Would a GT by any other name still be a GT? plus some ranting

Is it just me or does anyone else think Ford has their beany caps on to
tight? What is with the obsession with using the acronym GT? I can see how
in the past they had a Mustang GT, an Escort GT, and even a Probe GT
distinguishing the grade of the make/ model. I just find it awkward to
produce retro cars and cut the name short to simply GT. For instance a
classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now a
Shelby GT! Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA for
'07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?

Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that were
supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now? Sure enough this
generation Mustang isn't following the retro theme to the "T" but wouldn't
it be nice to stick to a proven success story of their own rather then
trying to change out of desperation like rename all their cars so people
might think its a new Ford at the expense of losing loyal customers?

"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote in message
...
> Is it just me or does anyone else think Ford has their beany caps on to
> tight? What is with the obsession with using the acronym GT? I can see how
> in the past they had a Mustang GT, an Escort GT, and even a Probe GT
> distinguishing the grade of the make/ model. I just find it awkward to
> produce retro cars and cut the name short to simply GT. For instance a
> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now a
> Shelby GT! Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby
> GT a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA
> for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?

There were previous years of Mustang GT's, Cougar GT's Torino GT's... This
"new" 2005-200? GT packaged Mustang is just following the same old GT
package pattern Ford has always used...

There was a '67 Mustang GT, it had a manual transmission. If it doesn't
have an automatic, it CAN'T be a GTA, "A" was for Automatic Transmission.

This is the only aspect of all of Fords many recent missteps that bothers
you?


>
> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
> changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
> 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that were
> supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now? Sure enough this
> generation Mustang isn't following the retro theme to the "T" but wouldn't
> it be nice to stick to a proven success story of their own rather then
> trying to change out of desperation like rename all their cars so people
> might think its a new Ford at the expense of losing loyal customers?
>

Nicholas Anthony wrote:
> Is it just me or does anyone else think Ford has their beany caps on to
> tight? What is with the obsession with using the acronym GT? I can see how
> in the past they had a Mustang GT, an Escort GT, and even a Probe GT
> distinguishing the grade of the make/ model. I just find it awkward to
> produce retro cars and cut the name short to simply GT. For instance a
> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now a
> Shelby GT! Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44?

Dispite the increasein height compared to the older cars, they wanted
to call the new ones GT40s. However, Shelby said he owned that
designation. And I guess calling them GT44 just didn't sound/seem
right. And they sure didn't want to come up with a whole new
name/number disination so they just shortened it.

> Or a Shelby GT a Shelby GT 350?

Ford is keeping the 350 part of the designation for an upcoming model.
I don't know... maybe it'll all make sense when it comes out.

> And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA for '07 to reminisce on the > '67 GTA?

The part "A" stood for automatic trans.

> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
> changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
> 1967-68 cars.

I never liked the '05 and up taillights, or even the rear end. And
that's a good idea, but there's nothing wrong with a whole new look
either.

> Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that were
> supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?

Maybe they figure it was a little too trite for a new car... I don't
know.

> Sure enough this
> generation Mustang isn't following the retro theme to the "T" but wouldn't
> it be nice to stick to a proven success story of their own rather then
> trying to change out of desperation like rename all their cars so people
> might think its a new Ford at the expense of losing loyal customers?

I like the retro looks but I personally don't have a problem with new
elements added in. IMO, you have to try/add new things.

The thing that burns me is the name changing -- to alpha/numeric --
going on at Lincoln. Why do they have such a problem coming up with
real names for new vehicles?

Patrick

"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
.. For instance a
> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now a
> Shelby GT!

I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...


Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
> a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA
> for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
>
> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
> changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
> 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that were
> supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?

Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.



Kate
06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!

Kate wrote:
> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
> . For instance a
>
>>classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now a
>>Shelby GT!
>
>
> I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...
>
>
> Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
>
>>a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA
>>for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
>>
>>Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
>>changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
>>1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that were
>>supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?
>
>
> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>
>
>
> Kate
> 06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
>
>
Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/eh99n

"Kate" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
> . For instance a
> > classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and now
a
> > Shelby GT!
>
> I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...
>
>
> Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
> > a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang GTA
> > for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
> >
> > Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
> > changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
> > 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that
were
> > supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?
>
> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>
>
>
> Kate

The California Special's had them.

Al

GILL wrote:
> Kate wrote:
>> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
>> . For instance a
>>
>>> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and
>>> now a Shelby GT!
>>
>>
>> I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...
>>
>>
>> Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
>>
>>> a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang
>>> GTA for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
>>>
>>> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
>>> changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
>>> 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that
>>> were supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?
>>
>>
>> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
>> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kate
>> 06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
>>
> Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.
>

I'm sorry, sequential turns were a Thunderbird thing starting with
the 1964 model. Everything else was an after thought, in fact the ones
on the Shelbys were left over Thunderbird parts.

--
When you click the "Forgot password?" button it
sends you to a screen where you can change your
password. If you first enter your old password.
We're talking high-quality programming here, boys. - OrionCA
rec.games.computer.ultima.online

I used to have abs. Now, I've just got ab.
One big ol' Ab. - BigSkiff www.titanspot.com

Pyongyang sounds more like the sound effect an ACME catapult makes
as it goes off at precisely the wrong moment for Wile E. Coyote. -
Cadbury Moose

WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
> GILL wrote:
>
>> Kate wrote:
>>
>>> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
>>> . For instance a
>>>
>>>> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and
>>>> now a Shelby GT!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
>>>
>>>> a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang
>>>> GTA for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
>>>>
>>>> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should
>>>> have changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit
>>>> with the 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail
>>>> lights that were supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
>>> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kate
>>> 06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
>>>
>> Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, sequential turns were a Thunderbird thing starting with
> the 1964 model. Everything else was an after thought, in fact the ones
> on the Shelbys were left over Thunderbird parts.
>
Still put on from the factory.

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/eh99n

"GILL" > wrote in message
. ..
> WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>> GILL wrote:
>>
>>> Kate wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote
>>>> . For instance a
>>>>
>>>>> classic GT40 is now just a Ford GT, then they have a Mustang GT and
>>>>> now a Shelby GT!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, I thought it wuth juth plain thoopid...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't they just call the Ford GT a Ford GT44? Or a Shelby GT
>>>>
>>>>> a Shelby GT 350? And how about the Mustang GT be called the Mustang
>>>>> GTA for '07 to reminisce on the '67 GTA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Little more of a rant. Has anyone else seen the '07? They should have
>>>>> changed the tail lenses with the indentations to follow suit with the
>>>>> 1967-68 cars. Not to mention were are the sequential tail lights that
>>>>> were supposed to be on the C/S let alone the Shelby by now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
>>>> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kate
>>>> 06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
>>>>
>>> Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, sequential turns were a Thunderbird thing starting with the
>> 1964 model. Everything else was an after thought, in fact the ones on the
>> Shelbys were left over Thunderbird parts.
>>
> Still put on from the factory.

And even still they look goofy as hell on mustangs... :-(

>
> --
> Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
> W/bits & pieces
> http://tinyurl.com/eh99n

"WindsorFox[SS]" > wrote
>>>
>>> Sequentials were a COUGAR thing...
>>> it would be blasphemy to put them on a Mustang from the factory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kate
>>> 06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
>>>
>> Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, sequential turns were a Thunderbird thing starting with the
> 1964 model. Everything else was an after thought, in fact the ones on the
> Shelbys were left over Thunderbird parts.
>

Well GOOD then, they WEREN'T original to Mustangs

Nyaa nyaa nyaa naaaaaaaaaa

¦¬Þ

Kate