If the GT500KR Isn't Enough: Shelby Builds the 'Super Snake' (725 BHP!)

[Joey D]

That's a pretty round about way of getting to that. And that test sucked, if I can recall the GTO lost despite being faster and the all around better car because the C&D staff didn't like the interior.

Which when compared to Kevin Bacon, it's awesome.

Awesome! +rep

 

[Sakiale]

Well I'd compare a Mustang GT500 to an M3, at least.. and who's Kevin Bacon?

 

[Joey D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Bacon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon

 

[TopHat]

[WIKIPEDIA]Kevin Bacon[/WIKIPEDIA]


He is closely tied to everyone in the world. I'm only separated by a degree.

 

[Sakiale]

O...kay...

 

[McLaren]

i'm willing to bet even if you just count GT level and up, it still outsells them

In America, probably. No one wants a base model 350Z. But in world wide sales, I'd guarantee you the 350Z would outsell it. America is probably one of the extremely few countries whose GT outsells a 350Z.

what mods? Im talking stock vs stock


I was refering to the evo toronado brought up. But the "put them same amount into them" argumet is lame when the M5 cost $55,000 more anyway.

Is it? It only shows me you have to resort aftermarket mods to be a competitor. And unforunately for you, magazines don't do normally do something like that.

The mustang is faster, but the 300hp Z is quicker than i thought ( i found 13.5 for the stantard gt and 13.7. And you can't really compare the gt500 and the vette, they are in different classes. Those who "bashed the vette" after it lost to the GT500 on a drag strip aren't any better than those who bash the GT500 after it loses to sportscars on a track.

Oh, that's a bunch of hogwash. In this day and age, that whole, "Built for drag" exclamation is dead. The GT500, even as a drag car, did piss poor. I've seen GT500 owners push 12.5....The C6 has made 12.7.

Oh wait. The GT500 is a drag car. It wouldn't matter if the C6 actually beat it there, too.

Wrong, the mustang does everything on a track well, but that was its goal. To do well on the track, and excel at he strip, where almost 1/3 of owners take their cars. I'm not surprised it lost to a "track edition" Z car (i wonder what its purpose is?), or the overpriced golf (its targets are the cayman and z4, remember? so its gonna be more track biased). Hell, Im surprised it beat the "handling is all i got" RX-8, since top gear said it ran a similar time (the exact same time actually) to the 350Z and the M3 on their track.

Um, who said the 350Z was a track edition? Oh wait. The article didn't. As for the Z4, and Cayman, bring up their times. Wouldn't be surpriesd if they beat it. I mean, the GT500 time was already beaten by a Cayman once.

BTW, if you didn't figure it out by now, Top Gear is not exactly the show to source because 90% of the time, the cars' competitor has been beat on other, real world circuits.

...So using the same model that the Mustang should be able to beat the lower-powered TT, why is it any different of a question when we ask why the M5 can't beat the Evolution MR? Is it not the same kind of comparison benchmarking?

Here's the difference, cowboy. That's 1 track. On other tracks, at least the M5 is winning. But with the Mustang, it's losing every race.

So, you can't really speak on behalf of the Mustang because at least in the M5 Vs. Evo, both cars are winning. In the Mustang...well, we know the winner isn't the Mustang.

 

[YSSMAN]

Here's the difference, cowboy. That's 1 track. On other tracks, at least the M5 is winning. But with the Mustang, it's losing every race.

So, you can't really speak on behalf of the Mustang because at least in the M5 Vs. Evo, both cars are winning. In the Mustang...well, we know the winner isn't the Mustang.

It must be really hard to satisfy you, because you know, its hard to always be right with any car, isn't it? Ford does their best with the car, but it isn't good enough. The Mustang keeps up and performs well, but it isn't good enough. The Mustang is cheaper than most of the competition, but no, that isn't good enough either.

Boo, hiss, cry cry cry. Sorry the car doesn't have a four-link suspension, AWD, a sequential automatic gearbox, adjustable magnetic shocks, and a twin-turbocharged V6...

I guess Ford should just go commit suicide. Maybe it will be better for everyone...

 

[McLaren]

It must be really hard to satisfy you, because you know, its hard to always be right with any car, isn't it? Ford does their best with the car, but it isn't good enough. The Mustang keeps up and performs well, but it isn't good enough. The Mustang is cheaper than most of the competition, but no, that isn't good enough either.

No, it doesn't take much to satisfy me. But it doesn't satisfy me to have a car that can't perform like it should.

Have Ford build a SVT Cobra R out of the current generation, or another Terminator. Then come call me.

Boo, hiss, cry cry cry. Sorry the car doesn't have a four-link suspension, AWD, a sequential automatic gearbox, adjustable magnetic shocks, and a twin-turbocharged V6...

Too bad. At least every car with one actually performed at its peak.

I guess Ford should just go commit suicide. Maybe it will be better for everyone...

Why? The company will probably die out in a decade or so with all the layoffs they do after giving their CEOs 1.3 million dollar bonuses.

 

[TopHat]

Ford isn't going anywhere. The Fusion, the Focus, the Mustang, the F150, the Escape, and the Explorer will keep FoMoCo alive till the end of time.

 

[McLaren]

Ford isn't going anywhere. The Fusion, the Focus, the Mustang, the F150, the Escape, and the Explorer will keep FoMoCo alive till the end of time.

I doubt it. The more they lay off workers, and the more they give their CEOs million dollar bonuses they hardly deserve over their already, 7 figure salaries, the shorter the FoMoCo will survive.

Their sales are also dropping.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18418385/
May 1st, 2007.

Ford Motor Co., meanwhile, reported its U.S. sales fell 12.9 percent in April versus a year ago due largely to slumping car sales.

Ford sold a total of 227,619 light vehicles last month, down from the 261,381 the company sold in April 2006. Car sales were off 23.6 percent, while truck sales were down 5.7 percent, the company said.

It's the F150 that keeps Ford alive. Hardly anything else is making a big impact.

 

[YSSMAN]

Their sales are also dropping.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18418385/
May 1st, 2007.

That is taking news out of context right there. Every major automotive company saw sales drop over the past quarter, including the almighty Toyota. I think only Chrysler had a modest improvement, 1.3% if I recall, but quite frankly, that means jack-squat when you aren't selling anything to begin with.

...Ford is in better shape than Chrysler right now, that is for certain, but they definitely aren't in 'good shape' like GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, etc.

We'll see what happens with the next set of cars that will be starting to roll-out within the next few months...

 

[super cirrus]

In America, probably. No one wants a base model 350Z. But in world wide sales, I'd guarantee you the 350Z would outsell it. America is probably one of the extremely few countries whose GT outsells a 350Z.

wait, no one wants a base 350z? So you use that as an excuse for lower sales numbers, but when I included the base mustang for its higher sales you blast me?

Is it? It only shows me you have to resort aftermarket mods to be a competitor. And unforunately for you, magazines don't do normally do something like that.

please quote me where i said anything about moddiing the cars? I said (for the second time now) stock vs stock

Oh, that's a bunch of hogwash. In this day and age, that whole, "Built for drag" exclamation is dead. The GT500, even as a drag car, did piss poor. I've seen GT500 owners push 12.5....The C6 has made 12.7.

considering how well it sells, i doubt its dead. Considering how ford bent to the whim of its drag racing owners, i doubt its dead. And when is 12.5 piss poor when its faster than any other 2+2 in its price range


Oh wait. The GT500 is a drag car. It wouldn't matter if the C6 actually beat it there, too.

Um, who said the 350Z was a track edition? Oh wait. The article didn't. As for the Z4, and Cayman, bring up their times. Wouldn't be surpriesd if they beat it. I mean, the GT500 time was already beaten by a Cayman once.

it was a battle of $35000 cars, or so i thought. Why else use the overpriced shelby instead of a regular gt?

 

[McLaren]

wait, no one wants a base 350z? So you use that as an excuse for lower sales numbers, but when I included the base mustang for its higher sales you blast me?

