Sharp

Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords ran a 12.257 at 117.18 MPH in the quarter mile. It just goes to show you, if it's not an import, car and driver won't give you a good review.

Hollywood_North GT

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Or if it's Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords they WILL. No bias there, after all.

Sharp

They did complained about the Shelby name being offset and the weight. They said Ford should be ashamed for how much it weighs. According to Thai-Tang an aluminum block was never considered because of re-engineering costs. I feel they really dropped the ball here. That block could be used in the next Lightning, any F150, expeditions, etc. It could of helped mileage in all these. After all, isn't that why the Mustang GT's block is aluminum.

cobalt

All I know is that I've got 435 rwhp from my Saleen blower,JDM tune, and changed out my entire (recommended for street) suspension 20 items with Saleen and Steeda. Steeda(stoptech brakes) 14" 4 piston brakes.Wide and gripping wheels and tires. Original premium upgrade,price, sales tax, all upgrades even tinting plus all labor total is $44,650.00 I wish those magazines would wright about how for that price, I and so many others, can keep up with and surpass, in real freeway and street situations, so many of the cars they drule over. For that price you get a superfast car, that handles like a race car, and brakes like one. But all you hear is these lame comparisons to $80-$90,000 cars with the stock version of the Mustang GT. I wish they would compare it after the add ons all those other cars are starting with anyway. At least the GT500 makes up for a little of that I guess. Erik

bob

Well without an insider chiming in, we don't really know??? Weight is a big priority with these guys since it effects so much, but then so is cost and they have to strike a blance between the two. People are screaming about what a percieved poor deal the GT500 is now, just think if they would have added an aluminum block to the mix. The only aluminum 5.4 block Ford has is sitting in the Ford GT and there is some machine work required to get it to function in wet sump/conventional powertrain config. I guess they might have saved 150 to 300 pounds (??????) over an iron block but probably would have added 2 to 3000 to the price, if not more (heavy duty aluminum block with addtional machining). Or they could have spent the time to modify the casting to reduce machine work to save machining costs, but that would have added to development costs, and so and so forth.

I wish we could get an insider to talk openly here about the process that went into developing the GT500. I bet it would be very interesting. On a GM site I check out regularly, one of the posters works for GM and is working on the new camaro. He provides some interesting insights in both the current car in progress and the former cars. Things like; the 4th gen and older F-bods used the crappy 10 bolt rear due to the EPA, if they had used a stronger rear end, the weight would have shifted the F-bod into another catagory, the current car is gonna be relatively heavy due to manfuacturing costs and the need to have a strong body to handle both power and get good crash test numbers so the insurance industry doesn't kill sales with outragous premiums. Unrelated to pony cars, but GM's uber vette is drawing critism for using thinner glass which allows more road noise into the car.

Hollywood_North GT

You also get no more warranty.

ArkAngelx3

+++++1

nonsensez9

I'm not an engineer, obviously, so I'm asking why it is so difficult to take the 5.4 iron cast they have and simply pour aluminum instead of iron?

Louie

I'm engineer and was wondering about the same, until I remembered the price difference between aluminium and iron...

Hollywood_North GT

The cost of creating an aluminum block that is as strong as an iron block makes it prohibitive in a $40K car.

But for the ADMs most of these dealers are charging, we should have gotten that bloody aluminum block!

cobalt

Well if your wanting the GT500 or any other car for that kind of performance, and willing to pay over sticker, or have to go to a far more expensive car to get the performance off the assembly line, the the money for being out of warranty with most common problems, is a fraction of what you would spend on the more expensive cars that are warrantied anyway. Not to mention insurance and the cost of maintaining those cars. Being out of warranty with a Mustang GT is far cheaper than being in warranty for three short years where the companies know nothing really happens in that time anyway. From a performance to dollar stand point, Customizing the Mustang GT is far cheaper than anything else, even if you are out of SOME warranty, but certainly not all. What's the point of buying an American muscle car, that has 250% more potential than stock, and then hiding behind a warranty that precludes you from doing what should have been done in the first place.

Again, far more money for any other car, insurance ect... even with hick-ups, Love Erik

Galaxie

To simply go from cast iron to aluminum requires more than just changing the material going into the mold.

Being this is a supercharged motor, i'm sure the block has to be extensively redesigned to take the additional stress on the block.

