new gt500 numbers and evo pics

[C.R.Y.]

its both. its like a transgender

 

[Duke]

With enough time and money you can make anything go fast in a straight line. It doesn't say shit about how good the car really is when you buy one. I mean, there are 180 SX's out there with drag teams putting out over a thousand bhp, doesn't mean the S13 platform is the greatest car ever to grace the surface of the Earth.

Yes the GT500 is fast, in a straight line. And yes, one can make it faster.

So? It's still 1700 kilograms of iron with a live rear axle. I'd spend my money elsewhere.

 

[C.R.Y.]

so what it weighs 1700 kgs and has a live rear axle. its still fast. you might as well diss supras because they use turbos bigger than my head and muscle cars because they use 572 ci engines. why diss and not appreciate. thats the point of being an automotive enthusiast. something you dont seem to be. ppl like me and Deeznuts appreciate all types of cars. whether theyre stripped, have big laggy turbos, or weigh alot. i dont like the 69 dodge chargers, but i give them respect because they are pretty fast.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

^ Duke wasn't dissing GT500s... he was calling it like it is. He acknowledged that it's a fast car, he just said that due to its heavier weight and suspension setup, it's not meant to be a nimble handler destined to set record lap times, and he would probably buy something else if he were in a position to buy a new ride. Not dissing at all.

 

[C.R.Y.]

i know. but thats like me calling another car out because something else can be built faster. the point is i show every car respect. hondas, chevys, whatever. i give them props for making the power, breaking records, etc. but i dont go around saying "well im sure another car can beat it". thats obvious because theres always faster cars. yes it weighs alot but who cares. the point is that its something everyone who likes cars should enjoy. when i post things here of any car, im doing it to spicen up the PMR section. because its pretty dead around here. i post records here and there, along with news for those automotive enthusiasts. an automotive enthusiast would appreciate any car. i talk to people about all types of cars from nissans to lamborghini. i have my differences but i give every car credit where its deserved. no matter how big of an engine, how much weight, etc. i have a friend who goes to auto school with me and his father has 4 drag cars. 1 69 camaro, 1 buick skylark, 1 5.0 mustang, and some other car. the camaro has a 14 liter engine making 1400rwhp all motor. the skylark weighs over 3800lbs and runs 7s @170mph. both cars use big engines, arent street legal and can tear the shit out of most cars out there. should i say, "theres better cars" because it weighs over 3000lbs or has a 14 liter engine. even though those are big engines and the cars are heavy, i give them credit. because they run fast times and make big power.

the mustangs were and will always be pony cars before sports cars. that means theyre not meant for taking corners as much as for straight line acceleration. even then, magazines and other sites say the mustang doesnt handle like it weighs 3900lbs. it actually handles pretty good for being heavy. it doesnt beat the vette. but remember its a pony car which=small body, big engine, 4 seater. if you want a sports car buy a C6 vette. dont be all suprised if the mustang doesnt have the best suspension for handling, thats not what its meant for. hence why it came with live axle. thats like buying a lotus elise for straight line acceleration when it was built for circuit racing and autoxing. there were a few mustangs that were meant for cornering. theyre the shelby gt350, shelby gt500 (the older one), and the cobra r's

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

dont be all suprised if the mustang doesnt have the best suspension for handling, thats not what its meant for. hence why it came with live axle.

True, but don't attribute the live rear axle to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a great handling car. It's there because Ford wanted the base model to be under $20k, and they didn't want to invest money in developing a separate independent rear suspension for the GT and GT500 models.

 

[C.R.Y.]

True, but don't attribute the live rear axle to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a great handling car. It's there because Ford wanted the base model to be under $20k, and they didn't want to invest money in developing a separate independent rear suspension for the GT and GT500 models.

they didnt have to develop the irs. the svt cobra had it so they couldve transferred it, but the stang fans like the solid axle because its great for drag racing and cheaper to make. what i think ford should have done, was offer irs as an option. thats where they fucked up.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

they didnt have to develop the irs. the svt cobra had it so they couldve transferred it, but the stang fans like the solid axle because its great for drag racing and cheaper to make. what i think ford should have done, was offer irs as an option. thats where they fucked up.