Yes, no one in America wants a base 350Z. Why? You don't diddly on it. Why do you think no one buys base model Tundras? Because they're small and worth nothing. That's only reason a 350Z really doesn't outsell a Mustang GT because with a Mustang GT, you're getting a good dose of features. The 350Z works much like how YSSMAN once described BMW. It's a great, and cheap car, but you don't really get any of the goodies until you start putting on high-dollar options.

please quote me where i said anything about moddiing the cars? I said (for the second time now) stock vs stock

"But the "put them same amount into them" argumet is lame when the M5 cost $55,000 more anyway. "

I was referring to that. You're giving one rival the advantage over the other. And magazines don't do that. Besides, the Mustang GT was never meant to touch M5s.

considering how well it sells, i doubt its dead. Considering how ford bent to the whim of its drag racing owners, i doubt its dead. And when is 12.5 piss poor when its faster than any other 2+2 in its price range

It's selling on the fact that it's easy to modify and allows people to 're-buy' their GT500 dream machines. Rarely any GT500 driver is going to buy his GT500 to drag stock. They know the car isn't that great.

And can you name these other 2+2 cars, please?

it was a battle of $35000 cars, or so i thought. Why else use the overpriced shelby instead of a regular gt?

Why it would be a battle of $35,000 when 3/4 of the cars are $28,000?

 

[YSSMAN]

Why it would be a battle of $35,000 when 3/4 of the cars are $28,000?

Shelby GT: $36K
Audi TT: $35K
Mazda RX-8: $31K
Nissan 350Z: $28K

2/4 were $35K, 1/4 wasn't too far behind. Technically speaking, the Shelby shouldn't be any more than $30K (it is, sadly) and most of the other models either weren't equipped as much as the others, or were over-equipped for the test.

...What it comes down to is that the test fleets didn't have the best models available at the time...

 

[McLaren]

Shelby GT: $36K
Audi TT: $35K
Mazda RX-8: $31K
Nissan 350Z: $28K

2/4 were $35K, 1/4 wasn't too far behind. Technically speaking, the Shelby shouldn't be any more than $30K (it is, sadly) and most of the other models either weren't equipped as much as the others, or were over-equipped for the test.

...What it comes down to is that the test fleets didn't have the best models available at the time...

I must have not caught that part of the article then. I thought they were running near-base model vehicles.

 

[super cirrus]

Yes, no one in America wants a base 350Z. Why? You don't diddly on it. Why do you think no one buys base model Tundras? Because they're small and worth nothing. That's only reason a 350Z really doesn't outsell a Mustang GT because with a Mustang GT, you're getting a good dose of features. The 350Z works much like how YSSMAN once described BMW. It's a great, and cheap car, but you don't really get any of the goodies until you start putting on high-dollar options.

they wouldn't make them if they didnt sell. Besides nissan can't make a base model that sells, thats its own fault. Ford's base mustang sales quite well.
But the point is, the 350z is a good, cheap car for someone who values handling over say backseats or straight line acceleration. The mustang is a good car for someone who enjoys street light contest, drag strips. Most people aren't going to cross shop the two.


"But the "put them same amount into them" argumet is lame when the M5 cost $55,000 more anyway. "

I was referring to that. You're giving one rival the advantage over the other. And magazines don't do that. Besides, the Mustang GT was never meant to touch M5s.

What i was saying "put the same amount into them argument" i.e., modding one car to make up the price difference, is lame. As for the M5, i was saying you can't blame the mustang for being slower than the audi (a vehicle focused handling machine) despite being more powerful anymore than you can blame a M5 for being slower than an evo (a vehicle more focused on handling) despite being more powerful. Hell, an 190hp elise will walk all over the Z, on most tracks.

It's selling on the fact that it's easy to modify and allows people to 're-buy' their GT500 dream machines. Rarely any GT500 driver is going to buy his GT500 to drag stock. They know the car isn't that great.

And can you name these other 2+2 cars, please?

The fact is, the mustang is better at doing its job fast in a straight line than anything in its class. corvette and 350z are pure sports cars, not compromised 2+2 meant to excel in one area and be good in others like the mustang is.

at the gt500 price point:
3 series
g35 coupe
audi tt

at the regular gt price point:
civic coupe
eclipse
mazdaspeed3
rx-8
mini cooper s

all off these cars are gonna handle better than the mustang. They are designed for handling. Thats their mission. Non of them are gonna beat it at the drag strip. Thats its mission, the fastest accelrating vehicle in its price range, even against light weight sports cars like the the 350z and the vette. The fact that ford makes it an easily of modifiable car is just icing on the cake.

