Ford GT

[Naim]

The problem with allot of cars nowadays making 30 years down the road and becoming classics is all the computers/sensors etc being still functional and then getting parts when they are broken.
(Everything is sooo specialized)

Crap, on my 57 Chevy.... Parts are a dream to get with that car.
No computer stuff... Sooo much stuff is interchangable.
Need a new rear end...
Choose for a Ford 9', Chevy 12 boilt, 10 bolt, get a orig 57 rear end etc etc...
Engine... Any chevy engine can be swapped without too much modding...

With cars like the SVX (or most modern cars now) ... It will most likely become harder to get parts when things go bad especially after 10 years the car has been out of production...

Well time will tell.

[WestCoastSVX]

Originally posted by Naim


I have to differ with that statement.... Don't forget about the Datson Z series cars of the 70's ...
Now those are classics!!!

(I still love my 1957 Chevy hibernating in a garage)

I actually thought of those 70's Z cars as I posted, but I decided to keep my post short since I have a habit of going to long and being ingnored. Good call though! In fact, I even remember a bit of retro campaign by Nissan in the late 90's where they had commercials showing a 70's Z in a musuem or something about the old guy they had as their "mascot" for a while and a little boy... Okay, I'm rambling, but some of you will know what I'm talking about.

[WestCoastSVX]

Originally posted by SVXRide
So, will the RX-8 be "retro-worth" in 30 years?
-Bill

You never know, although I think Naim brings up a good point about today's cars being harder to keep maintained or restored decades after they go out of production.

As for the RX8 today, in relation to the original RX7 it is not so much a retro comeback, as it is more like comparing a Thunderbird of the 90's to the original Thunderbirds. Mazda would go retro if they came out with something badged RX7 that actually had similar lines and design to a first gen RX7 from the 70's, like Ford did with the new T-bird.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Naim
The problem with allot of cars nowadays making 30 years down the road and becoming classics is all the computers/sensors etc being still functional and then getting parts when they are broken.
(Everything is sooo specialized)

Crap, on my 57 Chevy.... Parts are a dream to get with that car.
No computer stuff... Sooo much stuff is interchangable.
Need a new rear end...
Choose for a Ford 9', Chevy 12 boilt, 10 bolt, get a orig 57 rear end etc etc...
Engine... Any chevy engine can be swapped without too much modding...

With cars like the SVX (or most modern cars now) ... It will most likely become harder to get parts when things go bad especially after 10 years the car has been out of production...

Well time will tell.

Yeah, this actually keeps me up at night. My hope is that, as current models become 'collectible' and 'classics,' an aftermarket industry opens up to support the complicated electronic bits. So, yeah, we'll have a hard time finding an exact fit - but hopefully we can find something that works with a little modification.

[Naim]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets


Yeah, this actually keeps me up at night. My hope is that, as current models become 'collectible' and 'classics,' an aftermarket industry opens up to support the complicated electronic bits. So, yeah, we'll have a hard time finding an exact fit - but hopefully we can find something that works with a little modification.

That is the thing that scares me too... There are way too many complicated electrical systems that are so year/model specific... I just don't see it happening... Remember there will have to be enough of a demand to supplies to pump these out to make some $$$. It is not going to happen.
With a 57 Chevy (any old car) you are talking about a shell (body) with the ablity to place mechanical/engine parts with anything...

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Naim


With a 57 Chevy (any old car) you are talking about a shell (body) with the ablity to place mechanical/engine parts with anything...

I enjoyed the same with my '80 Spitfire. As long as "Vicky Brit" stayed in business, I was good to go. I miss that car, except in extreme cold, or extreme heat.

[drivemusicnow]

I really am dissapointed that ford is just redoing all old designs, but i read a quote from one of the engineers or business managers from ford, and it basically said, the guys across the street did the "new" thing, and look where they are. (in reference to chevy stopping production of F-bodies)... the thing that pisses me off the most about Ford is the fact that all they do is take the ferrari, and improve on it... the engineers actually bought the car and did stress tests and such on the frame, and designed theres to be XX% stiffer than it. I mean, I understand the "ferrari slayer" but maybe they should figure out how to engineer their own car, without relying on other companies to do the math for them. (yeah i'm exxagerating but still)

[wawazat??]

Originally posted by drivemusicnow
the thing that pisses me off the most about Ford is the fact that all they do is take the ferrari, and improve on it... the engineers actually bought the car and did stress tests and such on the frame, and designed theres to be XX% stiffer than it. I mean, I understand the "ferrari slayer" but maybe they should figure out how to engineer their own car, without relying on other companies to do the math for them. (yeah i'm exxagerating but still)

First of all, the process is called benchmarking and it is used by EVERY automaker (and in many other industries). Why wouldn't Ford use the process? They (Ford) design and manufacture basic automobiles and trucks. Ferrari manufactures high-end, sports cars exclusively. Ford took a look at the market segment, picked a target, and tore it down to see what made it tick. They then analyzed strengths and weaknesses and built a better mouse trap. They saved engineering dollars and time and according to a recent Car & Driver test against Ferrari and Porsche, effectively created a world beater.

Ferrari will do the same thing with the GT when they get one.

Todd

[Beav]

I believe there is an old axiom that goes "Why reinvent the wheel?"

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Beav
I believe there is an old axiom that goes "Why reinvent the wheel?"

And there's a new axiom that goes, "Why the hell did Isuzu invent the Axiom in the first place?"