I don't think it would've been possible for Ford to just completely swap the IRS from the old SVT Cobra, seeing how it used the foxbody chassis, which wasn't just different but 25 years old. It could be done, but it takes a little bit more than a few new mounts... it would need a ton of fine-tuning. And the 'Stang fans who like the solid axle are, for the most part, guys who realistically don't own a GT500 and probably never will. Nobody complained about it when the SVT Cobra had an IRS. In the event that the car is a drag strip monster and no longer a daily driver, then yes, the solid rear axle would've been a cheaper, more suitable setup, but I'm sure an overwhelming majority of GT500s are daily driven and always will be. And it's not like an IRS would hamper its quarter-mile performances anyway, it would only increase its cornering prowess. But yes, it should've at least been an option, that would've been a wiser choice, but I feel that the majority of buyers would still opt for the IRS. The price difference between the two wouldn't sway any buyers when it's already a $40-45k car, but the increase in handling and handling feel would already be worth it.

 

[C.R.Y.]

I don't think it would've been possible for Ford to just completely swap the IRS from the old SVT Cobra, seeing how it used the foxbody chassis, which wasn't just different but 25 years old. It could be done, but it takes a little bit more than a few new mounts... it would need a ton of fine-tuning.
[/quote}
agreed. it wouldnt have been a direct fit, but more of a starting point for them.

And the 'Stang fans who like the solid axle are, for the most part, guys who realistically don't own a GT500 and probably never will. Nobody complained about it when the SVT Cobra had an IRS.

plenty people i know (including my father) said it makes launching the car hard somewhat difficult. even then look at what all the previous mustangs have had. solid axles. even the 5.0, the best 1/4 mile racer has solid axles. the svt cobras needed beefier half shafts and differentials to put up with the power or else they would shatter. the solid axles on 5.0s never had those problems.

In the event that the car is a drag strip monster and no longer a daily driver, then yes, the solid rear axle would've been a cheaper, more suitable setup, but I'm sure an overwhelming majority of GT500s are daily driven and always will be.

plenty of people daily drive solid axle mustangs with no problem

And it's not like an IRS would hamper its quarter-mile performances anyway, it would only increase its cornering prowess. But yes, it should've at least been an option, that would've been a wiser choice, but I feel that the majority of buyers would still opt for the IRS. The price difference between the two wouldn't sway any buyers when it's already a $40-45k car, but the increase in handling and handling feel would already be worth it.

having a solid axle makes it easier to launch harder. and its beefier to handle the torque. thats why it has a solid axle. if the car was built for handling, it wouldve had an aluminum engine, naturally aspirated, and had irs. even then the gt500 with the solid axle outhandles the svt cobra with its irs. owners of both say so. and with the prices being marked up by dealers because of their greediness, im sure noone would want to pay another couple of thousands for irs.

heres some of them who prefer the heavier gt500 with live axle over the cobra with irs even for handling.

http://svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323424&highlight=irs+solid+axle

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

plenty people i know (including my father) said it makes launching the car hard somewhat difficult. even then look at what all the previous mustangs have had. solid axles. even the 5.0, the best 1/4 mile racer has solid axles. the svt cobras needed beefier half shafts and differentials to put up with the power or else they would shatter. the solid axles on 5.0s never had those problems.

...yet every other production car that can do roughly as good or better today has an IRS. Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Corvettes, Vipers, Evos, STIs, SRT-8s, Elises, BMW Ms, Mercedes AMGs, you name it. So clearly a solid rear axle isn't superior for a daily driver that might make frequent visits to the drag strip, otherwise there'd be more sports cars with solid rear axles. If the SVT Cobras had problems that you speak of, that's not so much of a suspension problem as it is a drivetrain problem. Plus those older 5.0 Mustangs never had nearly as much horsepower or torque, so they had to put up with far less stress than even the old supercharged SVT Cobra.

plenty of people daily drive solid axle mustangs with no problem

I never said it was impossible, I just said IRS is the better choice for a daily driven car. If you had a GT500 that was to be your only car (hence being your daily driver) that you might take to the drag strip every now and then but keep close to stock but Ford gave you the choice of having either the solid rear axle or reasonably developed IRS, what would you pick? Thought so.

having a solid axle makes it easier to launch harder. and its beefier to handle the torque. thats why it has a solid axle. if the car was built for handling, it wouldve had an aluminum engine, naturally aspirated, and had irs. even then the gt500 with the solid axle outhandles the svt cobra with its irs. owners of both say so. and with the prices being marked up by dealers because of their greediness, im sure noone would want to pay another couple of thousands for irs.

