soroush
Ford Gt Owner
- Aug 8, 2007
- 5,256
Its not odd at all, except for the silverware in the drawer thingy
the key word in your statement is "children" I dont have any, Im sure they would break that out of me as well:cheersSure they got alot right, but...
- Thread starter jbyrnes
- Start date
Its not odd at all, except for the silverware in the drawer thingy
the key word in your statement is "children" I dont have any, Im sure they would break that out of me as well:cheers
Wow - that sure got hings stirred up. I didn't intend this to be a GT bashing thread. Getting my car was a 40 year dream come true, and I treat it almost with reverence. My car is completely unmodified - and I realize that every "shortcoming" I whined about could be changed out with aftermarket fixes, but I enjoy the factory-original approach. Maybe I should have started the thread instead with " Imagine if the team had the time and money to make functional brake scoops, use tubular headers, and put a trans cooler on - wouldn't that have been cool! What else would you change or add?" (maybe that would have left off the discussions about cruise control and cup holders, I hope). Along those lines, can anyone answer why the indestructo beam bumper was required on the rear, but the more vulnerable front end didn't even need bumperettes? If the answer is that there is a front bumper, but it's built into the front structure - then that nose must be the most expensive front bumper Ford ever made.
H
HHGT
Guest
Don't pay any attention to these guys. Most of them are 70+ yr. old anticipating the next cavity exam.... Welcome to the fold.
I'm with you on this Ed. I've dinked with and modified cars since before I could drive, and I'm torn with keeping well enough alone on the GT. Fortunately lack of $$$ makes the decision easier, and I've got another fun car that I don't mind playing with.
fjpikul
GT Owner
hollywoodstunts
GT Owner
I love my GT.
As Shelby stated, it still looks current almost 6 years later. To me it's 60's design (the best era for car design) infused with modern technology, that give you the best of both worlds.
Now, having just returned from the dealer because one of my reverse lamps burned out, and unfortunately discover the rear brake light/reverse light is only sold as one complete unit for $825. The headlights are $1400 each (approximately). And the tach was $500, then $3,000, and finally settled at around $1350. Last month my Fuel gauge went south. About $500.
Then there's the fuel filler neck, but I'm not going to go there.
When you take into account the cost of ownership of other super-cars, you can build a strong case the GT is a steal, and I don't refute that.
I just want a solution to the gauge, and fuel filler neck and problems because to continually replace parts that have intrinsic flaws seems futile.
Hopefully I'm not one of those winers, but there sure have been a lot of gauge failures and when parts get scarce, people are going to be driving with no gauges. That could have dire consequences.
As Shelby stated, it still looks current almost 6 years later. To me it's 60's design (the best era for car design) infused with modern technology, that give you the best of both worlds.
Now, having just returned from the dealer because one of my reverse lamps burned out, and unfortunately discover the rear brake light/reverse light is only sold as one complete unit for $825. The headlights are $1400 each (approximately). And the tach was $500, then $3,000, and finally settled at around $1350. Last month my Fuel gauge went south. About $500.
Then there's the fuel filler neck, but I'm not going to go there.
When you take into account the cost of ownership of other super-cars, you can build a strong case the GT is a steal, and I don't refute that.
I just want a solution to the gauge, and fuel filler neck and problems because to continually replace parts that have intrinsic flaws seems futile.
Hopefully I'm not one of those winers, but there sure have been a lot of gauge failures and when parts get scarce, people are going to be driving with no gauges. That could have dire consequences.
The reverse lamps are a bulb in the taillight assembly and can be replaced for under $5.
Regarding the rear bumper, I know half the forum has taken theirs off, but I left mine on for a reason. If you end up getting hit from behind or somehow spin out and hit something backwards, that bumper actually does something. It's not going to completely protect your car, but removing it from the frame rails leaves an open path to utterly destroy your rear fascia, clamshell and force your exhaust, headers, transaxle and motor out of position from where they are supposed to be. Once you start squishing what is just inside the fascia, it's shifting everything in there. Not that I think it would have saved the car, but this was vividly illustrated on a recently destroyed GT.
shelbyelite
PERMANENTLY BANNED
- May 10, 2007
- 1
Yes, the reverse light is a normal light bulb in the middle of the taillight. If you replaced the entire light, you wasted A LOT of money. As Ralphie said, could be done for under ten bucks
FENZO
GT Owner
Rear bumper Q & A's:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/bumper/index.html
Gotta disagree DBK. Unless you are going 2.5 mph or less your bumper might as well be tissue paper. The frame horns that connect the bumper to the space frame are only 3mm thick 6063 Aluminum tubes (80mm x 160mm) which, I assume, were designed only to meet the minimum legal criteria. I'm guessing it wouldn't be there at all if there weren't a law – a law meant to reduce repair costs in parking lot fender benders, not going backwards into a tirewall on a racetrack.
You would probably save money in a crash by not having it on, because then it wouldn’t have to be replaced.:rofl
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/bumper/index.html
Gotta disagree DBK. Unless you are going 2.5 mph or less your bumper might as well be tissue paper. The frame horns that connect the bumper to the space frame are only 3mm thick 6063 Aluminum tubes (80mm x 160mm) which, I assume, were designed only to meet the minimum legal criteria. I'm guessing it wouldn't be there at all if there weren't a law – a law meant to reduce repair costs in parking lot fender benders, not going backwards into a tirewall on a racetrack.
You would probably save money in a crash by not having it on, because then it wouldn’t have to be replaced.:rofl
I'm just repeating what Camilo and one other guy at SVT told me. As soon as they saw the pictures of the crash they both said the bumper would have at least made some difference in preventing everything from getting shoved towards the cabin.
BlackICE
GT Owner
2) What is the purpose of bumpers?
The car bumper is designed to prevent or reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles in low-speed collisions. Automobile bumpers are not typically designed to be structural components that would significantly contribute to vehicle crashworthiness or occupant protection during front or rear collisions. It is not a safety feature intended to prevent or mitigate injury severity to occupants in the passenger cars. Bumpers are designed to protect the hood, trunk, grille, fuel, exhaust and cooling system as well as safety related equipment such as parking lights, headlamps and taillights in low speed collisions.
3) What are the Federal regulations for bumpers?
49 CFR Part 581, "The bumper standard," prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2� mph across the full width and 1� mph on the corners.This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface, and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.
The car bumper is designed to prevent or reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles in low-speed collisions. Automobile bumpers are not typically designed to be structural components that would significantly contribute to vehicle crashworthiness or occupant protection during front or rear collisions. It is not a safety feature intended to prevent or mitigate injury severity to occupants in the passenger cars. Bumpers are designed to protect the hood, trunk, grille, fuel, exhaust and cooling system as well as safety related equipment such as parking lights, headlamps and taillights in low speed collisions.
3) What are the Federal regulations for bumpers?
49 CFR Part 581, "The bumper standard," prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2� mph across the full width and 1� mph on the corners.This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface, and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
Don't know if this has come up to R.B.Deleter's, or anyone else for that matter. Let's say - a bit of damage upstream in a "minor" accident. Ins. Co. says you "removed a federally required safety device" and we wll only pay up to the amount that would have been caused had the bumper been left on.
Sinovac
GT Owner
Interesting point. The bumper standard was largely the handiwork of the insurance institute to reduce the amount of collision repairs. Biomechanical experts will say that having MORE crush damage and deformity at the vehicle's ends (with no intrusion into the passenger compartment) will decrease the amount of energy transmitted to the occupants, thus decreasing the chance of injury. Common sense really. Nevertheless, I agree with DBK on this one. A minor impact to the rear without the bumper can turn into mucho $$$$. Having said that, I love the look of the bumper-less GTs.
H
HHGT
Guest
Was this the GT destroyed in CA near the capital about a month ago? My brother in law lives up that way and he told me that a blue GT attempted to become an airplane and achieved lift-off.... From his description (waiting on pictures to be emailed) there was no rear end left on the car.
H
HHGT
Guest
That liability could be extended to dealers knowingly selling modified vehicles such as a bumper delete. Of course if a liability waiver was signed between the buyer/seller stating lawyer mumbo jumbo, then the selling dealer (or perhaps a private party) will then be absolved of any wrong doing.
