Production Numbers- Ford/Shelby Come to an Agreement

[GT06]

I was told that the certificates will be accompanied with a sheet that will show the breakdown off all shelbys built, how many had or didn't have red/black interior, stripe deletes, etc. can't wait to see what it says. I know that mine is 1 of 28 red coupes with stripe delete, unkown what number mine is but hopefully this sheet will tell me.

The guy I talked to said he can tell you your sequence# of total red coupes but not of the stripe delete. I wonder how many of the 28 had the red interior. Your car is killer with no stripes. IMO!

[brianspony]

Just ordered mine today using my credit card..... cost was $35 .....If you are a member of the Shelby club or SVTOA there is a discount. Cool !

 

They won't be shipping them for 4 to 5 weeks though.

 

 

I'm going to wait 2 months before I order mine so that way I can receive mine first.

[ELITE 1]

I'm going to wait 2 months before I order mine so that way I can receive mine first.

 

 

oh, you are so funny :rolleyes:

[68fastback]

Sorry, I did not get any Dearborn materials, I was at the Hospital for my Brothers last days during the Dearborn tours...

 

I see the linky though. :happy feet: I still don't know what all the fuss is about.

 

I'm not sure either, Ken... I was just observing that a hardcopy of that catalog that Coldy referred to was in the Dearborn package, but I'm not sure what Rip's specific beef with SAI/Ford[?] is -- at least not THIS time <sorry Rip, couldn't resist ;-)

 

Rip, can you say anything more about this -- just so we have an idea what you're referring to? Is it the mfgr-plate? ...or the Shelby 'thing?'

 

I need a scorecard to keep track around here

[VNMOUS1]

You are obviously too young to understand how business works let alone the law (not trying to be mean). I will send you copies of the trial transcripts when the time comes and I believe things will become much more clearer to you. Other than that I can't help you.

 

 

 

This is the sorry side of the fact that there is no barrier to the judicial system.

 

 

 

bj

 

 

(edited because it simply wouldn't have mattered)

[Boss429]

Please double check your number of coupes....everyone else is reporting 8,150, NOT 8,152. In addition, most others are saying 2,250 white coupes, not 2,252.

 

Yup, called again (3rd time) and was told 8,152 coupes and 2,252 Performance White copues. Looks like 07 SHLB was told 8,152 also.

[kstrong]

Yup, called again (3rd time) and was told 8,152 coupes and 2,252 Performance White copues. Looks like 07 SHLB was told 8,152 also.

Maybe they built two more for "Rip" so he does not sue them.

[croz98gt]

Maybe they built two more for "Rip" so he does not sue them.

 

and they had Carroll Shelby turning the wrenches.......I think that is what is problem is. He was on the understanding that Carroll Shelby was behind the whole designing of the gt500. It is probably better that he didn't have anything to do with it. I just imagine what an 80+ year old man would come up with.

 

I would have bought the car either way. It is just one bad azz mustang.

 

JJ

[brianspony]

oh, you are so funny :rolleyes:

 

 

Yes I am very funny, very funny to look at. Just placed my order for mine with Chris @ SVT. I want to join now with all the rest of you numbskulls and be able to complain in four months when we're still waiting for them.

 

I found out my coupe is # 1689 and it is #66 (my favorite #) of all Alloy coupes made with the build date of 8-30-06. :happy feet:

[ColdwaterHotrod]

Hey Rip,

 

Don't forget to go after ROUSH also for building the original motor design & then having the ROMEO SVT folks assemble it.... your too much & like a nat flying around, now grow up so i can swat you with a fly swatter

 

don't have time...that's a good one considering how much time you spend typing here instead of working on someone else's case. are you sure your not just a paralegal?

[tgralston]

Just got off the phone with Ford, and the Certs. are ready - $45.00.

 

My red conv. is 1680/2695 and 542/809 Reds

 

Total production of 2007's - 10847

[68fastback]

Hey Rip,

 

Don't forget to go after ROUSH also for building the original motor design & then having the ROMEO SVT folks assemble it.... your too much & like a nat flying around, now grow up so i can swat you with a fly swatter

 

don't have time...that's a good one considering how much time you spend typing here instead of working on someone else's case. are you sure your not just a paralegal?

 

 

 

[Sherri Leicht]

just ordered my cert.

