RE: Meet the 200mph Ford Mustang Shelby GT500
Discussion
repost
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH gets a better response than my attempt though
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH gets a better response than my attempt though
LuS1fer said:
EDLT said:
Whats wrong with the lights, apart from having to change the colour of the rear indicators?
HIDs require washers and self-levelling in the UK. The last model had standard lights as an option (the non-boss-eyed looking one)but I'm not sure this one does or whether the last lights will fit this restyle.jbi said:
repost
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH gets a better response than my attempt though
Ah, the power of the homepage! http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
PH gets a better response than my attempt though
jellison said:
If the ZR1 with 638bhp can't quite do 200 how is this BOX.
Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
I found out on the I65 near Indianapolis in 2009 that the ZR1 can in fact crack 200mph (indicated). Then when I returned it to GM a few days later they confirmed 201.3mph to be exact Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
Agree with you on the GM style of modernising the pushrod design. As a result the 638bhp LS9 still comes with the 100,000 mile major service interval. Doubt the Ford motor can get near that,or the 24.3mpg I averaged between South Bend and Detroit.
thirsty said:
An amazing car and I am lusting for one now. However ... There must be something fundamentally wrong with this chassis considering the money Ford spends to make this car something special, but still insist on sticking with that stupid solid rear axle. It's also puzzling because this car was based on the old Jag S Type chassis. This is an old argument to be sure, but with HP and perfomance starting to reach crazy proportions, why haven't they fixed it? Is Ford just being stuborn?
All said, I would still like one.
I think there's a balance between fun and being technically the most advanced. I've not yet seen a single person truly drive a modern Mustang and then say it doesn't corner or isn't fun.All said, I would still like one.
Yes IRS is more sophisticated, but is it truly needed?
Stig said:
You might want to have a read up regarding 05+ Mustang racing success before posting the entirely predictable 'American cars and corners' comment.
Fair enough, but track success doesn't necessarily mean that a car handles well on the road - to give an absurd example, the roadgoing Ferrari F40 can be a real handful even for experienced drivers, and it was an excellent racing car. The ACR Viper's 'Ring time is deeply impressive though, and the Chevy Corvette C6Rs were damn good racers as well.jellison said:
If the ZR1 with 638bhp can't quite do 200 how is this BOX.
Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
Is it gearing related though? I don't know about the ZR1, but the C6 z06 ran out of revs in I think 5th to top 200mph and 6th is silly tall that even 505hp isn't enough to hussle it past the 200mph with.Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
Doesn't a BMW M5 do 200mph while being hardly any more sleek?
Dagnut said:
thirsty said:
An amazing car and I am lusting for one now. However ... There must be something fundamentally wrong with this chassis considering the money Ford spends to make this car something special, but still insist on sticking with that stupid solid rear axle. It's also puzzling because this car was based on the old Jag S Type chassis. This is an old argument to be sure, but with HP and perfomance starting to reach crazy proportions, why haven't they fixed it? Is Ford just being stuborn?
All said, I would still like one.
Lads were explaining on a thread before that the rear axle helps with launches...so the drag racers love itAll said, I would still like one.
IRS might well make it quicker on a bumpy road, but I'm not sure it'd make it any more fun. And while technically IRS should be superior, the s197 Series Mustang has beaten many IRS equipped cars at motorsport level, so you have to ask "does it need it?".
I suspect ride quality would actually be the biggest attribute to IRS rather than anything else.
Mavican said:
Chassis wise there's probably not much different design wise from my 98. So you can trace it all back to a mark 2 Granada!
IRS was suggested for the next big redesign of the mustang. They were going to use the falcon chassis from Oz. Well from what I read online anyway.
A 98 Mustang is vastly different from a 2005 onwards Mustang chassis wise. No common components really, even the axle was redesigned.IRS was suggested for the next big redesign of the mustang. They were going to use the falcon chassis from Oz. Well from what I read online anyway.
BelfastBoy said:
Fair enough, but track success doesn't necessarily mean that a car handles well on the road - to give an absurd example, the roadgoing Ferrari F40 can be a real handful even for experienced drivers, and it was an excellent racing car. The ACR Viper's 'Ring time is deeply impressive though, and the Chevy Corvette C6Rs were damn good racers as well.
