Feb '06 5.0 M&SF Shelby GT500 article

Black2003Cobra

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,218
Location
NY
Any of you guys see the GT500 article in the Feb issue of 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords? (My apologies if this is a repost or old news.)

Transmission/Gearing/Clutch:
First gear is 2.97:1 (vs. 2.66 on the ’03 and ‘04s). Rear-end ratio is 3.31 (vs 3.55 on the ’03). So overall gear ratio in 1st is 9.831 (vs 9.443 on the ’03). Also, from what I could gather from the article, 6th is the same ratio as ’03 (0.63:1). Clutch is a double-disk unit (215 mm = 8.44 in) sourced from Valeo. (Smaller diameter reduces polar moment of mass inertia so less inertial loss during acceleration.)

Engine:
Same deal on the block (wet-sumped 5.4L iron block). Static compression ratio is 8.4:1 (same as Ford GT, but vs. 8.5:1 on the ’03 Cobras.) Ford GT crank. Mahle connecting rods which the engineers claim are on par w/ the Manleys in the ‘03s, but less expensive. Heads are directly from the GT, including cams, valves, springs and ports and even have the same part number! (I know at one point there was speculation the cams might not be the same.) Redline is 6,000 rpm (we knew that) and fuel shut off is 6,250.

Blower:
Not too much new. Eaton M122H (H for hybrid…revised 5th-gen blower) Roots-style blower will be used. It has redesigned rotor and port design, but they don’t go into any details. They (Eaton) claim 15% improvement in adiabatic efficiency over the M112. (They don’t say if this 15% is an absolute or relative increase in AE, but it either way it means cooler outlet temps and lower drive power for a given mass-air flow rate and boost pressure.) Reportedly, a newly patented 6th generation blower will be out in 2008, but no mention of size(s). This has revised rotor pitch spacing. And as posted elsewhere, they did say/admit that Lysholm couldn’t provide the 40/day volumes that production would deman. Craig Sell was quoted as saying, “turbo efficiency from a Roots blower.” (Uhm…don’t think so. A turbo doesn’t have the mechanical drive power required by a Roots. As we all know, it’s driven by the heat energy in the exhaust gases which would otherwise be wasted. Yes yes yes…there is a back pressure penalty.)

Weight:
No real news…3850 lbs with F/R distribution of 57/43. (Oink). With 10 gals of fuel and driver(s?) it weighed in at 4155!

Suspension:
Stock Mustang GT K-member. Revised bushings, spring rates and shock rates. Same crap about the lack of IRS. (I have driven an ’05 GT and I must admit I was impressed with the solid.) The authors said they experienced no wheel hop with standing starts. They also said they felt it was better (handling-wise) over bumps and in turns than the IRS on the ’03.

Brakes:
14” front disks with 4-caliper Brembo pinchers. Rears are stock Mustang GT, but different pads.

Tires:
285/40ZR18 rear and 255/45ZR18 front GY Eagle supercar.

P.S. The issue also has a nice article on Mike Palugi’s twin-turbo ’03. rwHP/TQ = 811/717 at 22 psi. Niiice!
 
Last edited:

03Terminator

03 Red Fire Cobra
Established Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
458
Location
De
Black2003Cobra said:
Weight:
No real news…3850 lbs with F/R distribution of 57/43. (Oink). With 10 gals of fuel and driver(s?) it weighed in at 4155!


4155 lbs!!!! Holy crap!!! :eek: :xpl:

What a pig!!! With that much weight to carry around this car won't be that much faster than a stock C6 Vette. I can hear some guys saying, "Yeah but if I change the pulley...........". So what, what counts is stock vs stock performance. Any one can mod a car and make it faster.

Bottom line is even if this car makes 500 hp at the flywheel with it weighing almost 3900 lbs, it will be a close race with a C6. Power to weight ratio looks some thing like 8.125 for the Vette vs 7.8 for the GT500. Traction will be the deciding factor.
 
Last edited:

CGoeschel

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
1,984
Location
Its hot.
You forgot to mention that it also has a factory X pipe as well as programable shift light and a strut tower brace on the vert.
 

roushraven

zzzZZzz
Established Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
913
Location
Earth
The transmission is the same as the one in the Viper. Definitely a porker for the coupe and the vert is 150 lbs heavier :eek: I bet it will need every bit of that 475(rwhp/tq) just to get it off of it's fat ass. :read:

-RR
 
Last edited:

Formula51

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,351
Location
Greenville, SC
Does anyone have any insight as to why it weighs this much? The larger 4-door Charger weighs close to this and many larger Mercedes that are chalk full of accesories.

What makes this Mustang weigh so much?
 

