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.