2012 gt500

[satx]

with the advantages of lower weight and lower cost(i swear, if someone references that bullshit motortrend editorial...).

I think when you build a vehicle with an IRS in mind it comes in lighter than a solid axle and probably by a good margin. I think this weight advantage myth comes from the previous gen mustang application requiring a bolt-in solution.

Take a look at any sports car rear suspension. It surely has to be lighter than that gigantic steel SRA under the mustang.

 

[satx]

the only advantage an IRS has is on the street with bumps, on a smooth race track, there is no benefit to the IRS vs SRA

camber

 

[65mph_Roll]

Ford knows their market segment and it is more drag than handling, so SRA is clearly better for that.
You can make a SRA handle very well, they've proven that (tire life is less? Bump?)
IRS cars are more prone to wheel hop.
But, I love my 04 Cobra in the real world turns......great debate

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

My overly simple point was a response to Chuckstangs statement that...

"the only advantage an IRS has is on the street with bumps, on a smooth race track, there is no benefit to the IRS vs SRA"

...which he then fairly qualified to mean in reference to the Mustang. You can ask me about drag racing cars and the SRA and I will tell you that's because the SRA is the best solution for the job.

Chuck's statement that...

"All the SRA haters have no hard evidence or data to prove that Ford's SRA is inferior to an IRS. The only thing I hear an IRS guy/gal say is, what happens if you hit a bump mid corner"

...supports your belief that the SRA in the Mustang is 99% as good as a "proper" IRS in the Mustang...at a purely performance level.


Frankly, there is no hard data because no one has ever done a scientific, objective test of an optimized SRA vs. optimized IRS in the same model year Mustang. Who's to say that the "Stang's running in the Continental Challenge wouldn't actually perform better running an IRS???

I've been hoping for years some authority would do an apples-to-apples comparison between a New Edge with IRS and one with an SRA on a very controlled road course using the GPS and telemetry to map corner-by-corner performance. Your "Stang vs. BMW comparion is a good example...but I'd wager we're talking billiard-table smooth surfaces. I'd like to see a long course with a good mix of smooth corners, some with single bump inside, single bump outside and wash-board surfaces. Not what you typically find on today's well-maintained, smooth circuits...but typical of what you find hot-shoeing it on back-roads. What's the point of such an exercise? Simply to provide some hard data to fuel the debate for another 20 years...of course. ;-)

We've all discussed many times before (as far back as when the '05 Shelby GT500 first appeared) and I think we've concluded in the current Mustang it gets down to a) weight - an optimized, lighter IRS will require more costly engineering to pull off, b) strength - an IRS that can withstand clutch-dropping/powershifting abuse, and c) cost (really a factor of a and b). To be the honest the SRA has proved itself worthy since our original debates. The SRA at it has evolved is the "best-bang for the buck" in the Mustang... at this point.

I'm pretty damn impressed with the evolution of the 'Stang SRA...no doubt. It works really well and I'd own a new '11 GT/'12 BOSS in a heart beat.

Yet, it will be interesting to see what Ford does in the next gen. Can they sell the Mustang SRA in Europe? If not, will they do an IRS? We may then have a basis for an apples-to-apples comparison. :beer:

ah, i see. now the example makes sense.

let me clarify that i don't believe the mustangs rear suspension is within 99% of anything, simply because it's difficult to asses the numerous set ups out there when no one is trying to compare them with as many variables eliminated as possible. obviously it's not too shabby though, as it's proven that it can absolutely maintain speed through the corners. dare i say, the front macpheresen strut could actually be a hindrance before the solid axle becomes one. i don't have much to qualify that statement though, just my wild speculation(griggs short-long arm front conversion, while keeping the solid axle with a torque arm could be seen as proof of this, but who knows).

as far as the streets of willow(track used by MT in the comparison test) being billiard-table smooth, i'd wager that your wrong;-) it may not have the pot holes of jersey(that would be sebring, lol), but that track is definitely NOT smooth.

i've been calling for some to perform that exact test for years now!!! the results couldn't be applied to the S197 platform though, because the triangulated 4 link rear end of the SN95s is a horrible design that causes major binding, while the S197 3 link is all but bind free, light years ahead. i think the most fair way to run such a test would be with solid bushings or heim joints where applicable in both the solid axle and the IRS, so that easily fixable problems wouldn't spoil the results.

