P
PNewitt
Guest
I wanted to open up discussion about the actual "image" of the GT/CS. There are many owners that feel that their CS has received both instant attention, and yet, a "stigma" for not "being a real Shelby". Despite my efforts with the books in 1989 and 1996, and how each individual owner has "speaed the word" at car shows, or in public (like while getting gas, going to the store, etc.)--there seems to still be this question mark in the general public's mind. Even within the Mustang hobby, many folks don't know about this unique Mustang--and I think some even give it a stigma, because they are more into Mustangs than Shelbys (i.e."well, who do think they are with that Mustang with Shelby parts on it?").
I can tell you (IMO) that, in a historical context, the '68 GT/CS "is more Shelby" than the continuation cars being made today (those cars wouldn't have the following that they have if one hadn't been in a movie). It's about media. If a GT/CS was featured in a movie, or major media event, the perception, interest and values would change overnight.
What I'm getting at, is I'd like to hear what you think about all of this. It's been over about 30 years since the Mustang hobby really took off in the late 70's, and there is still this confusion. Is it jealousy from the basic Mustangers? Does it take attention away from "pure" Mustang, or what? The Shelby folks like them. (IMO) SAAC supports the GT/CS more than MCA does (am I wrong?). I have documentation that lists the "Calif. Mustang" project right next to the development and production specs of the '68 Shelby--on the same page in A.O. Smith and Shelby Automotive paperwork.
I'd like to shake this out, and get to exactly why this is. We have a member who is an original owner of a 428CJ GT/CS, that had to contend with years of people asking him "why did you get a GT/CS"?
If Ford felt that the GT/CS was a viable marque to get back into production, then why can't more people understand just how special our cars are?
Thanks for your input,
Paul N.
I can tell you (IMO) that, in a historical context, the '68 GT/CS "is more Shelby" than the continuation cars being made today (those cars wouldn't have the following that they have if one hadn't been in a movie). It's about media. If a GT/CS was featured in a movie, or major media event, the perception, interest and values would change overnight.
What I'm getting at, is I'd like to hear what you think about all of this. It's been over about 30 years since the Mustang hobby really took off in the late 70's, and there is still this confusion. Is it jealousy from the basic Mustangers? Does it take attention away from "pure" Mustang, or what? The Shelby folks like them. (IMO) SAAC supports the GT/CS more than MCA does (am I wrong?). I have documentation that lists the "Calif. Mustang" project right next to the development and production specs of the '68 Shelby--on the same page in A.O. Smith and Shelby Automotive paperwork.
I'd like to shake this out, and get to exactly why this is. We have a member who is an original owner of a 428CJ GT/CS, that had to contend with years of people asking him "why did you get a GT/CS"?
If Ford felt that the GT/CS was a viable marque to get back into production, then why can't more people understand just how special our cars are?
Thanks for your input,
Paul N.