 

[JCE]

Dude the 350Z is NOT a lightweight anything, it weights 200lbs more than the Mustang. And I'd like to have the best of both words, and I would cross-shop those segments if someone offered both. If the Mustang handled very well and or the 350Z was a monster at the drag strip I would want either--or both. 👍

 

[Tornado]

a couple of mustang owner quotes whened they learned of a petition for irs in the mustang.

"I like the idea of making it optional, but standard? Hell no."

"Personally I don't think they should ditch the live axle at all. If anything, make the IRS an option, not standard equipment."

"Yes thats something I definately won't sign. If anything, make the IRS an option, not standard equipment"

So, where is the option?

dont know about that. im willing to bet the mustang sells more than any of those three cars.

So? What does that have top do with anything? In 1964 "sporty" meant going straight as fast as possible. In 2007 there is a bit more to it than that.

true, but it destroys the others in the comparo as well. Depending on the track, i seen'em beat M5's. You gonna chalk that up to the M5's "faulty suspension", despite a 200 hp advantage?

That is so irrelavent it isn't even funny. The Shelby losing to the TT and the M5 losing to the Evo are polar opposites, for one blatantly obvious reason:

1. The Evo is AWD, and the TT is FWD.

Otherwise the weight differences and power/torque differences are similar, but that key thing is what makes the Evo one of the best handling cars, period; whereas the Audi is decidedly not.

I would suppose that 'muscle car' and 'sports car' have crossed paths recently, but you still cannot count on the Mustang to be the best at everything... I'm happy with it being decently good at most things...

I think there has been some confusion. I haven't been intending on ragging on the base GT. I've been ragging on the Shelby GT. Remember, it is supposed to be the successor to the GT-350. Which was, by many accounts, a great handling car. The Shelby GT is a warmed over Mustang, and a base GT with $3,000 at it to make it a Shelby is still just a warmed over Mustang. That's why I have more issues with the Shelby GT than with the GT500.

Considering how ford bent to the whim of its drag racing owners, i doubt its dead.

Oh, I'm sure that is why Ford ditched the IRS.

And when is 12.5 piss poor when its faster than any other 2+2 in its price range

Oh noes!

Oh wait, you said in its price range. Not under it. Sorry.

at the gt500 price point:
3 series
g35 coupe
audi tt

Oh lord, I haven't laughed so hard in ages.
You do realise that the normal Shelby GT is in that price point, and that the GT500 costs $41,000, right? You also realise that getting into one for less than $60,000 is an excercise wrought with impossibility, right? And you also know that that is Audi RS4 money, right?
The Shelby GT competes directly with all of the cars you said competed with the GT500.

at the regular gt price point:
civic coupe
eclipse
mazdaspeed3
rx-8
mini cooper s

Why does the Mustang GT have an $8,000 price window of what it competes with?

all off these cars are gonna handle better than the mustang. They are designed for handling. Thats their mission. Non of them are gonna beat it at the drag strip.

I can think of a couple that could come real close, and one of those that would beat it more often in the case of a normal driver.

Dude the 350Z is NOT a lightweight anything, it weights 200lbs more than the Mustang.

I'd simply love to know where you get your sources, as the Ford and Nissan websites say that the 350Z starts at 3339lbs and the Mustang GT starts at 3450. Even the base Mustang V6 barely undercuts the 350Z in weight.

 

[McLaren]

at the gt500 price point:
3 series
g35 coupe
audi tt

at the regular gt price point:
civic coupe
eclipse
mazdaspeed3
rx-8
mini cooper s

all off these cars are gonna handle better than the mustang. They are designed for handling. Thats their mission. Non of them are gonna beat it at the drag strip. Thats its mission, the fastest accelrating vehicle in its price range, even against light weight sports cars like the the 350z and the vette. The fact that ford makes it an easily of modifiable car is just icing on the cake.

You can't compare them, remember? Those aren't drag cars....
Why would even put the TT in there? 200Horses Vs. the GT500's RWD 500? There's no way the TT is in that kind of area.