i have no doubt that the 2014MY redesign will get an IRS, simply because the market dictates it to some extent now(what with the challenger, camaro, genesis, and 370Z all possessing the IRS), but it will hurt me deep down insidelol. i've always had a soft spot for the solid axle simply because it's not the best/ideal design, it's just so awesome seeing griggs cars absolutely rape other true sports cars and the like. kinda like the modular engines, for all their flaws(ridiculously small bore spacing - check! - ridiculously wide cam cover to cam cover - check!) it's just awesome seeing ford GTs set mile records, koenigseggs dominate exotic engine equipped supercars, mihovetz run down 'mountain motors' at the strip, etc. keep your cheap, lightweight pushrods and sophisticated IRS, i'll beat your ass the hard way! LOL

I think when you build a vehicle with an IRS in mind it comes in lighter than a solid axle and probably by a good margin. I think this weight advantage myth comes from the previous gen mustang application requiring a bolt-in solution.

Take a look at any sports car rear suspension. It surely has to be lighter than that gigantic steel SRA under the mustang.

well, i'm sure that a mazda miata has a lighter rear end assembly than a mustang, but that's not really comparable either. the rear suspension and diff assembly of the more comparable(though not neccesarily apple to apple) 2010 camaro weighs ~390lbs without shocks and springs...
Carriage House Customs 2010 Camaro race car build
that is a LOT heavier than a complete ford 8.8" rear axle(212lbs shipping weight from FRPP, minus brake discs and calipers) + control arms(stamped steel + rubber bushings).
of course, the camaro is built on a shortened version of a sedan platform, but we're talking about at least a 150lb difference here. if the camaro was on its own IRS equipped platform, no way in hell would the IRS of the 2 platforms have that much of a weight difference.

camber

negative camber is necessary on an IRS car for 2 reasons - the first is to counter act tire roll, and the second is to counteract body roll since the suspension obviously changes geometry as the body rolls. tire roll only needs a minor amount of negative camber to correct(-0.5, maybe less), while the body roll needs a LOT to correct(hence why road race cars are running -2.0 at minimum).
body roll doesn't have any meaningful effect on a solid axle equipped car, the axle(and thus the wheels) stays parallel to the ground while the body changes angle. thus, the negative camber isn't really needed. now, there is still the issue of tire roll of course, but negative camber can easily be built into an axle(NASCAR road race rear ends are allowed to run a max of -1.8* camber to compensate for the GIGANTIC sidewall of their tires). non-cambered axle can also be cambered as well, by heating and cooling the top of the axle tube(causing it to shrink), cutting and turning the spindle/bearing flange, etc.(it's not as scary as it sounds if a person knows what they're doing, lol).
of course, it's this great positive about the solid axle(no camber change of the wheel) that is inherently its greatest flaw(ride and performance in bumps). but, basically, negative camber is a solution for one of the biggest flaws in independent suspension design(ideally, you want the tire contact patch parallel to the ground at all times).



sorry for the novels guys, i just can't help it sometimes:whine:

 

[10random]

I think when you build a vehicle with an IRS in mind it comes in lighter than a solid axle and probably by a good margin. I think this weight advantage myth comes from the previous gen mustang application requiring a bolt-in solution.

Take a look at any sports car rear suspension. It surely has to be lighter than that gigantic steel SRA under the mustang.

IRS in a mustang will always be heavier. If you drive the cost way up, it might be lighter. However, if you're trying to stick to the same price point, you will wind up with heavier metals in the IRS.

 

[CobraRed01]

...sorry for the novels guys, i just can't help it sometimes:whine:

Good post...just the type of novel I like to read. I too love to see lowly Fords kick major Euro-butt. Goes back as far as Ford's and Shelby's kicking Italian derierre in the 60's and finally at Le Mans. Currently I'm hoping Matech and Marc VDS can get their Ford GT acts together in GT1 and GTE for Le Mans next year...as well as that Mustang GT3 car homologated for 2011. All IRS-equipped cars by the way. oke:

Technically speaking, I know weight is always to be avoided, but what's the trade off of a hundred additional pounds of an IRS when the weight is moved to the rear of the Mustang. Is the improvement in front/rear balance and the advantages of the IRS worth the weight gain??

