Anyone else frustrated with Ford over the next GT500?

MarcSpaz

Resident Trouble Maker
Established Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
2,760
Location
Location: Location:
I hope that's not right... otherwise the whole "venom kills demons" thing is crap. My Hellcat Challenger is in about the same weight and torque/power range and its a mid-11's car on street tires. And my stock Hellcat has a higher top speed.

The only chance the new GT500 would have of saving face with those specs is if it is designed to run laps instead of drag. And 4200+ is a lot of weight to throw through the curves. I did it a few times with the Challenger and was almost 14 seconds slower than with my GT350, even though the Challenger has almost 200 more HP and TQ.
 

Snoopy49

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,690
Location
California
720HP 650LB-FT 4225LBS ??

This is from the first edition of the 2013 GT500 Owners Manual Supplement and they were also printed in the early brochure.

Horsepower on 93 octane fuel* 650 horsepower @ 6500 rpm
Torque on 93 octane fuel* 600 lb-ft torque @ 4000 rpm
*Pending SAE certification

The numbers aren't real until they are SAE Certified.
 

BlksvtCobra01

Deplorable and Proud
Established Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
13,554
Location
Ohio
Every time a new body style comes out, I hate it for about 2 months, then it grows on me for a month or two, then I like it. It's happened that way since the SN95.

While not my favorite body style I thought the fox was ugly at first. I love mine still not my favorite body style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GT Premi

Well known member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
8,140
Location
NC

What a disappointing way to start the day. If that is the real weight, then I'm definitely out of the new Mustang game! Ford must have lost their freaking minds!! So much for it handling as well or better than the GT350R. Not with an extra 500 - 600 pounds to sling around! Somebody please tell me this is fake news!

edit:
Nevermind. After studying that "document", I'm a bit skeptical of this info. Some weird misspelling and wording. Plus it looks like the info was just typed/pasted onto it. All hope isn't lost yet. Also, nowhere on the document does it even say "GT500". For all we know, that could be info for a new Lincoln Mark IX. :p
 
Last edited:

Papaw

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
724
Location
West Coast No Longer!
So it died in 2014, even though its now the best selling sports car in the world, because you don't like the design?

Lol

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Don't forget that the 1974 Mustang II was a sales hit too. It sold better than the previous years. Today they're called a Pinto with lipstick.
Sales numbers aren't everything.
 

Revvv

Infinity Poster
Established Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
10,189
Location
GA
I feel the same way. The Mustang that I grew up with, while designed with SCCA competition in mind, gave birth to the Pony Car, which was a light weight, mid range HP car that would either keep up with or beat the GT / Muscle Car in a straight line or in the curves. It was supposed to be very affordable and it was supposed to have primary appeal to women as far as looks went.

I think that 2014 was that last year the Mustang fit that category.

The new Mustangs are still attractive and geared toward the SCCA competition, but they are straight-line dogs compared to the muscle cars on the street today. They are not cheap, either.

I love the new Mustangs... but they share very little in common with any of their predecessors.

Edit: There is an upside. The Mustang II and the SN95 broke away from the original mindset, but Ford came back to it with the New Edge and S197. We'll see what the future brings.
I like my New Edge.

Sent from my SM-G930V using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Revvv

Infinity Poster
Established Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
10,189
Location
GA
Every time a new body style comes out, I hate it for about 2 months, then it grows on me for a month or two, then I like it. It's happened that way since the SN95.
The SN95 jelly bean was ugly when it was released, and it's still ugly today in my opinion. I admire them as a Mustang, but I can't get into the round design.

Sent from my SM-G930V using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Gr8fulmtnbiker

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
823
Location
Southeastern PA
Those specs would not surprise me IF they are true/accurate. If this car is going to have more power, bigger brakes, etc then I think it would need more cooling mechanisms and whatnot too, so then from where would this thing be able to save weight? Start removing seats, etc.? Maybe we are at the point with american muscle/pony cars where more hp is not necessarily 'better' anymore, and more horsepower is just simply needed in order to move these heavy cars faster (thus why Dodge just keeps adding more horsepower to make their vehicles faster without shaving weight) and if people want faster cars then at some point it will have to be done with less horsepower and more weight saving materials and designs, thus making things more expensive, etc. Perhaps we are now at a crossroad of some sort? I dunno, just my 2 cents and thinking 'out loud'.
 

Voltwings

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
2,739
Location
Houston
Those specs would not surprise me IF they are true/accurate. If this car is going to have more power, bigger brakes, etc then I think it would need more cooling mechanisms and whatnot too, so then from where would this thing be able to save weight? Start removing seats, etc.? Maybe we are at the point with american muscle/pony cars where more hp is not necessarily 'better' anymore, and more horsepower is just simply needed in order to move these heavy cars faster (thus why Dodge just keeps adding more horsepower to make their vehicles faster without shaving weight) and if people want faster cars then at some point it will have to be done with less horsepower and more weight saving materials and designs, thus making things more expensive, etc. Perhaps we are now at a crossroad of some sort? I dunno, just my 2 cents and thinking 'out loud'.


See, people confuse "fast" and "powerful." Even if someone let out a faster car, if it has less power, some people never really make it past that point.
 

conceptmachine

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
776
Location
Iowa
Notice that our insider isn't saying anything. I think its true... besides, someone with inside ties on another forum was saying not much over 700 and 4100+ for the base model. He also said DCT on all models. Probably true as well. I'm sure it will be OK to drive, but I was having a hard time getting past the front end anyway.
I'ts a pass for me dawg
 

13COBRA

Resident Ford Dealer
Established Member
Premium Member
Single Barrel Sirs
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
22,317
Location
Missouri
See, people confuse "fast" and "powerful." Even if someone let out a faster car, if it has less power, some people never really make it past that point.

TRUTH! many people just do not understand why or how cars with less 'power' can wind up being 'faster' than those with more 'power'

Perfect example:

NP01- 238hp ran a 2:01.083 at VIR, SL-C- (nearly) 700hp ran 2:05.089 at VIR...same weekend.

upload_2018-8-23_14-57-47.png


upload_2018-8-23_14-58-1.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top