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?
Reply to
Nicholas Anthony
Loading thread data ...

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?

Reply to
My Names Nobody

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.

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.

the > '67 GTA?

The part "A" stood for automatic trans.

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.

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

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

Reply to
NoOption5L

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote . For instance a

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

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

Kate

06 Rubi rubi rubiiiiiiiiiiiiiicon!
Reply to
Kate

Nehhh. Early model Shelby GT500's from Ford had them.

Reply to
GILL

The California Special's had them.

Al

Reply to
Big Al

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.

Reply to
WindsorFox[SS]

Still put on from the factory.

Reply to
GILL

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

Reply to
My Names Nobody

"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote

Well GOOD then, they WEREN'T original to Mustangs

Nyaa nyaa nyaa naaaaaaaaaa

¦¬Þ

Kate

Reply to
Kate

"Big Al" wrote

HAH! Before my time.

Damn, I was beginning to wonder if ANYTHING was sti;; "before my time"

Kate

Reply to
Kate

Too damn bad they didn't stop to think that when a lot of people think 350, they think Chevy 350.

Kate

Reply to
Kate

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.