[DeTomaso] FORD GT Numbers

Sat Jun 9 13:04:35 EDT 2007

...and do we also want to factor in the impact of 

a. video gaming

b. the fact that even non supercars are so advanced that they do a portion of the driving for you.

Both of these things would cause todays drivers to be overly confident in their abilities and the cars capabilities.

Unfortunately there is no reset button in real life to press after an accident.

Peter Kovacs
Property Equity & Mortgage Mgmt
209 345-6708 
209 523-4919 fx

----- Original Message ----
From: "cengles at cox.net" <cengles at cox.net>
To: michael at michaelshortt.com
Cc: detomaso at realbig.com
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2007 9:16:21 AM
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] FORD GT Numbers

Dear Michael,

Nope. I certainly did not mean to compare the two groups' learning-crashing curves.

However, since you've raised the point, it may be true that Pantera owners crashed more than Ford GT owners due to: lousy tires and suspension set up.

I bought a Pantera in 1988 with 2193 miles on it. It was a bone stock 1974 Pantera L with original Arriva tires. I thought that I had a supercar. I thought it would be stuck to the road. Well, as part of the above mentioned learning curve, I discovered the car understeered far more than I would have expected. I discovered that Goodyear Arrivas are lousy tires. As the years and modifications went on, I discovered that the suspension settings were far from optimal. I discovered that stock brake pads when used "cold" could result in frightening long stopping distances. I would contend that while the Pantera tested very well against its contemporary sports car rivals, it did have some deficiencies.

I do not have a Ford GT. I suspect that a brand new Ford GT is far better optimized for tires, brakes, suspension, etc.

Now, assuming that the rate of naive, enthusiastic and boneheaded owners drivers is comparable from 1974 to 2006-7, then I would suggest that, yes, Pantera crash rates may well be higher than the better equipped GT.

I stand behind the above logical theoretical statement with a deeply superficial passion and the integrity of any given Presidential candidate in either party.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it, Chuck Engles

---- Michael Shortt <michaelsavga at gmail.com> wrote:
>So what are you saying Chuck?
>
>That Pantera drivers crashed more cars early than Ford GT drivers crashed?
>
>Michael in Savannah
>
>
>On 6/8/07, www.DeTomasoRegistry.org <pantera007 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Y es I found the attrition rate high, but you can't accurately interpolate
>>linearly.
>>
>>When the Vipers were first sold, there was a similar loss rate. Then the
>>dealers mandated
>>a owners/driver's school.
>>
>>The numbers dropped even as the HP rose as the later versions arrived.
>>
>>But it begs the question(s)
>>
>>How Many Mangustas are still pseudo-functional/drivable?
>>How many Panteras?
>>
>>Anyone care to pose an educated guess?
>>
>>
>>I suspect the rate of loss for Panteras was higher in 1971 and 1972, than
>>say when the GT5 and GT5-S models were released.
>>
>>Experience can be a good thing.
>>
>>When I was learning to drive I "totaled" a number of cars, but they were
>>cheap & plentiful! Grin.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>Looked thru the Ford GT forum and found some stats.
>>4,038 cars built
>>378 exported
>>217 known destroyed
>>
>>That approx 5.5% gone in 2.5 years ( being generous, because 2004 only had
>>3 months and all the ones sold in 2007 were leftover 2006 )
>>That's about 2.2% per year
>>So if you give them the life span of a Pantera ( using 1972 as the
>>median ), we have 35 years
>>times 2.2% = 77% total destroyed by the time they are 35 years old.
>>
>>So what are we looking at?
>>5,500 ( ? ) Panteras with 1,500 Survivors ?
>>If so, that's an attrition rate of 73% destroyed over 35 years.
>>
>>Guess we had a few wieners buying ours back in the day as well!
>>
>>--
>>Michael L. Shortt
>>Savannah, Georgia
>>
>>
>>This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
>>Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
>>privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>notified
>>that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you
>>have received this message in error, then delete it. Thank you
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/840 - Release Date: 6/8/2007
>>3:15 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Michael L. Shortt
>Savannah, Georgia
>
>
>This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
>Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
>privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you
>have received this message in error, then delete it. Thank you
>_______________________________________________
>
>Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
>Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
>DeTomaso mailing list
>DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA

Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/

DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso