The GT500 with the SVTPP has reach a happy medium balance where its handling compliments its performance. Since the present gen will not likely shed any weight, more power is only bragging rights, a total waste, and a probable higher price tag.

 

If sales are driven by the larger HP number than a turbo will give them that without putting more stress on the motor and improving drive ability. What with all the ECO boost research they should be getting pretty good at turbo installs. I wouldn't bet against a turbo in any new GT500.

 

Ford could get good numbers with a blower upgrade to a lager TVS model. Something people overlook with a turbo car with a manual trans is the need to keep the turbos under a load in order to extract maximum performance at least when it comes to acceleration. Its one of the reasons GM fitted the Cobalt SS with "no lift shift", you keep your foot planted on the throttle while you operate the clutch and tranmission. Also vehicles fitted with some sort of automatic tranmission will fair better as well (be it a slush box or dual clutch or what have you) with a turbocharger.

As far as drivability, the GT500 doesn't suffer one bit in that department, even the 07-09 cars will happily go about thier business with a minimum of gear changes. As an example when my car was completely stock it had no problems tackling the appalachian mountains (for lack of breaking down a coupla trips through Penn, MD, and VA) in 6th gear. As the inclines got steeper, I just pressed the loud pedal without having to resort to a downshift or that the car could get buy on half the number of forward gears that it has for every day driving.

Thats what it's all about, the GT500 is the centerfold girl. Ford has no intention of letting the pony car king crown go to the brand-x guys any time soon.

 

It's actually hard for me to imagine any more HP or torque. I have enough trouble getting my car to hook up as is. And when it does hook, it gets illegal very quickly. 600+ hp looks great on paper but I'm already seeing the limits of what is usable.

 

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...2014-exclusive

 

Is the date wrong? Model year 2013 on sale 2012 is what I thought. 2013 and 2014My similar cars is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am interested in getting this Shelby. But what year is it?

 

It will be available to order when the order banks open late Nov. 2011. Currently they are building 2012 GT500's. I know it gets pretty confusing. Seems odd to be able to order a 2013 in 2011, but that's how the Mustang model years run.

 

Thank you Whammer...That is what I thought. You would think these editors would get the dates correct. After all, it is their Job.

Nice Shelby by the way...

 

Thanks. I'm just loving driving this car!

Very interested to see what's coming for the Shelby in 2013. My gut feeling there won't be too many changes beyond a boost to HP, but we'll see within a few short months.

 

The guy seems all over the map with his "years". Ford is not going to do a 1 YEAR model refresh. There will be a 2013 model year AND a 2014 model year. The full redesign will come for the 2015 model year (50th anniv.)

Again, my gut tells me that there really won't be a refresh for 13 and 14. I think there will just be HP and performance tweaks.

 

Oh, and just to add some fuel to my "gut feeling".....anyone else notice that Brad has changed the forum name for the 2010-2012 models? It's now 2010-2014 forum. If there was a refresh coming we would have a new 2013-2014 forum separate from the other model years.

Over on the Shelby forum one of the forum admins at Shelby said that if you loved the 2010-2012 Shelby you'll love the 2013-2014 Shelby...which might be a tongue in cheek way of saying that there will be no styling changes.

 

I am wanting the N-Ring GT500 to be available in 2012. I do not want to wait untill 2013 to get one.

 

It's nice to see an online article putting to be the "Twin Turbo" rumours, as this backs up what most of those "in the know" on here have been saying already.

As for looks? We've only seen the one non-GT500 mule that had a different front end treatment, but that's not to say there won't be tweaks to the GT500, maybe lights front n rear? Looks like the bigger changes will be to the non-Sheblys.

Still, I'd have thought those spy photographers would have nabbed a few more shots by now, considering these cars should be in sale in the next 9 months or so.

 

Now on Autoblog..............but, just a 20bhp jump? Hmm, I don't think so!

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/14/f...me-with-camar/

 

I think people are getting the info a bit confused:

-Original rumors were a new design for 2014MY. As we all know, CY (calendar year) and MY (model year) aren't in sync. Some thought we'd see a twin-turbo SVT product for the 2014MY "redesign" (which has been confirmed a redesign won't happen till 2015MY.

The "refreshed" GT500 will debut alongside the updated 2013MY cars some time next year. Most likely a timetable similar to what we've seen for 2011 and 2012MY, with cars hitting lots in April 2012.

The 570hp number has come up recently, when LSXTV made mention of the ZL1 Camaro making "more than 570hp". GM has played the ZL1 engine specs pretty close to the chest lately and those numbers are about as secret as details on the C7 Corvette. With production expected to begin in Jan. 2012 for the ZL1, they better release all the info soon, or some buyers will pass it up. That same number has little impact on the GT500s final numbers. I don't think we'll see a similar situation to the Silverado HD vs. Ford Super Duty that we saw last year.

 

yea the rumor bufoonery on the blogs always surprises me.... soo the facts laid out
-looking at pics of a production car with minimal modification, simple upgrades to engineer on a proven design
-the last 3 years the mustang model years have started march april

yet whomever was typing that it still made sense to write that it is going to take a year and half for those modifications to go into production.... the MY vs CY mess is funny but looking at it for 5 a second logic check before they submitted it to their editor could fix some of the confusion out there.

on topic i think they are going to go 620 hp, what better way to make sure you out power the camaro, if chevy is talking 570+ then just jump that by 50 and let them keep playing catchup

 

I would easily forgo a 20-50hp bump if they would increase the tire size to say, that of the ACR. As it wont put it down any better... Preferably A staggered front and rear. As The ACR totes 600hp, and tire that support it.

Current GT500: 255/40/19 fronts- 285/35/19 rears.
ACR: 295/30/18 fronts - 345/30/19 rears.

You pick up 2.36 inches of section width in each rear tire- so 4.75 inches of added rubber to the road. Which is what this thing needs.

Being that it's been tuning at the ring, I would hope they notice this...

 

315 fits. This is 10.5" rim I had an 11" and it fit too.

 

I doubt you'll see anything remotely close that without significant rengineering of the both the suspension and body and thats something that wont happen with the S-197 on the short list for replacement.

The practical limit seems to be a 9.5" rim on the front and a 10" rim on the rear without modification to what already exists and those widths will only support no more than a 295 width tire on a 10" rim and a 285 width tire on a 9.5" rim. Ford wont do more than a 295 simply because no manufacturer makes a wider tire 27" tall that can fit on a 18 or 19" rim in the reccomended rim width range. To forego those reccomendations is to invite disaster and the accompanying litigation that would come with it.

And those are just the problems associated with the dimensional aspects of the tires. Cramming the widest possible tire on a rim doesn't nessecarily improve handling or steering response and in some cases can have no effect at all to quite the opposite.

If the Mustang gets a wider tire combination it will be with the next generation car.

 

Maybe the engineers will come up with a lift bar design to really plant the rear tires when accelerating from a dead stop.