Simple solution, slap an intercooled Radix on it and sell it for 35K. Sales winner and image builder. Then enthusiasts wouldn't be upset with their SS getting killed by L or HDs or Hemis.

 

That must be why they set limitation on themselves. You don’t think they could increase production by at least a few hundred (if not thousand) by just mass-marketing them and selling them through every Ford dealer and reaching a wider customer base? They certainly haven’t done that. So what’s your logical explanation for this? L’s aren’t cheap, but they’re attainable at $29-33k (depending on year).

I see you’re being very generous with the sports truck designation. I guess those Land Rovers can be considered sport trucks as well. The retro TB’s gotta be a performance/sports car. Maybe we’ll toss in the FX4 ranger or any other Ford/GM vehicle with an ounce of off-road capability into the sports truck segment. Face it, you know the performance I’m talking about. A semi may be king of towing performance, but that doesn’t make it a performance vehicle. Other than the SS, those vehicles mentioned are not what I’d call performance or sports trucks. Yes, there are other factors in sportiness but you know the 3 core factors: Handling, acceleration, and braking. First and foremost, these are street vehicles. While I don’t question the H2’s off-road capability, I’d hardly call that heavy pig sporty.

I guess those trucks (except SS) can be considered sport trucks much in the same way a sumo wrestler can be considered an Athlete. Lol. It’s a far stretch, but one can go with that reasoning.

That’s the point and Ford KNOWS that well. But going by your theory, PROFITS ARE EVERYTHING. By your accounts, the GT should have never seen production. It goes against everything you’ve said about profits being EVERYTHING. Not every vehicle owes its existence to huge profits. Sometimes they’re primarily used to evoke excitement and draw attention. By your logic, the ONLY vehicles sold should be boring family sedans, trucks, and Suv’s that sell in large volumes. Large volumes=more potential profits. The fact that that isn’t the case, and the fact that vehicles far from that exist, and the fact that manufacturer are still investing in such vehicles makes your whole point moot. Under certain circumstances, a vehicle is seen as more than JUST a profit generator. You can deny it all you want but there are exceptions to the rule. Your general rule doesn’t apply to EVERY vehicle.

Really? Jacques Nasser wasn’t around the time of the GT’s approval for production. He wasn’t even around for the concepts unveiling in the 2002 auto show. Only after viewing public reception was the choice made. He/they (Ford) also waited a long time (vette’s been around for 50 years and viper for 12 or so years). In the process they (Ford) has created and passed up some very interesting concepts that would have been good supercar candidates. Another weird things is: They’re targeting the Ferrari 360 and not the zo6 or viper with the GT. So much for producing a Viper/Vette competitor. Ford also had Aston Martin and Jaguar under their belt for some time now so that fulfilled the need for corporate supercars, so what could have called for the creation of the GT? The “fragile ego” as you put it seems to have had little to do with it.

Unoriginal? Just because it’s based off a predecessor that was only a race version? Was there a street version I’m not aware of? From what I recall, this is the ONLY and FIRST production GT/40. Too similar? and I guess you’ve driven and been in both the original and new GT/40 to make such a connection. Other than exterior styling, they don’t have much in common. About everything else including the dimensions are different. Another thing you may have missed… There were 2 or 3 different GT40 designs, one with a sharper more modern look. Guess what? Ford didn’t go with the new edge look, but stuck with the classic form. Having said that, do you think the 2004 GT is out of place like some of the other retro designs? I think it fits right in, and its design has that modern look to it. Pure race cars are for the most part ahead of their time and that may have lended to its fairly modern look.

Maybe you should address that question to Ford directly. They’re obviously hurting financially, and so I’m sure they’ve thought of this well before approving it for production. They certainly can’t afford to throw money around in this stage. They seem to believe it as a worthwhile investment. Has the Ford GT not already being featured in mags (cover pic on many)? Hasn’t there been some excitement surrounding it? The fact that people are talking about it and the fact that Ford makes such a vehicle of that caliber does something for the image of the brand in general. There’s that basic connection. It has an oval badge and that brings some sort of respect/credibility to Ford. Certain cars have that attraction. Can you imagine Dodge without the fabled Hemi cars or the Viper? Chevy without camaro/vette? Ford without Mustang? Again, I don’t know the clear answer. You’ll get a clearer answer from Ford. I do know two things: 1) it most likely won’t generate good profits and 2) it is approved for production.

We won’t see too many H2’s, etc… off-road either so what? But I’m sure we’ll see plenty of them with Bling bling rims and middle aged professionals who couldn’t care less about off-road capability. There'll be a few enthusiasy who'll take them off-road though.

I doubt anyone who spends a 150k on a car to begin with is worried about cost of parts or repairs. It’s safe to assume that person is a Millionaire whose pockets are fairly deep. As for racing/track, what makes you think they won’t show up? Most won’t, but a few might. Enthusiasts do buy these cars as well and I’ve seen/heard of my own share of exotics participating in race events. Last I checked, it had a S/c’ed MOD motor 5.4 (the engine isn’t super-exotic). Parts for it may not be bargain cheap by our standards, but when compared to other high priced supercars, it will be. That holds true for at-least the engine. The other parts I’m sure will cost you an arm and a leg to replace. But the more fortunate owners of such cars have plenty of arms and legs to spare or so it seems.

No sunroof, but there's that nifty glass cover out back which shows off your shiney 500+hp engine.

Ps: Man could we get more off-topic then this. What haven't we discussed to date?.

 

I never said it would fail. I simply noted my personal observation and the general consensus on most of these automotive boards. They may or may not be a good representative of the general population. My personally experience: ugly, slow, and expensive don’t mix successfully. But I’m sure there’ll be people who think it’s attractive and who’re willing to fork the extra $$. We all have our reasons for our purchases i guess. Till then, we'll have to wait for the numbers.

2005 Mustang and Iroc-Z…I fail to see the connection.

I never said it lacked utility did i? I said the utility wasn’t that of a truck and the performance wasn’t that of a car. It isn’t truck or car like. The SSR’s utility seems fairly decent. I suppose that’s good enough for most people. And I’m sure most buyers will buy it for the things you’ve said.

I expect V to be better than PVO or SVT. They'll have to if they want to be compared to ///M or AMG. The CTS-V is looking good btw. I wouldn’t call the SVT contour a silly dud either. Very few GM/Ford cars handle as well as it did, even by 2004 standards.

Neither looks really sporty. Both have their drawbacks. The HD (like other F-150’s) has the smoother more aerodynamic look which can lend to a sporty appearance. It has the smoother lines usually associated with cars while other trucks have the more blocky rig look. It also appears to have a wider stance as well judging by the pics I’ve seen (could have been the angle). One may have 4 full doors, but it also looks more contoured and smooth.

I though they offered a quad Cab Hemi with 2wd or 4wd.

Lol, that’s assuming you have the 14k on hand to begin with. Chances are, you wouldn’t buy an 18k truck if you had the money to afford a 33k one. Like I mentioned earlier, anyone can play the budget game. Usually, it’s played by those of us who aren’t as spendy or who lack the $$$. Budget minded people aren’t the type that buy new vehicles, then spend just as much modifying it, lol. That isn’t the reason why people buy Cobras, Firehawks, zo6’s, L’s, etc… when cheaper alternatives are available.

Those who do pulley do so knowing the risks. When we debated over the value of the Imp SS, you told me how the owner of the Imp could simply change pulleys and have more power than the maxima’s.

I simply questioned if they took such factors into account. Estimates are just estimates. Ex: If we all followed Kelly Blue book estimates, I could have gotten a Supra TT for under 15,000 dollars. Back in 95 or 96, would Edmunds have accurately guessed the value of a Supra or Imp SS today? I was pointing out that specific flaw. I don't know if such estimates take supply and demand into account. Rarer items generally fetch more. Despite being 15 years old, you can't find a decent Syclone/Typhoon for under 10g's. Most seem to be in the mid teens. Supply and demand.

We’ll have to wait and see. The 96 Imp SS’s value didn’t drop just because Mercury offered a new Marauder. Syclone values didn't drop just because Ford came out with the 5.8 and later S/c 5.4 Lightning and Chevy with the 454 Silverado SS and now 6.0L SS. # 1 and 2 most likely won’t happen. Both companies seem to be interested in maximum performance. That goes against the L’s basic design philosophy. Would chevy build a 4 seater vette? You can get a 345hp Quad Cab Hemi and there are tuners who’ll sell you an L clone with 4 doors if you desire such muscle truck. The Ls6 SS sounds very good and that should have been the current SS, but I doubt it’d hurt HD, expecially if the blown HD is only limited to 03 year(rarer). The Ls6 SS would have to be more than just an engine package as well. Make the interior/exterior more special and somehow figure out a way to keep production down. Obviously, if its on every block, none would pay as much. As for avalanche SS, no comment.

The HD can be likened to a special Anniversary additions. A 2004 Mystic paint 10th anniv Cobra may not be as fast or good as the upcoming 2006 Cobra, but i doubt its value would drop significantly just because the 06 is introduced. The 96 mystic cars still fetch a decent penny and they'll probably end up being collectibles. While the HD may or may not be a collectors vehicle, i believe it'll hold its value fairly well over the years. Just a guesstimate so take it with a grain of salt.

 

You’ve mis-interpreted my post. The example I used involved a modified N/A Dohc 4.6 Cobra vs a stock 03 Cobra, and I pointed out how the modified N/A 4.6 could be faster than a stock 03 (Cosby runs 11’s N/A with bolt-ons). But that victory would be short-lived once the 03 started seeing mods. The same with comparing a Heads/Cam 6.0 to a stock blown 5.4 as you’ve done. The Heads/Cam SS maybe be faster than the HD and maybe on par or even faster than the L, but that all means little when the blown 5.4 starts seeing mods as well.

That was the basic point/analogy behind my example. So let me rephrase again: You can compare a heavily modified SS or even a reg 1500 to a stock HD or L all you want, but you aren’t the only one that knows how to play the mod game.

Btw- that puny 4.6 isn’t short on potential. Last I checked, the fastest 4.6 was faster than the fastest Ls-X car.

Is that why we’re modifying v8’s and not 4 banger? So you’re basically saying an SS owner would have to have deeper pockets if they want to play with the other sport trucks? lol.

AWD? It may be an advantage but it will turn into a weakness as the power increases. It saps top-speed, adds weight, and parts breakage are nearly doubled. No thanks. In near stock applications it’s fine, but I’ll settle for Rwd when pushing serious horses.

True if you know what to look for. But again, you missed my BASIC point/drift: The differences that set it apart are less than the HD’s. The SS’s styling almost seems tamer and regular Silverado’sh by comparison.

You’re comparing one brand to a whole other class of bikes. That’s like comparing the Mustang to every import coupe in existence or the Vette to every supercar. That alone tells me something. So what specific sports bike brand rivals Harley here in the states in terms of popularity and icon factor? I’ll make it easy and ask for just ONE brand. I’ll make it easier and tell you the answer: None. No other bike brand is more coveted here in the states. HD is simply an American legend. The Supra TT may be an excellent performance car but it doesn’t hold a candle to a vette or even a lower-class car like the Mustang in popularity or icon factor.

Anyways, this topic is headed for nowhere. Lets find some common ground.

*Best muscle truck: Either future SRT-10 or current/future L depending on year. Based on perforance.
*Best value in terms of performance: Current L
*Best rear legroom, comfort, 4 door peformance: 03 HD
*Best mix of practicality and performance that'd make most satisfied: SS

I think we can agree on that. Everything else is subjective and based of personal prefrence. Lets agree on this at least.

 

Simple. They CAN'T. Not enough buyers WANT a muscle truck with no back seat. Hence, the HD. But not many buyers want one of those either, I'd guess mostly due to the lack of AWD and coupled with the clunky wish-I-was-a-work-truck styling. Thus, they are kept 'exclusive'

I'm hardly being generous with the classification - merely following trends in the enthusiast world and the marketplace. Yes - Land Rovers are sport trucks to their enthusiasts, especially the owners who use their splendid offroad capabilities to the hilt. Offroading is indeed a sport - perhaps you should widen your 1/4 mile horizons and try it sometime. I had a K5 Blazer when I used to live in Colorado and we used it a lot for camping in the mountains... sure felt like a sport truck to me, crawling over deeply rutted fire roads and leaving differential marks in 14-inch deep snow. You need to get out more often

Here's some sport truck pix from -you guessed it- www.sportruck.com (BTW the FIRST one you will see is an H2 ): http://www.sportruck.com/events/sctj03/1.html

Sorry to break it to you. Profits ARE everything. Why? The shareholders DEMAND it. As a matter of fact, I do think the production GT is a mistake. It draws attention alright. It says 'Hey look at us. We're making $150k Ferraris now. We're moving upscale, goodbye budget-oriented performance fans. Oh you wanted a lightweight 2-seat Mustang variant with that wunnerful supercharged V8? Tough. Wanted a retro-inspired Torino-like coupe with a honkin V8 to haul your family in style? Forget it. We're busy right now, developing a carbon copy of our famous 1960's LeMans racer, to sell to rich cigar-chomping executives'. Phooey.

What indeed. I guess you're right though, it wasn't Nasser's ego needs in the case of the GT, it was J Mays: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/ar...449837,00.html

Speaking of Jaguar and Aston Martin - you have Nasser to thank for that (he's mentioned in the above article too, apparently his 'overly ambitious international expansion' contributed to a $5B 'lack of profit' at Ford in 2001).

There was: http://formen.ign.com/news/8895.html?fromint=1
And there is: http://www.gt40.co.nz/

You can buy a 'GT40' today. So what.

Obviously not. But I can tell by looking at the old and the new that the design team, regardless of their dedication to meet the production deadline, was utterly lacking in creativity and courage. As for the name - do you call the new car a 'GT/40' on purpose? You do know about its unique and catchy new name, right? (It's "GT" )

...thanks to Nasser and his crew, buying every foreign brand in sight. I'd write to Ford, ask them to get back to basics with design, but I doubt they would listen.

And I'm sure the engine will appreciate the view to the rear! It better, because GT drivers will have sacrificed it pretty much completely to that ungrateful beast. And since when does the ENGINE need or deserve a sunroof?

Hmm. I did get a little carried away there huh. Never mind.

Styling is wildly subjective, but while I do agree the HD is 'smooth' I still prefer the looks of the SS as a 'sporty' truck. The squareness of the SS front end makes it look meaner. IMHO the HD is in fact TOO smooth and rounded.

