Hi guys, I'd like to point out the following factors to take into account:

1) The block used in the GT500 is taller and heavier than the one in the Mustang GT

2) The block used in the GT500 will be made of iron instead of aluminum, adding more weight.

3) The supercharger also adds weight.

The questions are:

- How much heavier is the Shelby compared to the stock GT?

- How nose-heavy is this Shelby going to be?

I ask because the excellent balance of the Mustang GT impressed me. By all indications, this is going to be one nose-heavy car. Kind of a shame, if you ask me...

 

It will be be a pig in the corners, but fun on the straights!

Actually, they can tune a lot of that away with the suspension...it won't be as bad as you think.

 

I think it's 53% 47% weight dist. (F&R)...

 

You probably have the same concerns as others had with the '03 s/c Cobra vs. the GT. For professional racers weight is always a concern. For the average enthusiastic driver it does not make a difference. I would think the GT500 will have a tuned suspension as well as appropriate wheels and tires to par with its enhanced performance.

If the last few years are any indication, Ford has shown it is consumed and constantly concerned with improving the Mustang, not regressing it.

 

My slight concern is Ford will cater more to the drag racers and hard-core muscle crowd and neglect the suspension for the sake of the engine. This has already been suggested with the SRA and the choice of engine.

That being said, I also think it will handle much better than a stock GT, so I wouldn't worry too much, and while it will probably be significantly heavier (also remember the larger brakes and 6 spd. tranny), I doubt this will show up much on the street.

Just look at the speed world challenge -- when they get 100# weight penalties they drop a little but not much, and that is primarially in braking.

In short, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It will still be one of the most fun rides you can get off a showroom floor.

 

People think you want 50/50... but really I've heard in RWD that 45/55 is better. (cg shifts backwards in acceleration -- so you get more weight to the traction wheels -- and when weight shifts forward in breaking, you get more weight over the rear wheels for more balanced brakes -- and you widen the rear tires, to handle the bias in corners).... Not 100% sure, that's just what "they" say, and it makes sense from a physics point of view.... I know in 50/50 mid-engine cars, when those puppies give out in a corner, you're going for a ride (spin city)....

 

No disrespect to the drag racers, but one has to be out of his little yellow mind to take a car like this and beat it up at the drag strip.

 

What's the weight distribution on the mid-engine GT?

 

The article in SVT Enthusiast (just received last night) didn't have curb wieght (although I've heard others say 3600 lbs) but it does say the distribution is 52-48, which is better than I'd seen/heard anywhere else.

 

This is one of those areas already being widely criticised but about which nobody really knows anything yet. Yes, a cast iron block weighs more, as does the taller deck, and the blower adds weight too.

However, we don't know what else might have been shifted in the car to help maintain balance or what in the front of the car may have been lightened. The motor itself could contain lightweight parts as could the hood, fenders, core support......the list goes on

What we do know is that of late SVT has absolutely delivered what they say they will. Think back, we heard a lot of criticism on this board about different aspects of the Mustang GT and virtually all proved baseless. I expect the same will happen with the GT500.

 

HolderCa1 -- The weight distro of a Ford GT is 43/57 -- I seriously doubt that's by accident (supporting my point).

 

I am not so sure I care a lot about weight distribution, there are definitely more important considerations. For example: A Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution has a 60/40 ratio, which makes it decidely nose heavy. A Ford Expedition is 50/50. Which of these cars has a reputation for corning?

Dave

 

No disrespect to the drag racers, but one has to be out of his little yellow mind to take a car like this and beat it up at the drag strip.
[/b][/quote]


But you know they will. Why do you think 90% of this forum is wetting over themselves about this car, it's engine, and the fact it has SRA?

 

just keep thinking about those "forged internals".

 

S197.... thanks for that, I was busting up. Of course a car is more than just ONE spec.

 

No disrespect to the drag racers, but one has to be out of his little yellow mind to take a car like this and beat it up at the drag strip.
[/b][/quote]

If drag racing the Shelby is wrong then locking the car up in a garage and saving it for a barrett-jackson pension plan is an unforgivable sin.

 

I agree, that's why most exotics are mid-engine cars. Heck, Porsche has had rear engine cars for long as I can remember, maybe always been that way, not up on my Porsche history. Obviously they know what they are doing.

 

No disrespect to the drag racers, but one has to be out of his little yellow mind to take a car like this and beat it up at the drag strip.
[/b][/quote]

It's a car. If you're looking for an investment talk to a stock broker, not an auto salesman. IMO, you'd have to be more out of your mind to preserve this car for the next buyer. I've never understood this mindset. Why purchase a car if you're not going to drive it...especially the way it was designed to be driven. I don't mean to come across harsh so I'd love to hear your reasons why this car shouldn't be taken to the drag strip. With over 22,500 GT500 (3 year run), I don't think this car will ever be a rare collectable (at least in my lifetime), so the only thing I can see the price do is fall.

 

The S197 starts with a much better weight distribution than the old, Cyrano-nosed SN95, which with its engine pushed way forward (reflecting the Fox chassis space-efficiency sedan roots) and modest WB giving it an almost FWD weight distribution. The S197 on the other hand pulls the engine back a bit, pushes the front wheels forward and actually paid some attention to weight distribution in the design.

That said, of course added weight on the nose won't help the handling, but I imagine the effect will be fairly small and perhaps somewhat mellowed responses might not be bad in a nearly 500hp car to help preserve the inevitable dolts.

The GT500 does seem pretty focused more on stoplight/dragstrip prowess than overall road performance, what with the big, heavy motor and retention of the lively axle out back. Guess that's in the spirit of the original GT500 which, too, was pretty much just a straight liner. Don't expect any exotic weight savings in the motor. Rather, think tall block 2003-4 Cobra motor with a Whipple instead of Roots SC. There doesn't seem to be much effort elsewhere to trim the fat either.

Hopefully, there will be future SE's that will have a much broader performance envelope and focus more in the spirit of the GT350 or Boss 302. A light, revvy 4V 4.6, in AL of course, with a tight 6-spd, tightened up suspension (IRS would be ideal here, but Ford seems to be cheaping out), the big Brembos and some fly-paper tires would be sweet out in the road courses and back roads.

 

So it'll be nose heavy. So what. The original was as well, still put a BIG smile on my face.