kevinb120

kevinb120

I saw that post on SVTP there isnt going to be an S197 awd stang Hes prolly buddies with the guy who drove one at the show by walking up and asking to.

jarradasay

I guarantee you can build a RWD car capable of handleing the power much cheaper then AWD. You've gotta understand that to do AWD, and do it well (at least well enough to handle 500ponies) you have got to have 3 LSDs. The center to send power forward if rears are spinning or rearward if fronts are spinning. The front and rear to supply power to the right or left wheels whichever are not spinning. Trust me Subaru builds nothing but AWD. It is expensive. I know Ford is not an import nor is it Subaru, but AWD and 500 HP needs all three diffs. Heck even the Mitsu EVO and STi have three and they are both only around 300 ponies. Not to mention a tranny that can house a Transfer case of some sort. CV axles up front. Reconfigured K member ( or cross member). I would love to see an AWD stang, but doubt it.

rhumb

While 500+ hp can certainly be capably handled by a RWD chassis, especially with modern suspension and tire design combined with electronic traction and stability control systems, it does get harder and harder to fully put all that power down through but two wheels.

AWD, on the other hand, will allow you to actually utilize a greater proportion of that available power over a wider range of situations, but at the undeniable expense of weight, complexity and, well, expense. So you are starting to see ever more bleeding edge, darn the price ultra performance cars going the AWD route, including Lamborghini's Diablo and Gallardo, Porsche’s Turbo, etc. Even the EVO and STi show the performance benefit of how a good AWD system can make the absolute most of whatever power is available.

Will Ford go this route ... with the Mustangs? Never say never, but I'll say unlikely. Nissan has already come up with an AWD version of the G35, which rests on the same platform that underlies the 350Z (will we see an AWD 350Z?) But I think if Ford went the AWD performance route, they'd use a different onramp.

But then again, a 500+hp AWD Mustang would be a giant killer of major proportions, regardless of any RWD heritage, so maybe Ford does want to shake up the performance world a bit.

The_Wretched

:dance: :headbang: :spin:

"we are the champions... we are the champions... of the world"!!!!!!!!!!!!

that is like music to my ears...

want to first of all say this... that will go nice with 2000 V6, 2004 Mach 1... and a 2006 Cobra

500 is such a nice round number. a little hard to believe. from 390 to 500???
thats a GT40 engine basically.

but hey one can only dream right??

hopefully they put the pony on a diet tho... maybe shed about 500lbs!

crispy23c

Well, I just hope its <$50K, my wife won't let me sell the kids baby: baby: (I asked her last night), and she's already whining stuff like "Don't sell the furniture" and "We need dishes". I just said, :nono: You can't powershift the Lazy Boy, and we've got paper plates!

jsaylor

I seriously doubt awd will be offered in a Mustang in the near future. There is a contingent of folks within Ford who have apparently decided the entire world just yearns for awd from the 500/Montego press releases I have seen. And, in that car awd offers some real benefit IMHO.

However, even in a 500hp Mustang awd would take away than it would add IMHO. First, as Jarradsay above touches on, the idea that awd is a less expensive proposition than what amounts to a well done rwd with a fat set of tires is wholly inaccurate. AWD is an expensive, and somewhat heavy, proposition if done remotely well in nearly any car.

Secondly awd is really over-rated concerning any real gain in performance ability. IMO it is far more accurate to say awd makes a car easier to drive fast, not that it makes the car faster. And frankly, if the design of the car is sound and well executed to begin with awd can actually make the car slower....not faster

Case in point.....Porsche 911 Turbo and 911 GT2. Essentially, the 911 GT2 is a slightly juiced, rwd version of the 911 Turbo. However, if you equip the 911 Turbo with the optional 444hp motor the power difference between these two cars is pretty small. Also note that Porsche's awd system is just about the lightest one around and doesn't add very much weight to the car. (under 200lbs) So, this comparison should be biased toward a good result for the awd setup if anything since this is the cream of the awd crop.

With slightly more hp (about 30) the "traction limited" 911 GT2 doesn't just outrun the 911 Turbo in every respect, it destroys it. Where did the awd advantage go? Please note that Porsche took OUT the awd to help make the ultimate 911 go faster, not put it in.

Even with slightly more hp, a little less weight (more weight is a fact of life for any awd) and the 911's natural rear weight bias the 911 Turbo should be the equal of, if note superior to, the GT3 from an acceleration and handling standpoint IF awd really offered some great advantage. It simply didn't happen with this car. Honestly, besides the addition of awd and some slight weight saving Porsche changed very little about this car. Putting 30hp into and taking 100lbs out of a 911 Turbo would not even come close to making up the fairly large difference in performance between the two.

IMHO awd makes sense on the Lightning, Ram SRT10, or other vehicles where weight distribution is really screwy. Also, powerful fwd-based cars (WRX, Evo) benefit from this setup as well since fwd is really the worst of the drive options for high-performance cars. And, awd offers a good solution for any car with a lot of power that you want to make "easy" to drive fast.

However, I wasn't aware that a 500hp Shelby or SVT offering was going to be about how "easy" it is to drive. It seems to me it is about making a well-balanced car that goes as fast as it can possibly go for a relatively modest sum of money while rewarding the driver. AWD simply does not fit that proposition well IMHO. And, I think Bill Ford and Coletti wil likely see it the same way.

If awd finds it's way into a Mustang, then it makes more sense as an option in something like a GT model intended for use in climates where snow and ice are real factors. But, leave it off my Mustang Cobra.

t69r00p69

Did Brad really say it was the Mustang Cobra that would receive this engine? Maybe they have already started the production plans for the Ford "Shelby" Cobra and he was talking about that car.

GhostTX

Wow!!!

Heck...I think I'll be happy with a GT for now. :drive: I'll need to something to upgrade to when I have my mid-life crisis.

Wombert

The GT2 is not only slightly juiced... it has over 100kg less weight than the Turbo (The Turbo/Carrera 4/4S AWD is about 55kg!), different turbochargers etc etc. That makes a huuuuuuge difference. And the GT3 is not turbocharged, which distinguishes it from the GT2 and the Turbo - it has slower acceleration, though.

jsaylor

Actually, if the turbos were actually altogether different it could make a huge difference. However, they are only slightly modified on the GT2 as compared to even the standard 415hp 911 Turbo and they are identical to the untis on a Z50 (444hp) equipped 911 Turbo. Essentially for the GT2 they added larger intercoolers, and just modified the turbos enough so that the motor could make about 3 psi more boost as compared to the standard Turbo. The ECU tuning and exhaust are simply there intended to take advantage of this.

Exact differences between the 415hp 911 Turbo and the 477hp GT2 include slightly modded turbos (very slight btw) bigger intercoolers, exhaust, and ecu tuning. However, if you opt for the 444hp Z50 in the 911 Turbo those differences shrink to ECU tuning and exhaust. This is according to Porsche, as some say the ONLY difference is the exhaust and that Porsche under-rates the Z50 package's hp in order to keep the GT2's noticable rated hp advantage. As I said, there is an actual 33hp difference at most between a 444hp 911 Turbo Z50 and a 477hp GT2...not exactly huge.

The GT2's suspension gets new sway bars, metal bushings instead of polyurethane, and a 3/4 inch drop. Tire width goes up 1/2 inch in front and 1 inch in rear. Weight on the GT2 versus the 911 Turbo is 3131 for the GT2 versus 3505 for the Turbo IF you assume a full weight, heaviest of the bunch 911 Turbo. The 911 Turbo can weigh as little as 3400lbs when optioned appropriately and some sources claim lower than that. The optional ceramic brake package saves 40lbs by itself....it's standard on the GT2 btw.

Also note that nearly 200lbs of the Turbos weight is because that car has awd. If you count awd as an advantage than you have to just suck up 200lbs (179lb to be exact) of the weight difference between these cars as a liability. And, as I mentioned above, Porsche has what is likely the lightest awd setup on earth so this comparo is actually slightly biased in favor of awd as Porsche's awd is not typical of what you could expect an awd pony to weigh . It is not unusual to see awd setups for rwd based cars go three hundred pounds plus.

If you don't count the weight the GT2 loses by giving up awd since this is an inherent disadvantage of awd systems. Then, even if you only count the 40lb savings found in the ceramic brake package that you can get on the 911 Turbo a 911 GT2 only sheds about 150lbs of excess weight. Not exactly the auto equivelant of the ultra slimfast plan. You can;t accurately applaud awd's supposed advantages and at the same time complain about the rwd GT2's weight advantage when the vast majority of that advantage is due to awd's high weight.

So, here is what we have

911 Turbo: 344hp (w Z50 package)
3465lbs (179lbs due to awd)
awd drive system

911GT2: 377hp (33hp advantage according to Porsche)
3131lbs
sway bar, bushings, 3/4" drop, slightly more wheel/tire

If awd is supposed to be superior then that 179lb weight disadvantage has to be considered acceptable. Does anyone really think that another 33hp and a drop of 150lbs in weight would make the 911 Turbo the 911 GT2's equal in terms of acceleration? To 60mph the Turbo's awd does show up as the GT2 barely nips the standard Turbo. But, if awd was really so great should 33hp really still have the GT2 a tenth or two faster to sixty? Hmmmmm. By the end of the 1/4 mile think more like almost half a second or better difference between the two. It goes downhill the faster you go.

