![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
ROUSH and Ford sued for making too many Blackjack Mustangs
Click to enlarge
ROUSH announced the Stage3 Blackjack Mustang back in 2006, and in 2007 said it would make 100 of them. New Yorker Drew Conner bought Blackjack number two, spending almost $59,000 for his slice of limited edition Mustang pie. Only the glossy black 'Stang wasn't so limited after all: according to a lawsuit Connor filed in New York, Ford and ROUSH made another 100 Blackjacks in 2008.
Both Ford and ROUSH are named in the suit, and Connor has been joined by "at least 100" other Blackjack buyers. The plaintiffs' complaint is, of course, that the Blackjack's "value from scarcity and as collectors' items were and are dramatically less than the buyers had been led to believe their value would be."
But to make everything all better, the plaintiffs are asking for class action status, a jury trial, and... ahem... more than $12 million. That sounds like a lot, but say there were just 100 plaintiffs, that would be $120,000 per person, and would get them their money back plus a 100-percent premium for being misled... which might sound more reasonable. Or not. For the moment, both Ford and ROUSH have no comment on the litigation. Thanks for the tip, iOrange!
UPDATE: One point of clarification that's been bothering us is why Ford has been included in this lawsuit. All it did was build the Mustangs then sold them to ROUSH, which developed, manufactured and distributed the run of limited-edition Blackjack Mustangs.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Torrent 11:30AM (8/05/2008)
lol
Reply
phooky 11:38AM (8/05/2008)
agreed
srivendel 11:34AM (8/05/2008)
How stupid do you have to be to buy a Roush Mustang and expect it to increase in value? Further proof that you can sue somebody for any made-up reason you want.
Reply
old blighty 4:10PM (8/05/2008)
no kidding.
These premade "collector's items" won't appreciate at all.
How many zillion "collector" mustang variations are there?
pure greed
1337 12:07PM (8/05/2008)
+1 Anyone stupid enough to pay $59k for this deserves to take a pretty big depreciation hit.
carsteve 12:26PM (8/05/2008)
That's not what the suit is based upon.
Allan 11:35AM (8/05/2008)
Guess they'll just have to try to buy the next super limited edition of awesome Mustang greatness.
It should be out next week.
Reply
2007RC46SP2 11:55AM (8/05/2008)
remember their released every tuesday, just like new music CD's
2007RC46SP2 4:31PM (8/06/2008)
Saleen Sterling Version
http://wardsauto.com/testdrive/saleen_sterling_mustang/
Brad 11:36AM (8/05/2008)
lol indeed.
There are so many mustang variants that I just don't care anymore. Here's a new mustang with different mirrors! Let's sell it as a limited edition for $12k more!
Reply
Vintage 11:36AM (8/05/2008)
Mustangs are not rare. It doesn't matter if they have special stickers. This lawsuit= fail. Buying a mustang for its rarity is like buying an H2 for its gas mileage.
Reply
FroOchie 11:38AM (8/05/2008)
There is no way they can possibly win this and if they do, the system is corrupt. Since when can you sue for a bad investment?
Ford said they wouldnt but decided to. And? Was there a bit on their buyers orders that said, under contract, Ford will never build another one of these cars?
Thanks for tying up the system Mustang owners, I hope you get stampeded right out of the court-horse. ;)
Reply
Icon149 12:17PM (8/05/2008)
actually ford only build 100 2007 blackjack mustangs... the other 100 are 2008's. that is a different car and therefore ford didn't break there word. lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
Maverick128 2:32PM (8/05/2008)
I agree with Icon149. They did only make 100 of them. Then the next year came out witch was another model and they made 100 of that one. I don't see them actually having a case. As long as they didn't make more than 100 of one model year, I don't see how these people won't be just wasting their time and money doing this.
Avinash machado 11:38AM (8/05/2008)
It is foolish to buy cars as investment.
Reply
AngeloD 11:52AM (8/05/2008)
""It is foolish to buy cars as investment""
Not with the price of 1960's muscle cars approaching 7 figures at auction.
Zane 12:26PM (8/05/2008)
You don't know a lot about cars, do you?
Gavin S. 12:42PM (8/05/2008)
You're right. To the jokers that cite 60s muscle cars as a reason to invest in cars, how many Hemi Cudas do they have stashed in their garages?
AngeloD 12:57PM (8/05/2008)
""You're right. To the jokers that cite 60s muscle cars as a reason to invest in cars, how many Hemi Cudas do they have stashed in their garages?""
Well, considering that I was 2 years old when the hemi-Barracuda was last produced, you'll have to excuse me for not buying up a bunch and stashing them in my garage.
And, are you denying that these types of cars go for hundreds of thousands of dollars at auction? Or are you saying that they must be a bad investment because nobody here owns one?
Either way, you make no sense at all.
jv2k 1:06PM (8/05/2008)
The Roush Mustangs are very different from the original 1960s mustangs. One model is a classic, and the other is a crappy modded version of the normal mustang released in limited numbers so people think it'll become a classic.
This lawsuit is fail and the people are just mad because they were stupid enough to fall for such a gimmick.