Svtstinger

I'm sure it's under rated.

softbatch

Not up on Mustang History, eh. The 500 is to pay homage to the GT 500s of the '60s. It has nothing to do with Horse Power, just like GT350 has nothing to do with horse power.

If you were joking then pardon my reponse

1 COBRA

"... What we have here... is failure... to.. com-mu-ni-cate!"
-- Coming soon to police radios near you.

conv_stang

sad part is almost every truck and suv on the planet would be doing good to get those gas mileage numbers! should make them pay taxes! what wa the tax on the 03-04?? 1000?

conv_stang

dont think the eaton is a twin screw. unless they are going with the whipple like on the GT

holderca1

I hope you are joking, the original GT500 only had 335 hp in 1967.

future9er24

i like those #s. but i's still have my lil II

[hides as the bricks are thrown]

oh and nick, the reason the trucks dount hafta pay the tax (i think) is becuase they are primarily work vehicles and they need the power to you know... haul stuff.

the cobra no doubt will be hauling hiney but that doesnt classify it as a work vehicle, more of recreational so im guessing thats why it, and the GTO for example, have the tax

but then again, im an ignorant teen, what do i know lol

holderca1

Actually you are probably right, the tax was created in 1978, back then trucks were primarily work vehicles. I think they may need to create one for trucks and SUVs since times have changed and most people that own trucks and SUVs do little work with them, at most they use them to tow a boat.

Tony Alonso

That is some heft...I wonder if it will qualify for the HEAVIEST Mustang to come from Ford, in addition to most powerful?

OBleedingMe

The gas guzzler tax is crap. Just another way for facist liberals to try to micromanage and control what I spend MY money on. How much do you want to bet the 99% of the advocates/supporters of this law hate/have no interest in muscle cars?

I think we should start a tax on 32mm and 8mm film. See how long the film students would put up with that.

sknapp302

Wow, 3850 lbs, 116 mph in the 1/4 mile, assuming a 170lb driver your looking at a race weight of 4020 lbs! ET/MPH Caculator indicates this bad boy is puting out closer to 500 HP at the rear wheels, and should run 11.70s if it can get enough traction!

SigMachi

That makes a lot of sense because there is a horrible environmental threat from film. Moron. At least come up with a sensible analogy.

Robert

Sorry, but before everyone gets too caught up in the power, weight and tax issues, how 'bout some IMPORTANT STUFF, like the editors' driving and handling impressions of the car.

Can someone scan the article, or failing that, provide the above...?!

And, yeah, 3850 lbs is a porker! :shock:

Shelby Roadster

Are people forgetting that it was the concept car that was driven, as the production car hasn't even been unveiled yet and won't be until January.

I highly doubt a magazine is getting a sneek peak on the production car, when Ford isn't even finished with some of the details yet.

iceman241

Shelby Roadster you took the words right out of my mouth these people must be stupid or something all i am going to say. People they test drove the concept not the actual production shelby and they could change alot on the actual production shelby including hp and wieght. So until then you have no proof of what the production shelby can do.

OBleedingMe

Performance vehicles are about as much of an environmental risk as filmmaking, buddy.

Anyway, it was a perfectly sensible analogy. I was comparing something they love to something we love. You just seemed to have missed the meaning. But I won't call you a name. Bit more mature than that.

You can probably make an argument for film as an environmental risk. At a certain college in NJ this year they had a film burning fest. The students burned tons of films they considered "propoganda" for the Bush administration (anything that disagreed with their point of view - how open minded). Made one helluva stink! Most it was just old used film, not event he documentaries in question... "symbolic" and all that. If anyone here has ever burned picture negatives, you know how horrible this smells! Can't be good for the atmosphere to do that!

wakerider017

I must of missed the meaning too. That was a terrible analogy.

The emissions of a Shelby GT500 will hurt the environment more than a Toyota Corolla.

Film does not hurt the environment....

Gas is in limited supply, Film is not.

Your comment was just stupid. I don’t like the tax anymore than you do, but please don't be ignorant.

dke

Ignorance is not looking at all sides of an equation and coming to a bad conclusion; then being unwilling to learn.

A Toyota Corolla may hurt the environment more -- as older cars tend to pollute more than newer cars. What will make a bigger difference is driving habits. But fuel is not in limited supply, we just use fossil fuels because they are so darn cheap for now. When they become more rare, the equation will change, and we'll start using more renewable ones. The same with other things that Oil is used for; it is used for that because it is cheap. We can make synthetics and other things, but things haven't tipped yet.

One example of stupidity is when the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) bought electric cars; which pollute more than Gasoline ones. Ooops. The morons looked at tailpipe emissions, then ignored that you had to create and transmit the electricity somehow, and losses/ineffeciencies were WORSE! (Duh!). Not to mention all the toxic substances like lead and acid, and so on. Most people parrot what they hear, without thinking about it.

Film is made of what? What happens when you get rid of it? To create a film, how much do you need to use electricity or other processes that may pollute? Not to mention getting everyone to the scene, multiple takes, and waste. Then editing, and playing. How do you get to see films? I bet making, showing and destroying films, is FAR more wasteful/polluting than having Cobra instead of a Focus. Not to mention say having an Explorer to carry around all that Film equipment! But that we require some common sense to figure out; common sense isn't.

People love to attack other people's vices, the problem is that MOST do this from a position of ignorance. I got OBleeding's point, because I thought about it, before I let my knee jerk.

mystic cobra

Car and Driver did say that the production car will have wider wheels and tires.The show car has 255/45s and the production will have 255/45 on the front and 285/40s on the rear!!!! Heres a quote from the mag. "We just couldn't get the 255s to hook up,"says O'Connell."Almost every run was going up."

wakerider017

WOW! ALL that info is taken out of context. You say batterys have acid and lead which are toxic. Well first of all, all cars have batterys, second lead is an earth metal. How is that pollution to the earth. The lead was taken from the Earth as lead and will be put back as lead.

As for factories... Yes factories do pollute, but we need factories for everything. whether it be film or cars. Plus where did anyone ever state the pollution of making a product? We are talking about pollution the actual products they make themselves. And although fossil fuels themselves may not be in that short of supply right now... THEY are still not that readily availiable. (Middle East, I dont think I need to say more)

And you say "old toyota" thats rediculous.... How can you compare an old car to a new car. We are comparing NEW to NEW.

Please do be stupid, Everyone here knows darn well that the Shelby GT500 will pollute more than most other New cars. ITS A FACT.

And how the f' does film pollute that badly? Really? When thrown away all it is, is a plastic.

If film is as bad as a Shelby then so are mlk cartons, and any thing else plastic for the matter. Its all a bunch of bs. You just want to argue.

Quit thinking you are "DEEP" b/c your just as ignorant as Obleeding