not quite there....do'nt move....ahhhhhhhh

I don't hide the fact that I'm a Ford guy...espically mid '60 iron. I mean, common' nothing beats a '32 or '34 Ford hotrod. Until the Tri Five's came out, there was nothing that screamed America more then a hot rodded Duece Coupe. Even with those mid '50's Chevy's, the Ford is still hard to beat. That was then, this is now. Ford, where did you go wrong? The Ford GT's seven deadly sins...aka recalls and TSBs? Leaky engines? Cracking body panels? Leaky seams? Cracked suspension arms? For $150,000? And the going price for $300,000? The car is supposed to LOOK like it's a classic from the '60s, not run and act like it's from the '60s. Now the 2005 Mustang, which I'm not that big a fan of, is the hottest selling sports car since...well, the 1965 Mustang. Here's the problem....it too is suffering from problems. Now I realize that all cars will suffer from problems, but it's not the problem that irks me, it's how Ford is dealing with it. The problem I'm refering to specifically is the faulty fuel tank. No, it doesn't explode or anything like the fuel tanks in Mustangs past, but rather it doesn't take gas. Ford's answer? Only replace the fuel tank IF the customer requests, and don't tell existing owners of the faulty tank. That's no way to treat customers Ford. Espically when you want to increase Mustang production 80% to 175,000 units for 2005. I know you save money this way, and that's what it's all about, the almighty dollar. This is why car companies that build cars for the customer, not for the money, have such a cult following. I dunno, maybe I'm overeacting and this is a common thing...just I notice it with Ford because I keep up with them so much. Either way, given the money, I'd buy neither the GT or Mustang. Ferrari and GTO would be my vices.