Case in point, the '03-04 Terminator motor went from aluminum to cast iron because of durability concerns.

Overall, the weight complaints are legitimate, but keep in mind, with all the safety requirements for front, side and rear impacts getting tougher and tougher, all cars seem to be getting heavier as each generation comes out.

Back to topic, I'm sure that MMFF paid much more attention to track conditions, launching the car hard and working it. I'm positive 11's are attainable with mild mods and a good rear suspension setup (LCA's, UCA, drag radials)

rhumb

MMFF and other narrowly drag-racing focused mags tend to hammer their testers much harder and tweak their testing process to wring out every last .01 sec/mph. While making for impressive numbers, these are rather unlikely to be replicated by the typical driver in typical situations and usage.

C&D, R&T, MT, etc., on the other hand, use stock configuations and setup (stock tires, tire pressures, weight, gas, etc.) and standard driving techniques (no power shifting past the redline). While their numbers are thus lower, they are much more indicative of what you'll actually see on the real world streets and roads.

Sharp

Bob, I think you missed my point. Ford makes hundreds of thousands of these engines a year. Every one of the vehicles they put them in need all the help they can to increase gas mileage. So if you spread the cost over all these vehicles, the price should go down substantially. If the Shelby price went up but got better gas mileage, then the gas guzzler tax would go down.

These magazines review cars and compare them to other cars that they have reviewed. If there are not pushing ALL the cars to their limits, then they can not have a proper and fair comparison. Come on, a 13.1 et compared to a 12.257, they weren't even trying. MM&FF used the traction control, which the average driver can use, and got a 12.61 and 12.68. That should put the real world numbers in the high 12's.

Phantom26

GT500 might be the fastest Mustang ever built, but it will also be the Hardest to get. Ford either doesnt care, or has thought this out way too much. Even if they produced 10,000 of these awesome cars, there is barely a chance for an average Joe who can afford MSRP to ever get one.
My local dealership, Proclaimed "Biggest in 7 States" is putting Every GT500, Roush, and Saleen they get on E-bay. Then they have a $3000 markup on every Mustang, V-6 or GT. They understand the market, and people are paying, that is why you will never be able to get a GT500 for less than $50K or $60K.

Cheese302

it has always seemed to me that the major mags have had a hard time getting newer cars to run to their full potential.
but yeah it would be nice if the block was aluminum. The idea of every car being heavy is here to stay. Its the only way to haev cars be affordable, and "safe"

JETSOLVER

They would have to reengineer the casting due to the cooling characteristics of aluminum alloys, they pour and cool differantly in the mold, the molds don't last as long, the machine tooling has to change, etc. That said they should just do it. They could amortize those cost over 100's of 1000's of units if they so chose. The first manufacturer(domestic) that bites the bullet and commits truly and fully to weight/efficiancy engineering will have built a better moustrap. We never did really see the Mod family of engines real potential. Where was the 6? What about an aluminum v-10 like the boss 351 skunkworks car? Why not a four based on 1/2 of the screaming 4.6l NA?

TexaStang

I love my GT...but man. 12.2 @ 117 bone stock? Straight to ludicrous speed!


If I only had 42+ grand in the first place before markup, then the mod money...oohh boy the mod money. Throw on a KB and watch the fun begin.

Boomer

This has nothing to do with the topic,
nor is it true yet... they haven't even hit the market.
Just because it is on E-Bay does not mean it will sell, they are just using it as a maximum exposure device.

-----------

The numbers themselves although unlikely to be hit by a majority of drivers.... DO however indicate what the stock car can do if driven by the right person.
Whether they change tire pressure or power shift it....
off the floor...if you are a drag racing smith you too can achieve those numbers...

The other mags make the numbers more the opposite side of the coin...
Almost like... a grandma driving the car can achieve those numbers.
So split the 2.... 12.4-12.7 seems like achievable times from the wide range of experience.

THEN couple that with mods...and lookout.
It will be a great car for the value...even if it is heavy

rhumb

Probably the best thing is to compare the relative times, within each magazine, due to there very different testing locates, methodologies and drivers. Otherwise, you'll end up with real apples and oranges numbers.

The test cars themselves can be very different, especially the pre- or early-production models. One rag might test one with 50 miles on the clock and tighter than a _____, while another might have 15K very hard miles and be ready to be put to pasture.