That's also a fair point. The point I was making was that race results are quantifiable, rather than being opinion based.Without getting into the usual 'live axle' debate, I can tell you that the Mustang 'can' do corners as well as being a striaght line hero. Granted, it's never going to be an Elise at it, but for such a big car it makes a good account for itself
300bhp/ton said:
jellison said:
If the ZR1 with 638bhp can't quite do 200 how is this BOX.
Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
Is it gearing related though? I don't know about the ZR1, but the C6 z06 ran out of revs in I think 5th to top 200mph and 6th is silly tall that even 505hp isn't enough to hussle it past the 200mph with.Ford now making top notch engines to take it to Chevy.
I do prefer the way Chevy do it with the modern interpretation on pushrod tech though, why all those extra moving parts when you can do it with less
Doesn't a BMW M5 do 200mph while being hardly any more sleek?
Hint: it's the BACK of the car that dictates just how aerodynamic it is
300bhp/ton said:
It is good for drag racing, it just works, is strong, easy to upgrade and cheap to offer different gear sets for.
IRS might well make it quicker on a bumpy road, but I'm not sure it'd make it any more fun. And while technically IRS should be superior, the s197 Series Mustang has beaten many IRS equipped cars at motorsport level, so you have to ask "does it need it?".
I suspect ride quality would actually be the biggest attribute to IRS rather than anything else.
I've only driven the standard mustang GT on smooth tarmac of Dubai so I couldn't comment on how it effects ride quality but it certainly doesn't effect it's ability to go sideways ..I doubt I'd have anyway near the skill needed to mange 650bhp on full throttle but certainly the standard car is easy to slideIRS might well make it quicker on a bumpy road, but I'm not sure it'd make it any more fun. And while technically IRS should be superior, the s197 Series Mustang has beaten many IRS equipped cars at motorsport level, so you have to ask "does it need it?".
I suspect ride quality would actually be the biggest attribute to IRS rather than anything else.
LuS1fer said:
thirsty said:
An amazing car and I am lusting for one now. However ... There must be something fundamentally wrong with this chassis considering the money Ford spends to make this car something special, but still insist on sticking with that stupid solid rear axle. It's also puzzling because this car was based on the old Jag S Type chassis. This is an old argument to be sure, but with HP and perfomance starting to reach crazy proportions, why haven't they fixed it? Is Ford just being stuborn?
All said, I would still like one.
The Ford DC2 platform is not the same as the Jag:All said, I would still like one.
"D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type. The 2005 Mustang was designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C platform development completed prior to that decision was retained. This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission tunnel, the front frame rails, and basic fuel tank design. Differences between D2C and DEW98 are most noticeable in the suspension: The DEW98-based Lincoln LS uses a 4-wheel independent double wishbone suspension. The D2C platform's MacPherson strut front suspension and solid axle rear suspension are less expensive to produce than DEW's more complicated setup."
And therein lies the success of the Mustang - its affordability. You can have whatever you want but it will be more money and that was never the point of the Mustang and a stick axle is still best for drag racing and does OK on track too.
This is the swansong of the old-school 2005-on Mustang though. An all new Mustang is due in 2014 with IRS and it may be a more Euro, more weak-kneed, more conforming and hence duller car for the eternally brainwashed lemmings that think they want such a car.
thirsty said:
OK, it's an old worn out topic. My only point is that they have spent a ton of money making the Mustang a pretty good handling car, even with the solid axle. Apparently there is something inherent in the chassis that keeps them from putting in an IRS, or they would have done it, especially on the Boss 302. The old drag racing excuse never was much in the way of truth and more an excuse. Sadly, like you said, this one is due for the history books soon.
Last of the line Cobra's from around 99 or 2000 had IRS, so it's not as if Ford haven't looked at it before.bigdog3 said:
Fantastic machine but really that old adage still applies: Only in America. Dreaming was nice but now it's back to the 1600 diesel 
You don't really understand percentages do you?
If the oil companies charged 10p per litre, the tax + vat would be 15p for a total of 25ppl. Without the government changing a thing.
The government use a percentage, the oil companies set the price and hence set the amount of that price the government gets.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff