Will the Next Shelby GT500 be Powered by a V6?
7/14/15, 09:37 PM
#41
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
I honestly don't recall or remember the 79 Fox Mustang with a 5.0 V8.. I do remember that it returned in 80/81 with the 4.2L 253 cu V8 and then in 82 Ford brought back the 302 cu 5.0 along with the return of the Mustang GT..
It's not that I disagree with you or saying that your wrong.. I just don't recall from memory back then.. All I remember was when the Fox Mustang debuted in 79 it came with only 4 and 6 cylinder options..
Guess I'll have to do some archive research and see what I can dig up lol.
It's not that I disagree with you or saying that your wrong.. I just don't recall from memory back then.. All I remember was when the Fox Mustang debuted in 79 it came with only 4 and 6 cylinder options..
Guess I'll have to do some archive research and see what I can dig up lol.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 7/14/15 at 09:40 PM.
7/14/15, 10:14 PM
#42
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
I just completed my archive research and I stand corrected.. There was a high performance 302 5.0L in 79 that was carried over from the 78 model year rated at 140 HP..
You would think I'd remember something this important especially being that I previously owned 3 Fox body stangs and a 78 Mustang II (King Cobra)
Guess my memory in my old age is worse than what I thought
At any rate, what I originally posted was inaccurate.. Therefore in the Mustang's 50 year history in which Ford did not include a V8 option was in 1974..
In the meantime, thanks for the heads up and for refreshing my memory
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...97653015,d.dmo
You would think I'd remember something this important especially being that I previously owned 3 Fox body stangs and a 78 Mustang II (King Cobra)
Guess my memory in my old age is worse than what I thought
At any rate, what I originally posted was inaccurate.. Therefore in the Mustang's 50 year history in which Ford did not include a V8 option was in 1974..
In the meantime, thanks for the heads up and for refreshing my memory
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...97653015,d.dmo
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 7/14/15 at 10:22 PM.
7/15/15, 06:24 AM
#44
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you insist on being a purist about the V8 GT500, you can’t just claim that its heritage began in 2007—that is revisionist history. The original GT500 was a 427 N/A big block. The follow-on GT500KR was a N/A big block (428), which took a back seat to the Boss 429 (also a N/A big block). That is the “original” heritage--big cubes, no forced induction. The forced induction small block didn’t make an appearance until 2007. If Ford were to borrow the 7.0 liter 505-HP motor from the Z/28 and slide that in the engine bay of the next GT500, it would be closer to the original heritage of the GT500 than any available Ford powered offering. Even though it’s a Chevy, 1-it is 427 cubic inches. 2-it is naturally aspirated, and 3-it is OHV, not OHC.
And no, the GT500 was not the always the top dog for Mustangs—the original Shelby Mustangs were the 65-66 GT350’s—those were the “performance” Mustangs. The 65’s were built to SCCA specs; they were race cars. The 66 had more “street” options and subsequent models continued to gain options (and weight), losing the edge the original track cars had. The GT500 didn’t appear until 67.
The 67 GT500 had a big block, rather than a small block, but the cars that were built carried very few of the race-specific modifications of the GT350. They were street cars—not built for the track. The “Top Dog” performance-wise was still the small block GT350 which unlike the GT500 was still winning on the race circuit.
The 68 GT500 with the 428 was not produced as a track car either—though it was a stoplight bandit. Though it wore the Shelby name, it was a stock Ford FE, 428 with an aluminum manifold and valve covers that said Shelby; no other modifications. In 69 and 70 the GT350 and GT500 had little to do with Carroll Shelby and were Ford products—Shelby terminated his contract with Ford in 69. Neither was a “top dog” in the Mustang line-up. The GT350 was a badge (with a 351) while the racing duties were assumed by the Boss 302. The GT500 was overshadowed by the Boss 429 (which BTW has no racing heritage either). (Note: though there was a GT350 and GT500 offered in 70, I don’t believe any were actually produced—it is my understanding that the cars Ford sold in 1970 were actually unsold 69 units that were given a 1970 VIN.)
In fact, to be historically accurate a V8 Mustang has not always been available—in 1974, the “top dog” Mustang was a V6--the 75 Mustang II brought back the 302. In 1986, there was a 5.0 Mustang GT. But the “top of the line Mustang” was the SVO, which came equipped with a turbo-4. The SVO was a much better Mustang than the GT. The turbo made it quick (same HP as the 302), the weight and its weight distribution, and its suspension tweaks (Koni suspension and 4-wheel vented disc brakes, firsts for a Mustang) made it a much better handling car than the GT.
Even when re-introduced into the Ford line up in 2007, it is hard to give the GT500 the nod as the “Ultimate Mustang” of that year. That year Ford also unveiled the 2007 FR500GT, which featured a 550-HP N/A 5.0 instead of a 500-hp F/I 5.4. (Of course, no VIN number = not street legal.) So, what exactly is the role and the “heritage” of the GT500? The GT350 with three Consecutive SCCA championships was “The Mustang” in its day—it has the racing heritage to prove it. The Boss 302 with its Trans Am Championship in 1970, was the true high-performance Mustang that year, despite Ford marketing the GT500, and the Boss 429. Even on the drag-strip, the GT500 was never the “Ultimate Mustang”.
The the GT500 with the 427, 428, (or even the Boss 429) could not( begin to compete with the 66 A/FX Mustangs with the 427 SOHC motor that Ford built with the help of Holman-Moody. The purpose built altered wheelbase Mustangs were capable of 10 second runs with trap speeds in excess of 130+ mph. (The past is reflected in the 2014 offerings—you wouldn’t want to pit a street-trim 2014 GT500, with power seats, A/C, stereo, etc. against a turn-key racing package; the CobraJet Mustang.)
The GT500 has always been a niche vehicle—with no racing heritage, either on a road course (for which it was always ill-suited) or on the drag strip, (where it doesn’t compete with Ford’s own factory built dragsters). The car has always been a product of marketing; marketing excess. From that perspective, a forced induction TT V6 tuned to 800-HP is no more of a departure from the heritage of the GT500 than a supercharged small-block V8 producing 750-HP would be.
And no, the GT500 was not the always the top dog for Mustangs—the original Shelby Mustangs were the 65-66 GT350’s—those were the “performance” Mustangs. The 65’s were built to SCCA specs; they were race cars. The 66 had more “street” options and subsequent models continued to gain options (and weight), losing the edge the original track cars had. The GT500 didn’t appear until 67.
The 67 GT500 had a big block, rather than a small block, but the cars that were built carried very few of the race-specific modifications of the GT350. They were street cars—not built for the track. The “Top Dog” performance-wise was still the small block GT350 which unlike the GT500 was still winning on the race circuit.
The 68 GT500 with the 428 was not produced as a track car either—though it was a stoplight bandit. Though it wore the Shelby name, it was a stock Ford FE, 428 with an aluminum manifold and valve covers that said Shelby; no other modifications. In 69 and 70 the GT350 and GT500 had little to do with Carroll Shelby and were Ford products—Shelby terminated his contract with Ford in 69. Neither was a “top dog” in the Mustang line-up. The GT350 was a badge (with a 351) while the racing duties were assumed by the Boss 302. The GT500 was overshadowed by the Boss 429 (which BTW has no racing heritage either). (Note: though there was a GT350 and GT500 offered in 70, I don’t believe any were actually produced—it is my understanding that the cars Ford sold in 1970 were actually unsold 69 units that were given a 1970 VIN.)
In fact, to be historically accurate a V8 Mustang has not always been available—in 1974, the “top dog” Mustang was a V6--the 75 Mustang II brought back the 302. In 1986, there was a 5.0 Mustang GT. But the “top of the line Mustang” was the SVO, which came equipped with a turbo-4. The SVO was a much better Mustang than the GT. The turbo made it quick (same HP as the 302), the weight and its weight distribution, and its suspension tweaks (Koni suspension and 4-wheel vented disc brakes, firsts for a Mustang) made it a much better handling car than the GT.
Even when re-introduced into the Ford line up in 2007, it is hard to give the GT500 the nod as the “Ultimate Mustang” of that year. That year Ford also unveiled the 2007 FR500GT, which featured a 550-HP N/A 5.0 instead of a 500-hp F/I 5.4. (Of course, no VIN number = not street legal.) So, what exactly is the role and the “heritage” of the GT500? The GT350 with three Consecutive SCCA championships was “The Mustang” in its day—it has the racing heritage to prove it. The Boss 302 with its Trans Am Championship in 1970, was the true high-performance Mustang that year, despite Ford marketing the GT500, and the Boss 429. Even on the drag-strip, the GT500 was never the “Ultimate Mustang”.
