Why did they change the name!!???
Ford GT!!??
- Thread starter hillie16
- Start date
The forum says "For the car prviously called the GT-40" or something like that.
I was a little confused by that too :shrug:
I have a Ford GT ;-)
I have a Ford GT ;-)
You guys have Mustang GT's
This car is the Ford GT.
I will bet there will be an SVTGTR too lol
This car is the Ford GT.
I will bet there will be an SVTGTR too lol
Is that what I drive??? :rollseyes
NOTICE THE ;-)
There apparently are a couple of issues (not completely disclosed) that Ford ran into with using the GT-40 name. I am also told that the basis for the old GT-40 was that the car had a 40" roof height. This new version will be slightly taller (and longer) than the originals. Ford's Living Legends car tour came thru town a few weeks back. Ford had a GT a.k.a. GT-40 on display. I'm tellin ya....that car is absolutely gorgeous!!!! I want one so darn bad!!! Ford says they will build 3in 2003 for the 100th anniversary celebration. In the years following, possibly as many as 2500 units. Time to start buying more lottery tickets!!!:burnout:
Speedthing
_______________
2000 R #164
96 Cobra conv. spchg
I found this explaination for the name change on AUTOEXTREMIST.COM (It should also be noted, as it is not mentioned in this article, that Safir gained full control of the GT40 name only 3 years ago in 1999.):
The second article in Automotive News that caught my eye told of Bob Wood, an owner of Safir GT40 Spares Ltd. of Cincinnati. Wood, I learned, has refused to sell the Ford Motor Company rights to the GT40 name, which is owned by Safir.
You are perhaps wondering, as did I, how Ford could conceivably have lost control of the GT40 name in the first place. Lawyers, which Ford has in quantity, could tell you that, but I doubt that they could answer the question, "Why?" In any event, Ford lost it.
Unconstrained by the lack of a copyright, Ford had been trumpeting its new GT40 with an enthusiasm P.T. Barnum would have envied. But the car has now become the Ford GT-the name borne by the Eric Broadley-built forerunner of the GT40. So Ford GT it is, and no harm done that can't be rectified by a bar of Dr. Wampole's Egg Removing Facial Scrub. But the GT40 mess turned my mind back to my $10,000 invoice for the book review.
I read that Bob Wood had offered the GT40 name to Ford for $40 million and sensed that he is puzzled that, "Ford was unwilling to negotiate and wouldn't make an offer." This according to the spadework done by K.C. Crain of Automotive News.
I must give Wood credit for naming a price esthetically attuned to the item he has to sell (40 and 40, get it?), but he scores no points for common sense. Would you return phone calls from a telemarketer who offered you a cruise to the Bahamas if you would pay only the sales tax of $2,765,000? I wouldn't-because I'd be afraid he would find out where I live and come over some night and strangle the cat.
That's how Ford must have felt about so much as discussing a $40 million price tag for the GT40 name. If we assume that Ford will build as many as 5,000 Ford GTs, which it probably won't, Wood's opening shot would have cost $8,000 per unit. Wood should have asked for maybe $500 per car-which would amount to $2.5 million-and would at least have elicited a reply. But $40 million? I'm sorry, but that sum would set off Mother Goose's reality alarm.
The second article in Automotive News that caught my eye told of Bob Wood, an owner of Safir GT40 Spares Ltd. of Cincinnati. Wood, I learned, has refused to sell the Ford Motor Company rights to the GT40 name, which is owned by Safir.
You are perhaps wondering, as did I, how Ford could conceivably have lost control of the GT40 name in the first place. Lawyers, which Ford has in quantity, could tell you that, but I doubt that they could answer the question, "Why?" In any event, Ford lost it.
Unconstrained by the lack of a copyright, Ford had been trumpeting its new GT40 with an enthusiasm P.T. Barnum would have envied. But the car has now become the Ford GT-the name borne by the Eric Broadley-built forerunner of the GT40. So Ford GT it is, and no harm done that can't be rectified by a bar of Dr. Wampole's Egg Removing Facial Scrub. But the GT40 mess turned my mind back to my $10,000 invoice for the book review.
I read that Bob Wood had offered the GT40 name to Ford for $40 million and sensed that he is puzzled that, "Ford was unwilling to negotiate and wouldn't make an offer." This according to the spadework done by K.C. Crain of Automotive News.
I must give Wood credit for naming a price esthetically attuned to the item he has to sell (40 and 40, get it?), but he scores no points for common sense. Would you return phone calls from a telemarketer who offered you a cruise to the Bahamas if you would pay only the sales tax of $2,765,000? I wouldn't-because I'd be afraid he would find out where I live and come over some night and strangle the cat.
That's how Ford must have felt about so much as discussing a $40 million price tag for the GT40 name. If we assume that Ford will build as many as 5,000 Ford GTs, which it probably won't, Wood's opening shot would have cost $8,000 per unit. Wood should have asked for maybe $500 per car-which would amount to $2.5 million-and would at least have elicited a reply. But $40 million? I'm sorry, but that sum would set off Mother Goose's reality alarm.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Ford GT!!??
i saw the "Ford GT" at the Cleveland Auto show in early March up close. and it is not only impressive, but breathtaking as well. truly unlike any top-of-the-line high-performance car i'd ever seen. and that's not even including a description of the engine bay, it's massive. destined to be a serious head-turner. can't wait to see one on the road if ever.
i saw the "Ford GT" at the Cleveland Auto show in early March up close. and it is not only impressive, but breathtaking as well. truly unlike any top-of-the-line high-performance car i'd ever seen. and that's not even including a description of the engine bay, it's massive. destined to be a serious head-turner. can't wait to see one on the road if ever.
Theres one way around this call it the GT-40R R for Replica.
Even if it sits 100 feet higher its still going to be the GT40. If these kit car bussinesses are going to be stubborn with the name thats fine with me. Bottom line is if you like to call it the new GT-40 then so be it, until these shitty little aftermarket companies pay me off, or force me to sign a contract Im going to refer to it as the GT-40. They still call the 03 Mach-1 the Mach-1.
Bringing back a retro classic doesnt mean it has to have the exact same similaraties as the original, essepcially since retro vehicles are typically a combanation of old school styling/new age technology, but I think one thing the retro vehicle always needs is atleast one outstanding symbol of its roots. The cars original title, in this case the GT-40.
Bringing back a retro classic doesnt mean it has to have the exact same similaraties as the original, essepcially since retro vehicles are typically a combanation of old school styling/new age technology, but I think one thing the retro vehicle always needs is atleast one outstanding symbol of its roots. The cars original title, in this case the GT-40.
There is a similar thread in Road Side pub on this topic,, you can also check it out there.. I posted a little history on the name in that post..
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22352&highlight=gt40
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22352&highlight=gt40
Users who are viewing this thread
