Of course not, its made on the "wrong" side of the pond!? Did he mention the Mustang in the same sentence as the Mini or E type Jag, enough said.

* And the same Brit didnt like the GT500 either....

 

Those crazy Brits. What do you expect from the people that brought you the car dubbed "The Prince of Darkness" because of the electrical system?

 

F Top Gear and their 'high and mighty' conceited attitude

they only seem to look at things from a purely Eurocentric POV

drag type racing has always been a major element of the US car culture

all I know is that 98% of the time when you have to 'prove your mettle' with your ride over here in the US, sorry to say but it happens going in a straight line.

How often do people pull up to you at a stop light and say 'hey - I bet I can take you - lets find the nearest section of twisty road and go for it'

When they tested the GT500, they never even mentioned the difference between flywheel horsepower and rear wheel HP. They lost me right there with that convenoent little omission

 

As soon as the europeans layed eyes on the new stang their noses turned up. Screw them and there engineers that think they can design electronics.

Just like the Ford GT supercar...they hate us for that too. The only answer a German guy had for me was ''You Americans just love superchargers don't you?'' I reponded, ''You're **** right we do, and we've got some bad *** fighter jets too pal''

 

heck yeah

 

You've just got to love the cultural differences on the two sides of the pond... It's really a function of the environment, and the engineering choices made reflect that quite clearly.

US: LOOOOOOOOOOOONG straight stretches of road, gentle curves, wide lanes. We think in terms of straight-line acceleration, but oddly, not top speed, primarily due to the low speed limits enforced nationwide.

EU: Narrow, twisty, hilly roads, many in use as thorofares since the BC era. They think in terms of handling, turning radius, but oddly, also of top speeds, as there are some VERY high speed limits on the highways.

The Americans have no real use (en masse) for a highly refined, nimble, moderate-powered car with a high top speed, because we can't use it. We don't need the nimble qualities (except when dodging soccer-mom driven SUVs in stip-mall parking lots), and they don't accelerate enough to be fun on our nice, straight, long, flat roads.

The Europeans have no use for a rip-snorting, oversteering acceleration beast, since they would be through three very tight turns in the road (in use from the Roman days) that is narrow enough to wedge an Escalade in between the buildings before we could even get traction...

Churchill: "...a common people divided by a common language."

It's the same principal as taking a road-course car out on a dragstrip. You'll turn mediocre times. Now take a drag car out on a road course. It'll be practically undrivable.

The Mustang does lean into "their" world, but not far enough to make them happy with the performance, just like a BMW M5 leans into "our" world, but isn't quick enough (for the money) to make us happy.


Take a low-10 second "street" car, add a little dash of rain, then run a road course with it. What do you get?

 

You have to consider that Top Gear is done very much tongue-in-cheek. To me, that was an entertaining review. The music was choreographed expertly with the visuals - the old road signs, the diner, the nostalgic country route - that was all thought out. Yes, they did knock the car plenty, right to the ending studio segment when they flat-out said it was not a good car, and then proceeded to judge it to be borderline "supercool."

 

Funny you mention the comparison to a stock Fox body. I owned my '68 GTO from 1986 to 1995. I bought a brand new '89 Mustang 5.0L LX Sport during the time I owned that GTO, and the Mustang never handled as good as the Poncho after the modifications to the suspension.

As I mentioned, everything was replaced with aftermarket goodies in the early 1990's (I had a well-known local shop work their magic on the car front to rear). We had to fabricate to install a rear sway bar as John DeLorean didn't think GTO's needed them (Pontiac finally started adding them after 1970 after DeLorean was gone). With then-modern rubber and wheels (265/50/15 fronts, 295/50/15's rear), straight line traction was OK considering the balanced & blueprinted 400 (406 after a .030 overbore) was putting out over 500 lb ft torque. Although, on slicks at the dragstrip I could still spin about 50 ft out of the hole. On street tires (and 3.90 saf-t-trak axle) I could spin about a 1000'. But, around corners, that GTO stuck like glue with no body roll. You could induce oversteer with the throttle, but it was so neutral otherwise.

Your '69 Firebird 400 could have been made to handle even better than my heavier GTO through the aftermarket, even if on F-body leaf springs as opposed to the control arm set up of the bigger A-body GM's.

 

One of my coworkers has an 07 Mustang that he road races. My 07 Mustang is for drag racing. We talk about the differences often. My 07 would be horrible for road racing as the suspension is setup for front-to-rear weight transfer at launch, it's an automatic transmission, and I've selected a stall converter that flashes to 4,300 rpm's. My car would lean too much in corners when it isn't blazing sideways from the narrow power band (4300-6500 rpm's). Sure is fun in a straight line, though.

Last summer I had a chance to drag race my 07 GT at the local 1/4 mile against a 06 Corvette Z06. The 505hp Z06 is definitely a road racer, and not a drag car. We lined up and when the light turned green I took the holeshot beating him to the 60' line and the 330' line (his road race happy suspension and harder tires unable to transfer weight and hook up). By the 1/8 mile he had caught me and we were side by side, fender to fender, but he was starting to pass me. Then aerodynamics and shear horsepower conspired against me and he slaughtered me to the 1/4 mile. However, he sure was in awe of how hard I pulled him for the first half of the track. But, it really wasn't surprising considering that our cars were engineered for two very different purposes.

 

A solid axle is not that problematic, and I can back that up with some real world experience at very high speeds on a bumpy two lane road with some nice bends in it (matter of fact, I was thinking the other day that I'm becoming too comfortable with those high speeds when I make that blast down that bumpy little two lane road). If my car can handle that with its live axle, then I'm sure the FR500C can handle any paved road course

--->now on to my regular post<---

The thing about the GT is this, its an everyman's sporty car and the suspension and tires are setup for safe and comfortable handling and when your hauling **** and the forces on the car increase, it starts to bob around since the regular suspension tuning has trouble coping with all that movement. The tires aren't that sharp since they are all season units, there is no way they can be with all those sipes and channels in that thick tread (although you can get better handling all season tires, they just cost alot more).

As others have mentioned, changing the spring and damper rates as well as going to a summer performance tire makes a very noticable improvement in the handling of the car, round it out with some simple component upgrades and it gets even better - as simple as adj panhard & rear upper control arm, rear lower control arm relocating brackets, relocating ball joints or brackets for the front, a bumpsteer kit, and an alignment. The relocating and adjustable components are simply the result of using suspension kits that lower the car (something any lowered car would have to deal with), find a kit that maintains a stock ride height and they aren't needed.

The S-197 chassis is pretty good and its pretty comparable to the 3rd and 4th gen camaro/firebird in terms of design layout and the awesome thing about that was the little known fact that a Z/28 (stock) managed to outrun a corvette on one of GM's test tracks. So, if anybody here can hang with or beat a 3rd/4th gen Z/28 against somebody of comparable driving skill, then that has to say something about the current chassis.

 

Guys

Top gear didn't like the GT500 really based on a price tag of well north of $60,000 in the UK and the poor weight distribution. They did test the rousch charged mustang and thought it was great.

In terms of drag versus the twisties, they both should be in play here. Drag racing is about horsepower and acceleration and the twistices about poise and handling. Both are not totally incompatable and in a real world road car should be expected. The solid rear axle can be made to handle, but let's not let ford off the hook, they did it for cost and the drag racer stuff is just PR speak.

 

Burke

We have some cool v8s that still smoke a shelby - Aston Martin, TVR and let's not forget most indy cars are built in england !!!

In terms of jets the harrier and the eurofighter are pleny good to take on the elderly care home that is becoming the USAF

 

I would like to think that my ol Roush with the Stage 3 suspension handles quite well thank you very much. Let the Euro's be ****ed that the Mustang's are competing and winning with solid axles, I love it!!

 

All of you guys that like to take up for the euros should head back in time and look at some of what they had to say about the Ford GT Super Car. That thing eats up Ferrari's and actually has a nice ride unlike the Italian road racers that feel like a crack in the road will make it explode. Ford came out with the GT40 in the sixties....they hated us for that winner and they hate us for the Ford GT Super Car because it doesn't rev to 10k. Of course it pulls like a bull with all that torque, but who's watching with their noses pointed to the sky?