Actually, regarding an S197 IRS/apples to SRA/apples road test...remember the custom IRS for the S197 Maximum Motorsports showed (with their own SLA as well!!!) at SEMA a few years ago?? I wonder if they could be convinced to lend those parts out?

Finally, I am sure your fears about an IRS in the MY2014 redesign is shared by all who hold the SRA dear...BUT...based on Ford''s recent spot-on market-savvy responses (other than say their color-blind BOSS stylings) I don't think they will endanger their primary, hammer-dropping, muscle car market. Maybe I'm giving Ford too much advanced credit, but I think everyone is going to be pleasantly surprised. (Lightweight SVO with EcoBoost V6 and IRS...with V8/SRA standard for American market???)
:beer:

 

[02GTKB]

I guess this dealer know's something that we haven't heard yet....Ford : Mustang: eBay Motors (item 170538146909 end time Sep-14-10 09:14:51 PDT) Read vehicle description! :dw:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Good post...just the type of novel I like to read. I too love to see lowly Fords kick major Euro-butt. Goes back as far as Ford's and Shelby's kicking Italian derierre in the 60's and finally at Le Mans. Currently I'm hoping Matech and Marc VDS can get their Ford GT acts together in GT1 and GTE for Le Mans next year...as well as that Mustang GT3 car homologated for 2011. All IRS-equipped cars by the way. oke:

Technically speaking, I know weight is always to be avoided, but what's the trade off of a hundred additional pounds of an IRS when the weight is moved to the rear of the Mustang. Is the improvement in front/rear balance and the advantages of the IRS worth the weight gain??

Actually, regarding an S197 IRS/apples to SRA/apples road test...remember the custom IRS for the S197 Maximum Motorsports showed (with their own SLA as well!!!) at SEMA a few years ago?? I wonder if they could be convinced to lend those parts out?

Finally, I am sure your fears about an IRS in the MY2014 redesign is shared by all who hold the SRA dear...BUT...based on Ford''s recent spot-on market-savvy responses (other than say their color-blind BOSS stylings) I don't think they will endanger their primary, hammer-dropping, muscle car market. Maybe I'm giving Ford too much advanced credit, but I think everyone is going to be pleasantly surprised. (Lightweight SVO with EcoBoost V6 and IRS...with V8/SRA standard for American market???)
:beer:

the whole weight distribution thing is totally blown out of proportion. some of the best handling cars don't have "great" weight distribution by any standard, such as the 370Z, the '11 mustang GT of course, the evo/STI, genesis coupe, CTS-V, etc. read the reviews on these cars, and you'll notice that they never mention anything about them not having so called "perfect" 50/50 weight distribution(racing has proven that somewhere closer to 45/55 is "perfect"). i'm not saying that weight distribution should be ignored by any means, but that lower weight while being a bit nose heavy is seemingly better than more weight and closer to 50/50. now, low weight + 50/50 or better distribution on the other hand...

would love to know what happened to that, i was excited as hell when i saw the pictures of that thing at MM's display a few years back. i like solid axles, but i also like being different, so an IRS S197 would just be cool as hell!

my only fear with the mustang dropping the solid axle is that there will no longer be a production sports car with a solid axle, LOL. i have no doubt ford will do a good job with the IRS mustang, we just won't be seeing 10 second bolt on/spray cars like we're seeing with the '11 5.0l. would be damn cool if ford gave us the solid axle/IRS option, but that just doesn't make sense for them financially at all.
and i'm all for the ecoboost SVO!

 

[PowerWheels]

I was kinda bummed out with the idea of the SRA until I drove the '11. I wouldn't talk down the SRA until you actually drive one, it's superior to most IRS setups. Not that the IRS cant be better, but most are not at that level. Yes, in a turn with a bunch of bumps the SRA shows weakness, but I tend not to dive aggressively on a POS road anyway.

I've also had zero wheel hop on the 2011. :banana:

 

[CobraRed01]

I was kinda bummed out with the idea of the SRA until I drove the '11. I wouldn't talk down the SRA until you actually drive one, it's superior to most IRS setups. Not that the IRS cant be better, but most are not at that level. Yes, in a turn with a bunch of bumps the SRA shows weakness, but I tend not to dive aggressively on a POS road anyway.

