Thoughts on the 2007 Shelby GT500

[DeeezNuuuts83]

yeah, thats true but that would make the mustang cost more. the mustang has always been about bang for buck, cheap cars that perform good. its the same with the gt500. 500hp for a little over 40k. thats a great deal. cause it can run the 1/4 in the low 12s at over 115mph, handle good, have a good ride quality, and be able to carry the groceries in while carrying your son around the backseat.

The horsepower and torque you get for what you pay for is great, but power output numbers aside, the performance numbers fall far short of what you'd expect for that engine. The GT500 does NOT run low-12s in the quarter. Most magazines are pulling low-13s, and from what I recall only one has done a 12.9. There is a world of a difference between a 12.9 and low-12s. As as far as those other qualities you listed, I wouldn't really credit those to a GT500.

sure ferrari has made engines that can make that all motor with a smaller engine, but they have less torque and cost a lot more money. even an ls7 that makes 505hp all motor costs over 13k. im sure ford is capable of making the hp naturally, but they would be running themselves into a knife if they did that. because than the mustang would cost over 60k like the z06 does. sure japan has done it too but guess what, the Z-tune skyline cost A LOT of money. its possible to stuff a 5.0 liter v10 like lamborghinis thats smaller but makes the 500hp naturally. but itll cost alot of money and a torqueless engine isnt good for everyday driving, unless its a honda. or they couldve stuffed a 2.6 liter I6 TT engine and made 500hp. but that also wouldve been less torquey and would cost more. now if the mustang was an all out sports car like a ferrari, than i would say its pityful because it would cost over 300k. but it isnt. its a pony car thats supposed to be affordable for the average joe. it wouldnt be affordable if they made a N/A v8 costing like 15k for the engine alone.

I see your argument, but you don't have too much validity. Yes, you are correct, the GT500 is the cheapest way to have 500 hp, but what you seem to neglect is the fact that despite having 500 hp, it's not as fast as you'd expect. It is literally the slowest 500 hp car out there. Evos, STIs, Corvette C6s, and other cars similarly priced but with less hp and torque will eat the GT500 alive in most performance categories, as will other 500+ hp cars (although they can be pricier). Almost every other car with close to 500 hp will absolutely crush the GT500 (granted these are all more expensive, but it's 500 hp done correctly):
C6 Z06 - 505 hp/470 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 3.6 - 1/4 mile in high-11s
CLS55/E55 - 469 hp/516 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 4.1 - 1/4 mile in 12.4
CLS63/E63 - 507 hp/465 lb.-ft - untested, but will be quicker than the CLS55/E55
M5/M6 - 507 hp/383 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 4.4 - 1/4 mile in mid-12s
Ferrari/Lamborghini/etc. - you know the story.

and about the comparison of the C6 to the GT500. look at an evo. i like them, and dont mean to be offensive. but it costs 36k. thats not bad because it still performs good. but for like 5k more you can have yourself 500hp. the reason why i brought this up is because that would be like comparing apples to oranges. the C6 is a sports car, the GT500 is a pony car, and the evo a sports compact. so choosing in between them is only a matter of taste really. i know the C6 gives better performance for only a little more of the cost of the gt500. just like the gt500 gives a little bit better performance for more of the cost of the evo. its all preference though. me, id take the gt500. i like the c6, but they look to plain. the evos nice, but i find rwd to be more fun.

I'm glad that you mentioned the "matter of taste" thing, since that is very important and why I chose an Evo, why C6 owners choose C6s, and why GT500 owners will choose GT500s. However, I still have to say a few things. Firstly, Evos are not $36k, they start much lower than that for the track-ready (but definitely streetable) Evo RS then around $31k for the regular Evo IX, then a bit more for the Evo MR; all of these cars share the same engine and drivetrain and have very similar performance numbers. So even at that point, you're looking at anywhere up to $10k cheaper for a car that runs stride-for-stride in the straights (especially from a dig) and will rip the GT500 a new asshole in the twisties. But Evos aside, you seem fixated on just having 500 hp. My whole argument goes beyond just hp and torque, it encapsulates how well that power is being put down.

The way I see it, is if you (not you you, but you in general) want some serious ALL-AROUND BANG-FOR-THE-BUCK for $40k or less, the GT500 is not the car for you. But if you want the cheapest route to 500 factory horses, then the GT500 is for you. But if you want 500 hp and the performance you'd expect from 500 hp, then the GT500 is not for you. But if you are just an admirer of American muscle and love the V-8 rumble as it propels itself down a straight open road, then the GT500 is the car.

 

[Duke]

sure ferrari has made engines that can make that all motor with a smaller engine, but they have less torque and cost a lot more money. even an ls7 that makes 505hp all motor costs over 13k. im sure ford is capable of making the hp naturally, but they would be running themselves into a knife if they did that. because than the mustang would cost over 60k like the z06 does. sure japan has done it too but guess what, the Z-tune skyline cost A LOT of money. its possible to stuff a 5.0 liter v10 like lamborghinis thats smaller but makes the 500hp naturally. but itll cost alot of money and a torqueless engine isnt good for everyday driving, unless its a honda. or they couldve stuffed a 2.6 liter I6 TT engine and made 500hp. but that also wouldve been less torquey and would cost more. now if the mustang was an all out sports car like a ferrari, than i would say its pityful because it would cost over 300k. but it isnt. its a pony car thats supposed to be affordable for the average joe. it wouldnt be affordable if they made a N/A v8 costing like 15k for the engine alone.