They do, but it's not badged or marketed as an R/T 'performance' truck.

Well now, why wouldn't I? Say I've got $33k in the bank... maybe I want the performance of an L but want to see if I can do it for less. I go get that simple reg cab Silverado... mod it up, and if it holds together while I have my fun, I pocket the difference. If the engine blows up, I plug in my spare crate motor and am likely still way below the $33k bogie. Meantime, the poor L owner is watching their 'investment' ( ) depreciate.

Yes. I mention this because I have done it, with my GTP's. My 98 had a mild pulley and a couple other mods - but the dealer didn't hassle me for warranty work (due mostly to the fact, I never had a mod-related failure or repair). Heavy mods, especialy including a pulley, are asking for it.

No, I know exactly what you meant in your 4.6 comparison. But maybe you are instead missing MY point. My point was, comparing a build-up of a NA 4.6 and a SC 4.6 is NOT the same as comparing a build-up of a NA 6.0 and a SC 5.4. The 4.6 engines are SMALLER. Of COURSE 4.6 owners are going to grab for a power adder, its the best 'replacement for displacement'. But the 6.0 already has plenty of displacement, you then just need a cam and the ability to pass a lot of gas in and out (IE, heads/headers) and you'll be right up there with the vaunted SC 5.4.

I'm curious... got some specifics to back that up?

Gads. Still hung up on the sacred 1/4 mile aren't we. Go out, live a little. Take your truck on some dirt roads. Try it in the snow. Etc. And take a look at sportruck.com for horizon-widening homework

Already too easy: HONDA. They sold 900,000 motorcycles in 2002, about triple that of HD. HD's bikes have a cool factor, but are an utter joke in the performance department compared to a Honda CBR of just about any displacement. In my motorcycle days I had Suzukis and Hondas and they were a total blast. THOSE were the motorcycle icons of my youth and my chums.

 

Sorry, had to mod your list a little:

*Best muscle truck in the sacred 1/4 mile: Either future SRT-10 or current/future L depending on year. Based on perforance.
*Best value in terms of warm-sunny-weather performance: Current L
*Best rear legroom, comfort, 4 door performance for a maximum of four occupants: 03 HD
*Best rear legroom, comfort, 4 door performance for a maximum of five occupants: SS
*Best mix of practicality and performance that'd make most satisfied: SS
*Best motorcycle for those who CARE about performance: Honda CBR
*Best motorcycle for tough bearded tattoed guys: Harley

(I hope I never have to read this thread out loud in a biker bar)

 

GM would have a serious sales winner if they would price the SS at 10% less. Adding a four link to the rear would give a decided handling advantage. If GM wants to play with the L and SRT 10, they need a Radix intercooled LQ9 from the factory. A five speed auto along with larger brakes would make the SS the "Cadillac" of sport trucks. I would have bought one if it were cheaper. I will have to happily settle for my 1500 Ram Quad Cab with the HEMI!

 

Really? If they sold them at every Ford dealer, and every Ford dealer sold only TWO L’s every year, they’d have surpassed the current production numbers of 7,500 units. 2 L’s per dealer per year is being very conservative too.

So Ford’s sport-truck offerings are actually more than 2. Chalk more up for them then.

For the most part, they are street vehicles and the three charecterisitic of a high performance street vehicles are acceleration, braking, and handling. Like I said earlier: They can be considered sport trucks much in the same way a sumo wrestler can be considered an Athlete. By pure definition Yes, by general definition…NO. By your definition, many vehicles that we don’t associate as high-performance are actually high performance vehicles. A tanks off-road capabilty is hard to beat, but it isn’t a performance vehicle. A truck with huge swampers, and some sort of off-road suspension may be a good trail vehicle, but it isn’t a high performance vehicle in my book. There’s room for debate there, but in the context of the SS, Hemi, SRT-10, Syclone, L, and HD; you know the EXACT type of sport/performance I’m talking about.

What is the SSR’s excuse? NO off road capability and what I’m guessing will be a fairly poor on-road performance. Still, you called it a “muscle” and “sports-truck”. Hardly deserving of such designation.

Who said low production cars can’t generate a profit? The notion that SVT is profitable has been thrown around here. If the shareholders demand it so much, where do limited production cars come into the picture? How can manufacturers and shareholders make a good enough business case for them?

While I’m glad you know (or pretend to at least) more than 100 year old Ford Motor Co, I’m just glad you aren’t an exec cause if you were, and going along with your logic, nothing but boring, practical, high volume cars would ever see the light of day. Oddly AMG has waiting lists for their cars as do many other makers of limited production vehicles. Why not increase sales to keep up with demand? Aston Martin continually has a 2-3 year waiting list for their cars as well. Why do they purposely set their production low if it’s all about profits? I guess “image” isn’t much of a concern to you. Another flaw with you argument. If it was 100% correct, we’d have nothing but boring high volume cars. The fact that isn’t the case proves there are more to them than just profits.