The the GT500 with the 427, 428, (or even the Boss 429) could not( begin to compete with the 66 A/FX Mustangs with the 427 SOHC motor that Ford built with the help of Holman-Moody. The purpose built altered wheelbase Mustangs were capable of 10 second runs with trap speeds in excess of 130+ mph. (The past is reflected in the 2014 offerings—you wouldn’t want to pit a street-trim 2014 GT500, with power seats, A/C, stereo, etc. against a turn-key racing package; the CobraJet Mustang.)
The GT500 has always been a niche vehicle—with no racing heritage, either on a road course (for which it was always ill-suited) or on the drag strip, (where it doesn’t compete with Ford’s own factory built dragsters). The car has always been a product of marketing; marketing excess. From that perspective, a forced induction TT V6 tuned to 800-HP is no more of a departure from the heritage of the GT500 than a supercharged small-block V8 producing 750-HP would be.
7/15/15, 08:43 AM
#45
GT Member
I'll keep it short and sweet.... Ford has had a TT Coyote for many years. I saw it when it was introduced at SEMA years back in the SCJ S197. They will be able to package it just fine if that's the direction. There is no worry about CAFE also as the small volume of GT500 V8's (Turbo or SC) being built will be offset by the hundreds of thousands of Fiesta, Focus etc..vehicles.
Ford will not lay down and spread its legs on their top dog to GM and Mopar V8's...end of story.
Ford will not lay down and spread its legs on their top dog to GM and Mopar V8's...end of story.
Last edited by Turbo302; 7/15/15 at 08:44 AM.
7/15/15, 10:25 AM
#47
Member
Join Date: April 30, 2014
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twin turbo v6
I think that a twin turbo V6 regardless of the specs diminishes the history and reputation of the car.Look back at the mustang ll's even with the 5.0 v8 that car was never considered much of a mustang.I personally would never buy a v6 mustang.
7/15/15, 11:59 AM
#51
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
I'll keep it short and sweet.... Ford has had a TT Coyote for many years. I saw it when it was introduced at SEMA years back in the SCJ S197. They will be able to package it just fine if that's the direction. There is no worry about CAFE also as the small volume of GT500 V8's (Turbo or SC) being built will be offset by the hundreds of thousands of Fiesta, Focus etc..vehicles.
Such an engine for a massed produced/street vehicle as in the GT500 would be considered in-practical and too expensive in production costs when factoring in how to package it while at the same time meeting federal emission requirements..
Until Ford is able to compete with the 707 HP Hellcat ? They're both laying down and spreading their legs to Mopar V8's.. End of Story !
7/15/15, 12:24 PM
#52
Needs to be more Astony
it has to have the v8. its not about hp a 2l 4cyl can do 1000ho as proved by the evos but cylinder count changes the sound of the engine. You have to have the v8 sound.
7/15/15, 01:11 PM
#53
GT Member
Join Date: August 20, 2012
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm now 71 years old and waited until 2004 to get my very first V8. Now, my new 2015 GT is probably my last car. I plan on keeping it until I'm either dead or in a "home" somewhere and won't know my own name...and I won't care about the EPA, the save earth folks, or anything other than listening for the growl of my V8 Mustang GT, smiling, and telling folks about my youth and how the world "used to be."
can be worse 
7/15/15, 05:54 PM
#56
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MT tests of the Hellcat (yes it's impressive sounding) is telling. Ranked by HP it was the 7th most powerful car they have ever tested. Performance-wise it's not in their top ten. It ranked number 14. Look at the 0-60 times--most mags were able to scoot to 60 in 3.7 seconds. (It was .2 seconds slower than the outgoing 2014 GT500.)
Pull up next to a GT-R and gun it--let the driver tremble in fear at the sound of the V8. That 3.8 TT V6 will be a full second quicker to 0-60--maybe more if it is the Nismo edition. Unless the driver is asleep at he wheel or laughing so hard he misses a shift, the Hellcat will not see anything but the ugly-looking back-end of that GT-R pulling away. (Neither the Hellcat or the GT500 can hook up the power like Godzilla--AWD is a distinct advantage in performance.)
The Hellcat is a great boulevard cruiser--and the truly impressive feat is that FCA is able to offer the car at that price point--it's a lot of car for the money. But that is part of the problem--too much car to be an all-out performance machine.