True true, Ford has managed to crank out good numbers for relatively no money. But that doesn't take away the fact the whole engine package is, well, rather poor really. I mean, you get nary 5.5 litres of supercharged violence and it still barely breaks the 100hp/litre mark.

let me put it like this, as an engineering achievement, the gt500 says nothing much. Any Dick or Jane can bolt a big supercharger to a big engine and make big numbers, really. Helps to stem the costs? Definitely, but it's not the better engine when compared to, say, the Skyline set up (much much lighter and more potential imo), the Lambo engines (where'd you get the notion those V10/V12's aren't torquey? maybe not as torquey as 6 litres of slow burbling American muscle, but it's not like those Gallardo and Murcielago engines lack torque...)

That, and those Lambo engines are 5 (Gallardo V10) and 6 litres (Murcie. V12) respectively but still they rev up to almost 8000 rpm. And as an engine, that makes it about 500 light years superior to the Mustang one.

And what about it's simplistic suspension system? People are actually pleasantly surprised it didn't have a live rear axle. This is 2006, though. Not 1968.

In the end, it's a great car for bang for buck. But as a car on itself, it falls pretty short of the expectations today in the 21st century, as it finds it's hamburger technology outclassed on almost every front. The only reason people would buy one, apart from youth sentiment maybe, is it's price.

So it's like that burger that doesn't taste as good but is half cheaper.

 

[tennis_dog]

jesus christ... would you still consider it annoying that i dont get the importance of torque, or a car having an "8,000 rpm redline?"

i do understand, though, that the gt500 isnt as powerful as it should have been... i guess another statement i agree with would make my GTO powerless, since it too is a supercharged V8 but puts out 400 horses.... what the hell do i have to do to beat a tricked out EVO MR with my GTO, which i dont really have??? i know an engine upgrade wont do much, so do i hit the suspension and stuff??? the Evo beats muscle cars around those curving tracks, right?

 

[Duke]

jesus christ... would you still consider it annoying that i dont get the importance of torque, or a car having an "8,000 rpm redline?"

i do understand, though, that the gt500 isnt as powerful as it should have been... i guess another statement i agree with would make my GTO powerless, since it too is a supercharged V8 but puts out 400 horses.... what the hell do i have to do to beat a tricked out EVO MR with my GTO, which i dont really have??? i know an engine upgrade wont do much, so do i hit the suspension and stuff??? the Evo beats muscle cars around those curving tracks, right?

You do understand the important of torque, you just don't know it and keep underestimating yourself . Torque is simply the engine's strength. Raw power. HP is the amount of actual work the engine can deliver.

High redlines are fun of course. More revs to play with. As engines get bigger they get heavier, thus making it difficult to spin very fast. Most old muscle car big blocks won't go much psat 5000 rpm due to the weight of the components.

That's why it's a great technological achievement that the lambo engines can rev so high, despite their size and weight.

 

[tennis_dog]

and why can lambos do that??? they're not even the muscle car's V8's, they're freakin V12s.....

still, someone do a little simulation of that GTO vs. any "well engineered" car...

 

[C.R.Y.]

The horsepower and torque you get for what you pay for is great, but power output numbers aside, the performance numbers fall far short of what you'd expect for that engine. The GT500 does NOT run low-12s in the quarter. Most magazines are pulling low-13s, and from what I recall only one has done a 12.9. There is a world of a difference between a 12.9 and low-12s. As as far as those other qualities you listed, I wouldn't really credit those to a GT500.

not true. them magazines are horrible for performance numbers. any car gets better times on the track with real drivers. example, vette z06 only hit the 12s on some magazines. but with the best drivers, they were hitting mid to low 11s. same with the mustang. most magazines run high 12s low 13s. but theres drivers that have squeezed low 12s. look at www.musclemustangfastfords.com. thats on a bone stock mustang. IIRC hes also the man that ran like a 12.5 in a 03 svt cobra.

I see your argument, but you don't have too much validity. Yes, you are correct, the GT500 is the cheapest way to have 500 hp, but what you seem to neglect is the fact that despite having 500 hp, it's not as fast as you'd expect. It is literally the slowest 500 hp car out there. Evos, STIs, Corvette C6s, and other cars similarly priced but with less hp and torque will eat the GT500 alive in most performance categories, as will other 500+ hp cars (although they can be pricier). Almost every other car with close to 500 hp will absolutely crush the GT500 (granted these are all more expensive, but it's 500 hp done correctly):
C6 Z06 - 505 hp/470 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 3.6 - 1/4 mile in high-11s
CLS55/E55 - 469 hp/516 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 4.1 - 1/4 mile in 12.4
CLS63/E63 - 507 hp/465 lb.-ft - untested, but will be quicker than the CLS55/E55
M5/M6 - 507 hp/383 lb.-ft - 0-60 in 4.4 - 1/4 mile in mid-12s
Ferrari/Lamborghini/etc. - you know the story.

but they all cost more than 45k. even the vette z06 starts at 65k. the rest are past 70k. the mustang traps 117mph for a little more than 40k. thats not bad. sure theres faster cars, but they cost a lot more. im sure if the mustang costed as much, it would probably hang with the exotics. even then, it does hang with the gallardo. the gallardo traps 117mph too. even the murcielago traps 122mph. thats not too far off from a gt500 thats stock, let alone one with boltons that would crush it. its not the fastest 500hp car, but the cheapest. and it gets up and goes really good. it hangs with the C6 vettes on the corners too, and kills it on the 1/4 mile. the mustang would absolutely butt rape an evo on the 1/4. evos hit the low 13s and trap around 102mph. it would probably pull out of the dig but after the 60 ft mark the gt500 will pull away hard. on the corners, it would be closer. STI's are expensive to mod. im not denying that theres cars that can whoop it. there are plenty of them. but youd have to be willing to sell your house for them. the mustang is bang for buck. something exotics cant offer because they cost over 200k. sure they couldve done 500hp all motor, but look at how much the Z06 cost.

I'm glad that you mentioned the "matter of taste" thing, since that is very important and why I chose an Evo, why C6 owners choose C6s, and why GT500 owners will choose GT500s. However, I still have to say a few things. Firstly, Evos are not $36k, they start much lower than that for the track-ready (but definitely streetable) Evo RS then around $31k for the regular Evo IX, then a bit more for the Evo MR; all of these cars share the same engine and drivetrain and have very similar performance numbers. So even at that point, you're looking at anywhere up to $10k cheaper for a car that runs stride-for-stride in the straights (especially from a dig) and will rip the GT500 a new asshole in the twisties. But Evos aside, you seem fixated on just having 500 hp. My whole argument goes beyond just hp and torque, it encapsulates how well that power is being put down.

the power is being put down good considering its rwd. youll never have perfect launch unless you got slicks on or drag radials. the evo wont hang close on the 1/4. and it will beat it on the corners, but idk about destroying, maybe on an autox track but overall it would be somewhat close.im not just focusing on the power. its not just the 500hp, but the times it puts down, the good ride quality, and the good handling along with good interior. when they raced it on the track, the gt500 had more grip than the vette. the vette outhandled it, but if it had more grip than a vette thats saying something. that it has potential. along with power potential. with boltons you can make over 550rwhp which equals very low 11s, high 10s at nearly 130mph. all on the stock blower and still handling good.

The way I see it, is if you (not you you, but you in general) want some serious ALL-AROUND BANG-FOR-THE-BUCK for $40k or less, the GT500 is not the car for you. But if you want the cheapest route to 500 factory horses, then the GT500 is for you. But if you want 500 hp and the performance you'd expect from 500 hp, then the GT500 is not for you. But if you are just an admirer of American muscle and love the V-8 rumble as it propels itself down a straight open road, then the GT500 is the car.

the 500hp is delivering good performance though considering its cheap. im sure they couldve had a better performance if the car had been lighter, but it would cost a shitload of money when the car is aimed towards the average joe who likes performance. not a rich owner of an internet company that makes 500k a year. for 40k its a steal. because it handles good, runs very fast times, and can be driven daily. i like vettes, but you cant do that with a vette, because theres less seats and the ride will be more rough. an evo also would be nice, but imo id rather have rwd because its more fun to drive. you cant buy a 40k car and expect it to be a ferrari, because it cant. the only car that can give you ferrari performance for cheap also has seats that can leave you crippled if you stay long enough in them (lotus elise).

 

[C.R.Y.]

True true, Ford has managed to crank out good numbers for relatively no money. But that doesn't take away the fact the whole engine package is, well, rather poor really. I mean, you get nary 5.5 litres of supercharged violence and it still barely breaks the 100hp/litre mark.

that doesnt matter. if thats the case the Z06 and Vipers are piles of shit because they dont make over 100hp/litre. once again, dont expect ferrari performance for a cheap price. it wouldnt be cheap to make a ton of power with a small engine size. dont forget that those two cars have plenty of torque at tap.

let me put it like this, as an engineering achievement, the gt500 says nothing much. Any Dick or Jane can bolt a big supercharger to a big engine and make big numbers, really. Helps to stem the costs? Definitely, but it's not the better engine when compared to, say, the Skyline set up (much much lighter and more potential imo), the Lambo engines (where'd you get the notion those V10/V12's aren't torquey? maybe not as torquey as 6 litres of slow burbling American muscle, but it's not like those Gallardo and Murcielago engines lack torque...)

the skyline setup is less torquey and wont have power below 5000rpms. the supercharged v8 makes more torque at idle than the skyline will at 4000rpms. im sure ford could have built N/A motors for the mustang. but it wont be cheap. the vette pulled off 500hp all motor and so did the viper (7 and 8 liters compared to 5.4 liters), but how much do they cost again compared to the mustang?? the mustang is marketed as being affordable to buy or to finance, not im going to get a loan of 100k affordable. the V10s and V12s have torque, but i doubt its torquey like the vette, mustang, or viper all of which are way cheaper.

That, and those Lambo engines are 5 (Gallardo V10) and 6 litres (Murcie. V12) respectively but still they rev up to almost 8000 rpm. And as an engine, that makes it about 500 light years superior to the Mustang one.

it better be superior with the pricetag they carry.

And what about it's simplistic suspension system? People are actually pleasantly surprised it didn't have a live rear axle. This is 2006, though. Not 1968.

so, the z06 uses leafsprings and look how many exotics it beat out.

In the end, it's a great car for bang for buck. But as a car on itself, it falls pretty short of the expectations today in the 21st century, as it finds it's hamburger technology outclassed on almost every front. The only reason people would buy one, apart from youth sentiment maybe, is it's price.

So it's like that burger that doesn't taste as good but is half cheaper.

maybe its their taste. id rather have the gt500 over alot of the cars on the market. hell, look at the kids paying over 20k for a civic si, when for a little more they can have an evo. because they like hondas. the mustang does good even in the 21st century. it weighs 3900lbs, yet still manages to hang with a lamborghini on the 1/4 mile for like a 1/4 of the price. thats pretty good.

 

[C.R.Y.]

You do understand the important of torque, you just don't know it and keep underestimating yourself . Torque is simply the engine's strength. Raw power. HP is the amount of actual work the engine can deliver.

High redlines are fun of course. More revs to play with. As engines get bigger they get heavier, thus making it difficult to spin very fast. Most old muscle car big blocks won't go much psat 5000 rpm due to the weight of the components.

That's why it's a great technological achievement that the lambo engines can rev so high, despite their size and weight.

why not have best of both worlds like a vette. 470lbft yet still revs to 7krpms.

