GM is hurting as well, so I don't think that the money issue is valid. The GT500 won't be a high volume car. Usually, cars like this aren't very profitable. Ford would rather sell Expeditions.

If Ford couldn't allocate enough money to build this car, all they had to do is say it. There is no shame in telling the truth. Instead, they will come up with some BS reason like they did with an IRS rear.

 

I'm guessing ~ 150 lbs heavier.

 

I would GUESS, roughly basing on what the '99-'04 Cobra's was (~125lbs if I recall correctly) about 100 lbs, presuming this chassis was better engineered, as claimed, for IRS and would thus be a bit lighter. But I think that the qualitative improvements to handling and ride dynamics (as opposed to simply a plush ride as some try to infer) would be well worth it, especially away from the strip, which is no test of any suspension, and butter smooth, test track skid pads.

And another, more important consideration is the huge reduction in unsprung weight vs. the total system weight.

Also, any weight gain would be low and in the rear, as opposed to that gained by the FE block 5.4, and would tend to balance out the weight distribution.

I think someone mentioned it well in that the GT500 seems to be following a very late '60's model of Shelby Mustangs, every bigger motors in ever more massive and plush cars. By '69, the Shelby GT500s especially, got to be rather bloated caricatures of themselves, sort of the Fat Elvis equivalents of the lean and mean originals.

My hope is that, if not with the GT500, Ford does some varient that achieves performance not through this broad axe approach, but rather as the original GT350s did with lean, light, taut semi racers.

 

Unfortunately, it is a "volume" car in the sense that they aren't just making 1-2K, they'll make as many as they can sell, and at 40K+ a pop the profit margin will be pretty healthy as well.

 

I still wouldn't classify the GT500 as a volume car. A high volume car is, for example, and F-150 or Accord. This car won't get Ford out of trouble. Ford needs to sell sedans, not sports cars.

 

Even Mustang GT sales only account for less than 5% of the company's total sales volume.

The GT500 is very much a low volume niche car.

 

The GT500 is pretty much a "halo" car, if not quite so high in the ether as the GT(-40). Which makes the content and engineering crimping all that much more inexplicable, IMHO. This car more than most any other in the Ford lineup, is going to be intricately dissected by gearheads and techies.

Seems to me, this is precisely the car you'd want to showcase the creative capabilities of your design, engineering and production staff, not the oppressive clout of the management suits and accounting beancounters.

Given that whatever Ford makes or looses on bottom line for this car will be insignificant to their overall corporate bottom line, I think they risk being very shortsighted and EDIT by mr-mstng:that definitely wasn't an appropriate adjective in their engineering and pricing approaches. The corporate image impact of this showcase car, positive or negative, will far surpass any financial impact, positive or negative.

A lot of its initial impact at the NAIAS unveiling is already going to be watered down by the Camaro/Challenger concept rollouts. And, depending on the technical/feature specs of these newcomers, the GT500 may prove rather vulnerable here too for given a clear target, I highly doubt GM or DC will scimp and offer less than the GT500.

I really feel Ford has felt they are the only game in town in the Pony Car market and have somewhat coasted on that hubris. But they soon won't be and they won't be able to take their success so for granted. Sure, the GT500 will be a very good car and certainly "good enough," but will that really be good enough in the face of this incipient onslaught of these new competitors who will certainly take no quarter?

Only the future will tell for sure, but I'm nervous now.

 

"Halo effect"...

 

I agree...the competitive landscape might dramatically change if the Challenger or Camaro make it to market.

That still is a ways off, of course.

 

My guess is that the amount allocated was based on certain assumptions about material costs and the overall budget allocations for Mustang based on Ford's financial health. Who knows for sure, but I do believe weight was probably the bigger reason for dropping the IRS. As others have noted, would people want the extra 100+ lbs on top of what is currently projected.

By the way, speaking of weight, is anyone aware of a comparable performance car (4 seats, 450+ hp) that would compare and we could look at compromises made in the name of cost or weight? Thanks.

 

I am worried about Ford being caught with their pants down when the challenger hits the streets.

It will atleast have the 350hp 5.7L hemi if not the 6.1 425hp one.

I have really saddened by the Mustang when i first heard the weight of the 2005 GT.

The mustang has always had one thing going for it being lighter then the competition.

GM was able to Produce a whole new engine and give a lot of weight reductions on the car for 15k above the base vette.

Ford pretty much already had the 5.4SC engine made from the Ford GT.

They should restamp the whole car in Aluminum for the GT500.

 

1 more thing i thought that the weight difference between the solid axle and IRS ont eh last mustang was 85lbs?

 

The Ford GT was a Halo car as well, did it work? I wouldn't say so based on sales figures.

 

Weight wasn't the isssue. Look at the GTO for example. A Luxury interior filled with heavy goodies that comes with an IRS suspension. It has 400 hp and the same 6 speed transmission. A cam and headers brings the LS2 above 450 crank hp. I don't buy the weight issue. It was cost and ultimately profit that dictated it. Remember, Ford is in business to increase profits and increase shareholder wealth.

 

Jason you're making alot of sense. I dont event have to argue.

 

Don't "buy" the weight issue? The missing link in your analysis is this: the LS2 block is aluminum alloy...the GT500's is cast iron. The GTO can get away with some heavier stuff elsewhere because the engine is lighter. As far as long term durability (under boost) is concerned, I'd take cast iron every day of the week. And yes, that means the extra weight.

 

The Vert weighs the same as a 4 door Jaguar S(think British Taurus,$67,000).

Let's face it....this generation of Mustang is TOO BIG. I'm sure you guys love your cars, but MAN these things are heavy. In the reality of power to weight ratio a 3200 lb. SVT Mustang would be a serious contender. Alas....it's nice but just too FAT.

After the first couple thousand of these are sold, you'll be able to buy all you want and get a discount.


Please Ford...put the re-design on a diet.

 

I doubt ford is going to do anything about it until competitors bring cars into the pony market. It's all about the Shelby hype now, right now all we can do is sit back and wait.

 

Well, as far as the whole iron block, weight, durability, IRS vs. SRA equation is concerned, someone please explain why it is that every other auto maker of any significance in the world can solve this equation in a performance car and still manage to offer IRS?

I just want to add that I think the car that was shown on the Road & Track website last week (the Shelby convertible) is the final product. I say that because I can't imagine Ford allowing a pre-production car to go on the February cover when the final production model is being unveiled in January. Which means we get the BLEEEEEEP hood, no BLEEEEEEP letters across the back, the BLEEEEEEP porker weight increase and that bloody BLEEEEEEP Roman chariot rear suspension.

Wow, that auto profanity exterminator really works good!

 

Are Ford engineers not capable of building a high hp aluminum engine? Aluminum engines can handle boost too. Ford could have chosen an aluminum block, that was my point. Instead they chose to go the heavy route.