GT-500 = Boat

I read in 5.0 mag I think that the new stangs were built for better safety and also cheeper to repair as they crumple better. The car is based off a bigger platform too the T-bird and Lincoln LS used the same unibody I think. So those cars were bigger. It would be nice to get the weight down but then everyone complains about being cramped. The motor weight is to much and is the biggest problem but who really wants to dish out and extra 5K+ for few pounds. The 500 is already up their price wise with the sticker on the Cobra R which was limited to a few hundred. They got lots of problems they could have addressed but didnt. I just hope the price comes down cause I can't explain to the wife why I would pay over MSRP for it. Especially when the Ronaele is looking better to me all the time.

The extra weight in the Shelby comes from the transmission, clutch, iron 5.4, supercharger/plumbing, brakes, seats...

Ronale... Don't like it. The Shelby at MSRP is hard to beat for the money...but I wouldn't pay over MSRP for one, thats for sure.

From what I've read about the GT500. Most of the weight gain comes from the fact that the body is stamped from a heavier gauge metal. That's something that SVT has done from conception. My 93 lightning's frame was stamped from a heavier metal also. SVT said that the higher HP would twist and flex the body.It sounds good but darn its heavy.Now add the super charger, extra pulleys,belts,& heavier harmonic balancer. that's about 500 pounds. If SVT did something to the GT500 to lose that weight it would add another $5000 to the msrp. I guess the owner could buy some carbon fiber pieces to replace the hood and trunk lid and maybe some interior stuff?

Roboto - They do not stamp them from a heavier steel. They are exactly like the GT. I "believe" that your lightning frame was also the exact same as a normal F150. I had a 94 for a while - Miss it.

1. The weight of the GT500 is not 4,100 pounds, unless you're talking about the convertible...

2. No, the 1st gen Lightning's frame was not stamped out of heavier steel (can you imagine the tremendous cost that would incur just for that small amount of trucks?? Somebody doesn't know about how tooling works). It was simply reinforced with a sturdier center crossmember, and given a slick traction bar setup. I've still got my '93 Lightning.

My fully loaded '88 GT convert was 3,400 pounds, and the car was so flimsy you could watch the cowl dance over the slightest bumps. Looking back, those cars were poorly built. They took a ton of chassis reinforcement to make them handle. The last time Mustangs weighed in at 3,000 pounds was 1968 dude (not counting the Mustang II of course), and those were the 6-bangers and/or lightly optioned small-blocks. Have you ever sat in one, driven one? SPARTAN and CRUDE. Would never pass muster in today's world with today's standards and expectations in a new car.

Yes, the Mustang could be lighter, but there would be a price to pay, either in decreased rigidity, decreased safety, increased noise, decreased accessory content, or increased PRICE due to more exotic lightweight construction (aluminum, carbon fiber, etc...)

Drives me nuts when people think that factories could do this, or do that, just by simply "deciding to". The laws of physics, and the expectations of customers, aren't always easy to balance.

Have you ever noticed that cars that are all-in-one lightweight, high-powered, AND refined, AND feature-rich, usually start around $70 grand, and go up from there? The Corvette is really the only exception, and that's why it's always held up by magazines as an enormous "value", even when folks have a hard time visualizing 50 large as "value".

I hate to pop anybody's bubble but I have a early Brochure from FOMOCO stating that the Shelby's lower body section is stamped in a heavier gauge metal. ALSO I still have the brochure from Ford on my 93 lightning that also states that the frame is a heaver gauge. I don't think Fomoco would lie about what's in the brochure! If they did I want my money back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roboto - if you have something that says so - post it up. Until then, I still believe otherwise. I've been doing this for a while and that's the first I've heard of the Lightning thing. Hey, I could be wrong - post it up.

GT 500 are nice, but not 20K over window sticker

Lets do a simple comparison:

1990 GT (Hatchback) vs. the GT500

larger tires
larger brakes
ABS
stronger A-arms (front)
Larger motor
Super charger
intercooler hardware
Fancy radio
big speaker package
leather seats (power)
traction control
seat mounted air bags
passenger air bag
Wider / Longer and maybe taller = more metal for the skin, more plastic inside
Throw in all of the extra wiring
I could go on...


All of this "creature comfort" stuff adds up to the weights of vehicles today. The only way to make them lighther is by spending more money. Now, I am not a fan of the GT500, but imagine paying 55K MSRP if there were 'composite' portions of the structure to help with the weight factor?

Not to mention that the structural rigidity and integrity of a 1990 fox-chassis Mustang, compared to the new 2005+ S197 platform, is tantamount to comparing a wiffle bat to a police-issue night stick. You had to weld and bolt in a substantial amount of metal just to keep fox cars from kinking the c-pillars from hard launches....

I know first hand the flexibility of the Fox platform... I cracked the windshield in my car going around a corner. Talk about OH-$***!

srothfuss said:

I know first hand the flexibility of the Fox platform... I cracked the windshield in my car going around a corner. Talk about OH-$***!

Click to expand...

Subframe connectors, and a MM strut tower brace will solve that problem.

Car and Driver tested the 2007 GT-500 Convertible at 4,008 pounds...

The weight of the Shelby GT500 with a driver is nearly 4,100 lb.

Which means that whoever tested the car at 4,100 lbs. was being modest to say the least... most people that can afford to buy that car do not weigh 92 lbs.

Brace is installed and the crack has been corrected...

These cars are just getting heavier, there isn't much we can do expect pay more for them or make them smaller to keep the weights lower.

This may sound silly, but it's not really. People are getting taller...FAST...

I'm 6 foot 2, 195 lbs. When I get behind the wheel of a 65-66 or 67-68 Mustang, I sit virtually indian-style, with my knees banging the bottom of the dash, with the seat all the way back. Man, people were flat-out smaller back then.

Even the SN95 is a snug fit, and 6'-2" is really the limit in one of those cars, unless you're one of those types so head-over-heels in love with the cars, that you just keep telling yourself that it's comfortable, even though you look like Fridge Perry driving a kid's go kart.

Cars are getting bigger, or packaged differently, because people are bigger. The actual statistics are fairly staggering. Cars that are designed from a clean sheet of paper offer the designer to develop fresh styling that packages room and style and room for all the mechanicals together. The groups who designed the Focus or the Toyota Echo didn't have any prerequisite profile or package to imitate, so they could build in the interior room, and then package around it to arrive at a final newer-age style (which isn't exactly a thing of beauty). But cars that are "retro" inspired, that have to adhere to certain profiles and proportions and curves... they just wind up being BIGGER once you make enough room for a 6'-6" dude, and then build the car out around him.

Just some ramblings...

thats not a bad point... im not that tall, but i hear you. My dad is over 6 ft, he has a hard time fitting into most cars.
Heck, they sell seat track extenders for late model mustangs so you can sit back farther!

I', 6'1 and my wifes 04 mustang is pushing it. If mine wasnt a convertible there is no way I would be comfortable in it