Continuation in '07 if...

[bitzman]

As I heard it, the rason they can't make the Ford GT in '07 is that there is a new law about pedestrian protection that, believe it or not, has something to do with the hood of the car protecting the pedestrian. It may apply in Europe before here, though the Euro market for the Ford GT is tiny.
Anyway I thought of a way they could finesse this barrier. Ferrari said they would make only a finite number of Enzos but guess what, they are continuing it, calling it some other model, with a couple tiny changes.
So Ford could buy DeTomaso for between 2 and 4 million, and design a Pantera body to fit over the Ford GT's space frame, and make the hood meet that new requirement. It wouldn't look the same but it still would be a 200-mph supercar at a less-than-Ferrari price. And give Lincoln Mercury dealers a little class, which they need...I was going to suggest this to Lincoln Mercury but I can't even find who's in charge there...I think sales are so low they've been folded into Ford proper

 

[bitzman]

Some people like small numbers

There is a "magic numberr" determinng rarity. I say it is around 1,000 cars. For instance, there are 1485 Mercedes 300SL gullwings. Just enough to see one at every big concours but rare enough to not see them on the street. At 4000 Ford GTs Ford is pushing it not into "common" but beyond rare. That is four times more cars than Shelby made of AC Cobras. So I have ever heard collectors say "I wish they would make less."

But in a way it's Ford's way of pounding the nail into Ferrari sales because they are building a fan base for an American supercar and anybody who has ever paid Ferrari prices for parts and labor will appreciate a low priced alternative made in the USA (sorry, my former Ferrari mechanics, I can't afford you guys anymore....)

 

[K-P Garage]

side impact seems to be the thing

I think Centerpunch is correct. Everything I have heard has to do with the side impact requirements for MY2007. If you have seen the Discovery channel program on the building of the GT you know that there is just no room in the GT doors for roll up windows and the new side intrusion bars.
The Shelby GR-1 was recently touring our area and I was told that it is being planned as the vehicle that can accomodate the side impact bars on the GT platform for MY 2007 and on. From what I could see just looking at it from the outside, that seems accurate. It is a good looking car, but not near as great loking as the GT!! It also seems to have even larger blind spots over the rear quarters as well.KO

 

[bitzman]

Rearward visibility might not be an issue in expensive cars. They can just have miniature TV cameras covering the blind spots so you can see what's behind you, just like some of the larger yachts I piloted.

 

[bitzman]

Doubt it is side impact that's stopping an '07

I don't think it is side impact bars. Because if it was they could just go to side curtains like the early Vipers (of course they might blow out when you got past 100 mph but...) I heard it was a new pedestrian protection law, something about when the pedestrian falls on the hood, the hood absorbing the impact.

I think the GT costs them a lot to make and they would rather segue over to a front engined two seater Cobra that costs them less and they can sell a lot more (though the gearbox will still costs them plenty if they use the same Ricardo 6-speed as the GT does)

 

[B O N Y]

I heard it is a side impact issue that will prevent cars from being labeled as 2007's.

 

[K-P Garage]

My2007 ?????

Absolutely no way on "side curtains". This ain't no stinkin' mopar. Watch the discovery channel show on the development. absent roll down windows was NOT an option.

 

[dbk]

This might be it:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/August/Day-28/i22010.htm

It goes into effect for cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2006.

This would make sense as I was told that the last month of production is August 06.

 

[bitzman]

Why can't they get a waiver?

I found that some companies only making a few of a car ( think the limit is 500) can get waivers
to some of the rules which is why little companies can make it in the car world sometimes. I guess Ford being so big they can't say "we're too small to meet the standard."

And Ford already got a pass on the crash test.(I asked a US senator to check on that) so maybe they don't want to push their luck.

My eyes glazed over when I tried to read the ruling because it's so governmentese but I gather it's about protection of the head. Why not put some absorbant material around the ceiling area or would that limit more already limited visibility?

I have an answer--sell the Ford GT with normal doors, i.e. doors that are cut off at the top of the door with no roof. iI rode in a Safir GT40 with this arrangement (even the center bar was cut out) and it was quite comfortable and good looking.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about the head hitting the roof because there wouldn't be any roof. You would sell less Ford GTs but still be able to sell them. I recall Aston selling a car with no roof at all a couple of years ago. (and guess who owns Aston? Ford) And you wouldn't have to worry about a roof for long as the aftermarket would come up with it, which would be outside the NHTSA's jurisdiction.

And it would eliminate the chief problem of driving the new Ford GT. As Matt Stone said in Motor Trend, if you're driving a new Ford GT and someone parks on both sides of you, you ain't goin' home.

After ''06, Ford could also sell the Ford GT to a tiny company that would make only 499 a year , thus qualifying for some exemptions on the basis of size, and then allow Ford dealers to stock it in their showrooms like they did the Mk. IV AC a few years ago.That was a fully legal car, legalized by the same guy who has worked on the Ford GT project, Jack Roush. Why would Ford want to do that if they wouldn't make any money on it(other than selling the engines and gearboxes?) Because the raison d'etre of the Ford GT was to build showroom traffic and subletting it out would still accomplish that...

 

[B O N Y]

exactly

 

[K-P Garage]

enufffff of a great thing

I agree completely. That is plenty. And, the doors, although they take some getting used to are as much a part of the awesomeness of the car as anything else on it. :thumbsup

 

[RaceDeck]

Roll Over

I hear it is both head impact and roll over requirements. There is only one way that you can overcome this requirement with the current GT...A roadster edition....I hear rumors ...SEMA?

 

[bitzman]

Targa relatively improbable (maybe I will eat my words)

The frame was built with heavy loads being taken by the central roof bar.
But there is a place in Calif. called Newport Conversions which regularly converts cars to convertibles that were never meant to be like the Acura NSX so I think if there's enough dollars it could be done by shops like theirs. But since production is supposed to end with '06, wouldn't it be too short a window for Ford to sell targa versions with only one year to sell them? Ferrari had the Modena 360 on the market for five years which is enough time to amortize the costs. On the other hand, since the Ford GT was a "let's do it while we have the chance" project to begin with maybe a targa version would be built in the same spirit. Or maybe an outside shop will let it be known they'll do the conversions and Ford will secretly tell them what needs beefing up in order to do it. Count on a targa version weighing about 200-300 lbs. more and then there's the problem where do you store the targa roof once you detach it?

 

[bitzman]

Website called Car Lounge Forum says they can build past end date

Here's the quote:
Ford GT
The two-passenger, 550-hp supercar is expected to end its limited run in mid-2006, though insiders say production could continue for several additional months to make up for production lost to a control arm recall."

My question is: say the cars with a control arm recall were shunted to the side and haven't had all their arms replaced yet. Can't they finished out after the official end date because, after all, they were "born" within the legal time period?

I could cite plenty of other cases--there's been cars finished form spares as well, like 300SL Gullwings and Porsche 904s. If you can order a spare chassis from Ford for a Ford GT (which you can from Lotus for some models), what number goes on it--if it's a replacement chassis then maybe you could order that for a wrecked Ford GT and in essence have a brand new car sometime after official production has ended. Or is this going about it the hard way?

Also conceivably Ford could sell off the tooling for the Ford GT after mid-'06 and some other firm could make the the cars , finding ways around the update rules though they might have to change the name. Bugatti did this when they flopped with the EB whatever it was. Thus a few more cars were put together thought i think they had completely different styling.

 

[Neilda]

Well the bonnet issue is certainly the case in Europe... the new Jaguar XK has a bonnet lid that lifts up to 'catch' a pedestrian! I kid you not. European legislation is quite bizarre.

I heard that the GT issue was to do with side airbags....

 

[Jason Watt]

This might be it:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/August/Day-28/i22010.htm

It goes into effect for cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2006.

I think thats it...

 

[VIN1591]

I've heard that the production will end in 2006 because there is a federal front bumper crash test standard where the car can only sustain a maximum of something like $2,000 in damage at let's say 5 mph. I'm not sure of the specific parameters but the reasoning was shared with me by a very reliable source.

 

[Jason Watt]

That source is not as reliable as you think...

:biggrin No I don't buy it either...

 

[fordification]

I've heard that the production will end in 2006 because there is a federal front bumper crash test standard where the car can only sustain a maximum of something like $2,000 in damage at let's say 5 mph. I'm not sure of the specific parameters but the reasoning was shared with me by a very reliable source.

that was the issue with canada transportation. they have presumably been retrofitted. with what, I don't know.