Bullshit, the reason why the solid axle is there isn't because of launching. Yes, it can benefit straightline acceleration from a dig, but that wasn't the reason for its placement in the Mustang lineup. Like I said before, it's because of Ford wanting to keep the gay ass Mustang V-6 below $20k first and foremost, then it was to keep development costs down. Every other modern American musclecar has an IRS, some of which are just as quick down the strip.

Really, pick a new car to talk about please. Or at least a different performance measurement.

 

[C.R.Y.]

...yet every other production car that can do roughly as good or better today has an IRS. Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Corvettes, Vipers, Evos, STIs, SRT-8s, Elises, BMW Ms, Mercedes AMGs, you name it. So clearly a solid rear axle isn't superior for a daily driver that might make frequent visits to the drag strip, otherwise there'd be more sports cars with solid rear axles. If the SVT Cobras had problems that you speak of, that's not so much of a suspension problem as it is a drivetrain problem. Plus those older 5.0 Mustangs never had nearly as much horsepower or torque, so they had to put up with far less stress than even the old supercharged SVT Cobra.

the live axles were never the best on other cars. the point is that it works on the mustangs and work well. thats like saying the leafsprings on the C6 Z06 suck because its old. it still performs good so why not? people are satisfied with the handling of the gt500. no, it wont outhandle evos or vettes. but it still handles good for a car of its kind.

the 5.0s can make 600rwhp and still run stock differential and driveshaft with no problem. worse case scenario, the driveshaft might give out. not bad for a car that made 225hp stock.

I never said it was impossible, I just said IRS is the better choice for a daily driven car. If you had a GT500 that was to be your only car (hence being your daily driver) that you might take to the drag strip every now and then but keep close to stock but Ford gave you the choice of having either the solid rear axle or reasonably developed IRS, what would you pick? Thought so.

i agree. it is better, but the solid axle still isnt bad. if i had to choose it would depend on the cost. if its another 3k id rather stay with the live axle as it would bother me as much. but if it was like 1k more (which i would doubt) id get it.

Bullshit, the reason why the solid axle is there isn't because of launching. Yes, it can benefit straightline acceleration from a dig, but that wasn't the reason for its placement in the Mustang lineup. Like I said before, it's because of Ford wanting to keep the gay ass Mustang V-6 below $20k first and foremost, then it was to keep development costs down. Every other modern American musclecar has an IRS, some of which are just as quick down the strip.

whats the V6 gotta do with it? i doubt the V6 has the same live axle as the GT500. and yes other cars do use irs and are fast. but the live axle isnt nowhere as tricky to launch. everywhere i read the irs is a pain, just look at the gto as an example.

Really, pick a new car to talk about please. Or at least a different performance measurement.

i talk about the 1/4 mile because its the only thing i would be able to do. i live in newark, theres no road atlanta around here. only englishtown's raceway park and atco raceway. why care about handling as much when i wouldnt be able to put a car through corners hard without putting someone elses lives in danger. im not saying handling doesnt matter. it does, and i think its an important aspect, but in reality it wouldnt matter as much to me. even my future project car i wanna build, a LS7 RX7 is gonna be about the 1/4 mile. i wouldnt mind taking it around corners too if i were able to go to a circuit track either

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

the live axles were never the best on other cars. the point is that it works on the mustangs and work well. thats like saying the leafsprings on the C6 Z06 suck because its old. it still performs good so why not? people are satisfied with the handling of the gt500. no, it wont outhandle evos or vettes. but it still handles good for a car of its kind.

But here's the difference: the live axles on the GT500 work, while the leafsprings on the C6 Z06 work well. Its Nurburgring times are clear, objective testaments to that, which is why I don't really have anything bad to say about the Z06, despite its rear suspension being pretty archaic.

whats the V6 gotta do with it? i doubt the V6 has the same live axle as the GT500. and yes other cars do use irs and are fast. but the live axle isnt nowhere as tricky to launch. everywhere i read the irs is a pain, just look at the gto as an example.