 

[C.R.Y.]

jesus christ... would you still consider it annoying that i dont get the importance of torque, or a car having an "8,000 rpm redline?"

thats just taste. some people like having a stang with a 302 with lots of torque. some people like high revs that have hondas with Type Rs in them. i like both, cause i like anything automotive. im an automotive enthusiast

i do understand, though, that the gt500 isnt as powerful as it should have been... i guess another statement i agree with would make my GTO powerless, since it too is a supercharged V8 but puts out 400 horses.... what the hell do i have to do to beat a tricked out EVO MR with my GTO, which i dont really have??? i know an engine upgrade wont do much, so do i hit the suspension and stuff??? the Evo beats muscle cars around those curving tracks, right?

its as powerful as it can get though for how cheap it is. GTOs are still powerful, though not supercharged. they make good power with minor mods. stock youll kill an evo on the 1/4, not on the turns though. remember that the thing packs an LS2 motor, so youre only a heads and cams package away from like 400rwhp all motor. the best thing to do to the gto is stiffen up the suspension. that way itll be closer to the evo.

 

[C.R.Y.]

a car that really doesnt deliver performance for the money is the NSX. i do admit it performs great. it runs low 13s in the 1/4 and can handle great. but its not worth anything near 90k. the Z06 is cheaper and performs better. it should be worth around 55k. i wont deny the performance, but for 90k, it should be better. thats a car that isnt worth the money. the viper gives better performance for the price. i could care less about hp/l. it might beat the viper on that. but which one puts out more hp, which one handles better, which one does 60-0 in under 100ft.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

the mustang would absolutely butt rape an evo on the 1/4. evos hit the low 13s and trap around 102mph.

That's not accurate. Speed magazine recorded a 12.7-second quarter-mile time in an Evo IX MR. And this was done by a "horrible" magazine. There are also a decent amount of drivers who post on www.evolutionm.net and a few other Evo websites who have hit 12s in completely stock Evo IXs. While you don't trust magazines, they're the only practical source of quarter-mile times. It would be impossible for me to peruse through every Mustang website to find the best possible times achievable in a GT500, so magazine racing is the only reasonably reliable source of performance numbers, since the drivers are experienced and usually similar in driving ability. Besides, I would really question some driver on the internet who claims to pull off acceleration times more than a half-second quicker than magazine drivers with years of experience in exploiting a car's potential.

that doesnt matter. if thats the case the Z06 and Vipers are piles of shit because they dont make over 100hp/litre. once again, dont expect ferrari performance for a cheap price. it wouldnt be cheap to make a ton of power with a small engine size. dont forget that those two cars have plenty of torque at tap.

It does matter. I think his point was that almost any performance-orineted engine today with forced induction should at least hit 100 hp/l. The Z06 and Viper, as you know, are naturally aspirated big-displacement engines. While making a ton of power with a small engine size will never be "cheap," it is definitely feasible for the money. The Japanese and Europeans have been doing it for years.

its as powerful as it can get though for how cheap it is. GTOs are still powerful, though not supercharged. they make good power with minor mods. stock youll kill an evo on the 1/4, not on the turns though. remember that the thing packs an LS2 motor, so youre only a heads and cams package away from like 400rwhp all motor. the best thing to do to the gto is stiffen up the suspension. that way itll be closer to the evo.

A GTO will NOT "kill" an Evo in the quarter-mile. Most of it depends on the driver, but I've found more Evos breaking into 12s, whereas most GTOs will pull low-13s. I've raced a GTO twice in a row and beat it pretty badly.

a car that really doesnt deliver performance for the money is the NSX. i do admit it performs great. it runs low 13s in the 1/4 and can handle great. but its not worth anything near 90k. the Z06 is cheaper and performs better. it should be worth around 55k. i wont deny the performance, but for 90k, it should be better. thats a car that isnt worth the money. the viper gives better performance for the price. i could care less about hp/l. it might beat the viper on that. but which one puts out more hp, which one handles better, which one does 60-0 in under 100ft.

You forget how old the Acura NSX is, you can't judge it by today's standards. The car was originally made in what, 1992? When it was first unveiled, it was dubbed the "practical supercar" and gave the Ferrari 348 and Porsche 911 (the best at the time) a run for its money in terms of sheer performance. Yes, by today's standards the NSX sucks, but it's basically a car mostly unchanged over the past 14 years (minus the engine going from a 3.0-liter 270 hp motor to a 3.2-liter 290 hp motor in 1997 or so). However, it was a hell of a car when it came out, though it wasn't as successful as Honda had hoped.

 

[C.R.Y.]

That's not accurate. Speed magazine recorded a 12.7-second quarter-mile time in an Evo IX MR. And this was done by a "horrible" magazine. There are also a decent amount of drivers who post on www.evolutionm.net and a few other Evo websites who have hit 12s in completely stock Evo IXs. While you don't trust magazines, they're the only practical source of quarter-mile times. It would be impossible for me to peruse through every Mustang website to find the best possible times achievable in a GT500, so magazine racing is the only reasonably reliable source of performance numbers, since the drivers are experienced and usually similar in driving ability. Besides, I would really question some driver on the internet who claims to pull off acceleration times more than a half-second quicker than magazine drivers with years of experience in exploiting a car's potential.

these people have timeslips. they have videos out. its not bullshit. those magazines drivers couldve been driving forever but if they suck they suck. im not talking about them magazines drivers. because they cant drive the 1/4 mile for shit. because if that was the case they wouldve had your evo in the high 12s and the gt500 in the low 12s. magazines arent the only source. just look for timeslips and videos. theyre not hard to find lol. you only need one website to find out what time the gt500 ran, you can even find it on streetfire.net. just ask for proof when you question a driver. cause they normally do post times and timeslips.