And a Civic Coupe? Uh, maybe the Si. And the Eclipse? Hell no.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think there has been some confusion. I haven't been intending on ragging on the base GT. I've been ragging on the Shelby GT. Remember, it is supposed to be the successor to the GT-350. Which was, by many accounts, a great handling car. The Shelby GT is a warmed over Mustang, and a base GT with $3,000 at it to make it a Shelby is still just a warmed over Mustang. That's why I have more issues with the Shelby GT than with the GT500.

I understand what you mean. Personally speaking, my biggest qualm with the Shelby GT is the price more than anything. If it were say, $30K like the GT/CS and other 'special' models (given the cost of the performance parts) it would make a lot more sense... But when it is just a few dollars short of $37K (nearly $10K MORE than the well-equipped GT), thats a problem.

Its a better explanation of disliking it, and I can respect that. IMO, the GT is still the sane way for most folks to go... Reportedly the Bulitt due for 2008 will have many of the same performance modifications as the Shelby, but should sell for thousands less... Which is a good deal to me...

 

[JCE]

I'd simply love to know where you get your sources, as the Ford and Nissan websites say that the 350Z starts at 3339lbs and the Mustang GT starts at 3450. Even the base Mustang V6 barely undercuts the 350Z in weight.

I typed Mustang and 350Z in google followed by curb weight. I know I saw somewhere a 3500lb weight for a 350Z. I did after all post my search results in this very thread--so I didn't just pull a number from mid air. Either way, +20lbs or +200lbs they are the relative same weight. So calling the Mustang overweight is simply not true...which someone did in this very thread.

 

[super cirrus]

So, where is the option?

where is the option on any modern car. ford had a choice and it made the one it felt best represented what its customers wanted. If a large amount of customers had asked for irs, it would have it.

So? What does that have top do with anything? In 1964 "sporty" meant going straight as fast as possible. In 2007 there is a bit more to it than that.[/FONT

]

not for mustang owners. grab a mustang magazine and see how many articles there are about road racing and drag racing. no comparison.

That is so irrelavent it isn't even funny. The Shelby losing to the TT and the M5 losing to the Evo are polar opposites, for one blatantly obvious reason:

1. The Evo is AWD, and the TT is FWD.

Otherwise the weight differences and power/torque differences are similar, but that key thing is what makes the Evo one of the best handling cars, period; whereas the Audi is decidedly not.

I'd say the tt is pretty damn good. its only a few tenths behind the z, despite being 100hp down. And the tt will come with awd soon. just cause they use different methods to go fast doesn't make it irrelevant.

Oh, I'm sure that is why Ford ditched the IRS.

when 1/3 of the buyers for your most popular model say ditch it, and the rest don't seem to mind, then yeah. thats a lotta sales a year to lose.

Oh noes!

Oh wait, you said in its price range. Not under it. Sorry.

so we can use used cars now? how about currently on the market.

Oh lord, I haven't laughed so hard in ages.
You do realise that the normal Shelby GT is in that price point, and that the GT500 costs $41,000, right? You also realise that getting into one for less than $60,000 is an excercise wrought with impossibility, right? And you also know that that is Audi RS4 money, right?
The Shelby GT competes directly with all of the cars you said competed with the GT500.

the shelby gt sucks, there is no arrgument there. But the Shelby's retail is $40, 000. I can help dealer gourging. Plus, a shelby would murder an rs4 in a drag race, and the rs4 would do the same track. Thats what they are supposed to do.

Why does the Mustang GT have an $8,000 price window of what it competes with?
I can think of a couple that could come real close, and one of those that would beat it more often in the case of a normal driver.

most of those are within $1000-$2,000 of its price. The si is 22,000 and the gt is 24,000. What would beat it? Only thing I can think of is the evo and that starts at $32,000.

I'd simply love to know where you get your sources, as the Ford and Nissan websites say that the 350Z starts at 3339lbs and the Mustang GT starts at 3450. Even the base Mustang V6 barely undercuts the 350Z in weight.[/QUOTE]

You can't compare them, remember? Those aren't drag cars....
Why would even put the TT in there? 200Horses Vs. the GT500's RWD 500? There's no way the TT is in that kind of area.

And a Civic Coupe? Uh, maybe the Si. And the Eclipse? Hell no.

I was showing you that, at that price point the tt does what it was built to do better (handle) the mustang does what it does better (drag). Si is what i meant, and mitsu markets the sport coupe eclipse right in the heart of mustang price range, why no?