Why is CTS-V production said to be limited to 3k-4k units annually accord to MT? Chevy can sell 8-9k 50k dollar 2 seater z06’s yet Cadillac can’t sell half that? Even with the V having a roomier rear seat, 2 extra doors, same powertrain, and more luxury for almost the same price. You don’t think they can sell 8-10k of these babies? Explain please. Why doesn’t their sales plan sound so profit motivated? Why doesn’t it sound so aggressive? Where are these Cadillac shareholders demands?

So you're basically saying the V-series, SS, GTO, etc…. are creations of Lutz’s fragile ego? Well now we know why such performance vehicles exist. We owe all our performance cars to “fragile egos” as you’ve put it.

You can buy supposed street legal versions of many race cars….so what? It’s basically an ACTUAL race car with a few changes. Hardly street legal or streetable (40”??). About as streetlegal as those supposed 6sec ProStreet cars. That article was interesting. An old GT40 will set you back at least $500,000, and one with race history will set you back 5,000,000. Makes the 04’s look like bargain and practical cars. Regardless, I’d love to have one in my garage. I have to ask though, how many of these GT40’s exist? Probably don’t even reach 3 figures. Little have probably survived. Go ahead, show me these production numbers.

Spoken like someone who only knows only a third of the story. This is from that same article you posted: “In designing the car's body, Pardo weighed two options: a revolutionary look paying respect to the past but with modern sweeps and surfaces, or a more literal update of the original. Pardo's first try, which Mays, his boss, characterized as "generically modern," wore hard edges and abbreviated proportions. The clipped nose resembled a contemporary BMW. The design didn't jell. Theodore recalls, "Every time we deviated from a classic look, the car looked like every other doorstop-shaped supercar."

Obviously, they did play with a few different looks and other looks were taken into consideration. I have seen the more modern version and It did look very nice. But they still picked the classic look over it. Lack of creativity or was the classic look of the original hard to top? Looks like it came down to the preference of the GT’s designers and what they thought looked best or best fitting. A different look/option was actually on the table, but was passed up. Bet you didn’t know that or.... maybe you did since you posted that article but chose to ignore it.

Where they not GT cars? They were GT cars and so the name Ford GT is very fitting. I call it the GT/40 because that’s what everyone knows it as. By strict definition, it never would had been a true GT/40 since the 40 was in reference to its height.

Like putting out retro’s that look more like the Chevy SSR and HHR rather than the Mustang and GT. You should title it: “Quit making your reto’s so damn attractive.”.

 

It’s cool. It’s like showing off a piece of art. From the pictures I’ve seen, a lot of aesthetic attention was paid to the engine compartment. It looked very nice. Why not show it off?

Are you complaining about the mid engine setup now? Before, it was lack of sunroof on the GT and now this. You’ll pick at anything good or bad. Lol. NEWS FLASH: You can’t get the z06 with a sunroof or T-tops. I’m waiting for you to complain about the lack of rear seating, headroom, and traction in the snow next.

It wasn’t a question of preference but a question of sportiness. Does a smoother, rounded, and more aero look not lend to the appearance of sportiness? How does it compare to the blocky look?

Niether is the reg Cab Hemi, so?

Why wouldn’t you? Why don’t you ask yourself that. Lemme ask…Why’d you pick a Comp-G over a cheaper N/A GP? Why’d you pick a T/A over a v6 firebird? Something tells me your theoretical situation isn’t usually the case, and it ISN’T. I look at your vehicle lineup, and I see that isn’t the case for you either. You bought it because you could afford it.

You don’t think that 18k Silverado will depreciate? Those mods won’t add to the bottom value of your truck. In the end, you’d have spent 33k on a truck that was only worth 18-19k to begin with. If anything, that L will probably be worth more down the line. Talk about a worse investment :lol. You can spend $15k in mods on a 2003 Cobra, but that doesn’t make it a 50k vehicle like the z06. You can spend 14k on an 19k Silverado, but that doesn’t make it a 33k truck. Try selling it 2 years later and you’ll be lucky to even get the initial $19k purchase price back. In the end: it’s nothing more than a regular Silverado 1500, therefore nothing special (regardless of the mods). Talk about losing money. If you think 14k in mods will add value to your truck or makes it a better investment, you’re sadly mistaken.

Btw, you might want to have a few spare trannies as well…preferably heavy duty ones. 2 crate motors and 2 trannies would easily put you over your 14k budget. That isn’t even including labor, swap parts, suspension/chassis/tire/wheel, etc….upgrades to handle the extra power, etc… It’s not as simple as dropping a crate motor in and calling it a day. You’ll have to improve the overall performance of the car which means modifications in all key performance areas and you have to make sure every part is up to the task. In the end, I’d hardly call it a value.

So repairs would have to have been caused by the pulley swap in order for the warranty to be voided? So for the most part, one can get away with a mild-pulley assuming the engine can handle the additional boost and it doesn’t lead to engine failure.