It does matter. I think his point was that almost any performance-orineted engine today with forced induction should at least hit 100 hp/l. The Z06 and Viper, as you know, are naturally aspirated big-displacement engines. While making a ton of power with a small engine size will never be "cheap," it is definitely feasible for the money. The Japanese and Europeans have been doing it for years.

its not easy to do. its not just a v8 but its a small v8. its a 5.4 liter meaning that its only 330ci. if you wanna make the same amount of hp naturally like a corvette does out of such a small engine, its gonna cost alot because thats what people are expecting of it. its not like its a big displacement 7.0 liter engine. its not gonna be easy squeezing that much hp out of a small v8. sure, the ferrari f430 does it, but look at how much that cost. the japanese have been doing it with turbos, not naturally. the most powerful n/a car they have is the NSX. that costs over 80k. the europeans have been using f/i too lately. look at their mercedes. it uses a 6.0 liter V12 and has two turbos and makes a little over 600hp. noone seems to pick on that lol. they pick on the mustang. or the e55 that makes 469 hp on a supercharged 5.5 liter v8. bmw has the m-series. but them cars cost around 90k. ford can probably make a n/a motor, but it wont be cheap. and they arent in the position to be cutting profits.

A GTO will NOT "kill" an Evo in the quarter-mile. Most of it depends on the driver, but I've found more Evos breaking into 12s, whereas most GTOs will pull low-13s. I've raced a GTO twice in a row and beat it pretty badly.

ive seen a video of a older gto (360hp LS1 GTO not even the LS2) hit 13.1 thats with less power.

You forget how old the Acura NSX is, you can't judge it by today's standards. The car was originally made in what, 1992? When it was first unveiled, it was dubbed the "practical supercar" and gave the Ferrari 348 and Porsche 911 (the best at the time) a run for its money in terms of sheer performance. Yes, by today's standards the NSX sucks, but it's basically a car mostly unchanged over the past 14 years (minus the engine going from a 3.0-liter 270 hp motor to a 3.2-liter 290 hp motor in 1997 or so). However, it was a hell of a car when it came out, though it wasn't as successful as Honda had hoped.

they still shouldve lowered the price. im not doubting the cars performance. i said that earlier. it did beat the porsches and ferraris, but that was back in the day. now the porsches and ferraris developed to something better. the nsx is still the same. sure its got new headlights and an engine with 50 more hp but not a big development like porsche and ferrari have made. yet the price hasnt lowered at all. had any american company given the same car for over 10yrs for the same price with no change, im sure they would be hated. people bitched about the S195 chassis being the same over the years. imagine what would happen if the entire car had been the same. just look at what it costs these days. for the same amount of money you can have a viper, a ferrari 348, ferrari 355 f1, Z06 vette, high hp single turbo supra. the list goes on. it just doesnt justify the price.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

those magazines drivers couldve been driving forever but if they suck they suck. im not talking about them magazines drivers. because they cant drive the 1/4 mile for shit. because if that was the case they wouldve had your evo in the high 12s and the gt500 in the low 12s.

There have been a couple magazines already doing high 12s in my car. From what I've read, only one or two magazines have managed to get into the 12s in a GT500, and they hit a 12.9. It was either Car & Driver or Road & Track, I forget.

the japanese have been doing it with turbos, not naturally. the most powerful n/a car they have is the NSX. that costs over 80k. the europeans have been using f/i too lately. look at their mercedes. it uses a 6.0 liter V12 and has two turbos and makes a little over 600hp. noone seems to pick on that lol. they pick on the mustang. or the e55 that makes 469 hp on a supercharged 5.5 liter v8. bmw has the m-series. but them cars cost around 90k. ford can probably make a n/a motor, but it wont be cheap. and they arent in the position to be cutting profits.

While the most powerful naturally aspirated car was the later NSX with 290 hp, keep in mind there were other cars that were less powerful but with much smaller engine sizes, such as the earlier S2000 (240 hp from a 2.0-liter) and the RSX/Integra Type-R (220 hp from a 2.0-liter). Plus, they've got the upcoming 5.0-liter V8 to be used in the Lexus IS500 and the Toyota Supra replacement, and it's been reported to have at least 450 hp, probably closer to 500, plus I'm sure it will rev north of 7000 rpm. And regarding those force-fed Mercedes engines, I see your point, but they were at least backing up their numbers with performance. Yes, the supercharged V-8 had "only" 469 hp (but 493 in the CL55/S55/SL55), but almost every car with it was doing mid-12s, and definitely weighed more than the GT500 with all of their gadgets and luxury amenities. And Mercedes has already discontinued the engine in favor of a lighter, naturally-aspirated, higher-revving 507 hp V-8 that has already been reported to be quicker. Look for the twin-turbo V-12 to be replaced in the next couple of years, either with a new V-12 or a rumored twin-turbo version of the 6.2-liter V-8.

they still shouldve lowered the price. im not doubting the cars performance. i said that earlier. it did beat the porsches and ferraris, but that was back in the day. now the porsches and ferraris developed to something better. the nsx is still the same. sure its got new headlights and an engine with 50 more hp but not a big development like porsche and ferrari have made. yet the price hasnt lowered at all. had any american company given the same car for over 10yrs for the same price with no change, im sure they would be hated. people bitched about the S195 chassis being the same over the years. imagine what would happen if the entire car had been the same. just look at what it costs these days. for the same amount of money you can have a viper, a ferrari 348, ferrari 355 f1, Z06 vette, high hp single turbo supra. the list goes on. it just doesnt justify the price.

