Certainly, it takes some getting used to, but once there the GT500 isn't that bad handling of a car (granted I can't toss it like I did my FR3 GT), it can certainly hold its own against the standard GT Mustang and while it does feel heavy (it really reminds me of the way the 03/04 Mach's felt), it certainly doesn't feel big. After getting used to the feel of the car, I buzz thorugh traffic and blast down my favorite country road without really no more drama than I did with the GT (again comapred to the stock 07-09 GT suspension the GT500 feels more nailed down).

 

Perhaps, and in light of ever tightening emission and economy standards, the best way towards massive low end torque would be a turbo-diesel option.

While I have sometimes suggested such more in jest as a retort to various torque-heads, the advent of the BMW 335D really got me thinking more seriously about the plausibility of such an approach. The 335D is nearly as fast at full chat as the very fast 335i, but has torque at Vette Z06 levels at barely off an idle -- thus is very accessible in real world driving, making a typical big block V8 seem like a Honda 2 liter in terms of peakiness -- and yet gets 36mpg highway. Audi, too, has tinkered with various hi-po diesels including, IIRC, a V-12 Le Mans winning power house.

So, if you fetishize over low-end torque, why not quit fooling around with gas motors and stick some decent-sized V8 turbo-diesel under the hood? Forget the GT500's wispy 400-something ft/lbs of torque at a stratospheric 4K+ rpm. Dig diesel deep into 500-600 ft/lbs of grunt the moment your Skeechers touch the pedal. Not to mention, too, the ability to avoid gas stations for like, months at a time as your sipping dino oil at upper 20mpg teaspoon fulls, well into the 30mpg range on the interstates.

Maybe crazy, but maybe not so much and might represent a very novel and potentially viable, if different, approach to future performance. Price might be some issue, but that would be alleviated in part by not having to pay gas guzzler taxes, perhaps being eligible for other tax credits (the 335d gets something like a grand back) and saving a bunch of money over the life of the car through fuel savings, not to mention that diesel motors last for centuries thus you'll be handing down your GT500d to your great grandchildren before trade-in time comes.

 

As for dead weight, yeah, even a bloated 2-ton nose-heavy car can be made to handle pretty darned well, for a bloated 2-ton nose-heavy car that is. Basically, however, mass is the mortal enemy of all aspects of performance and trying to barge around 2 tons of lard starts one off with a big handicap to overcome. Of course you can argue that you don't care about the negative effects of all the fat, or even get used to it. but that's hardly the same as arguing that excess weight is not a bad thing or that less lard wouldn't be a better thing.

A fine example of the benefits of lightness lies no further than a few steps down the showroom floor to a Track-Pack'ed Mustang GT. Even hobbled with a neolithic rear suspension and moped-class brakes, it ends up often being the better ride than the more powerful, sophisticated Camaro and Challenger that dash their advantages in these areas against the rocks of dead weight. I think the 5.0, backed by a tight six speed, decent brakes and probably an even better Track Pack suspension will be a real eye-opener and Goliath killer.

 

Oh, just saw some more leaks regarding the 5.0:

• 390ft/lb torque
• Power peak at 6,500 rpm
• 25 miles per gallon
• aluminum engine block with cast cylinder sleeves
• heads with four valves per cylinder, vertical intake ports and twin independent variable valve timing
• tuned exhaust headers
• forged steel crankshaft with four-bolt main bearings

Looks like it will be both a screamer (7K red line, 6.5K power peak) yet have some depth (390 ft/lb torque) and get decent mileage (25mpg, either highway (good) or average (great))

 

Autoweek announcement...

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/912189995

http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...NEWS/912189995

 

Sorry I disagree and I think you're dead wrong. Regardless, if Ford wants my money they'll offer bigger engines as options that are affordable.

You spend your funds the way you best see fit. I'll hold out until I get what I want. I can care less about being "brand-loyal". My philosophy is ... When I'm spending over $30-K for a "muscle car", I either get exactly what I want or Ford (or whoever the manufacturer) doesn't make the sale.

 

I'm older and therefore "old-school". I can relate EXACTLY to what you're saying. I've driven and original 70 BOSS 302 and 68 GT500 KR ragtop back in the 70(s) during the high-octane premium fuel days. Those 2 cars are totally worlds apart; one was light, quick-revving, and very nimble (and non-frilled) while the other was an absolute torque monster, a great cruiser, and GREAT on the open, long stretching back-country roads. I learned to love them both and appreciate how I had to learn the driving differences of small-block (vs) big-block cars.