Simple fact: American Technology is the best in the world when we really want to apply it. That's where capitalism an one way where multi-cultural diversity actually pays off. I guess the dollar gets in the way sometimes though. There are suspension systems available for our cars where the rear IRS (about 9k dollars) is bullet proof and makes the Euro suspensions look cheap and flimsy.

I guess we do deserve some of the cheap shots from them though, but they just really over do it. They seem so arrogant.

 

Dont be so quick to knock the Euros- your ford GT super car was designed and built in england

from wikipedia -

In the spring of 1963, Ford reportedly received word through a European intermediary that Enzo Ferrari was interested in selling to Ford Motor Company. Ford reportedly spent several million dollars in an audit of Ferrari factory assets and in legal negotiations, only to have Ferrari unilaterally cut off talks at a late stage. Ferrari, many commentators have surmised, got right to the point of signing the deal and realized he simply could not let go of the entity that carried his name. Henry Ford II, enraged, directed his racing division to find a company that could build a Ferrari-beater on the world endurance-racing circuit.
To this end Ford began negotiation with Lotus, Lola, and Cooper. Cooper had no experience in GT or prototype and its performances in Formula One were declining.
Lotus was already a Ford partner for their Indy 500 project. Ford executives already doubted the ability of Lotus to handle this new project. Colin Chapman probably had similar views as he asked a high price for his contribution and insisted that the car (which became the Lotus Europa) should be named Lotus and not Ford, an attitude that can be viewed as polite refusal.
The Lola proposal was chosen, since Lola had used a Ford V8 engine in their mid-engined Lola Mk 6 (also known as Lola GT). It was one of the most advanced racing cars of the time, and made a noted performance in Le Mans 1963, even though the car didn't finish. However, Eric Broadley, Lola cars' owner and chief designer, agreed on a short-term personal contribution to the project without involving Lola cars.
The agreement with Eric Broadley included a one year collaboration between Ford and Broadley and the sale of the two Lola Mk 6 chassis built to Ford. To form the development team, Ford also hired the ex-Aston Martin team manager John Wyer. Ford Motor Co. engineer Roy Lunn was sent to England. Lunn had designed the mid-engined Mustang 1 concept car powered by a 1.7 L V4. Despite the small engine of the Mustang 1, Lunn was the only Dearborn's engineer to have some experience with a mid-engined car.
Broadley, Lunn and Wyer began working on the new car at Lola Factory in Bromley. At the end of 1963 the team moved to Slough, England near Heathrow airport. Ford established a new subsidiary under the direction of Wyer, Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd to manage the project.
The first chassis built by Abbey Panels of Coventry was delivered on March 16, 1963. The first "Ford GT" the GT/101 was unveiled in England on April 1 and soon after exhibited in New York.

 

Comparing an open wheel indy car to a Shelby GT500? huh?


that's like comparing a Colt Python to a 20mm vulcan cannon - yeah they both shoot bullets but they are two completely different animals.

Elderly care home? You mean that Harrier that debuted in the late 60s/early 70s is a real current design?

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a great aircraft and up there with the 22 Raptor no doubt

The U.S. F/A 18E/F Superhornet that debuted in 1999 is definitely no joke though

 

Base designing and building done in England yes for the first prototype - but that doesn't make it an English car. Ford sent their chosen guys to England to work on it. Also:

Lotus was already a Ford partner for their Indy 500 project.


for the basis of the car they used:


the sale of the two Lola Mk 6 chassis built to Ford

Broadley, Lunn and Wyer began working on the new car at Lola Factory in Bromley. <<then not even a year into the project>> At the end of 1963 the team moved to Slough, England near Heathrow airport. Ford established a new subsidiary under the direction of Wyer, Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd to manage the project.

Powerplants?

The car was powered by the 4.2 L Fairlane engine with a Colotti transaxle, the same power plant was used by the Lola GT and the single-seater Lotus 29 that came in a highly controversial second at the Indy 500 in 1963. (A DOHC head design was used in later years at Indy. It won in 1965 in the Lotus 38.)

(Hmmm.....these british cars were using US powerplants)


Also:
The Mk I was the original Ford GT40. Early prototypes were powered by 4.2 L (255 in³) engines; production models were powered by 4.7 L (289 in³) engines, also used in the Ford Mustang.