The V-6 has EVERYTHING to do with it. I'm not saying that the rear suspension of the base Mustang is identical to that of the GT500. I'm saying the reason why the GT500 has a live axle is because the V-6 does. Like I said before, the live rear axle was used to reduce the MSRP of the base model, and then Ford chose to use different different suspension bits in the sportier models to sharpen handling as higher performance becomes the greater focus. While I'm sure the GT500's suspension hardware is probably quite different from the base model's, that suspension setup is still attributed to it.

i talk about the 1/4 mile because its the only thing i would be able to do. i live in newark, theres no road atlanta around here. only englishtown's raceway park and atco raceway. why care about handling as much when i wouldnt be able to put a car through corners hard without putting someone elses lives in danger.

This is my view... while it's true that regardless of where someone lives in the U.S., quarter-mile drag strips are more numerous than actual road courses or race tracks. In that sense, quarter-mile acceleration seems like a more practical aspect of performance to put stock in. However, outside of the drag strips is the factor of daily driving. Personally, I don't launch at every red light, rushing toward 100 mph. Suddenly, superior straight line acceleration, while fun and adrenaline-pumping, doesn't seem so important. But cornering prowess is utilized more frequently... when making sharper turns, going through on- and off-ramps, swerving out of a lane that might have a car slamming on its brakes. Suddenly daily driving seems a lot more fun, thanks to curves built into the world around me combined with a well-sorted suspension, all while not having access to a nearby track. (I'm not suggesting people go all-out and drive sideways through city streets, I'm just saying a little fun can be had safely here and there in your daily routine... it's about finding out where to get an idea of what your car's dynamics are.)

 

[C.R.Y.]

But here's the difference: the live axles on the GT500 work, while the leafsprings on the C6 Z06 work well. Its Nurburgring times are clear, objective testaments to that, which is why I don't really have anything bad to say about the Z06, despite its rear suspension being pretty archaic.

the mustang does well with the live axle. thats what im trying to get at. no it wont outhandle alot of cars. but its good considering it weighs 3900lbs. just because theres better handling cars, doesnt make it lesser. thats like saying a evo is shit because theres a Z06 that does everything better with rwd. it doesnt make the evo any lesser. its still a good car.

This is my view... while it's true that regardless of where someone lives in the U.S., quarter-mile drag strips are more numerous than actual road courses or race tracks. In that sense, quarter-mile acceleration seems like a more practical aspect of performance to put stock in. However, outside of the drag strips is the factor of daily driving. Personally, I don't launch at every red light, rushing toward 100 mph. Suddenly, superior straight line acceleration, while fun and adrenaline-pumping, doesn't seem so important. But cornering prowess is utilized more frequently... when making sharper turns, going through on- and off-ramps, swerving out of a lane that might have a car slamming on its brakes. Suddenly daily driving seems a lot more fun, thanks to curves built into the world around me combined with a well-sorted suspension, all while not having access to a nearby track. (I'm not suggesting people go all-out and drive sideways through city streets, I'm just saying a little fun can be had safely here and there in your daily routine... it's about finding out where to get an idea of what your car's dynamics are.)

i agree, you can use handling to your advantage on the street like in those instances when pushing the car. hell, i can even do some spirited driving without pushing the limits in my moms corolla with the small 195 tires on it and have a blast because the car weighs 2500lbs. what im trying to get at is that you dont need much handling for daily driving. its not like youre gonna be pushing the gt500 to its limits every time for you to feel the weight though. if you are then youre driving dangerously. if i seen a car stop suddenly in front of me im gonna be scared as shit, not having fun. same thing with a semi cutting me off. idk how that would be fun, but it would scare me stiff. i have a good reaction when driving, but i definitely will still be shook at close calls. you dont need that much of good handling for a dd. its a plus, but its not neccessary. so a mustang that doesnt handle as good as a C6 can still make a good dd. it still pulls a .90g on the skid pad and has big 14 inch brakes. im sure the car is good enough for spirited driving.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

the mustang does well with the live axle. thats what im trying to get at.

I don't doubt that, I completely agree. The reason why I kept counterarguing was because it seemed like you were saying that the solid rear axle was the better choice for the GT500, especially for drag racing. Solid rear axles might be a better choice when you start to reach four-digit horsepower and torque numbers, but anything less won't need one to the point where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

just because theres better handling cars, doesnt make it lesser. thats like saying a evo is shit because theres a Z06 that does everything better with rwd. it doesnt make the evo any lesser. its still a good car.