It's like shooting an M-1 (vs) shooting an M-16; both are superb combat arms yet that is where the similarity ends. You CAN master both and produce the same results; but each one commands it's own form of respect while both require the same amount of training and practice to be as good with one as the other.

Big-block VS small-block muscle cars are the same way. You can't drive one like the other, but once you get to know them each in their unique mannerisms you can learn to get as much out of one as the other. It's your own personal skills that causes the desired end results, and the driver is the one to blame for not getting the best performance out of each one.

 

This is long-awaited great news.

While I still don't think a 5.0 is big enough, it's a much needed improvement. I'm sure it will be impressive by it's own right. I just hope those CLOWNS in engineering ditch the funky plastic intake manifold.

Although some folks may be impressed by the alleged 25 MPG, I could care less about the gas mileage. What I buy a muscle car for is performance. I want it to use as much fuel as it needs to produce the peformance I expect and pay for it to have. I still wish they'd go back to the minimum 4" bore.

 

It's the numbers people pay attention to. A 412HP, 390 ft/lb 5.0 that reportedly still has a lot of room to grow (performance-wise) that gets 25mpg is fantastic. Like it or not, the CAFE standards are here to stay and big block gas guzzlers are going the way of the Dodo. I'm glad Ford is innovative enough to offer a performance Pony car with a lean, strong, (and relatively fuel efficient, to boot) engine given the current political climate and the "green-craze" that's currently going on. They could've just thrown up their hands and gone with a "Mustang III" or somesuch.

 

Well I'm not really a compression ignition guy, but the idea has some merit. GM had a really nice reverse flow V8 diesel that was barely bigger than the LSx engine and Audi has done some very nice work with thier high speed racing diesels. So who knows maybe there just might be a GT500D one of thse days

 

Y'know, I had a shop teacher tell me the same thing in high school. He prognosticated the demise of V6 and V8 engines, all replaced with small displacement turbo I4 engines in composite bodied AWD cars by right about this time.

CAFE wont kill a large displacement engine, if the manufacturers mix of vehicles will allow it, they could have a 12.4 liter V8 getting 1mpg. Although consumer apathy certainly can.

 

I hope you're right...

 

Agreed, both approaches are a means to an end and neither is really better than the other. I'm willing to bet that if enough people had screamed for that other iconic V8 Ford made (351/5.8L) the '11 GT would have shown up with a "coyote 5.8" and I bet it would get 25mpg as well and it wouldn't be a ponderous "big block".

Ultimately the 5.0 is just good marketing, it appeals because alot of people fondly remember both the Boss 302 cars and probably more importantly the 82-93 fox cars.

 

Remeber its Corprate Average Fuel Economy - If the government required each car to satisfy that requirment, you could kiss the upcoming 6.2L Raptor, AL/AL GT500, Taurus SHO, 5.0 '11 GT and so on goodbye. We'd all be driving Fusions and Foci

 

The thing that manufacturer's have to deal with when they have vehicles that don't fall within CAFE standards is that there are Civil penalties applied in the form of $5.5/0.1 MPG below standard.

 

Your leaving out a provision in CAFE where a manufacturer can transfer credits between catagories. Ford can make up the difference with its B and other C segment cars so that they dont have to pay the CAFE penalty on cars and trucks thast dont pass muster other than the gas guzzler tax which is passed on to the consumer (well the CAFE penalty as well, IIRC back in the late 80's or early 90's did indeed pay the penalty)

Speaking of which, Ford is able to develop and produce a mainstream 5.0L V8 that puts out 412hp/390tq and gets 25mpg but they dont have the ability to produce a 6.2L V8 that gets 25mpg (thats what you guys are telling me) When GM can in a heavier car?

Anyways, the 5.0 is great for the mainstream V8 Mustang , If its high specific output and good EPA numbers help elevate it even better.

The 390 ft/lbs part has me very interested (more so than the 412hp), I'm sure VVT has alot to do with it but I wonder how when, where, and how long it will come in?

 

YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

 

Time to get ready to kick some MOPAR, Bowtie, and Rice-burner BUTTS ~ !!!