The Ford X1 was a roadster built to contest the Fall 1965 North American Pro Series, a forerunner of CanAm, entered by the Bruce McLaren team and driven by Chris Amon. The car had an aluminum chassis built at Abbey Panels and was originally powered by a 4.7 L (289ci) engine. The real purpose of this car was to test several improvements originating from Kar Kraft, Shelby and McLaren.


Further powerplant info:

The Mk II used the 7.0 L (427 in³) engine from the Ford Galaxie.
For Daytona 1967, two Mk II models (chassis 1016 and 1047) were fitted with Mercury 7.0 L engines. Mercury is a Ford Motor Company division, and this was only a minor change.


In an effort to develop a car with better aerodynamics and lighter weight, it was decided to retain the 7 liter engine, but redesign the rest of the car. In order to bring the car more "in house" and lessening partnership with English firms, Ford Advanced Vehicles was sold to John Wyer and the new car was designed by Ford's studios and produced by Ford's subsidiary Kar Kraft under Ed Hull.

The Mk IV was build around a reinforced J chassis powered by the same 7.0 L engine as the Mk II. Excluding the engine, the Mk IV was totally different from other GT40s, using a specific chassis and specific bodywork.

 

Cati, It's not MY Ford GT Supercar. You must be refferring to the GT40, not the GT. The GT was designed and built right here by Americans. What, are you one of them Americans that hate the USA? Sure sounds like it. That little story you just posted is true, (to a point) I've read that before, word for word. There's no denying that right here in the good old USA the best technology exists. I've had a couple of BMW's and I've got to say even though they were satisfying to drive, they were way over engineered. It's almost like the engineers are trying to impress other engineers by making a component that requires 2-3 parts, but design it with 30 parts. That's no exaggeration. You should have seen the inside of the hazard light switch on our old 320i. It was a joke. All of the Jags built before '96 had transmission overheat problems I guess because the Brits didn't think anyone would ever drive one in a hotter climate than London.

I'm not really knocking Euro cars, just mearly returning the turned up nose back across the pond for justifiable reasons. I actually still love some of their vehicles and respect some of the innovation. I almost bought a new V-10 M5, but my wife said, ''you know, that new Mustang sure fits you a whole lot better''. I couldn't have agreed more with her. Mustangs truly are a way of life and I guess the Euros just don't get it.

Sorry for the rant fellas, I just know Americans can pretty much do whatever they set their minds to.

 

How much handling do you need to goto work or cruise on the weekend? Can you hold the car relatively straight blasting down thw quarter mile? Most people usually squwak about a cars superior handling when they have either a horsepower or image deficency or both. Usually both.

 

How much handling do you NEED to go to work? Not a lot, but it sure is fun, though, being able to keep to the speed limit around a corner, not touching the brakes, and KNOWING that the car will just ride like it's on rails... As for holding the car straight while blasting down the quarter mile, who can't? Until you get into a serious bracket car with the capability of lifting the front wheels, a trained monkey can go straight...


Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Personally, I have enough horsepower to run very low 13's on street tires (with 255's up front!), and will be in the 12's once I get done with the exhaust and a few other things. The car is also NOT set up as a drag car, but for handling on the twisties. Drag racing for me is all about the camaraderie, on club outings. But let's face it, once the launch is over, the remaining 10 seconds or so of the run is pretty boring, and so is the 45minutes to an hour between rounds.

I trap at around 105MPH in the quarter, but if you want sheer exhiliration, try getting OFF the brakes at 75MPH into a quick right-hander, recover at around 90, brake gently as you cross the track to set up for a quick left-hander 200 feet later... Make your turn-in feeding in some gentle gas, clip the berm on the inside of the corner, and start to drop the gas pedal down, using that to steer the car, not the wheel. When your right side tires clip the rumble strip at the corner exit, you're doing around 95 in a four-wheel drift, straighten it up, and drop the hammer. By the time you get to the next corner's braking zone, you're **** near off the speedo. Now repeat variations of the above for 20+ minutes at a shot. THAT is what driving is all about. You might want to try a track day sometime. It's a serious challenge, and the people are NOT all Spoiled Children Crashing Autos (apologies to any SCCA members that may be offended). C'mon, drink the coolaid...