But the problem with your analogy is handling feel. While the Z06 will hand the Evo its ass on any track that doesn't involve traction issues (rain, snow, gravel, dirt, mud, etc.), the Evo is still a great handler both objectively and subjectively, with excellent numbers and compliments. Objectively, the GT500 puts out some awesome numbers, suspension setup aside. Subjectively, several test drivers in magazines, TV programs and online publications say that while the car puts out results, the handling didn't feel very refined and wasn't as confidence inspiring as other sports cars that they've driven. However, some people prefer handling feel over results, and vice-versa. Driver A might like to take freeway on-ramps at 60 mph feeling well-planted while Driver B might like to feel like he/she is on the edge of spinning out at the same speed. Different strokes for different folks.

if i seen a car stop suddenly in front of me im gonna be scared as shit, not having fun.

While what I'm saying isn't too pertinent t the topic, I figured I might as well elaborate. The incident I was thinking of when I typed that surprisingly was a mix of fear and excitement. I was going around 60 mph down a three-lane street (50 mph speed limit), and all of a sudden, a BMW in front of me slammed on its brakes. I figured even with my Brembos, I couldn't stop in time, so I swerved into the lane next to me (which I knew was clear), and I barely missed the car. Had I been in any car that handles even the slightest bit lesser--like an STI--I would've hit the car. The reason why I say that (other than the fact that I've driven an STI extensively) was because the car's quick steering ratio, suspension and LSDs played a significant role in pulling me out of a potential accident. The steering ratio only required me to give a slight but quick jerk of the steering wheel, the suspension helped the quick reaction, and the LSDs kept me planted as soon as I countersteered. In an STI, I would've at least nipped the rear corner of the BMW's bumper, but even if that happened, who knows if that would've been enough of a nudge to send me spinning.

 

[C.R.Y.]

i agree with you. i sounded confused with the whole live axle part lol. the live axle would be better for drag racing, while irs would be better for handling while still being good for drag racing (more tricky to launch though). the irs would be better in the long run, but i wouldnt mind a live axle.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

As a side note, I was reading the current issue of some Mustang magazine yesterday, and in their road test of the GT500, they did a 0-60 ft time of 1.9 seconds and the quarter-mile in 12.41 seconds (no published trap speed)... pretty impressive stuff.

 

[C.R.Y.]

As a side note, I was reading the current issue of some Mustang magazine yesterday, and in their road test of the GT500, they did a 0-60 ft time of 1.9 seconds and the quarter-mile in 12.41 seconds (no published trap speed)... pretty impressive stuff.

yeah. i didnt expect a 1.9. was that on street tires?

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

yeah. i didnt expect a 1.9. was that on street tires?

I assume so, the article stated that the car was "bone stock." But yeah, 1.9 is really good for such a torquey RWD car. But then again, I'm sure that the test drivers for a Mustang magazine know every single trick there is regarding how to control them, so they'd probably be the most suitable drivers to get the best times for publication purposes.

 

[C.R.Y.]

I assume so, the article stated that the car was "bone stock." But yeah, 1.9 is really good for such a torquey RWD car. But then again, I'm sure that the test drivers for a Mustang magazine know every single trick there is regarding how to control them, so they'd probably be the most suitable drivers to get the best times for publication purposes.

thats good. i wouldnt be able to launch it for shit, since im not that good driving stick. ive only driven 2 stick cars and was learning on them as well. id either bog or spin it.

 

[Duke]

so what it weighs 1700 kgs and has a live rear axle. its still fast. you might as well diss supras because they use turbos bigger than my head and muscle cars because they use 572 ci engines. why diss and not appreciate. thats the point of being an automotive enthusiast. something you dont seem to be. ppl like me and Deeznuts appreciate all types of cars. whether theyre stripped, have big laggy turbos, or weigh alot. i dont like the 69 dodge chargers, but i give them respect because they are pretty fast.

You misunderstood. There's nothing really wrong with the car, but you sing it's praises so loud I figured I'd temper the mood a bit with some objectiveness. The GT500 is a semi-modern, relatively cheap modern muscle car. With all the advantages (big engine, good power, fun) and drawbacks (hamburger technology, unrefined) that come with it. Nothing more, nothing less.