Maybe I should repeat myself once again. That was JUST a hypothetical example in reference to your comparison between a MODED Heads/Cam 6.0 vs STOCK S/c 5.4. It was ONLY used to illustrate my point that most anything can be modified to beat a stock opponent, and how anyone can play the mod game.

This is an entirely different topic, but look around. There are quite a few in the 8’s and 7’s. I believe the fastest MOD motor 4.6 is in the 6’s@200mph. The fastest Drag radial *SOHC* 4.6L GT makes 1000+rwhp and pulls 8’s. The Dohc cars are a bit faster. You might wanna throw Bill Cosby a PM since he knows what’s going on in the racing world. I don’t follow it as well but i'm positive that the fastest 5.4's and 4.6's are bit faster than the Ls engines.

Sorry. Honda isn’t as legendary as HD. At least here in the states. You can deny that all you want, but that is a fact.

$16-35k Mustangs also outsell 40-50k vettes, and Chevy’s outsell Cadillac’s: no surprises there. What’s the average price of a Hog and a typical Honda? I believe the average price of a new Hog is $16k. As far as bikes go, Hogs are fairly pricey and are almost a luxury. That might explain why the average HD buyer has an average annual salary of $78k. How many clubs/chapters does Honda have in America? Over 600? HD is also the 44th most recognized Brand in the World. Not bad for just a Motorcycle company.

A lot of todays youths don’t look at the f-bod or Mustang as their icons: they look at Evo’s, Type R’s, Skylines, Supra’s, rx7’s, and other pocket rockets as such. That doesn’t change the fact that these American cars are still American icons. Also, I’m not too concerned with todays youth. Hogs aren’t youth motorcycles, nor are they sport bikes. They don’t pretend to be either.

 

If - if - if. Why don't they. No doubt, they would if they COULD.

Hooray! Time for a little golf clap now I guess.

You might want to go back and look, never have I called an H2 or a ZR2 a 'muscle truck'. They do however offer high performance in the sport of offroading. And this is where the SS is clearly superior to both the HD and L - an SS can perform well on the street but also maintain poise and mobility offroad. The Hemi 4dr cab 4WD can *kind of* do this too, although it is heavier/slower and has no visual excitement going for it such as an R/T trim package. As for sumo wrestlers... I believe a better analogy for the SS is that it resembles a triathlete. Sure, there are athletes who are faster on a short track (sprinters, and they need ideal traction conditions to excel). But the SS can move out on just about any terrain. An M1 Abrams tank, not a high performance vehicle? Tell that to all the ill-fated rusting hulks which had the unfortunate fate of tangling with them in the Iraqi desert

What's the Thunderbird's excuse? Clearly it's meant for those who like to cruise in style. It appears they should have first applied with you for a legal cruising permit

Sure, low volume cars can make a profit. But if you can sell more at the same profit, why not do so?

Strange, I never claimed to know more than Ford's leadership, just pointed out some errors I'm sure they are aware of already. Ford's doing a lot of things right today, the new F150 being one of them. I will say this though - if I could help them make decisions I would ask for some new cars like the 1970 Torino CobraJet and the 1966 Galaxie 500, comfortable, capable and beautiful cars which the average Joe like me can afford. Guess what? I don't want a GT or a Corvette in my garage. I need a back seat for my tykes.

Here's a concept. Maybe that is ALL ANYONE WANTS. Many of these small companies are not tooled for high-volume production. Buyers gladly pay for 'TLC-style' manually-intensive production schemes and wholeheartedly buy into the 'exclusive' panache as a prestige prop. Producers like Aston Martin would gladly sell twice as many units but there is not much demand for expensive supercars and no frugal way to extend their production lines to make a bunch more anyway. And Aston Martin WANTS there to be a waiting list for their cars... it's part of the 'exclusivity' mirage that keeps buyers willing to pay the outrageous prices.

As for the CTS-V - Maybe you didn't notice in all the excitement... the base CTS V6 also got more HP in 04. The regular CTS has plenty of road performance for the majority of CTS buyers. Maybe 3-4k CTS-V sales are what Cadillac expects there to be demand for. Imagine that!

Huh? How's that related. Unlike the strato-priced GT, all the cars you mentioned are actually affordable by middle-class buyers, and for that matter Lutz has little to prove with the Viper in his past and the Z06 currently offering world-class road performance at a bargain price.

(Sorry, don't have time for such a meaningless task). IF you were objective, you'd now be wondering - how many GT's will buyers want now from Ford?

This whole thing is old news... I recall when the concept first hit the stage, articles like this in our paper: http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosins...a10-383401.htm

It says in there that Mays rejected the modern interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, he's part of the team. He gave them direction, did he not? But here, let Pardo speak for himself: "Freeing ourselves of the fear of creating a car that looked too much like the original was a liberating experience" (it's from the article I didn't read ) It liberated them alright - from the challenge of creating a bold NEW design, one that breaks new ground instead of clinging to the familiar past. In fact, I much prefer the GT90 concept of 1995: http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/fordgt90.html

WHY show it off? Because it was cool in 1963? Forty years have passed... and today's motorists have newfangled ideas, like having the sun shine on THEM instead of the engine.