7/15/15, 10:28 PM
#58
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
Mustang/Camaro compete with the Hellcat? The Hellcat Challenger doesn't compete with the current GT. Around a road course, a stock Mustang GT is quite capable of turning a faster lap than the Hellcat--at some tracks a full second quicker. So the Hellcat has 707-HP. What's to brag about--spending $60+k for a car that will see nothing but the taillights of a car costing $20K less with 272 less horsepower on any track where you have to turn? The additional $20k buys more horsepower--not that you can use it. (And, a bigger backseat, which might come in handy if you get lucky.) That Z/28 with a measly 505-HP will eat the Hellcat for lunch on any stretch of asphalt that has a curve in it. Looking at the times from the GingerMan track, any competition over 15 laps would have the Camaro lapping the Hellcat. (And neither the Mustang or Camaro, being N/A, will suffer from heat soak.)
The MT tests of the Hellcat (yes it's impressive sounding) is telling. Ranked by HP it was the 7th most powerful car they have ever tested. Performance-wise it's not in their top ten. It ranked number 14. Look at the 0-60 times--most mags were able to scoot to 60 in 3.7 seconds. (It was .2 seconds slower than the outgoing 2014 GT500.)
Pull up next to a GT-R and gun it--let the driver tremble in fear at the sound of the V8. That 3.8 TT V6 will be a full second quicker to 0-60--maybe more if it is the Nismo edition. Unless the driver is asleep at he wheel or laughing so hard he misses a shift, the Hellcat will not see anything but the ugly-looking back-end of that GT-R pulling away. (Neither the Hellcat or the GT500 can hook up the power like Godzilla--AWD is a distinct advantage in performance.)
The Hellcat is a great boulevard cruiser--and the truly impressive feat is that FCA is able to offer the car at that price point--it's a lot of car for the money. But that is part of the problem--too much car to be an all-out performance machine.
The MT tests of the Hellcat (yes it's impressive sounding) is telling. Ranked by HP it was the 7th most powerful car they have ever tested. Performance-wise it's not in their top ten. It ranked number 14. Look at the 0-60 times--most mags were able to scoot to 60 in 3.7 seconds. (It was .2 seconds slower than the outgoing 2014 GT500.)
Pull up next to a GT-R and gun it--let the driver tremble in fear at the sound of the V8. That 3.8 TT V6 will be a full second quicker to 0-60--maybe more if it is the Nismo edition. Unless the driver is asleep at he wheel or laughing so hard he misses a shift, the Hellcat will not see anything but the ugly-looking back-end of that GT-R pulling away. (Neither the Hellcat or the GT500 can hook up the power like Godzilla--AWD is a distinct advantage in performance.)
The Hellcat is a great boulevard cruiser--and the truly impressive feat is that FCA is able to offer the car at that price point--it's a lot of car for the money. But that is part of the problem--too much car to be an all-out performance machine.
I was rather comparing the Hellcat with the GT500 where as the Mustang GT and Camaro SS are comparable and within the same class as the Challenger RT/392 scat pack..
I also agree about the Z28 outperforming and out handling the Hellcat and despite it's 707 HP rating, it still never the less weighs over 4400 Lbs which is the car's biggest disadvantage..
So of course the Z28 will and should eat the Hellcat for lunch around a road course due to it's size and lighter weight..
And while the Hellcat is a great boulevard cruiser and great bang for the buck in a straight line as a track car, I agree that it's size and weight is what's holding it back from being an all out performance handling machine on a road course..
At any rate, if and when the next GT500 arrives ? hopefully it will outperform the Challenger/Hellcat providing of course that it remains lighter in weight
7/16/15, 04:27 AM
#59
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And whatever the HP, Ford needs to make sure it is engineered to put the ponies to the ground. I've never been a fan of the GT-R looks--in my opinion it is a rather awkward looking design (and that's being kind). But Nissan did a solid job of building a machine that was capable of hooking up its power. That thing launches like a rocket sled.
7/16/15, 09:40 AM
#60
Cobra Member
I'm going to go against the grain.
I would definitely drive one and would buy one if I could afford to. This sort of mentality is no different than how 35-50% of you felt about the S550 and yet, now own one.
I would definitely drive one and would buy one if I could afford to. This sort of mentality is no different than how 35-50% of you felt about the S550 and yet, now own one.