Five Oh B Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Jan 12 2007, 01:46 PM) 88085[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> ... Our very first 2007 GT500 had a VIN ending in 196XXX ... That means that Mr Pratte does not have the lowest GT500 VIN. Do you know the build date of the 196XXX GT500? Our very first 2007 GT500 with VIN ending in 196XXX shows a build completion date of June 12th, 2006. Probably hit the assembly line on June 10th or 11th as it takes 30+ hours to build a Mustang. As Ron's VIN #200002 shows it wasn't completed until June 13th, his car is neither the lowest VIN # or first built that was sold to the public. He wasn't even the first one to take delivery. He got his on July 21st per the report I pulled. There are several members here with very low VIN #'s (under 200000) who took delivery in July, and some even in June (go back to old threads from the "GT500 Arrival Forum" and you'll see a blue one in Indiana that arrived June 26th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1FAFP90 Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 B)--> QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Jan 12 2007, 04:06 PM) 88119[/snapback] Our very first 2007 GT500 with VIN ending in 196XXX shows a build completion date of June 12th, 2006. Probably hit the assembly line on June 10th or 11th as it takes 30+ hours to build a Mustang. As Ron's VIN #200002 shows it wasn't completed until June 13th, his car is neither the lowest VIN # or first built that was sold to the public. He wasn't even the first one to take delivery. He got his on July 21st per the report I pulled. There are several members here with very low VIN #'s (under 200000) who took delivery in July, and some even in June (go back to old threads from the "GT500 Arrival Forum" and you'll see a blue one in Indiana that arrived June 26th. hmm, I assume Mr Pratte must know about this. He may not care much as he is very generous giving to charities. His estate may care when they find out it was not the first built or lowest VIN. I hope to live long enough to see it auctioned at B-J and have B-J staff tap dancing around the fact it's not the first or lowest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripthedealeroff Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I was at the largest West Coast Ford Dealership back in Jul or Aug looking at a White and a Red GT500 when car #34 was sold for $85000. I was trying to find my old post from back then but am having trouble locating it. It was Red w/white stripes and they claimed it was production car #34 because the VIN# ended with 0034. Who knows - two car #34's? The Vin has absolutely nothing to do with the production number. Those production numbers will be released after the end of the 2007 build cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispy23c Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Joker45, what I don't get is: Why the dealer is asking $103,000 for a car that is clearly not #34 (like #34 is "special"), is one of 7-8k units-- of a car that is contracted to be built for 3 years. Besides the fact that he is trying to screw you, I mean... edit-- and why he's asking $70k for the white coupe, when they are clearly going everywhere else for an asking price of $10-15K over MSRP? Geez, I know I would have asked him..... Maybe you were on "Candid Camera"??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker45 Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Joker45, what I don't get is: Why the dealer is asking $103,000 for a car that is clearly not #34 (like #34 is "special"), is one of 7-8k units-- of a car that is contracted to be built for 3 years. Besides the fact that he is trying to screw you, I mean... edit-- and why he's asking $70k for the white coupe, when they are clearly going everywhere else for an asking price of $10-15K over MSRP? Geez, I know I would have asked him..... Maybe you were on "Candid Camera"??? That's the problem with California dealers, they want more then is realistic and hope that the buyer is uninformed so that they can take advantage of him. I have run into several dealers as well as buyers, that have no clue as to what is going on. I might take a trip up to the dealer in the next week or two just to bust his bubble. Or I might just call them again to get more information on why they think it's #34. I just don't get the whole thing as it's stupid to think #34 is going to be worth any more out of the rest with over 7k producted for the 2007 MY. I met one guy in August that bought one for 85k + because the dealer told him that all dealers were only getting one and that they were only making them for one year. I felt sorry for the guy because they clearly played on his lack of understanding and information on the product. I really am just getting tired of trying to buy this car at a fair price. All of the dealers around here just want more money then current market value and they feed off of each other raising the prices even more. I had found one Dealership owner that bought one for himself. He said that he would sell it to me for 25 grand over MSRP. Mind you this is a used car. He had dealer plates on it and over 500 miles already put on it. This was about 2 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfarmdog Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 B)--> QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Jan 12 2007, 02:46 PM) 88085[/snapback] OK, here's the weird deal with 2007 Mustang VIN #'s. Traditionally, all vehicle lines (including Mustang) would have a VIN # sequence where the last 6 digits of the first one built would be 100001 (or sometimes 200001, 300001, 400001, etc. if more than one model line is built in the same factory so as to not confuse two VIN #'s that would have the same factory code in the VIN #). That would lead a rational person to believe that the first 2007 Mustang VIN # was 100001 (which it wasn't) or perhaps 200001 (seems more likely as most of the early 2007 Mustangs have a VIN ending with 2XXXXX). A rational person would then think that VIN # 200002 is the second 2007 Mustang VIN #. In almost every model year on almost every model line that appears to be correct. However, there are a few forum members here who have 2007 Mustangs with VIN #'s in which the last 6 digits start with 196XXX, 197XXX, 198XXX, or 199XXX - not 2XXXXX. Our very first 2007 GT500 had a VIN ending in 196XXX and our very first 2007 Mustang GT Convertible had a VIN ending in 196XXX, as well. These were both regular production 2007 Mustangs - not some sort of VIP or Prototype car (which appear to have VIN's ending in 195XXX - look at some of the earliest prototype photos that Robert Lane posted here last spring). This would lead me to believe that Ford randomly started regular 2007 Mustang production with a VIN # ending in 196001. Keep in mind that Mustang shares Flat Rock with Mazda production, so the VIN # starting point would have to be different for Mustang vs Mazda so as to not confuse two VIN #'s that would have the same factory code in the VIN #. But why such a random and arbitrary starting point like 19XXXX and not an even number like 200001? Can anyone with connections inside Flat Rock confirm this for us? On a side note, Ford just scheduled our 5th and final 2007 GT500 to be built and its VIN # ends with 303XXX. Hey Five Oh B! I finally got my VIN today and was researching VINs when I came upon this post. My VIN assigned on 1/20 I believe ends in 308XXX. Also the first three positions appear to increment one every other day since it has been 221 days since June 13 2006 and the first three digits started at 196 and are now 308 (112 difference). I am probably reading into this though. Mrfarmdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Oh B Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hey Five Oh B! I finally got my VIN today and was researching VINs when I came upon this post. My VIN assigned on 1/20 I believe ends in 308XXX. Also the first three positions appear to increment one every other day since it has been 221 days since June 13 2006 and the first three digits started at 196 and are now 308 (112 difference). I am probably reading into this though. Mrfarmdog Well, 365 days in a year, and a little less than 180K Mustangs built per year (closer to 165K), so that's almost 1,000 cars every two days, as you theorized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnut Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Jan 21 2007, 03:26 PM) 91487[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, 365 days in a year, and a little less than 180K Mustangs built per year (closer to 165K), so that's almost 1,000 cars every two days, as you theorized. Nevermind:hyper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.