I've also had zero wheel hop on the 2011. :banana:

Drivin an '06 GT...nothing later. While pretty impressive... I can still tell the diff between an SRA and IRS. Ironically, bashing corners on relatively POS backroads is one of my favorite past-times because I really enjoy feeling the IRS doing "its thing". Not everybody's cup of tea, I know, and not a reason to enslave the majority of Mustang "tire smokin/gear bangers" with an inferior IRS. Again, I'd pickup a new SRA '11 GT if I could...but the New Edge won't be going anywhere either way. Should be interesting to see where Ford goes..next redesign. They've been pretty damn smart lately. :beer:

 

[PowerWheels]

I'll agree, Ford has been pushing all the right buttons lately. I'm impressed. I'm sure when the IRS does debut again, it will be done right.

 

[Daddys GT500]

Wow...did anybody actually read the page. My eyes started bleeding :dw:


Oh bty, there is no 2012 GT500

 

[PistolWhip]

Being that I've owned numerous combinations of both IRS's and SRA's, I'll give you a few opinionated observations.
Speaking purely about the 03/04 Cobra: The Mustang chassis was not designed for an IRS, the IRS was designed for the Mustang chassis. If you ask me, that's backwards, or at least lacking some basic principles of design. I would think that to take full advantage of any suspension design, the chassis should be specifically designed to support and take advantage of the benefits of its suspension and drivetrain. The IRS that was in the 03/04 cars was very well done when you consider that it was built and installed as somewhat of an afterthought for a car that was never designed to have it. However, "when you consider" is the key phrase here. It had flaws, lots of them.

If Ford intends to keep the Mustang chassis similar to what we have right now, I would much rather have an SRA in it. However if they are redesigning the chassis (along with the rest of the suspension dynamics) to marry an IRS to it, than I can't see why it wouldn't be a good performer. But building an IRS to fit into a car that was designed to have a SRA is just not the right way to do it. Hence the reason the IRS in the Cobra felt like it was "walking" when you really stressed it in stock form.

For me, SRA is the only way to go. I'm a drag racer and spirited street driver. I never had the desire, nor the ability to put any of my cars on a road course so really to me, all they were was a hindrance. The IRS was aways on my mind as a week link and I never had compete confidence in it which in turn caused my track times to suffer. Not to mention that in order for me to build the IRS to take what I was throwing at it, it would have cost me twice as much as it would have to build an SRA to take double the torque at launch. So as far as I'm concerned, thanks Ford, for putting an SRA back in my SVT!

 

[9secondko]

Honestly,

the GT500 is a letdown. No disrespect to those who own one. It is an awesome car.

but for all the power, it can't put it to the ground.

This is not just a factory hopped up Cobra. The is a SHELBY edition. You know, the racing legend?

His company should be a leader in not only making power, but putting it to the ground. How sad is it that an expensive Super Snake can't outrun a regular GT500. It should be laughing at lamborghinis and farting out digested ferraris.

Instead, the Z06 (not to mention ZR1) absolutely eats it for breakfast.

And the Shelby is in Corvette territory price-wise.

The thing is heavy, traction-less, makes power, but not enough. It should be at 600+ by now.

With the Ford edge in engine tech and better company management, Shelby has plenty to work with.

Chevy is coming out with a Z28 next year that is built for the sole purpose of trouncing the GT500 (not that the CADILLAC CTS-V isn't doing that already. yes, you heard right. An OLD PEOPLE's car makes a mockery of the GT500). What is Shelby doing? Are they waiting for their name to get smeared on the asphalt? Or has Ford seen enough and decided that Shelby is underperforming and bringing out the Boss as a historical repeat of what happened before?

For the first time in forever, Ford has brought a factory base and GT car that humiliates the Camaro. At base and midrange levels. But the top dog is going to get left in the dust by the new Chevy?

Say it aint so. And as cool as the Boss is, it is N/A and will be slower than the S/C chevy. It can't be the front runner. I imagine it in the place of where the Mach 1 was. So there must be either a revamped Shelby or a new SVT Cobra.

As much as I love having the Shelby name attached to a Mustang, I have held off upgrading my Terminator for the simple fact that it's not much of an upgrade. And for that money, I want a hot rod that will do more than just give me a fighting chance against the competition.

With the Z28 coming out, I have to say it does look attractive. This coming from a guy who doesn't care much for Chevy in general. It has great styling, great engine, and a serious purposeful push to be the best in its category.

And it supposedly will retail for much less than the GT500 currently does.
sounds like a smack in the face to me.

