Can someone please explain how Ford/SVT just keeps ****ing up?

Pitch Black · Jun 7, 2006

Just when we thought they actually did things right with the GT500.....

View attachment 464626

There's always something

DisposableHero · Jun 7, 2006

no idea where that weight comes from either

myponyrocks · Jun 7, 2006

we allready have this thread... its titled GT500 vs Vette

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

DisposableHero said:
no idea where that weight comes from either

S/C'd 5.4 is 175 more lbs then the S/C'd 4.6 in the Terminator for starters.

DocG · Jun 7, 2006

Although its already been said......a company that cares about building high quality performance cars understands the weight of the performance mods (s/c, etc.) and builds the rest of the car around that theme....lightens it up with advanced materials, loses stupid **** like a backseat, etc. The 500 is just a muscle car. Just like the 10,000# 64 GTO.

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

DocG2828 said:
Although its already been said......a company that cares about building high quality performance cars understands the weight of the performance mods (s/c, etc.) and builds the rest of the car around that theme....lightens it up with advanced materials, loses stupid **** like a backseat, etc.

True which would just add to the cost even more. Dealer markups aside, this automobile is one hell of a bang-for-the-buck.

jstreet0204 · Jun 7, 2006

DocG2828 said:
Although its already been said......a company that cares about building high quality performance cars understands the weight of the performance mods (s/c, etc.) and builds the rest of the car around that theme....lightens it up with advanced materials, loses stupid **** like a backseat, etc. The 500 is just a muscle car. Just like the 10,000# 64 GTO.

64 GTO was actually pretty light for a muscle car, and was about 500lbs lighter than the current GT500. You have to remember that while those cars looked big back then, they didn't have 200lbs of extra wiring and electronics. The bottom line is the new mustang is a pig to begin with, and the GT500 is a pig in a fancy dress.

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

And hauls buns like a bread truck.

mity2 · Jun 7, 2006

Read recent issue of car and driver. GT500 got its ass kicked by 100hp less, but almost 500lb lighter C6 Vette(Non-Z06). Mainly due to its porky weight

I am dissappointed as much as guy next me. But then way those GT500 are going, it'll be loooooooooooooog time befor i ever get to drive one. So it doesn't matter

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

mity2 said:
Read recent issue of car and driver. GT500 got its ass kicked by 100hp less, but almost 500lb lighter C6 Vette(Non-Z06). Mainly due to its porky weight

F C&D (or was it R&T lol), they're a bunch of non-mustang driving retards...remember a few years ago when they tested a PI 4.6 vert to a tune of 15.1.

mity2 · Jun 7, 2006

I thought low 15 to high 14's is like normal for non-modded pi 4.6 vert...

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

Brad who used to be on here ran a 14.4 (I think) bone stock.

OneStiffGT · Jun 7, 2006

CatmanJJ said:
Brad who used to be on here ran a 14.4 (I think) bone stock.

I am not defending the magazine, but I doubt that it was under the same conditions.

billfisher · Jun 7, 2006

i got a freakin hernia(for real) moving this NVH motor around. heavy is not desciptive enough.

Stang|ess · Jun 7, 2006

CatmanJJ said:
F C&D (or was it R&T lol), they're a bunch of non-mustang driving retards...remember a few years ago when they tested a PI 4.6 vert to a tune of 15.1.

It was an automatic vert with the Mach 1000 package.

CatmanJJ · Jun 7, 2006

Still doesn't take away from the fact that most rags are biased and suck donkey taint when testing Mustangs.

DocG · Jun 7, 2006

I can buy into magazines not always getting max performance out of their stand-alone tests....but when comparing two cars in a shoot-out, I highly doubt they bias the results. Honestly I'd trust their results more than SVT's publications. Now SVT has a reason to be biased.

And while making cars powerful and light is expensive, I still think Ford could have made it lighter for that price....its not likes its selling for 20k.

mattkimsey · Jun 7, 2006

DocG2828 said:
I can buy into magazines not always getting max performance out of their stand-alone tests....but when comparing two cars in a shoot-out, I highly doubt they bias the results. Honestly I'd trust their results more than SVT's publications. Now SVT has a reason to be biased.

Exactly. The driver probably hasn't spent more time in either car. I imagine Evan Smith will run some crazy time, but it would be good if he would get some seat time in a 'Vette too -- for comparison.

DocG · Jun 7, 2006

I'm sure a mag test driver can outdrive my ass anyday. Even though every car is different, they get plenty of practice. So while their results may not be the absolute best the car is capable of, its probably a pretty good representation of what most normal people could do with the car. Besides, isn't it Stangnet that always says 1/4 mile times don't mean **** unless you have all the specifics about weather and environment to compare?

Red35th · Jun 7, 2006

Check Evan Smith's time in an SS from a few years ago.

My favorite article is the WRX vs 03 Cobra. The WRX won by a tenth when the Cobra ran a 13.3...well driven C&D.

Can you imagine how awesome the GT 500 would be if it were the size and weight of the fox's?

Can someone please explain how Ford/SVT just keeps ****ing up?

New Member

Member

I have more billet on the Stang than most women ha

Captain Tangnet

5th graders > me. They're not bant

Captain Tangnet

Active Member

Captain Tangnet

I like Pro3 and all I got was this crappy CT.

Captain Tangnet

I like Pro3 and all I got was this crappy CT.

Captain Tangnet

New Member

Active Member

seeking cyber partner(s)

Captain Tangnet

5th graders > me. They're not bant

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

5th graders > me. They're not bant

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency