im sorry, but how does Ford have the BALLS?
03-09-2005, 05:10 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: virginia beach
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my local dealer gave me a call a couple months ago and said "we got one come on over and take it home"
i was like "sure"
i got all excited. took a shower, got all GQ. wore my rolex even. then hwhen i sat in the car he said....."ok ok i know the sticker is at $180,000 BUT there is a little mark up"
i was like well crap, i could go as high as 200,000 for it.
he laughed and said they would not let it go for any less than $300,000
i got out of the car and said "not for a ford".
i like the car but not that much.
i was like "sure"
i got all excited. took a shower, got all GQ. wore my rolex even. then hwhen i sat in the car he said....."ok ok i know the sticker is at $180,000 BUT there is a little mark up"
i was like well crap, i could go as high as 200,000 for it.
he laughed and said they would not let it go for any less than $300,000
i got out of the car and said "not for a ford".
i like the car but not that much.
03-09-2005, 05:23 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eyescream,Mar 9 2005, 08:47 AM
also the Saleen S7
The Saleen S7's 7.0l V8 is unique to the the S7 and designed from the oil pan to the block to the valve cover entirely by Saleen.
Andrew
03-09-2005, 05:31 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does Ford have the "balls"?
I think the fact that all the GTs are spoken for means Ford had plenty of logical "balls" to ask that price. Demand for it has been nothing short of unquenchable.
If I had the cash I would pay that for a GT. It compares VERY well to cars that cost far more than it, and its a piece of neo-history, based on a great 4-year run at Le Mans almost 40 years ago.
I think the fact that all the GTs are spoken for means Ford had plenty of logical "balls" to ask that price. Demand for it has been nothing short of unquenchable.
If I had the cash I would pay that for a GT. It compares VERY well to cars that cost far more than it, and its a piece of neo-history, based on a great 4-year run at Le Mans almost 40 years ago.
03-09-2005, 05:59 AM
#24
Originally Posted by ruexp67,Mar 8 2005, 07:46 PM
Can anyone even remotely verify those top numbers? 10s quarter mile in a S/S Barracuda or Hemi Dart? Even with 700 hp, on street tires from those days, those cars are nowhere near 10s. Impossible with how heavy they were. The Enzo weighs less and has 200hp more and it's barely in the 10s range (and I don't even think Motor Trend got it to go that fast - the one I saw had an 11 flat 1/4 mile).
Regardless, anyone see a major problem here? My Dad used to drive muscle cars and I don't ever remember him mentioning that these things were that fast.
03-09-2005, 06:10 AM
#25
The link quotes magazine speeds. It's VERY possible that the magazines at the time were, less than honest with their runs. Or more accuratly, they got "tweaked" versions from the manufactures.
Look at the Enzo's trap speed. It is WAY higher than the Cuda or the Dart. That tells me that the Enzo is geared WAY WAY taller than the others. That would explain the 1/4 time. I am inferrring of course, 60' times would be a better indicator.
Look at the Enzo's trap speed. It is WAY higher than the Cuda or the Dart. That tells me that the Enzo is geared WAY WAY taller than the others. That would explain the 1/4 time. I am inferrring of course, 60' times would be a better indicator.
03-09-2005, 06:39 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by quickysrt,Mar 9 2005, 06:10 AM
he laughed and said they would not let it go for any less than $300,000
Yeah, car dealers are my favorite people too.
03-09-2005, 08:18 AM
#27
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Mar 9 2005, 08:59 AM
Interesting numbers.
Can anyone even remotely verify those top numbers? 10s quarter mile in a S/S Barracuda or Hemi Dart? Even with 700 hp, on street tires from those days, those cars are nowhere near 10s. Impossible with how heavy they were. The Enzo weighs less and has 200hp more and it's barely in the 10s range (and I don't even think Motor Trend got it to go that fast - the one I saw had an 11 flat 1/4 mile).
Regardless, anyone see a major problem here? My Dad used to drive muscle cars and I don't ever remember him mentioning that these things were that fast.
Can anyone even remotely verify those top numbers? 10s quarter mile in a S/S Barracuda or Hemi Dart? Even with 700 hp, on street tires from those days, those cars are nowhere near 10s. Impossible with how heavy they were. The Enzo weighs less and has 200hp more and it's barely in the 10s range (and I don't even think Motor Trend got it to go that fast - the one I saw had an 11 flat 1/4 mile).
Regardless, anyone see a major problem here? My Dad used to drive muscle cars and I don't ever remember him mentioning that these things were that fast.
These cars had aluminum body panels, no interior, and were specifically constructed for NHRA. The Mopar cars had Plexiglas windows instead of glass, for instance. I don't think they even rolled down. You would never have seen one on the street cruising. A couple hundred of each were made, tops.
03-09-2005, 08:19 AM
#28
Registered User
If the car drives and handles anything remotely like it does in GT4 I will own one someday.
Bone stock without even intake; I honestly can't get enough of it. 1st gear to 70 and torque for days.
Bone stock without even intake; I honestly can't get enough of it. 1st gear to 70 and torque for days.
03-09-2005, 08:25 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by autechre,Mar 8 2005, 08:24 PM
There is so much more to a car than just its numbers.
03-09-2005, 09:53 AM
#30
Originally Posted by no_really,Mar 9 2005, 11:18 AM
those cars were not street cars, they were special production race cars. They weighed under 3200 lbs. Dodge muscle cars have always been lighter than their rivals, and at the time, the Ford Galaxy was the heaviest by a few hundred pounds, at around 3500 lbs. These cars were specifically designed to run the quarter mile. I'm not saying the times quoted are correct, merely that they are not what you are thinking - a regular production car was not nearly as fast as those cars. They were distributed to professional drag racers only. The Ford Thunderbolt was designed to meet new rules that rendered their Galaxy chassis too heavy to compete. Ford put together a special lightweight version of the Fairlane. You couldn't even fit a regular 289/302 in a production Fairlane engine bay without cutting out the shock towers and moving them farther apart - not a simple bolt-in affair.
These cars had aluminum body panels, no interior, and were specifically constructed for NHRA. The Mopar cars had Plexiglas windows instead of glass, for instance. I don't think they even rolled down. You would never have seen one on the street cruising. A couple hundred of each were made, tops.
These cars had aluminum body panels, no interior, and were specifically constructed for NHRA. The Mopar cars had Plexiglas windows instead of glass, for instance. I don't think they even rolled down. You would never have seen one on the street cruising. A couple hundred of each were made, tops.
Thanks for the info.
