R&T on the Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by ajzahn, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. #26 MontereyDave, Jun 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Here we go again. The GT500 weight is nearly identical to the BMW M6 (3,920 lbs vs 3,909 lbs).
    http://db.theautochannel.com/db/newcarbuyersguide/compare_car_capacities.php?cars=21032,19298

    The Ford also has gobs more torque yet get better fuel economy.
    http://db.theautochannel.com/db/newcarbuyersguide/compare_car_results.php?cars=21032,19298

    But the M6 does have 2 more cupholders.
    http://db.theautochannel.com/db/newcarbuyersguide/compare_car_specs.php?cars=21032,19298
     
  2. #27 exer51, Jun 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're not. I did a search and found a few things:

    http://tinyurl.com/35e25l

    A pricier version--as an SVT Cobra--was under consideration, which would've had an IRS and an even more powerful engine. But the business case was rejected by management as too rich for a Mustang.

    Ford probably knows what things they make cost pretty good... Or so I'd suspect.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2711&cp=3

    First post on that page. He says that 1000 number was for the previous Cobra, which did have IRS. Aside from the warranty crap he mentions I would also tend to think that the developement cost, not just the difference in price after developed, would be notable for so few vehicles to use it.

    Also I wasn't JUST talking about IRS. I was talking about it being a pig, and shitty hard plastics inside, and all the other usual gripes as well. The solid rear was probably chosen not just because of cost, but because it (in a way) fits the type of car better. They knew they weren't going to be making an autocross monster here, they knew it was going to be more a dragstrip car from the get go... And solid IS better for that and I do know that played into it as well.
     
  3. The Cobras of yesteryear managed it fine. Its not like there aren't any cars in Ford's inventory they can't just copy and paste the blueprints for an IRS from with fine tweaking. Really the '03 Cobras were a different blower or a different pully from the GT500 by way of power (even a different Ford Racing blower, look at the catalog), but it still managed handling vast scales better than the GT at the time (meaning to compare the difference between trim levels).

    Don't get me wrong, I've always been a Mustang fan and I love the GT500, but it's just not what it could be. I was expecting more. Ford usually thinned their profit margins on the highest trim level of Mustang anyway - it was mainly to advertise parts available in the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog.

    Edit: To the post directly above mine, first link. Considering they're pushing out a new, even more expensive Shelby, I'd put my money on that being a load of shit.
     
  4. It's kinda odd how they always get a half second under any other tests.
     
  5. You're correct. You couldn't just cut and paste the IRS into the GT500, its a completely different platform. However, I still would have preferred to see an IRS in this car as cobras have always been the "grand tourers" of the Mustang world.

    But I digress. Where else can you get 450rwhp BONE STOCK for under $60K? While I agree that the GT500 could have been better, its still a hell of a lot of car for the money. Also, keep in mind that its a MUSTANG. While its often compared to Vettes, Vipers, etc those cars are not its competition. It was designed to compete with the now extinct (for now, atleast) Pony cars out of GM I've been in a couple GT500s and despite its bulk they are very fast and without even cracking the valve covers you can get over 800rwhp. Not a lot of cars have potential like that.

    In regards to handling, I think the aftermarket including vendors like Maximum Motorsports will put together packages that will have the GT500 taking corners like a champ.

    Personally though, I have considered "upgrading" to the GT500 but I'm happy with my Terminator. Less bulk, IRS, better looks (subjective, obviously), and tons of FUN!!
     
  6. Perhaps I worded that poorly. I didn't mean to say they could rip an IRS off something else and bolt it on to the new Mustangs, but rather that a performance suspension isn't exactly something SVT/Ford Racing would need to spend money on R&D with. It's not a difficult or new concept, and it really should be on the top-trim 'Stangs.
     
  7. Yeah, I don't get that. While they aren't professional drag racers, they ARE professional drivers with literally 1,000s of trips down the 1/4. I was able to run a 13.0 at 109 my very first time ever at the track in my cobra when it was bone stock. AND, I was babying it (SLOW 2.2-2.4 60ft times!) because it was still practically brand new. They driver must have left the Traction control on or something.
     
  8. Agreed.
     
  9. "WHEN FORD ITSELF HAS CLAIMED IN THE PAST THE THE IRS HAD A COST OF $1000 DOLLARS OVER THE SOLID REAR."

    Wow, really? Where did you read this?


    "FORD DIDN'T USED A SOLID REAR TO SAVE MONEY OR BECAUSE THEY HAD TO MAKE SOME CONCESSIONS TO KEEP THE GT500'S PRICE DOWN"

    Out of curiosity, why did they use a solid rear axle?
     
  10. I suppose it wouldn't be that difficult for them to have done, but there's still a lot of going through the motions to actually get it done. And it wouldn't have added that much cost. Like I've said a million times before I wish they had given it IRS. It really should have it. They have a huge power gap as it is now. So they could have made a 400HP or even 450HP SVT Cobra or whatever, to cover their bases on a cheaper variant, and then went balls out on a low volume Shelby.

    That would have been rad.
     
  11. They've been on record as saying they're mechanically sympathetic, most likely more than other mags. They prefer to get results that the average driver/owner might get. They also don't correct for atmospheric conditions, unlike other mags. Not even in some cases of 2500'+ elevation (though rare).
     
  12. I see what you're saying. I find it ridiculous though as performance cars are made to be driven, and driven HARD. Do they think the average car enthusiast (not those that treat they Shelby like a collectors item and never drive it) will go to the track and not bother to even try to reach their cars potential? If thats the case, why even bother going to the track? Whats the point in that? I have a hard time believing that the average driver wouldn't get better than a 13.0 out of that car, although, in there defense I don't know the conditions on that day or the condition of the track. Still, mustangs are very easy to drive fast.
     
  13. Wouldnt IRS just make it weigh more?
     
  14. It might weigh more, depending on how you build it. With alloy control arms and differential housing, careful selection of other components for light weight, it could very well weigh less than a typical live-axle setup using steel parts.
    But even with steel suspension components, an IRS offers less unsprung weight, and that greatly affects a car's abililty to cope with rapid undulations or bumpy pavement.
     
  15. Because they wanted it to be a piece of shit. Duh.
     
  16. #41 PandaBeat, Jun 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    1- www.google.com

    2- Because they wanted to.
     
  17. I think I read somewhere that this platform was actually engineered to allow for IRS (vs the last platform that wasn't?), so the weight of the IRS would actually be less.


    My thoughts are that they chose the live axle due to more reasons than just cost.




    What I would really like to see is a GT350 that is designed to go somewhat fast (aluminum or CGI block DOHC with a nice balance of TQ and HP), but be light weight and handle great. When I think of a GT500 drag racing comes to mind, the GT350 makes me think of road racing.
     
  18. Exactly. +1
     
  19. #44 Guibo, Jun 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    1. Have a specific link? Print article? Google isn't turning up anything substantial.

    2. But why would they want to?


    I too have read that the current platform was designed with IRS in mind, and years ago, people from Ford were saying the next-gen Cobra would have it. That is likely the GT500 & other versions we are seeing now.
     
  20. At least the roof doesn't fly off. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
     
  21. 1. Some of them have already been posted.

    2. Because of their target market?
     
  22. The olds SVT Cobra didn't have any problems selling and it had IRS.
     
  23. It also had a lot less HP.
     
  24. Best bang for the buck.
     
  25. Five-Oh
     

Share This Page