 

[Tornado]

where is the option on any modern car. ford had a choice and it made the one it felt best represented what its customers wanted. If a large amount of customers had asked for irs, it would have it.

Right. Keep telling yourself that. Ford cut corners in every single area in the devlopment of both the GT500 and the Shelby GT. There is no way customers asking for it would be enough for Ford to be swayed.

I'd say the tt is pretty damn good. its only a few tenths behind the z, despite being 100hp down. just cause they use different methods to go fast doesn't make it irrelevant.

Yeah, it does. The physics of drivetrain types tells you it makes a big difference.

when 1/3 of the buyers for your most popular model say ditch it, and the rest don't seem to mind, then yeah. thats a lotta sales a year to lose.

I'm sure they just would have outright stopped buying the Mustang, then, right?

so we can use used cars now? how about currently on the market.

You said cars in its price range. The Cobra cost 6 grand less when new, didn't suffer from ridiculous dealer markup and also handled pretty good. So, what is Ford's excuse with the GT500? The Shelby badge? Please.

the shelby gt sucks, there is no arrgument there. But the Shelby's retail is $40, 000. I can help dealer gourging. Plus, a shelby would murder an rs4 in a drag race, and the rs4 would do the same track. Thats what they are supposed to do.

The fact that you can't help price gouging doesn't mean that it doesn't occur, and that fact alone makes it so comparing the GT500 to other cars in its supposed "price bracket" meaningless.
And, in any case, the RS4 would run neck and neck with the GT500 until just after the quarter mile, and as the RS4 driver would probably get a better launch anyways, he would most likely win 8 times out of 10.

most of those are within $1000-$2,000 of its price. The si is 22,000 and the gt is 24,000. What would beat it? Only thing I can think of is the evo and that starts at $32,000.

The Eclipse is $20,000. The RX-8 is 27,000. The GT starts at $26,000 ($24,000 barely gets you into a mid level V6).
What would beat it? Well, the base level Impreza WRX would in most situations, for one. A driver behind the wheel of a 350Z could, as well; 5 times out of 10 he would win.

 

[JCE]

I believe this is now appropriate for this thread:

 

[super cirrus]

Right. Keep telling yourself that. Ford cut corners in every single area in the devlopment of both the GT500 and the Shelby GT. There is no way customers asking for it would be enough for Ford to be swayed.

[/QUOTE]

Oh really? Quotes from an interview with Hau Thai-Tang:

The decision to go with a standard live rear axle over IRS was a hotly debated question in the early stages of planning for the new Mustang, admits Mustang Chief Engineer Hau Thai-Tang. "We conducted focus groups and asked a lot of questions at events like Fun Ford Weekend. Our customers basically said they want a live rear axle." "What they care about are the driving dynamics, not the architecture,"

"Focus groups (consisting of many of the core enthusiasts that Ford recognizes as important arbiters of the brand's performance image) said that IRS just wasn't a big priority for them." If you're a road-racing type, that might upset you, but if you're into drag racing, it'll be music to your ears, especially if you've seen your share of scattered Cobra IRS units.

And from muscle mustangs & fast fords, a mustang enthusiast mag (sure, they're a little biast, but it gives you an insight into the mind of a mustang buyer.

Obviously, we've made no mention of an independent rear suspension since, well, there isn't one. While this will send some lapsing into spasms, we've seen enough grenaded IRS units from previous SVT Mustangs (not to mention new Pontiac GTOs) that we are grateful for the omission, if you can call it that. So there's a tradeoff--a little more brake dive and a little movement in back if you hit a bump or two in a corner versus a more efficient driveline that puts more power to the ground, is lighter, and is virtually indestructible (not to mention cheaper to produce). Not only has the new three-link proven itself on the track in Grand Am cup, where it has kicked Porsche and BMW ass, but in Ford's testing it withstood 500 high-rpm drag launches without failure.

Anyway, think about it. The mustang is built on the Lincoln LS platform, a car with handling so good, it was compared favorably to the previous gen 5 series (not the m5 though). You say ford cut corners, but they probably spent more money developing a solid axle for the platform than it probably would have cost to leave it in and tweak it.

Yeah, it does. The physics of drivetrain types tells you it makes a big difference.