GTSpartan

Yield right!!!!
Established Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
9,351
Location
The Woods
Formula51 said:
Does anyone have any insight as to why it weighs this much? The larger 4-door Charger weighs close to this and many larger Mercedes that are chalk full of accesories.

What makes this Mustang weigh so much?


It's a unibody, which are heavy to begin with. Throw in a OHC motor that are also naturally heavy with the big heads/iron block and heavy everything else.
 

R1Lello

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
3,799
Location
Ontario, Canada
:bash:

You 03/04 cobra guys talk like yours is a lite weight.......it's not guys. Many of todays cars are heavy to meet the requirements of safety and strength for everyday use. Many, not all. Todays roads aren't that great, sometimes alum. components and other materials can't take too many potholes and ruts.

GT500 coupe @3850 lbs
vs. 04 Cobra Coupe @ 3665 lbs
= 185 lbs difference
 
Last edited:

badsube

Rescue Chief
Established Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,764
Location
Bear Creek, PA
there's no excuse for 4155 and that's with only 10 gallons of fuel. imagine what it is at full tank. also, i guarantee that the evo's and sti's are and will continue to be put together better than the mustangs, so using the excuse that steel and cast iron is better than forged aluminum or composite for harsh roads will not hold-up in my book. i understand though that weight savings cost money, so if ford releases at the supposed 40-45000 price, i guess 4155 w/ driver and some fuel might be alittle excusable.
 

broeli

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
544
At 40-45k there is no reason they couldn't incorporate lightweight materials. Hell when it comes to the Evo the lightweight RS is CHEAPER and even has an aluminum roof..as does the top of line MR to effectively lower its center of gravity. Why can't Ford who is in MUCH better financial shape do the same? Saying it isn't cost effective due to limited production won't cut it. The Z06, Sti, Evo, and many other cars that use lightweight materials and trick components aren't produced in #'s any higher than the GT500 will be..
Ford needs to quit being cheap :(
 
Last edited:

badsube

Rescue Chief
Established Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,764
Location
Bear Creek, PA
broeli said:
At 40-45k there is no reason they couldn't incorporate lightweight materials. Hell when it comes to the Evo the lightweight RS is CHEAPER and even has an aluminum roof..as does the top of line MR to effectively lower its center of gravity. Why can't Ford who is in MUCH better financial shape do the same? Saying it isn't cost effective due to limited production won't cut it. The Z06, Sti, Evo, and many other cars that use lightweight materials and trick components aren't produced in #'s any higher than the GT500 will be..
Ford needs to quit being cheap :(
i completely agree.
 

Jpjr

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
2,064
Location
Detroit, MI
anyone looking to do the MM IRS conversion can plan on another couple hundred pounds as well.

5.4 iron block + supercharger = heavy+ 57/43 distribution. but it is worth noting that it is a 'muscle car'. those of us that wanted a sports car can complain, but if ford's intention was to build a muscle car then i think they did a very nice job.
 

ON D BIT

Finish First
Established Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Messages
16,212
Location
Currently in Sonoma County
GTSpartan said:
It's a unibody, which are heavy to begin with. Throw in a OHC motor that are also naturally heavy with the big heads/iron block and heavy everything else.

is it really? why in hell did ford build the new mustang as a unibody? :bash: are the new vettes unibody as well? does anyone build a seperate chasis body anymore? :nono:
 

01L2Cobra

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
843
Location
Austin, Tx
03Terminator said:
What a pig!!! With that much weight to carry around this car won't be that much faster than a stock C6 Vette.
I think the C6 will be faster the GT500 has roughly 50hp more but its over 600lbs more.
 

blueovalkid

The Snake Pit
Established Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
746
Location
Ohio
ON D BIT said:
is it really? why in hell did ford build the new mustang as a unibody? :bash: are the new vettes unibody as well? does anyone build a seperate chasis body anymore? :nono:


The Mustang has been a unibody for a long time. All the Fox based cars (which started in what 84?) were unibody. I dont know what kind of chassis Mustangs had before that.

I do believe the Corvette has a full frame.
 

GTSpartan

Yield right!!!!
Established Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
9,351
Location
The Woods
ON D BIT said:
is it really? why in hell did ford build the new mustang as a unibody? :bash: are the new vettes unibody as well? does anyone build a seperate chasis body anymore? :nono:


The vette is full frame, not unibody.

Unibody is a very common way to build cars these days, it's that sports cars are not made this way. They can cut weight in many different area without comprimising the rigidity of the car. A unibody doesn't allow for much weight savings, unless you go to aluminum body parts that cost $$$$$
 
Last edited:

Black99GT

New Member
Established Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
110
Location
Brentwood, TN
I'm surprised... that's all I can say. It's going to need every bit of that supercharger and the GT-esque heads. If that car costs more than $40K, Ford should be ashamed. On the other hand, I bet they'd sell every single one of them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top