While I agree that they should've lowered the price, that was Honda's approach to cars at the time. For companies like Honda and even some of the American ones, it isn't their sports cars that yield profit, it's the smaller cars that hundreds of thousands of people buy. But unfortunately, Honda completely diverted their attention away from the NSX to make better Accords and Civics, and eventually the NSX had been surpassed by their competitors whose only money makers are sports cars (Ferrari, Porsche, etc.), going from selling 2000 in its first year to just over 20 last year.

 

[Duke]

that doesnt matter. if thats the case the Z06 and Vipers are piles of shit because they dont make over 100hp/litre. once again, dont expect ferrari performance for a cheap price. it wouldnt be cheap to make a ton of power with a small engine size. dont forget that those two cars have plenty of torque at tap.



it better be superior with the pricetag they carry.


so, the z06 uses leafsprings and look how many exotics it beat out.


maybe its their taste. id rather have the gt500 over alot of the cars on the market. hell, look at the kids paying over 20k for a civic si, when for a little more they can have an evo. because they like hondas. the mustang does good even in the 21st century. it weighs 3900lbs, yet still manages to hang with a lamborghini on the 1/4 mile for like a 1/4 of the price. thats pretty good.

You keep banging on the price/hp rating, which I already admitted to is pretty good.

What my point is, and DeezNuts read that correctly, was that the car isn't really much of an engineering masterpiece. It's, forgive me, hamburger technology. The Viper? Hamburger technology. The Vette? Hamburger technology up to the 5th generation. 6th generation did get a lot better indeed. Leaf springs are still lawl but they made them work.

the skyline setup is less torquey and wont have power below 5000rpms. the supercharged v8 makes more torque at idle than the skyline will at 4000rpms. im sure ford could have built N/A motors for the mustang. but it wont be cheap. the vette pulled off 500hp all motor and so did the viper (7 and 8 liters compared to 5.4 liters), but how much do they cost again compared to the mustang?? the mustang is marketed as being affordable to buy or to finance, not im going to get a loan of 100k affordable. the V10s and V12s have torque, but i doubt its torquey like the vette, mustang, or viper all of which are way cheaper.

You said it, 7 and 8 litres. That's fucking huge. They had better make an immense amount of power with so much cylinder space.

And of course the Skyline is less torquey. It's putting out maybe 320 stock. Granted, it's TT'd, but it also has less than half the size the Mustang does.

If one would modify the Skyline engines to putting out 500 bhp, it would wipe the floor with that Mustang right, left and center. More expensive to do so? Probably, but that wasn't my (and in general Deeez' ) point. It's about what the car does with all the power.

but look at how much that cost. the japanese have been doing it with turbos, not naturally. the most powerful n/a car they have is the NSX. that costs over 80k. the europeans have been using f/i too lately. look at their mercedes. it uses a 6.0 liter V12 and has two turbos and makes a little over 600hp. noone seems to pick on that lol. they pick on the mustang. or the e55 that makes 469 hp on a supercharged 5.5 liter v8. bmw has the m-series. but them cars cost around 90k. ford can probably make a n/a motor, but it wont be cheap. and they arent in the position to be cutting profits.

The Japanese are always turbo'ing. Like the Americans always just build huge engines. The Euro's are good at making exotic N/A screamers.

And Mercedes has always caught some slack for their "American" way. But guess what, most of AMG's cars are bound for the States. And Americans are fascinated by big engines, hence why Merc likes to slap in big blocks. Mercedes is, as car design is concerned, the most American company in Europe. Except for the much better build quality.


Every car maker has it's own way and every way of car making it's own appeal. As a car enthusiast, I love Japanese turbo monsters, Euro exotics and proper American grumblers alike.

It's just that I think that while the new GT500 offers a very cheap and kinda cool way to get 500 horsepower, what the car then actually does with that much on tap is quite disappointing imo.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Every car maker has it's own way and every way of car making it's own appeal. As a car enthusiast, I love Japanese turbo monsters, Euro exotics and proper American grumblers alike.

It's just that I think that while the new GT500 offers a very cheap and kinda cool way to get 500 horsepower, what the car then actually does with that much on tap is quite disappointing imo.

Well said. I think this is the point that we have all been trying to make.

 

[tennis_dog]

im starting to really love porsches now.... the 911 turbo looks really nice...in case...no one else noticed....

but otherwise, im sad now.... my gto looks so weak now compared to other cars...the GTO looks much more menacing than an Evo, yet its bark is worse than it's bite.... ah well... there's always a love for vipers, isnt it??

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

im starting to really love porsches now.... the 911 turbo looks really nice...in case...no one else noticed....

but otherwise, im sad now.... my gto looks so weak now compared to other cars...the GTO looks much more menacing than an Evo, yet its bark is worse than it's bite.... ah well... there's always a love for vipers, isnt it??

You're getting off topic, man. GT500-related stuff only!

But anyway, yes the 911 Turbo is pretty badass. I guess you can say the GTO is more menacing if you want, but GM really dulled it down with Pontiac's wack ass styling. Check out the Holden Vauxhall Monaro VXR, the way the GTO looks before it gets dulled down:

 

[tennis_dog]

the back is definetly better on the holden, but the front really looks gay... if it were a person, it'd be a gay guy with a gap in his front teeth....smililng....


holden is also making the new grand prix....