 

I have #2215 of 2695 total verts

 

#266 of 325 Performance White verts

 

Built on 4/17/07

[Ripthedealeroff]

Hey Rip,

 

Don't forget to go after ROUSH also for building the original motor design & then having the ROMEO SVT folks assemble it.... your too much & like a nat flying around, now grow up so i can swat you with a fly swatter

 

don't have time...that's a good one considering how much time you spend typing here instead of working on someone else's case. are you sure your not just a paralegal?

 

My wife is...

[ColdwaterHotrod]

My wife is...

Glad to see she is the smart one in the family

[2000RCAR]

just ordered my cert.

 

I have #2215 of 2965 total verts

 

#266 of 325 Performance White verts

 

Built on 4/17/07

Sherri. You need to change your numbers to 2695, not 2965

[LuckySnake]

Where can I find my SAAC No? Called SVT for second time today and now I need to have my number if I want it for $35 instead of $45. I don't see any number on the cards they sent me. Kind of ridicules.

[2000RCAR]

Where can I find my SAAC No? Called SVT for second time today and now I need to have my number if I want it for $35 instead of $45. I don't see any number on the cards they sent me. Kind of ridicules.

I just told them I was a member of SVTOA and he just said ok!

[LuckySnake]

I just told them I was a member of SVTOA and he just said ok!

I guess I should have but I'm not an SVTOA member. Does owning one make me a member? I pays dues to SAAC yearly and belong to S197OA.

None of the yearly cards have a number on them.

[2000RCAR]

I guess I should have but I'm not an SVTOA member. Does owning one make me a member? I pays dues to SAAC yearly and belong to S197OA.

None of the yearly cards have a number on them.

No you have to join them. I joined them after I bought the Cobra R. That's when they sent you a certificate for your car and the membership package. It was just SVT back then.

[jcthorne]

I spoke to Jim at SVT today and ordered my cert for $35 (SAAC member).

 

I am coupe #3228/8152 and #412/1054 Vista Blue. No specifics on Vista Blue with Tungsten stripes but was told only a couple hundred.

 

Had to hold on the phone for 15 minutes but Jim was very professional.

 

By the way, they accept Visa and MC ONLY.

[cobrafan]

That's exactly part of the point of all of this. If it was just called a Ford and we were told it was designed ONLY by Ford then it would have been a lot cheaper, no ADM's etc. The public were led to believe that this was a true Shelby with the main point being HE HAD INVOLVEMENT IN BUILDING THE CAR. I think some folks have a misunderstanding of the situation.

The certificate will say Shelby GT-500. What it won't say is that Mr. Shelby had any involvement in the design , layout and build of the car. It will be a Ford SVT certificate...that's the legal issue here. ......SAI wants you to send them your cars for any Shelby authenticity. This is a very important issue for those who are collecting this car and for those who paid a premium to own an "authentic Shelby". For those who don't know it is known as deceptive advertising as well as a number of other legal issues I will not address at this time, Mr. Mark Shields and SAI.

 

This is going to be a great lawsuit to witness. It can only be filed in California where the merits of a case make no difference. Don't confuse the theory with the facts! "If the facts don't match the theory, change the theory"! The mantra of the Plaintiff Attorney.

 

There are probably only 6 or 7 thousand customers that SAI will be able to round up that will testify that they knew exactly what they were buying and from whom they were buying it. In business law 101 I seem to recall that we spent some time studying the concept of Caveat Emptor. For a smart guy that is old enough to remember you....well, I won't go there.

 

True tort reform, "Loser Pays" will get rid of the sleaze bag litigation and 90% of those that create this type of frivolous nonsense. Go get um tiger, it will be very entertaining.

[ColdwaterHotrod]

I'll be AMY's & CARROLL's 1st witness & stand up for them in court. I knew what I was buying a very fast Pinto? I mean Shelby

[KCMO-GT500]

..keeping this on a factual level, I suspect it will be difficult to show actual monetary damages. Most courts are reluctant to award damages for potential or possible damages. In this case, how could one ever show a diminished value, or lessened collection value applicable to many years in the future?

 

Within our legal system, one can certainly always try to collect damages for another's actions or inactions, but this seems to be a case that will be very difficult to go very far with. There would certainly have to be evidence that factual information was purposely withheld from the buying public. Judges and juries typically are not very fond of stretching this type of thing to the point of contortion. The only times I have ever seen that type of thing is where someone is very badly injured or killed, and damages are awarded on a sympathy basis. Don't see that working here

[YZD263]

..keeping this on a factual level, I suspect it will be difficult to show actual monetary damages. Most courts are reluctant to award damages for potential or possible damages. In this case, how could one ever show a diminished value, or lessened collection value applicable to many years in the future?

 

Within our legal system, one can certainly always try to collect damages for another's actions or inactions, but this seems to be a case that will be very difficult to go very far with. There would certainly have to be evidence that factual information was purposely withheld from the buying public. Judges and juries typically are not very fond of stretching this type of thing to the point of contortion. The only times I have ever seen that type of thing is where someone is very badly injured or killed, and damages are awarded on a sympathy basis. Don't see that working here

 

+1. I'm always cautious when making comments about US legal issues, as legal principles are sometime different from what we have in Canada. However, I fail to see how damages could be determined and ultimately awarded in this instance. What someone paid for these cars is a result of multiple factors which vary from a buyer to the next. Some could not care less whether or not this car was sold as a Shelby; they would have purchased anyway. Others may have felt exactly the opposite, with most somewhere in between. On top of that evidence of Ford's wrongdoing is far from obvious to me.

[Alloy Dave]

+1. I'm always cautious when making comments about US legal issues, as legal principles are sometime different from what we have in Canada. However, I fail to see how damages could be determined and ultimately awarded in this instance. What someone paid for these cars is a result of multiple factors which vary from a buyer to the next. Some could not care less whether or not this car was sold as a Shelby; they would have purchased anyway. Others may have felt exactly the opposite, with most somewhere in between. On top of that evidence of Ford's wrongdoing is far from obvious to me.

Eric,

 

Not to change the subject...but what if a dealer told a customer..."You should be willing to pay $xx,xxx because they're only going to make 2,000 of these cars". Let's assume you could prove that the dealer knew that was a lie and he had actually been informed by Ford that they would make 10,000 of the cars.

 

Do you think you could successfully sue the dealer to get that extra money back?

 

Just a hypothetical here....as I'm not in that situation.

 

Dave

[YZD263]

Eric,

 

Not to change the subject...but what if a dealer told a customer..."You should be willing to pay $xx,xxx because they're only going to make 2,000 of these cars". Let's assume you could prove that the dealer knew that was a lie and he had actually been informed by Ford that they would make 10,000 of the cars.

 

Do you think you could successfully sue the dealer to get that extra money back?

 

Just a hypothetical here....as I'm not in that situation.

 

Dave

 

 

Dave,

 

I think you would have a stronger case in that situation compared to the issue of Shelby involvement or lack thereof; here the direct relationship between the wrongful action of the dealer and the damage is much clearer in my opinion. You are also assuming in your exemple that the dealer knowingly lies about production numbers. This is very different from a situation where a dealer would honestly but wrongfully mention "Ford said they would make about 8,000" (which was indeed the case at one point if I remember correctly) when in fact Ford ends up making 10,800.

 

Even if you can prove deceit by the dealer, you would still need to prove your damage. There are many agruments that you could make to try to quantify what your damage is (I'm not considering any kind of punitive damage here, just actual damage). Here are a few:

 

1- Your damage is the difference between your purchase price and MSRP (i.e. you would not have bought the car for more than MSRP unless it is as rare as the dealer told you it was);

2- Your damage is the difference between your purchase price and the average purchase price in your area at the time of purchase (more realistic than 1 in my opinion);

3 - Your damage is the difference between your purchase price and the average purchase price in the whole United States at the time of purchase (about as realistic as 2, since the market for these cars is really national, many people buying these cars from out of state/province; you could argue 2 or 3 depending on what suits you best - i.e. what are the prices in your immediate area vs national average);

4 - Your damage is the difference between the price you paid and the price you resold the car (using this argument implies that you would not have bought the car at all in the first place if not for the very low production number, and sold it thereafter to minimize your loss; a long shot unless you can prove you bought the car for investment purposes);

 

As you can see, there are many ways you could spin this thing as far as damages are concerned and for every argument about the actual amount of the damage suffered, there would be a counter argument to minimize such amount.

 

Going back to our topic, the issue of Shelby's involvement is a very different one in my opinion since Ford is not the one that takes advantage of ADMs, dealers do. To me, it would seem more difficult to convince a judge or jury that Ford blatantly lied and as a reslut caused GT500s buyers damage if such "damage" is actually money (ADM) paid to a third party. In your exemple, your dealer's misinformation results in a direct profit for him as well as a loss for you; that's not the case here for Ford so Ford's motive for lying is tougher to prove, unless something like Ford's intent to create ADM opportunities for its dealers' network could indeed be proved.