The new Mustang's pretty edgy and blocky, no one's complaining it's not sporty.

Wait a minute. Wasn't it you who just above, was complaining how similar you think the SS is to a regular Silverado?

Crummy analogy. There are a lot of electronic package considerations favoring a CompG, including TapShift and Stabilitrak. Things like these are not a simple bolt-on....

Obviously my example of buying a near-base Silverado L fighter is not for everyone. First you'd need to be on fire to go spank L's at a track... so you'd likely be a motorhead, have your own engine hoist etc. You'd likely pull the stock engine and harness and put in a crate engine, bolstered by a few forged internals and an auto trans with beefy aftermarket parts, cooler and stall converter. Then you'd likely not even need to buy a second engine or trans for the duration. When finished, you'd plop the stock engine and harness back in before selling the vehicle. You speak as if I have no experience... well I do have some, my bro and I did an engine transplant on my 1970 Chevelle in the span of a day or two. Big deal.

Thanks for the tip professor. But I learned it years ago selling cars I have owned. You virtually always come out ahead pulling the parts and selling them separately. As for depreciation, all cars depreciate - but here it's like me falling from the first floor and you, from the roof!

Apparently you didn't read my whole statement. HEAVY mods like the ones you so often allude to so as to be able to dominate an SS, would likely result in warranty voiding (again, lying cheaters excluded). Mild pulleys, K&N, catbacks, are nothing that impressive anyway (unless on a GTP )

Has the redundancy therein become apparent to you yet?

I'll take that as a 'NO'

Who cares? How many bottles of vintage wine does he/she have in their wine cellar? I couldn't care less. Let the Harley be the 'legendary icon' ( ). In contrast, Hondas are making more owners grin every day.

 

I wanted an SS, and like a lot of enthusiasts, was disappointed in the performance of the GM option. Wanting to stay GM, I was considering going the cheap, light version that was opined in GMHight tech Performance. But wanting a warranty, and a dependable mode of transportation, I decided to get the Hemi. My Hemi came with leather, Infinity sounds, power everything, towing package and was selling for less than a Silverado SS by 17K. I know that the few mods I have done, and the mods that are forthcoming, I will not only be able to hang with the SS, I will spank it. Look out HDS, a white Hemi is trolling your way. This is without going into the motor and with minor bolt ons. What is GM doing to address the need for cheap RWD fun that GM fanatics like myself want? It seems they are moving upscale, with less performance. Doesn't seem like the right direction to me. Hear our pleas, and give us back our beloved F-bodys (the reason we are all here) and RWD Impalas. My next planned purchase will be a 300 C or a Charger. Unless GM plans on making a four door RWD performance car with a V-8, I am outta here!

 

How'd you manage that? I went to edmunds.com, spec'd out a Hemi Ram 1500 Quad Cab comparably equipped as an SS would be (so I included the Laramie pkg to get leather/power everything/fancy stereo; 20" wheels, towing group, sport appearance group, locker diff, heated seats, rear window defroster)... street price comes to $30,255. That's about $4600 less than the street price for an 04 SS. (Actually, I'm being generous here -- it appears the 4WD version is another $3k on top of the number I gave, so to truly be comparable to the AWD SS it would be about $33,255!) But it also includes some disadvantages vs. an SS:

1. The REGULAR cab Hemi tested by Truck Trend was slower to 60 and in the 1/4 than the SS. (Go ahead, get your mods. Part for part, the SS will be ahead every step of the way).
2. The Ram is cheaper at the outset, but also has poorer initial quality than the Silverado, according to JD Power surveys... http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrel...ID=736&CatID=1
3. The Ram takes farther to stop than the SS according to Truck Trend testing.
4. The Ram's got that goofy grille I keep expecting Yosemite Sam to climb out of with his guns a'blazing

 

You’re fairly good at dodging certain questions. That was the question I asked you. So why? What’s stopping them? “If they could, they would” isn’t the answer I’m looking for. You’ll have to be a little more specific. Let me hear your specific reasons. Surely, if more L sales were that important, they’d have done so. The fact that they’ve basically tied one hand and leg behind their back by limiting maximum sales potential doesn’t sync well with your idea of a maximum profits. If the sales and profits of the SVT’s were as important as you say (and the shareholders demand it), they’d at least make attainability easier. Before moving up here, the closest SVT dealer to my old place was 90 miles away, and this was a town with 2 or 3 other Ford dealers. Now I’m in a major metro are and still am 26 miles away from the same SVT dealer. But I am within a 2 miles distance of Two large non-SVT Ford dealers.

I won’t have to go back because I never said you said that about the H2 or ZR2. You must have gotten it mixed up with other parts of my long rants. I SPECIFICALLY said you called the “SSR” a muscle truck. Before you deny that , Look at my reply a couple of quotes down.

