afar. At first, I thought they were a joke, they were so ugly. Turns out I was wrong. I can't believe that people actually buy these things. Regardless, though, I find it hard to believe that they're bigger and flatter than a Navigator. Driving behind one of those is like driving behind a barn.

DiGNAM17: At least in the Detroit area, most of the Azteks on the road are company cars. There were lots and lots (as in lots=a large area of land used to parks cars ) of these things a while back. Many exec's were er.. encouraged to pick one as their company lease. To GM's credit, they did fix the Aztek a bit in a very rare (and much needed) 2nd year make over.

Some features of the Aztek are really neat if you've ever been inside of one. You can practially hose down the interior. Control the entire radio from the hatch (for tailgating?) and it has a built in cooler. These featuers are actually selling some units. But all of these features could have been put on a nicer looking vehicle.

Adam, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just think that the GT-40 looks like a lot of the "super-cars" of its era. I don't know of any mid-engine, 2 seat muscle cars from the 60's.

Agree to disagree? But this is a BBS debate, there must be ranting, and name calling, and maybe even some pathetically empty threats. How dare you try and impose civilized, mature standards on this last haven of irresponsible playground-style arguments.


-Adam

I was putting down Honda, but dont put down the Viper either. I was just saying they are two very good cars in all but of very different designs and sizes. and Again I think you need to take a look at the Camaros and Firebirds from that era, I does have a slight resemblence to camaros and vetts of later years but those arent muscle cars. Technically nothing made after the early 70s is a muscle car

A Tundra or a Tacoma??? Granted they are nice trucks, I have owned a Tacoma and my roomate has a Tundra, but they are definately not the top of the list. Maybe Im biased because i actually use my truck, but have you ever tried to pull over 6000 lbs with a tacoma, its rather funny, the whole rear end squats down and the front end comes off the ground with every bump.

In reply to:

---

My favorite car design has always been the 60s English sportscar look, its ultimate, in my mind, being the 427 S/C Cobra (unfortunately not English, and more unfortunately, for you, anyway, sponsored by Ford).

---

Remember that the AC Cobra was english. At least the body styling was. They took an AC Ace (AC was a British company), dropped a 427 in it and stuck a Ford badge on the front.

Probably why you equate the Cobra with "...the 60's English sportscar look"

One of my favourites as well.

PeterK

Well I speak from off roading experience not from towing. I guess thats what americans can do. Tow stuff. But those Tacoma's are great off road.

I will definately agree to the offroading aspect of a tacoma, because you just cant kill the damn things. But being where I am from I need a more all around truck, so they dont fit me. Thats why I put a lift on mine, now I can tow when I need to and go offroad when I want to play

Remember that the AC Cobra was english. At least the body styling was. They took an AC Ace (AC was a British company), dropped a 427 in it and stuck a Ford badge on the front.

Dang, I was waiting for somebody from the UK to indignantly make that point! (Perhaps you *are* from the UK??) I still get a charge out of looking at the 427 (remember going ga-ga watching Honey West as a kid, not for Anne Francis but for her Cobra), but part of me finds it a bit over-the-top. Given the choice I might actually opt for the earlier, un-flared 289 as closer to the subdued Ace/Bristol ideal.

As if this is a decision I have to worry about!

Sigh... the same could almost be said for the GT-40. From Motor Trend:

In reply to:

---

After a failed attempt by Henry Ford II to work with Enzo Ferrari on a bid for the 24 Hours of Le Mans race in 1963, the once potential partnership turned into a personal grudge match. So, with assistance from British racecar builder Lola, Ford constructed its own GT car.

---

For the record, I know of NO Ford badge on the AC Cobra. It was just powered by Ford.

No one has similar feelings for the Shelby Daytona Coupe?

For the record, I know of NO Ford badge on the AC Cobra.

Good catch. Absolutely correct.

Similar feelings regarding the Shelby Daytona Coupe/s? Sure, why not? They started out as 289 roadsters IIRC and quite sexy. But for practicality sake, I want the 289 ragtop. Women have a hard time seeing me when I'm driving the coupe.

(OTOH, of all Vipers, I want the SDC-inspired white-on-blue coupe. Killer.)

You're right. The badge says 427 Ford Cobra, meaning the engine not the vehicle.

I should have been clearer.

PeterK

It was actually redesigned a little. Mostly the rear end. And a lot of that rear-end stuff is what pushes it over the edge for me. Not that the AC was ugly, by any means.

Yeah, but in fairness the jag diff was a bit bigger then the original. Also, the brits favour knock off wheels on biscuit rims. For the 289 and bigger, they really needed a bit more rubber on the road

Car appeal will always be subjective. For me, the Cobra combines British sports car classic looks with US muscle car performance.

The extra width at the back gives it purpose.

I did hear they were a B*tch to drive though.....

PK

Assuming Gran Turismo is even remotely correct, I would have to agree. I don't think I'd refuse one if given to me, though.