Shelby GT500 Crusher...?
8/1/06, 08:57 AM
#3
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by burningman
man that thing is on the ugly side
The rear is nice and all (rear lights should be RED, and the spoiler's got to go), but that front is really bad... they should have kept the first concepts looks
8/1/06, 09:11 AM
#4
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 17, 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite. It's a twin-turbo 6 (VQ35) producing just north of 450 hp. And, from Car & Driver's site, "the 2009 model is expected to cost $75,000 when it goes on sale in the U.S. in the spring of 2008." The Shelby still weighs a bit more, so it may be a driver's race. But a crusher? Hardly.
8/1/06, 10:42 AM
#6
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HadAStang
Not quite. It's a twin-turbo 6 (VQ35) producing just north of 450 hp. And, from Car & Driver's site, "the 2009 model is expected to cost $75,000 when it goes on sale in the U.S. in the spring of 2008." The Shelby still weighs a bit more, so it may be a driver's race. But a crusher? Hardly.
8/1/06, 07:46 PM
#8
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one of the import mags, among the autos listed as performance benchmarks were the Z06 and the Ford GT -which may be a bit of a stretch, at least until the GT-R is modified- were the targets. The GT500 would be pretty outclassed in this company, even before the first corner... However, the GT500 wins hands-down in the looks department. The GT-R looks like the culmination of every ricer cliche "styling" bits thrown into one car.
8/2/06, 03:47 PM
#12
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by jgsmuzzy
it does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds.......that is pretty darn quick
8/6/06, 01:11 AM
#13
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I really can't even put into words how much of a let down I found the "GT500" to be. sure it looks the part, but even with the big V8 pumpin out 500 horses it still weighs as much as a boat anchor. We need to learn something from all of these import manufacturers and that one thing should be weight oriented.
8/6/06, 08:33 AM
#14
I Have No Life
Originally Posted by cntchds
I really can't even put into words how much of a let down I found the "GT500" to be. sure it looks the part, but even with the big V8 pumpin out 500 horses it still weighs as much as a boat anchor. We need to learn something from all of these import manufacturers and that one thing should be weight oriented.
Americans know how to make a light car, its what it costs to do it.
The materials are there... but do you as a consumer want to absorb that cost?
The GT500 is 500hp and heavy for a reason.
Could they have made it lighter from different materials?
Absolutely... but again, this isn't a Ford GT where you can charge '$xxxxxxx' dollars for it.
How many people would buy a 500hp 3000lb mustang that costs 85,000 dollars?
For the next while, I'm sure we'll see cars get heavier again (look at the mustang...the Charger/300/magnum/Chally (when its released)
These won't be lightweights... and until materials cost comes down... we are going to be stuck with heavier weights as crash standards increase.
Does it suck?
Absolutely...
8/6/06, 05:54 PM
#15
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Boomer
At what cost.
How many people would buy a 500hp 3000lb mustang that costs 85,000 dollars?
How many people would buy a 500hp 3000lb mustang that costs 85,000 dollars?
Ford should have put more development into the car - it unquestionably should have had an IRS - and just given it an MSRP of $55K to begin with. The extra tech would have justified the price, and from what we're seeing, the Shelby fans would happily have paid it.
8/6/06, 06:34 PM
#16
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would using an aluminum block add to the price?
Really, a single private consumer can buy a stand alone Teksid for a grand. Ford mass-produces the things for themselves, how could an aluminum block add more than $500 bucks to the build cost?
If Ford had put another $2k worth into the vehicle to decrease weight/increase fuel economy, they could have dodged the gas guzzler tax and thus consumers would pay the exact same amount for a much better car.
The friggin' Enzo-matching Corvette Z06 evades the gas guzzler tax!
Really, a single private consumer can buy a stand alone Teksid for a grand. Ford mass-produces the things for themselves, how could an aluminum block add more than $500 bucks to the build cost?
If Ford had put another $2k worth into the vehicle to decrease weight/increase fuel economy, they could have dodged the gas guzzler tax and thus consumers would pay the exact same amount for a much better car.
The friggin' Enzo-matching Corvette Z06 evades the gas guzzler tax!
8/7/06, 02:22 AM
#17
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
One extremely easy way to cut the price, name it a Cobra.
People who are willing to pay 70k for the name can add a stripe kit and save x dollars.
With said money Ford could have actually put some effort into building it, instead of just naming it.
I mean, the old Cobra performed the exact same(Car and Driver test), and looked a thousand times better IMO and it cost how much again?
People who are willing to pay 70k for the name can add a stripe kit and save x dollars.
With said money Ford could have actually put some effort into building it, instead of just naming it.
I mean, the old Cobra performed the exact same(Car and Driver test), and looked a thousand times better IMO and it cost how much again?
8/7/06, 07:33 AM
#18
I Have No Life
Originally Posted by cntchds
One extremely easy way to cut the price, name it a Cobra.
People who are willing to pay 70k for the name can add a stripe kit and save x dollars.
With said money Ford could have actually put some effort into building it, instead of just naming it.
I mean, the old Cobra performed the exact same(Car and Driver test), and looked a thousand times better IMO and it cost how much again?
People who are willing to pay 70k for the name can add a stripe kit and save x dollars.
With said money Ford could have actually put some effort into building it, instead of just naming it.
I mean, the old Cobra performed the exact same(Car and Driver test), and looked a thousand times better IMO and it cost how much again?
When it comes to engines, Ford not only has to:
-R/D the engine
-make all the parts or get from suppliers
-maintain those parts/molds etc for building those parts
-certify/test the engine
-WARRANTY that engine
-R/D the vehicle for that engine
-support that engine
-create manuals on fixing/assembling etc that engine
and everything in between... and that's JUST an engine
ON a SCALE that is way larger than joes engines.
It's not as simple as 'x' company offers _____ motor for 'X' dollars.
When it comes down to financing such a large operation as a mass produced vehicle. Then add in all those other parts that go into the car,
the price is going to jump.
Not only that, but people seem to magically forget that the old FOX platform is over 25+ years old. It payed for itself over and over again.
Ford is still absorbing cost of the new D2C platform.
Adding the name DID add stupid value to the car.
Would it have had as many adjusted values if it were just an SVT cobra?
Probably not. But now your getting into percieved value.
Look at the MSRP... anything above and beyond that is what greedy dealerships and stupid people are paying. Ford still makes the same ammount of money on these cars regardless of what greedy dealer sells it for.
And do not forget that previous S/E stangs have had adjustments as well, ranging from the Mach1 to the 03/04 Cobras.... yes they too had dumb people fork over more money, only to see months later that they were sitting on lots and dealers realizing 'oh crap...we have to start payin INTEREST on those cars!!
And while we are on the topic of performance...seeing as you quoted a magazine (which doesn't hold ANY water)
I seem to remember Evan Smith riding a heat soaked GT500 to a 12.2
You may say..well thats evan smith... and he's a racing god.
You're right, but the goon that drove the times in C/D might be a total goof. Let's wait until we get real cars on the tracks with some real times after break in shall we..... not basing it on 1 or 2 times we've seen.
When people start driving and getting used to these cars, we will be surprised. As a base, it is better than a 03/04... mod for mod, you won't be able to beat the larger engine (baring any limits on hardware) but the potential will always be more for that sized engine. Like or hate the looks....don't let that impact the fact that it's a great car.
Sorry for the long rant...
8/7/06, 02:07 PM
#19
$75,000???? Who the hell would be that thing? For that price you can get a Z06 or a gently used Viper. Both are superior in every way, and most importantly, are quality AMERICAN machines! Count me out. 
I'm sorry I'm just a die-hard American car lover. I have respect for anyone who would/could like that car, but to me it's just ugly and not worth my attention. 
I'm sorry I'm just a die-hard American car lover. I have respect for anyone who would/could like that car, but to me it's just ugly and not worth my attention.
8/7/06, 02:30 PM
#20
Legacy TMS Member
Originally Posted by cntchds
I really can't even put into words how much of a let down I found the "GT500" to be. sure it looks the part, but even with the big V8 pumpin out 500 horses it still weighs as much as a boat anchor. We need to learn something from all of these import manufacturers and that one thing should be weight oriented.
The 2006 Toyota Avalon weighs 205 pounds more than the 1996 Avalon. After a decade of redesigns and feature enhancements, the 2006 two-door Honda Civic weighs nearly 400 pounds more than its ancestor.