If you look at my post, I never likened the SS to the sumo since the SS is fairly athletic. I put “except SS” in parentheses if you look back. I likened the Sumo to the slower trucks (ZR2, H2). These are heavy and slow, and their performance is limited to areas where braking, handling, and acceleration aren’t as important but traction is.

Ahh, first the SSR was a vehicle that would be stealing sales from the L (basically an L competitor), and now it’s strictly a cruiser? You aren’t going back on your words are you?

The TB doesn’t need excuses. It’s as fast as any other luxury convertible in its class and is as functional as they are. It’ll turn 15.0’s and sub 91mph traps. I also never said the TB was a muscle car or even a performance oriented car to begin with. But..lemme refresh your mind. Tell me if these quotes ring a bell.

“I can think of at least five new performance-oriented vehicles….THIS YEAR alone:…the SSR…

“Speaking of muscle trucks... the SSR will soon start eating into L sales....”

Things that make you say “hmmm”.


Sport of off-roading? Lol. You make the SS sound like a serious off-road vehicle. Let’s get a few things straight. First, the SS’s AWD doesn’t even have a low/high-range setting or any control over the AWD system which can be very useful when off-roading. Most serious off-road vehicles come with that and in return have 4wd instead (Like H2). Secondly, Those 20” tires and low profile tires aren’t much help either. 3rd, I’d have a hard time believing that suspension is off-road duty. Admit it, the SS is primarily an on-road vehicle. It is NOT marketed as an off-roader and off-roading wasn’t GM’s intention or else they’ve have gone with the proper 4wd system, tires, and suspension.

You can grab at AWD traction to justify this “off-road sport” performance, but that SS’s AWD system and the SS”s intentions are nothing more than a muscle truck that also doubles as a foul weather fighter. In fact I did a search and Chevy doesn’t tout about its off-road capability. Rather, they talk about good traction on “wet and dry pavement”. Hmmm.

No doubt it’ll do fine in lesser off-road situations, (how fun is that?) but don’t make it sound like a vehicle intended for off-road use. My F-150 is more off-road capable than that ( Even better if i had gotten the FX4 off-road option). Atleast the H2 really has that off-road intentions/capability even though very few owners will ever take advantage of it.

 

Egads. I didn't dodge this question, you simply cannot accept my answer. How else can it be said? There is not enough DEMAND for L-type muscle trucks to expand production/distribution and Ford knows this.

And I stand by that statement. Was the 1982 Z28 a muscle car? You bet your booty it was. Hugely popular too, despite its relatively weak 165 hp TBI V8. The SSR is similar. It's a muscle truck that could use (and IMHO will get) a little HP injection. Most buyers though will use it as a cruiser... guess you'll be busy the next few years, issuing cruising-without-400hp citations

I suppose this is the closest you will ever come to admitting these models offer high performance in the sport of offroading. Oh well - so be it. Nonetheless I maintain they ARE SPORT TRUCKS. Quick - what's the word corresponding to the first letter in this acronym: SUV!

Snipe all you want about the offroad limitations of the SS package... it's still going to run rings around the L and HD in just about any offroad situation or for that matter, any non-ideal road situation

 

Wow, I read all 7 pages, and I can still speak in complete sentences.

First, from many pages back.......... using Edmunds market value as a way of showing how great your vehicle is, is fine............ if that is what it shows. Showing that GM is having to discount, on the average, $5K to sell the SS, is not flattering to that vehicle at all. Think of the poor saps who bought theirs at sticker price, only to turn around and see them for $5K+ less a month later. Used SS's are in the high $20K's. Talk about depreciation.

That Ford can market the Lightning (which you used in that comparison of prices) at MSRP, without rebates, or special interest rates........... is a testament to the integrity of the model. That we can sell our '01 with 56,000 miles, in the low $20K's is a testament to their relatively low depreciation.

As for your premise that Ford doesn't sell SVT at all dealerships and at higher volumes because they can't................ BS !!!!

If you actually know anything about SVT, you would know that the dealership system, and the limits were placed before the vehicles were EVER made. For your premise to stand up, they would have had to sell them everywhere............ and produced a sh*tload of them that didn't sell........... then backed off to where they are now. This didn't happen.

Just admit that Ford was able to come up with a formula of selling low volume, niche vehicles, that enthusiasts wanted. They did this for the pure reason of making the enthusiasts happy. In the process, they make some money (yes SVT is profitable in its own right), get some good press.......... and cause the other major manufacturers to try to copy them. That is quite an accomplishment.

Finally, mod a vehicle all you want. However, I would only do so if I never intended on selling it. Figure that the money you spend on mods is money that you throw out the window at selling time. $14K in mods will net you appx $1K extra in selling price in todays market. It will also make your vehicle much harder to sell, as someone will assume that you have beat the sh*t out of it.

Brand bias is fine. Completely basing product arguements on brand bias is silly.