Sure they got alot right, but...
- Thread starter jbyrnes
- Start date
SteveA
GT Owner/B.O.D
A little off topic, but couldn't they use this same argument for not paying when a car has had HP added, windows tinted, body lifted, lowered, different wheels and tires other than stock, etc?
I had an employee with a 8" lift on a ford F-250 4x4 with over-sized tires. He was driving through an intersection with the green when a 3 series BMW ran the red. His bumper was just under the max allowed but was still high enough to strike the driver in the head and killed him. Nothing was ever made of the extensive mods made to his truck buy the police or ins. companies.
teej
GT Owner
So who has a theory on how the GT got away without a front bumper, if in fact the fed reg's says they're required? Remember the old Lambo Countach that apparently threw in the towel to an integral solution and bolted on a railroad tie and painted it black?. EEEk! - talk about putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. Since there's alot of modern cars without visible front bumpers now I assume there's a simple answer.
Attachments
SteveA
GT Owner/B.O.D
There was a period of time (I believe between '73 and '74) when this law came into effect that many cars were cosmetically ruined. I can still recall in '73 the hideous black rubber bumpers mandated on the fronts only of many sports cars ie. Corvette's, Jag's, Pantera's, Porsche's etc. The cars looked ridiculous with their sleek, form fitted chrome rear bumpers and their fat black bulbous "stuck on at the last minute" fronts.
MTV8
GT Owner
My favorite complaint is from the British show Fifth Gear where the host states that he does not like how the GT makes so much power across the rev band. And he is serious about it.
soroush
Ford Gt Owner
- Aug 8, 2007
- 5,256
MTV8
GT Owner
It may be that Tiff Needell of Fifth Gear was just trying to be contrary to Clarkson.