Then why is the audi tt within a 5 tenths of a second of the 350z's lap time, and beating the rx8, despite being less powerful than both? You' all have dogged on the mustang for losing, but neglected the rx-8 for losing to and the z for barely pulling away.

I'm sure they just would have outright stopped buying the Mustang, then, right?

Maybe not alright, but sales definately would take a hit, and ford needs all the sales it can get.

You said cars in its price range. The Cobra cost 6 grand less when new, didn't suffer from ridiculous dealer markup and also handled pretty good. So, what is Ford's excuse with the GT500? The Shelby badge? Please.

Yeah, the shelby name does drive prices up. Thats why some of the shelby hertz rent-a-racers have sold for over $100,000 despite not being much faster than a normal gt.

And, in any case, the RS4 would run neck and neck with the GT500 until just after the quarter mile, and as the RS4 driver would probably get a better launch anyways, he would most likely win 8 times out of 10.

damn, thats funny. Motor Trend clocked the rs4 at 13 seconds flat in the 1/4 mile. They clocked the GT500 at 12.6. I used motor trend because they get good averages times. Muscle Mustangs Clocked 12.2 for the Shelby. AWD is not drag racing friendly.

The Eclipse is $20,000. The RX-8 is 27,000. The GT starts at $26,000 ($24,000 barely gets you into a mid level V6).

20,000 for a base eclipse, but we're talking about the midlevel mustang. A midlevel eclipse is $24,000.

What would beat it? Well, the base level Impreza WRX would in most situations, for one. A driver behind the wheel of a 350Z could, as well; 5 times out of 10 he would win.

given equal drivers, a 350z would lose to a gt every time.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...port_convertibles_comparison/specs_price.html

and the wrx is even slower

I believe this is now appropriate for this thread:

I think so too...

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, I've forgotten why we're still arguing over this...

...Didn't both sides eventually concede?

 

[JCE]

Obviously not. Toronado and super cirrus are still arguing. lol

 

[Tornado]

Oh really? Quotes from an interview with Hau Thai-Tang:

Yeah, really actually. If Ford did what Mustang owners wanted, then Mustangs would still run Clevelands. If I recall correctly, probably 1% of Mustang buyers wanted to Cleveland to be replaced by the Modular engine. Yet Ford still did it so they could lower production costs on the engine. The fact is, ditching the IRS didn't have one damned thing to do with what customers wanted. It only had to do with the fact that it would be cheaper to sell the Mustang with a beam axle. One look at the interior of the GT500 tells you that.

You say ford cut corners, but they probably spent more money developing a solid axle for the platform than it probably would have cost to leave it in and tweak it.

Had Ford built the Mustang right on the Lincoln LS/Jag S-Type platform, that would probably be the case (more on that in a second), but to develop it for a solid rear axel, maybe. To sell with the IRS? No. I can guarantee it costs Ford less to sell the Mustang with the beam than to sell it with IRS, higher production costs or not, simply because the parts are less in complexity, number and expense.
Also, the S2C platform is only very loosely based on the DEW platform. The DEW platform was too expensive to build the Mustang on, so the only major things retained from it are the floor pans, transmission tunnel and front frame rails. With that fact in mind, it probably didn't cost them much of anything to design the D2C with a solid rear suspension, as it was probably designed from the start to include one.

Then why is the audi tt within a 5 tenths of a second of the 350z's lap time, and beating the rx8, despite being less powerful than both? You' all have dogged on the mustang for losing, but neglected the rx-8 for losing to and the z for barely pulling away.

Two things as to why the RX-8 finishing as close as it did being a miracle:

1. The RX-8 is what we call in the automotive business a "high-strung windbag." Probably throughout 90% of the RX-8's RPM range, the Audi is putting out at least the same amount of power, and I wouldn't think it to be a stretch to say that the Audi outs out more power than the RX-8 around 75% of the time. It has 200 BHP at 5100 RPM, whereas the RX-8 require 8500 RPM to get to it's peak. And when you finally rev the RX-8 up to umteenth thousand RPM? Its only putting out around 30 BHP more, and the Audi is in the next gear up, pulling away.
2. At no point in any location in its stratospheric rev range does the RX-8 come near the Audi in torque. The Audi has 207 lb.ft., right effing now, at only 1000 RPM, spinning all the way up to 5000 RPM. The RX-8 is a deserted island of power, and struggles to rev at all below 4000 RPM. Its torque peak? 5500 RPM, which is poth much peakier than the Audi's, much higher up in the revs and much lower number: 156 lb.ft.