If awd was really such a revelation then a mere 150lbs and 33hp shouldn't be expected to make a rwd car noticeably FASTER than the awd variant. I think the difference is telling. By basic logic that should only be a 4/10 of a second advantage at most (and likely less) down the 1/4 mile even if both cars were rwd. And, that even assumes Porsche isnt sandbagging the Z50's hp numbers which they almost certainly are. Basically the Z50 IS the GT2 motor with awd and another 150lbs of weight. Something just doesn't add up for awd here guys.

Looks to me like the best case awd Mustang scenario is no real performance improvement over rwd and most likely we would give up a little performance for a lot more dough. No thanks.

jsaylor

Oh, it is worth mentioning that most of the suspension mods on the GT2, like the metal bushings, almost certainly hurt that cars acceleration time when compared to the awd 911 Turbo's softer suspension. This would be even worse on the rear engined Porsche as the softer suspension allows thew rear to squat on launch and gain more traction. So, it would appear the already faster GT2 is even faster than the numbers indicate as compared to the Turbo.

ZwerRacing

it would be so nice to have an awd 500hp mustang from the factory. imagine the potential. it would end up with 900+ hp and a whole lot of tork and the best part is you dont even need as much hp and tork with awd so it will desicrate all.

MedVader

Nope. A modded 600+hp Cobra with AWD would just be sitting around broken all the time.

All we need and want is a tough RWD IRS.

jsaylor

Ask Bugatti how easy it is to put awd in a car with a lot of torque and keep it together. As a matter of fact, if you have any ideas I'm sure they would love to hear them. Seeing as how their 1000hp awd machine was supposed to be on sale already and is still fragging driveline components..

hippy

Is this a mustang cobra or production version of the cobra we saw at naias? I thought the name cobra for mustang was gone?

Nazgul

Trust me, you won't have $50K to spend on yourself when you have your midlife crisis. That's one of the reasons you HAVE the midlife crisis!

msd

The WRX is not based on a FWD platform. The Impreza was first developed in Japan in the early 90's and was offered with the AWD, turbo configuration from day one. Many people think it stems from an economy car platform, but in reality, any economy version (older L versions) is actually based off a performance car platform.

AWD being easier to drive is not the case. A car that’s easier to drive has much more to do with chassis tuning then the drivetrain. If we compared an AWD car whose chassis was tuned for major oversteer vs. a RWD car that was tuned for mild understeer, which do you think would be easier to drive? Sure, it's easier in inclement weather with AWD, but one must learn the intricacies of an AWD platform, just like those of a FWD or RWD platform. To think AWD automatically equals an easier driving car is naive and that's what gets many youngsters in trouble with EVO's, WRX's and STi's, as they think they are indestructible with AWD.

Some other points from another post:

You absolutely do not need 3 LSD's. The US spec EVO has an open diff up front, like the WRX. Audi's have open diffs front and rear. They use electronics to transfer power.

The expense of an AWD system depends on the type of system. If it's as expensive as you say, then Subaru couldn't build cheap cars. In the Subaru's 5 speed manual cars, they use a lightweight & simple viscous type diffs. They do use a more sophisticated clutch type system in their auto equipped vehicles.

I think AWD would serve the Cobra well. The benefits of AWD far outweigh the bad. This is why many makers are adding AWD to their lineup.

Mike (who LOVES the new Stang and may add one to his stable)

Brian302505

500 HP is a ton of difference in the driveline I mean really, if Audi can do a RS6 with 400+ and AWD and not frag components. Now 1000 HP lol that'll frag most powertrains, although that would be fun

jarradasay

Yes you absolutely do. THe evo only has 271 horses and 273 ftlbs of torque. And what is the number one complaint about the evo? The lack of Front LSD. THe WRX STi has three lsd, two are computer controlled but LSD nonetheless. Now in you "infinite wisdom" you made a major mistake. Not one of the cars you listed even has 300 horsepower let alone 500. To get 500 ponies to hook up and do it right and tight everytime you must have 3 LSDs. And they do make electronic LSDs. Subaru builds 20-30000 dollar four cylinder cars. The H-6 is in excess of 30000. THis is not cheap and no subaru does not build cheap cars. You really need to try and compare equal things. You are using subarus 165 HP cars to say that LSDs are not needed. THese are touring cars with little HP and torque. Trust me I build them here at SIA. That is just dumb. The car we are talking about would have 500/500 hp tq. And subaru does not use simple lightweight viscous diffs in all their manual cars. Look at the STi (a high performance car) and see what is in that.