 

[C.R.Y.]

dont trust the magazines only lol. because if that was the case, wed rarely see the 1000awhp evo or the 1500rwhp supra. because they dont have everthing. the mainstream magazines (car and driver, motortrend) only got mid to low 13s out of the evo. and high 12s out of the gt500. my point is that those magazines dont show the potential of any car. magazines that are like musclemustangfastfords and import tuner magazines are the ones that report the real potential of cars.

i know the gt500 couldve made more power from a SCed v8. it also couldve performed better. imo they were better off using the aluminum block from the ford gt and putting iron sleeves, so they make the same power, but the car would be lighter. it would weigh around 3600lbs instead of 3900lbs. but that motor costs over 30k alone.

the reason the vettes and vipers use "old technology" is because its cheaper. you cant expect cutting edge technology for cheap. thats shit the exotics have. they are amazing considering they are affordable. im not denying that the other cars are better. cause hell yeah id take a 360 modena over a viper. but the vette and viper need that big displacement to make power n/a. if they were to use a smaller engine with forced induction, theyd end up getting dissed like the gt500 is now. they try n/a and they still get dissed being called old technology.

the vette is far from old technology. its pushrod, meaning thats the newier form of valvetrain. cause ohc technology, is old. and ferrari uses it and so does lamborghini. its also sporting a small block which has evolved throughout the years into a engine that is pushrod, has big power, big torque, while revving high and still achieving 30mpg on the highway.

the gt500 and the svt cobra engines are overbuilt engines much like the supras 2jz engine. while built and making what some people consider low hp for what they are, with minor mods they wake up like no other, save for a couple of engines. the gt500 with boltons, pulley change, and a tune makes over 560rwhp. the svt cobra with the same mods can achieve over 500rwhp, all out of smaller displacement v8 engines too. i know skylines and supras can make similar power too. but hows the torque curve look on them, it isnt anything close to a v8. remember how the math works on cars. you can have a low amount of torque, but if you rev high you make high hp. look at f1 cars making 900hp but like 400lbft. its not the raw power of the engine. but the high 20k rpms and that little amount of torque with
that revving capability give it the hp. big displacement engines have alot of torque but dont rev high, hence why they make the same amount of torque as they do hp. if them engines rev as high as a skyline (which would cost a shit load of money to do reliably) they would make way more hp. its the same with just about any high displacement engine. the higher the displacement, chances are it will rev lower.

another thing is that people expect the mustang to have like a m5 engine. youre forgetting the muscle cars are known for 3 things. torque, brute force, and loud rumble. dont get me wrong, them v10s sound sexy. but its not how a mustang should sound. muscle cars are about having tons of power available at idle all the way up to redline. muscle cars are about being able to get the car going sideways with only like a 1/2 throttle in 3rd gear. and whats a muscle car if its not giving the rumble that sounds like a monster truck. if it was a 5.0 liter v8, revving to 9k, it wouldnt sound like that. and im sure it wouldnt have the response like a "so called" old technology gt500 has.

heres an example that ive driven. my uncle has a srt8 cherokee. it has a 6.1 liter hemi making 425hp/420lbft. the thing does weigh 4800lbs. sure youll say the thing is slow. but drive the thing and it tosses you back in the seat with no problem. and thats only 425hp. the thing can haul ass because hes taken it to over 120mph on the highway. all in an suv. think, thats only 425 hp. it weigh 4800lbs and can run low to mid 13s. imagine what a mustang with 3900lbs and 500hp can achieve.

you gotta look at the positives to because looking at the negatives of each car can make them look bad. heres a list i can make: evo has turbo but only makes 286hp, viper has 8 liters making 500hp, the gallardo is torqueless making only 383lbft, the supras weigh too much at 3500lbs, etc. but look at the positives of them. they are all good in their ways too. the gt500 is the same. sure its a heavy pig, and only makes 500hp with a s/c. but its making the same hp has as a lamborghini, making more torque, runs the same 1/4 mile times as a gallardo, has potential with a sc, handles good, etc. i know the mustang can make more. but think about insurance cost, gas guzzlers taxes, profits. they could underrate it so it makes more power without insurance cost being higher, but with the new sae rating its nearly impossible. the engine has great potential. im sure if it costed 80k, it can really stretch its leg and show what its capable of by making like 700bhp. but the mustang isnt meant to be the expensive pony. no muscle car, let alone a pony car, was meant to be expensive.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

C.R.Y., I think it's at the point where we've both argued our hearts out. Obviously in this case there isn't a right opinion about the GT500, but I think pretty much everybody agrees on the fact that the GT500 is an inexpensive way to have 500 hp-worth of American muscle delivered the way it has been delivered since the musclecar era.

the reason the vettes and vipers use "old technology" is because its cheaper. you cant expect cutting edge technology for cheap. thats shit the exotics have. they are amazing considering they are affordable. im not denying that the other cars are better. cause hell yeah id take a 360 modena over a viper. but the vette and viper need that big displacement to make power n/a. if they were to use a smaller engine with forced induction, theyd end up getting dissed like the gt500 is now. they try n/a and they still get dissed being called old technology.

Cutting edge technology can be cheap, just not for most American car makers. The reason why it's cheap for them to use "old technology" is because over the past few decades, they've been reluctant to invest money into developing newer automotive technology that raises the bar in terms of ingenuity and efficiency. Instead, they just keep bumping up displacement with a few tweaks here and there. The Japanese and Europeans have been investing their time and effort for years, introducing the latest technology in their engines for quite some time... variable valve timing, variable turbine geometry, twincharging, direct injection, etc., while it took years for American companies to adapt VVT. So of course Chevy is going to upsize their 5.7-liter pushrod V-8 to 6.0 (which is what they did for the C6). Of course Ford is going to supercharge what was originally a truck engine (in the GT500). Yes, it's cheaper, but because those companies never bothered to venture outside of the box until just recently, so they're stuck with tinkering with outdated engine platforms. Japanese automakers are applying such technology to cars that are further down the totem pole. European automakers are applying more and more cutting-edge technology derived from F1 programs and other thigns of the sort to their road engines, resulting in some of the most exciting engines to date. They might not have the "V-8 rumble," but they will raise the hairs on the back of your neck when you drive them and let them rip.

the vette is far from old technology. its pushrod, meaning thats the newier form of valvetrain. cause ohc technology, is old. and ferrari uses it and so does lamborghini. its also sporting a small block which has evolved throughout the years into a engine that is pushrod, has big power, big torque, while revving high and still achieving 30mpg on the highway.

30 mpg? Not quite. 18 city/28 highway are the EPA ratings, which are usually conservative and rarely reached in real driving situations. But I'll give credit where it's due, those numbers are good for a 6.0-liter V-8 with 400 hp.

the gt500 and the svt cobra engines are overbuilt engines much like the supras 2jz engine. while built and making what some people consider low hp for what they are, with minor mods they wake up like no other, save for a couple of engines. the gt500 with boltons, pulley change, and a tune makes over 560rwhp. the svt cobra with the same mods can achieve over 500rwhp, all out of smaller displacement v8 engines too. i know skylines and supras can make similar power too. but hows the torque curve look on them, it isnt anything close to a v8. remember how the math works on cars. you can have a low amount of torque, but if you rev high you make high hp. look at f1 cars making 900hp but like 400lbft. its not the raw power of the engine. but the high 20k rpms and that little amount of torque with that revving capability give it the hp. big displacement engines have alot of torque but dont rev high, hence why they make the same amount of torque as they do hp. if them engines rev as high as a skyline (which would cost a shit load of money to do reliably) they would make way more hp. its the same with just about any high displacement engine. the higher the displacement, chances are it will rev lower.

While it is true that the imports you've mentioned won't have the same ridiculous torque curves that the said V-8s do, keep in mind that there's a point when you're making enough torque that any more would just be overkill and not too beneficial in real driving. For example, people tend to question the new 6.2-liter AMG V-8. While it doesn't have the 516 lb.-ft that the outgoing supercharged V-8 had, 465 is still enough to tear new assholes, and the car itself is faster in every way. You don't really need 500+ lb.-ft, because when you go beyond that, you're just turning your tires into melted rubber, unless you've got AWD like the Bugatti Veyron.

another thing is that people expect the mustang to have like a m5 engine. youre forgetting the muscle cars are known for 3 things. torque, brute force, and loud rumble.

It's not that people are expecting Mustangs to have an engine comparable to the M5; people are just expecting a 2006 Mustang to have technology up to 2006's standards.

muscle cars are about having tons of power available at idle all the way up to redline.

...a low redline, I might add.

muscle cars are about being able to get the car going sideways with only like a 1/2 throttle in 3rd gear.

They're going sideways because their suspensions are ridiculously outdated and the cars themselves weren't meant for truly handling real curves. The "sideways" you're talking about isn't the type of sideways you want to go.

imagine what a mustang with 3900lbs and 500hp can achieve.

It acheives slightly better than the previous 390 hp Cobra, but for a few thousand extra, and minus the independent rear suspension. Ouch.

you gotta look at the positives to because looking at the negatives of each car can make them look bad. heres a list i can make: evo has turbo but only makes 286hp, viper has 8 liters making 500hp, the gallardo is torqueless making only 383lbft, the supras weigh too much at 3500lbs, etc. but look at the positives of them. they are all good in their ways too. the gt500 is the same. sure its a heavy pig, and only makes 500hp with a s/c. but its making the same hp has as a lamborghini, making more torque, runs the same 1/4 mile times as a gallardo, has potential with a sc, handles good, etc.

We know that the GT500 has lots of torque and gutsy acceleration, but please stop comparing it to Lamborghinis and what not. Horsepower and torque aside, it does NOT run the same times as a Gallardo. I don't care what people on the internet claim they've run or what their timeslips say. I could say I have a 12" dick and post a picture of one, that doesn't mean it's mine. Plus you will agree with me that there are some people online who claim that they did runs in their "stock" car that actually has bolt-ons, yet they consider the car still "stock." I know for a fact that there are a few people like that who roam various musclecar message forums, I'm a member of a few. While you dismiss most magazines, it is the journalists who, at the end of the day, I will believe, and I will continue to believe, not some random guy from Kansas whose screen name is "AmericanV8Pride" or something corny like that who can provide a scan of a 12-second timeslip. And the GT500 does NOT handle well. It does FOR A MUSTANG, but compared to any car it was meant to compete with (in its price range or in its horsepower range), it will get left behind when it comes to slalom and skidpad tests. Let's not get over our heads now.

but the mustang isnt meant to be the expensive pony. no muscle car, let alone a pony car, was meant to be expensive.

...yet Ford is charging $40k for a base GT500. Base Mustang GTs go for roughly $26k, yet most of them have MSRPs hovering around $30k after you add the Shaker sound system and a set of floormats or whatever. I know that a common response to this statement (especially when I get in the mix) is the whole "Who would spend $36k on a Mitsubishi?" Just to get things straight, that argument is invalid, that is how much the top-of-the-line Evo MR is. The base Evo RS starts at under $30k, yet maintains the exact same engine and most other parts while having just minor (and I mean MINOR) differences in performance.

C.R.Y., no hard feelings, I hope you don't take my statements as an attack or anything, I actually have been preferring this board to others (since the discussions going on in the Life and Street Hop forums are not too thought-provoking) and enjoy the friendly debates. And I hope that you don't think I'm dickriding my own car. Obviously I'm biased because I own the car that I tend to defend and put above most others, but I've been a car fan for years, hanging out with the AWD turbo guys, the high-revving Honda guys, the '60s musclecar guys, the modern musclecar guys, the luxurious sport sedan guys, the sporty European car guys, etc., plus I regularly stay up-to-date with ALL performance cars, so I feel I have a reasonably well-rounded view on cars.