Ford has done the unthinkable and taken back the performance crown everywhere, from cars to trucks and the Mustang GT performance has been simply amazing.

As much as has gone into the preparation of the small arms fire from Ford, there certainly has to be resistance to sitting on their bottoms while the competition revs up their big guns. let's see the howitzer for Ford. The REAL Cobra. The one with 600+ force-fed ponies under the hood, with potential for much more.

BTW, the Coyote engine has been designed for the ground up for supercharging. The block itself has built in bosses to support this. Even the GT block does. so you can bet that the N/A Boss 302 won't be the performance king. But let's hope Ford has something in mind to make 600+ at the wheels. 550 is so 2005. And let's hope they pull out the stops to get the power to the ground. If the competition can do it, so can an even better managed company such as Ford.

 

[chuckstang]

Honestly,

the GT500 is a letdown. No disrespect to those who own one. It is an awesome car.

but for all the power, it can't put it to the ground.

This is not just a factory hopped up Cobra. The is a SHELBY edition. You know, the racing legend?

His company should be a leader in not only making power, but putting it to the ground. How sad is it that an expensive Super Snake can't outrun a regular GT500. It should be laughing at lamborghinis and farting out digested ferraris.

Instead, the Z06 (not to mention ZR1) absolutely eats it for breakfast.

And the Shelby is in Corvette territory price-wise.

The thing is heavy, traction-less, makes power, but not enough. It should be at 600+ by now.

With the Ford edge in engine tech and better company management, Shelby has plenty to work with.

Chevy is coming out with a Z28 next year that is built for the sole purpose of trouncing the GT500 (not that the CADILLAC CTS-V isn't doing that already. yes, you heard right. An OLD PEOPLE's car makes a mockery of the GT500). What is Shelby doing? Are they waiting for their name to get smeared on the asphalt? Or has Ford seen enough and decided that Shelby is underperforming and bringing out the Boss as a historical repeat of what happened before?

For the first time in forever, Ford has brought a factory base and GT car that humiliates the Camaro. At base and midrange levels. But the top dog is going to get left in the dust by the new Chevy?

Say it aint so. And as cool as the Boss is, it is N/A and will be slower than the S/C chevy. It can't be the front runner. I imagine it in the place of where the Mach 1 was. So there must be either a revamped Shelby or a new SVT Cobra.

As much as I love having the Shelby name attached to a Mustang, I have held off upgrading my Terminator for the simple fact that it's not much of an upgrade. And for that money, I want a hot rod that will do more than just give me a fighting chance against the competition.

With the Z28 coming out, I have to say it does look attractive. This coming from a guy who doesn't care much for Chevy in general. It has great styling, great engine, and a serious purposeful push to be the best in its category.

And it supposedly will retail for much less than the GT500 currently does.
sounds like a smack in the face to me.

Ford has done the unthinkable and taken back the performance crown everywhere, from cars to trucks and the Mustang GT performance has been simply amazing.

As much as has gone into the preparation of the small arms fire from Ford, there certainly has to be resistance to sitting on their bottoms while the competition revs up their big guns. let's see the howitzer for Ford. The REAL Cobra. The one with 600+ force-fed ponies under the hood, with potential for much more.

BTW, the Coyote engine has been designed for the ground up for supercharging. The block itself has built in bosses to support this. Even the GT block does. so you can bet that the N/A Boss 302 won't be the performance king. But let's hope Ford has something in mind to make 600+ at the wheels. 550 is so 2005. And let's hope they pull out the stops to get the power to the ground. If the competition can do it, so can an even better managed company such as Ford.

I don't think many including myself could make it through your entire opinion/post.

No offense to a non gt500 owner but you just don't seem to know too much about what you are talking about and trust me I am far from a gt500 nutswinger so I am not just bashing you for disliking it

 

[9secondko]

LOL

I knew I would offend some, but that was not my intent.

Actually, I am 36 and I love the Mustang. And even as hard as it may be to believe, the GT500.

I am the sole Ford enthusiast in my family and the GT500 has been nothing but ammo for them.

If they were cheaper, I might own one now. I can tell you, that the younger crowd, who were laughing at the GT before are buying one now. Those same younger folks will be older in a couple years and they won't be buying the GT500 if it stays on the track it has been on. In 5 years, power has increased by 10. Wow. Yes I am aware of the base vs. KR differences back then when it mattered.

this post isn't about me or about how much better you think you are than some 16 year old in study hall.