[68fastback]

Eric,

 

Not to change the subject...but what if a dealer told a customer..."You should be willing to pay $xx,xxx because they're only going to make 2,000 of these cars". Let's assume you could prove that the dealer knew that was a lie and he had actually been informed by Ford that they would make 10,000 of the cars.

 

Do you think you could successfully sue the dealer to get that extra money back?

 

Just a hypothetical here....as I'm not in that situation.

 

Dave

 

Dave, I think proactively deceptive representations, such as the dealer scenario, are potentially actionable.

 

In Rip's complaint, I don't see how a court would even agree to hear the case -- what's the basis of the case? What did Ford/SAI misrepresent? There's no such thing as buying a collectible anything when it's new. That's just media hype (except for my collection of Franklin Mint vintage car dinner plates ) Cars depreciate -- all of them!! Even the original Shelbys!! Even the Original 289 and 427 Shelby Cobras!!! The, later, the MARKET decides their value. has nothing to do whatsoever with the manufacturere or the name -- never has, never will (aside from my Ralph Lauren collectable cologne bottles which surely MSUT appreciate because of the name )

 

And as to why this car takes down the ADMs it does (dealer deception aside) I think it's largely two words: 500HP <lol> ..and every buy makes that decision individually. You can buy the letters on the back for a nominal cost -- Ford stated the specs for the car accurately -- no where in the GT500 specifications did I see a line-item after Engine specs, Suspension, Dimentions, etc, like Collectability: guaranteed appeciation -- hey, it's a Shelby!

 

If the Shelby name -- in and of itself -- was the reason TODAY (as opposed to the '60s cars which are now 40 years old) for the ADMs, then all the crap Shelby Chargers, Shelby Dakotas and Shelby Lancers would be the hottest items at Barrett-Jackson taking down solid mid-six-figure bids Why not? The cars are not highly desireable in spite of any name.

 

Carroll himslef has said for decades now that the car makes the name, the name doesn't make the car -- sounds like truth in advertising personified to me!

 

So, let's see:

- Fast high-performance "Shelby's" = valuable

- Slow slap-on "Shelby's" = who cares

- The car makes the name not other way 'round

- This car bears the name and Ford has represented the association with Shelby quite accurately

 

What case/damages could there possibly be except mental-/imagined- ?

 

Gonna put that Shelby Lancer on the rotisserie, you know, the rusty beater I scoffed up on e-bay for only $50K -- I figure if I invest the $300K it will take for a concours restoration, it should bring $1-1.5M at Barrett-Jackson next year

 

Well, gotta go clean my 1992 Gucci shades -- you know how valuable Gucci products are! ..and the rubbers on the nosepiece aren't even brittle!!! And these are the rare amber-lens pilot-style!!! I'm gonna make a killing in 2050 on these babies :shades:

 

Dan

[ShelbyDude]

unless something like Ford's intent to create ADM opportunities for its dealers' network could indeed be proved.

 

 

This could more easily be disproved! There is just way to much other supporting evidence that Ford does not care about their dealers making much profit.

[68fastback]

unless something like Ford's intent to create ADM opportunities for its dealers' network could indeed be proved.

This could more easily be disproved! There is just way to much other supporting evidence that Ford does not care about their dealers making much profit.

 

<lol> +1 ...that's hard to argue with

 

Staying on your thought tho, when the ADM situation became apparent Ford suggested a $5K max ADM (and many dealers abided by it -- just that the lists were much longer than the allocations for those dealers).

 

In response to the demand they upped the target volumes (within CAFE and supply constraints) from 7K to 9K and even produced considerably more than that!

 

Ford also sent an appropriate missive to dealers stating that they (Ford) were exercising the no-reseller clause in their dealer Franchise Agreement on this car.

 

Of course, some dealers chose to find ways around the intent of those actions, but, imo, Ford has done what they can within the contractual bounds of their dealer Franchise Agreements to address potential/actual dealer abuses -- to the extent they legally can.

 

Now, Chevy dealers in SoCal getting $25K ADMs on dime-a-dozen Z06s -- they're the real abusers ...praying on ignorance and impulse -- hmmmm ;-)

 

Certainly, the name Corvette mislead those buyers