Regardless of its perfect reflexes, better drivetrain type, better weight balance or similar overall weight, the engine alone is reason enough for the Audi to wipe the floor with it by a far larger margin than it ended up doing. When the DSG tranny is factored in, the Audi should be miles away from the RX-8. The fact that it isn't is a tribute to just how good a handling car the RX-8 is.
The 350Z winning was an accomplishment because:

1. It has the very similar BHP (though much less torque), weight other features to the Mustang, but:
2. It wasn't nearly a second behind the Audi around the track.
   

Maybe not alright, but sales definately would take a hit, and ford needs all the sales it can get.

I'm sure that the last reason Mustang sales are so phenomenal now is because Ford ditched the IRS. Maybe that is why Mustang sales for drag cars are up, but I'm sure the majority of Mustang sales are attributed to the styling and actual 300BHP engine.

damn, thats funny. Motor Trend clocked the rs4 at 13 seconds flat in the 1/4 mile. They clocked the GT500 at 12.6. I used motor trend because they get good averages times. Muscle Mustangs Clocked 12.2 for the Shelby. AWD is not drag racing friendly.

7 times out of 10 the GT500 driver would liquify his rear tires or bog the engine down trying to prevent that. The .4 second quarter mile advantage would very easily be destroyed and then some if either of those two happened, simply because dragging the RS4 is probably far more of a point-and-shoot affair than the GT500 is in all but the most cabable drivers.
In perfect conditions or with a driver who knows his GT500 well? I'm sure it would walk the Audi. Any other time? I bet the odds would be somewhat turned to the Audi's favor.

given equal drivers, a 350z would lose to a gt every time.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0506_compact_sport_convertibles_comparison/specs_price.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...port_convertibles_comparison/specs_price.html
Two problems:

1. Those are the roadster versions, and the weight penalty given to the 350Z for being a chop top is higher than the one given to the Mustang.
2. That is the 287 horse 350Z, and not the 307 horse one currently sold. The 307 horse model tied the more-powerful-than-stock-and-with-better-tires-too Shelby GT in the Car and Driver that started this argument, both to 100 (after being slower to 60) and in the quarter.

and the wrx is even slower

The same applies to the Rex that applies to the Audi, though the odds of winning are much closer to being in the Mustangs favor (probably 40-60 in favor of the Mustang), as the Subaru's times have a greater difference than the Audi and I'd imagine the GT would be much easier to launch.

I believe this is now appropriate for this thread:

I thought you were supposed to shoot the horse?



All that being said (barring the "shoot the horse" bit), if given the choice between a base GT and a Base 350z, and not being allowed to get either of their (in my opinion) vastly superior predecessors (I hate the new Mustang's styling with an intense fury, and the Z32 was pure unbridled awesome), I would probably go with the Mustang. Its more practical than the 350z, a little bit faster, and I wouldn't personally care enough about autocrossing to care more about the cars handling than "right foot plus corner equals wheeee." The Shelby GT, however, is complete trash, and still would be if they slashed prices by 5 grand. The GT500 comes close, but the dealer mark-up really, really kills it.

 

[McLaren]

given equal drivers, a 350z would lose to a gt every time.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...port_convertibles_comparison/specs_price.html

and the wrx is even slower

Oh my god, that's funny. Ok, ok...now that you've had your fun, let's compare the actual coupe of the 350Z to the GT.

Virginia International Raceway.
Mustang GT: 3:20.9
350Z:





Are you ready?













3:12.5. Yeah, the 350Z will lose every time.
As for the WRX STi, if the 350Z can whoop the Mustang, the WRX easily has the win. The Subaru Vs. the 350Z on 8 tracks won on 7. On the 8th, it came 1 second behind on Tsukuba. Now, if the 350Z can beat the Mustang by 8, I'm sure the WRX STi has no problem winning by 12.

 

[JCE]

GIVE IT A REST! This thread is over already!