rocket88

Then it would cost as much as a vette

hi5.0

The only fat it needs is fatter rear tires and maybe a slight step-down in gearing so the rear tires have more of a fighting chance for traction. Definitely a weight reduction needed. Those times look similar to those obtained by HotRod magazine - allegedly done on the sly. If its power/weight ratio is less than the standard C6 Vette, those times wouldn't be surprising.

nonsensez9

aluminum welding = $$

bob

I'm pretty sure the guys who developed the car have sweated the details on weight control, after all, the lighter you can make the car, the better fuel economy it will have. Could they have been obsessive about it? I'm sure they could have, and maybe in an evolutionary manner they can go back and see what and where can lose some weight, but given saftey/reliability/cost concerns this is probably the best compromise. Everybody can point fingers at other cars out there, but I'm pretty sure on the whole, they are more expensive and unfortunately the Shelby is cost constrained (don't believe me, look at all the people complaining about the car coming in at low 40's instead of sub 40's) so again it all leads back to what the best comprimise could be for safety/reliability/cost.

Then again, how bout a quick survey?

How many people would fork over the money for a 70 or 80k msrp mustang that came with the following?

500 to 550 hp 4v SC V8
3200 lbs curb weight (maximum crashworthiness - complete airbag protection, yadda, yadda, yadda)
independant rear suspension
Fully loaded, no options plus stuff that isn't obtainable on the regular mustang (navigation, heads up display, yadda, yadda, yadda or whatever people are clamoring for?)

Is it worth it?

Juice

Aluminum is not as hard/strong as steel, so to get the same rigidity, everything would have to be thicker and require additional reinforcement. Aluminum is also significantly more difficult to weld, especially in in sheet metal thicknesses and it is more prone to fatigue failure than steel. I would agree, some components such as the hood, trunk lid and doors could be aluminum, (Ford did this at least on the first generation Expedition hood) but the unibody would need to be steel. The biggest weight penalty has to be the 5.4 iron block and the supercharger. A lot of weight could have been saved here with an aluminum block, but again, at what cost.

The above listed changes would be great, but you would not get the car for under a 100 grand

codeman94

and where did they get the MSRP from?

Sharp

The hood is aluminum, so are the heads, rims, radiator, and the 4 piston calipers.

bob

Which msrp?

68notch

Conventional magazine times mean almost nothing. The same mags (R&T, C&D, Automobile, etc.) were barely able to squeeze low 13's from the '03/4 Cobras, and we all know what crappy performers those turned out to be.

TerpGT17

C&D actually mentioned that the previous Cobra did a 12.9 by their watch as well. It's not all bad news though, Motor Trend did 12.7 @116 which is a significantly better trap and shows potential for mid-low 12's in stock form.

Rampant

I guess this will stop the "GT-500 will run with the Z06" people.

Stangette

Good point indeed. C & D historically has reported lower ETs for the Fords. Ford Shelby GT500 has a Design basis for a 12.2 ET and 0 - 60 in 4.5. This is prior to the recently divulged revision of the performance numbers to 475/475. Been hearing that the actual hp is at 485 and at month ago; and SVT was not done with the final tuning.

If one could be had for less than 50k, with the upgrades it is set to contain and power, it will be difficult for the other makers to produce a comparable performer for under 70k.

TomServo92

Actually, the GT500 is officially rated at 500HP/480TQ:

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=46570

rhumb

C&D, R&T and MT tend not to flog their cars quite so hard as the more hard core drag racing oriented mags like MM&FF. In other words, they tend to use standard tire pressures, no power shifting, going over redline, etc. to squeak out that last .01 sec/mph. Rather, they drive test them much more like the average driver would and probably reflects what most people will reap in terms of numbers. Of course, the strip fanatics will get better times by resorting to the above tactics and really hammering the car.

I did read a bit of a review in the British car mag, Car, on the flight back from Scotland yesterday. Basically liked it, especially for straight line performance, but was not overly impressed by the chassis/handling -- fine on smooth straights and flat sweepers but easily befuddled when the roads threw any challenges at it. But generally pleased with it as long as used in its somewhat constrained niche (smooth, straightish roads and off the line acceleration). Article did make for an interesting outsider's perspective, can't wait for Top Gear to get their hands on one too.

Fordracing200

haha that was funny....

Tiberius1701

Yeah, I cannot wait to see what Clarkson & Co. will say about it!!

n3cr0mncr

Why not just make the whole thing out of titanium, right? I have a mountain bike that weighs 3 pounds with tires brakes and everything....that should bring the car down to around 2200-2600 lbs.....and it should only cost about $165,000.

I am just glad that there is a 500HP car out there that I can afford on a military salary. It may not be light, but that is where being a good driver helps you overcome any problems that a car may have.

iviustang50h

What a let down!

hi5.0

I'm sure there are enough greedy dealers out there who would be more than happy to let you pay "only" $165,00 for it - with all the weight included.

Rampant

Please explain. I understand the point about getting that much power for so cheap, but how does being a good driver overcome physics? The lighter the car, the easier it is to acceleration, decelerate and turn. What does driving abilities have to do with that?

I could see where you would need skills to get the most out of the car (feathering the throttle so not to spin the tires exiting a turn, etc.), but you are still going slower because of the weight.