Howdy, Beav. Good to see ya.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by drivemusicnow
...the thing that pisses me off the most about Ford is the fact that all they do is take the ferrari, and improve on it... the engineers actually bought the car and did stress tests and such on the frame, and designed theres to be XX% stiffer than it. I mean, I understand the "ferrari slayer" but maybe they should figure out how to engineer their own car, without relying on other companies to do the math for them. (yeah i'm exxagerating but still)

But they didn't build a Ferrari. Sure, they may have used the 360 as (as Todd explained) a benchmark, but they didn't copy it, did they? No, Ford built their own car - quote the opposite of what you're accusing them of.

I would go so far as to praise Ford for analyzing a product they wanted to compete with, and going to great lengths to achieve their goals. If every car manufacturer did this, American cars in general would be much higher quality.

I simply don't understand how studying a competitor's product and aiming higher 'pisses you off.'

[svxistentialist]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
As for the ford gt thing, lame name since they lost the rights to call it GT40; so just GT? oh well, I would take any Porsche GT2, GT3, Turbo, or Carrera GT {YEAH!!!} or even a Lambo. Aston Martin is better, even though they are under ford's rule. If I'm going to spend that kind of money {which I don't have} the last thing I'd buy would be something with "ford" on it. At the Philly Auto Show they were going on and on about how great a car it was in 1968. Alot of cars were great in 1968. That's ford's problem. They live in the past. Notice all of thier "new" great cars are all repo's of old cars? T-Bird, Mustang, GT, etc.. Lame.

Considering how patriotic you boys can be at times, and rightly so, I am amazed you do not give credit where it is due where American autos are concerned.

Uncle Henry is rightly proud of the GT40 and 1968 and the Le Mans years. The same American designed GT40 is one of the most beautiful shapes ever raced, surpassed only by the elegance of some Bizzarinis IMHO.

Never mind the shape, what about the engineering, and the team effort, and the driving, and winning all around them? To me, that was the automotive equivalent of walking on the moon.
The Yanks came over and beat two dedicated sports car companies, Ferrari and Porsche, at their own game. Like they said they would.

That GT is a beautiful motor, even if it is retro. I like the shape of the new Mustang also, nice sculptured look. I can NOT understand how in this day and age they get away with putting a live rear axle in the thing. {Did you guys all write to Dearborn and say you wanted live axles?? }

Joe

I have not paid too much attention to the Ford GT (being that it is slightly out of my price range) But just looking at it does absolutly nothing for me. I guess I am not a fan of that style. But as it goes for retro look, I think they are on to something there. Not the retro thing as much as finding something that works and sticking to it!

For example: look at the porsche of yesteryear and look at the Porsche of today, there is not too much difference in the stlye. Yet the new ones are more sleek, the "look" is still there.
(IMO) something that I like to see is a company that has an image. I mean a stlyle image. Pontiac is the best example, for a long time I have seen new pontiacs being produced, even all new designs but the front of each has a distinc Pontiac look. Even the Aztek, though not the most beautiful vehicle ever built, has a distinct Pontiac look. Cadillac is going for that look too. Mercedes seems to try to have their line-up with a distinguished look although for sometime they were unsure which direction to go but if you will notice now they are going to the four round look that was a classic image of the 60's 70's and I think 80's it may have been before that too. The new cars are not "retro" but in fact that have cues from their heritage and I think that is what makes a company. Distinguishing itself from just being a "car" or just transportation.

That is whats wrong with the Japanese car companies. There is no distinguishing factor. From years past a Honda and a Toyota looked like just another car. There was nothing there that said "I AM A TOYOTA" like other german and american companies.

Just my $.02..
-G

[wawazat??]

Originally posted by svxistentialist


Considering how patriotic you boys can be at times, and rightly so, I am amazed you do not give credit where it is due where American autos are concerned.

Uncle Henry is rightly proud of the GT40 and 1968 and the Le Mans years. The same American designed GT40 is one of the most beautiful shapes ever raced, surpassed only by the elegance of some Bizzarinis IMHO.

Never mind the shape, what about the engineering, and the team effort, and the driving, and winning all around them? To me, that was the automotive equivalent of walking on the moon.
The Yanks came over and beat two dedicated sports car companies, Ferrari and Porsche, at their own game. Like they said they would.

That GT is a beautiful motor, even if it is retro. I like the shape of the new Mustang also, nice sculptured look. I can NOT understand how in this day and age they get away with putting a live rear axle in the thing. {Did you guys all write to Dearborn and say you wanted live axles?? }

Joe

I dount many people here know that story Joe. That's where the 1968 connection came from. These cars (GT-40) were truly the worlds best and beat them at LeMans.

Todd

[drivemusicnow]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets


But they didn't build a Ferrari. Sure, they may have used the 360 as (as Todd explained) a benchmark, but they didn't copy it, did they? No, Ford built their own car - quote the opposite of what you're accusing them of.

I would go so far as to praise Ford for analyzing a product they wanted to compete with, and going to great lengths to achieve their goals. If every car manufacturer did this, American cars in general would be much higher quality.

I simply don't understand how studying a competitor's product and aiming higher 'pisses you off.'

what car did Ferrari tear down when making the 360? I just think that using someone else engineering feat, and merely improving on it, without paying ferrari, other than for the actual vehicle, is like cheating. (I actually do plan on going into the automotive industry as an engineer also) I understand that they are just setting a specific target to beat, but it still seems to me like Ford can't fully design there own car to beat the ferrari. Its like looking at the solution to a crossword puzzle as you try to solve it. Sure its easier, but how much pride can you take in it when you solve it?