It is about the state of the game and the current/future models of performance Mustang. Specifically, it is about the hottest horse in the stable. And its about to get left in the dust by the new guy. And it already gets domianted by an old peoples car (CTS-V). You going to look at folks with a straight face and say that that's OK? Acceptable? That's what I thought. The Shelby is supposed to be the corvette for Ford. Instead, the real Corvette laughs at it and feeds it to the CTS-V as a snack.

the Shelby needs work. Finish through my post and you will probably agree. hard to swallow when you already bought into it. It's still a great car, but not near the potential of what it should be. here's hoping Ford fixes that... or shelby does (preferred).

I don't think many including myself could make it through your entire opinion/post.

No offense to a non gt500 owner but you just don't seem to know too much about what you are talking about and trust me I am far from a gt500 nutswinger so I am not just bashing you for disliking it but your post seems about right in line with a 16 old year posting from study hall or something.

 

[nolyaw]

You want it to be cheaper, but have better performance than it already has?

Can't have it both ways.

Your initial post was kind of douchey.

I paid cash for my '11. I test drove a Grand Sport, a five year old Viper, and a new Caymen S. You like what you like. I could have bought anything, $50k and under. It's not always about ultimate power numbers. If it was, Porsche would be out of buisness. You say power has 'only increased by 10'? How about the new technology of the new aluminum block's cylinders. Chevy is years behind on that one. Ford notoriously underestimates the power output. Coming from a dude still stuck in Sn95, the new cars are LIGHT YEARS ahead of what you are pushing around. I would be embarassed to put 450 hp in a sig.

Write a long winded letter to Ford. Maybe they will take your thoughts into consideration.

 

[L82ford]

Do you have any point relative to this thread? You seem quite focused on comparing the GT500 to a corvette and and a cts-v. Why? For what it's worth, the GT500 stock runs pretty evenly with a stock cts-v, and beats a base vette. Yes, a stock Z06 is faster. Your point? Ford should make a $70,000 Mustang? Was your stock Terminator a Z06 killer?
Some of your criticisms of the GT500 are legitimate, but really, if it wasn't for the number of posts you've made, you really would just look like a troll.

 

[StoplightWarrior]

Do you have any point relative to this thread? You seem quite focused on comparing the GT500 to a corvette and and a cts-v. Why? For what it's worth, the GT500 stock runs pretty evenly with a stock cts-v, and beats a base vette.

Stock for stock, I dont think a GT500 is outrunning a stock (LS3) vette.

I'm not bashing the GT500...I'm close to buying one, but torn between that and a z06. I just sold my 08 c6 in July, after 2.5 years of ownership. That car was badass. With mild bolt ons I made 412rwhp, and in a 3200lb car, that is quite fun. I never had any trouble with mustangs, even 03/04 Cobras, which I also have owned.

9secondKO's motives here are still a mystery to me, but it's true that the Corvette is in another league, unfortunately. Even if the 2011 Shelby can run even with a base Vette, that's not the end of the story.

What I've come to understand is that it's just a matter of personal preference. Do you want a Vette or a GT500...you can compare them on paper for hours, but in the end, it's just a gut feeling. I know the Vette does X, X, and X better than the Shelby, and that a used z06 will crush a stock Shelby on the streets...but I can't shake the feeling that I really, really want a GT500...and that is what car manufacturers cannot get their heads around...

Sh1t, on paper, the GTO should have sold very well, but we all know how that turned out!

:burnout:

 

[PowerWheels]

If all you want is to be top dog, the Ariel Atom will out handle your vette and it can hit 60 in under 3 seconds. What's that, it's too small? Well the vette is to small and feminine for me. On the street you are not going to push the handling past what Ford has provided, which is pretty damn impressive. The base vette might get off the line a hair faster, but my Shelby will catch him, and soon eat him. It's also much easier and less expensive to mod the GT500 and it gets 500x the respect the base vette gets. I've seen five GT500's on the street since they came out, five (That's 2007-2011). I've seen 500 base vettes, they are everywhere. Just realized, I saw more vettes today than Iv'e seen Gt500's in five years. Hell, now that I think of it, I've seen more vettes in 3 days that I ever saw Terminators also. They are just too damn common for me.