GT Performance, CoPilot 360, Glass roof

[hughstev]

Is there a logical reason why the CoPilot requires the Panoramic roof on the GT Performance. I was under the impression that the Glass roof add 200 pounds and was a hinderance to performance on the GT.

Sponsored

 

[macchiaz-o]

If performance is your only concern, then you'd want to eliminate unnecessary weight from the extra cameras, radars, and cabling. Just sayin'...

Packaging considerations are made from a variety of engineering and marketing decisions. I don't expect we'll know for sure on this one.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I wanted the cameras as kind of a fun toy. Since they're bundled with the stupid pano roof, I'm taking a hard pass. There's no logical reason I can think of for the cameras and Co-Pilot360 Active 2.0 to be bundled with the glass roof. Ford just did it to do it.

 

[hughstev]

The 200 lbs. figure was mentioned during the early design videos that were on the web. It was a reason that the glass was not included on the GT.

 

[Valkyrja]

Joined just to add my voice to this frustration. There is no apparent reason for these options to be married together just for the GT Performance package. This completely derailed my wife and I from putting a deposit down today.

 

[Frankie1]

I really doubt its 200 pounds.

 

[RonTCat]

If I had to guess, I would say it adds 30 lbs over the steel roof. Don't know, I'll have to look it up. I think the full glass on the ICE Mustang adds about 25-30lbs. It's not much.

 

[harrysiii]

I wanted the cameras as kind of a fun toy. Since they're bundled with the stupid pano roof, I'm taking a hard pass. There's no logical reason I can think of for the cameras and Co-Pilot360 Active 2.0 to be bundled with the glass roof. Ford just did it to do it.

No there is no logistical reason. You can get the GT with the Active 2.0, without the pano roof. Marketing/packaging.

 

[HuntingPudel]

No there is no logistical reason. You can get the GT with the Active 2.0, without the pano roof. Marketing/packaging.

Yup, they just wanted for some reason to force GTPE orders into a glass roof in order to get this package.

 

[RonTCat]

Yup, they just wanted for some reason to force GTPE orders into a glass roof in order to get this package.

This is false.

It is reduction of complexity. If you build one configuration of a vehicle versus a million, that saves $$. How you say? Well, someone has to print sales manuals, service manuals, plant instructions, ordering guides, customer support material, engineers have to authorize and test different vehicle configuration, etc. on and on, and manage all those different configurations. This is done by people, and those people get paid, paid by the customers that buy cars in the form of higher car prices.

So instead of the base car price being $5000 more so you can have the luxury of declining "for free" that glass roof, it is sometimes better to just limit option configurations. Almost everyone wins. Even the folks who think they actually are paying extra for something, when in reality having the option to delete something would make the vehicle cost more.

 

[HuntingPudel]

This argument would make sense if they packaged it the same way for all trim levels. The fact that they left the glass roof and Active 2.0 as separate options on some trim levels invalidates this argument, as the documentation for separate packaging already had to be made.

 

[MachGT]

Totally bummed that the glass roof is required for co-pilot. I sadly figured this out as I was going to pre-order. Now I'm not sure what to do... Glass rooves are less safe, let more heat in, and frankly, I"m looking forward, not up.

Sponsored