Oh, I'll take more power. But IF I could get it at 3,500 lbs....I'd happily take 450 hp. In fact, I'd take 450 hp/3,500/IRS over 2 tons/485hp (even 550)/live axle....any day of the week.

The lighter car will be more fun....no doubt, IMO...even with 100 less horsepower. And isn't "more fun" what it's really all about here?

 

Look at it this way. At the rate cars are gaining weight 3900lbs will be considered lightweight by the time you pay it off.

 

I've never heard of a showroom stock '03-'04 Cobra pulling a low 12 second 1/4 mile....

My prediction? This car will be firmly planted in the 12's, but it'll take a pulley and some tuning to get into the 11's. Just a guess though.

 

Has ford released an official price? seem we have been talking about the weight issue for almost 2 years now.

 

Makes me wonder how they're gonna slide this one past the vette guys this time.

 

Americans don't like handling.

 

A C6 Corvette does 0-60 in ~4.2s and does the quarter in 12.5@112 secs
3179lb & 400hp = 7.94lb/hp

A C6 Z06 does 0-60 in ~3.9s and does the quarter in 11.5@123
3132lb & 505hp = 6.2lb/hp

A GT500 @ 3920lb and 550fwhp means a quarter of ~11.8@116
3920lb & 550hp means 7.1lb/hp, which is respectable

A GT500 @ 3920lb and 500fwhp means a possible 12.2@111
3920lb & 500hp means 7.84lb/hp, which is still a lil bit better than a base vette.

The numbers seem right. 0-60 of high 4's, but pulling close to a 12 flat quarter trapping 112-116. With a good driver and the right rubber very high 11's. Certainly a fast car, and the best looking mustang out there. So stock vs stock it should be a tick faster than a normal C6 at a drag race.

Too bad very few of these that make it to the strip will stay stock. This'll prove interesting once they start getting modded. Best looking Mustang out there IMHO.
Its just a lil heavy. Lets hope for a 6.2L blown Camaro option so we can really show em who's in charge!

 

No RWD car on stock rubber and an M6 is going to run 12.2 @ 111 mph (nor 11.8 @ 116). It might run 12.2, or it might run 111 mph, but that ET/MPH package doesn't exist on stock rubber with RWD and a stick.

As for the weight...knew it was going to be heavy, but that is getting quite ridiculas. And just think, that's probably 100-150 lbs more than the new Camaro will tip the scales at. Wonder how many will be calling the 5th Gen a pig when/if that happens?

 

Wow only 130lbs shy of a Crown Vic, put in a average person as a driver and it will be right up there with the Crown Vic.

Where did 550hp come from?

 

I will be surprised if the Mustang makes low twelves in any of the crappy mag tests or in the hands of any average drivers. I would really be interested to see rear wheel hp/lb numbers and use those as a basis for estimating performance. I would guess the Corvette drivetrain to be slightly more efficient than the Stang don't know why.

edit: I also will be surprised if they underrate the mustangs engine that much (Not to say they won't increase the claimed hp before it hits the streets). There is really no point in underrating engines these days (except legal issues).

 

Actually the new SAE test isn't mandatory yet and Ford won't be doing it with the Shelby.

 

Who said this motor is under the new SAE standards? I think Ford is really sandbaging this car at 475hp.

 

600 to 630 HP is supposed to be the limit on the Shelby's current engine config without riding around with a grenade in the engine bay. Which from what I also hear isn't to hard to reach (simple bolt on equipment).

 

Yep, stock Cobras ran upper 12s. They tend to run mid 12s in cold weather, so it probally wouldn't take much to get them in the low 12s... but then we're not talking stock in avreage conditions.

By all accounts GT500 is going to be significantly quicker than the Cobra. Just the Cobra's IRS alone ate up acceleration (as proven by the nearly as quick yet less powerful Mach1). This one has a live axle and alot more torque.

I wouldn't discount stock GT500s running 12 flat or even dipping into 11s just yet.

 

SAE standards have absolutely nothing to do with underating advertized horsepower. Ford could advertize the GT500 as having 200 horses if they wanted to, just so long as the car made at least that much.

Ford and Chrysler performance engines in recent years have been under rated, sometimes by absurd numbers. Lightnings and Cobras supposedly made 390 horses. But they made nearly that much at the rear wheels. The 305 horse Mach1s ran quarters nearly as quick as Cobras. Even the current Mustang GT in real life puts out about 320 horsepower, yet advertized at 300.

GM grossly underrated LS1 F-body's numbers by as much as 40 horses (305 actually put out closer to 345), and Caddy's Northstars are pretty severly under rated. But those are the only examples. GM pretty much advertizes what their engines make. You aren't going to find many (if any) examples of engines making much more than 5 horsepower over what GM rates them.

You're right about the 5.4 responding to mods from what I hear. The engine (though as heavy as a boat anchor at 700+ pounds ) is capable of taking more boost than the Lightning or last Cobra engines could... and they were by no means fragile.

Everything Ford learned from the Ford GT engine are in the GT500's. Only difference is the GT500s are made for abuse and with iron to save costs. The engine weight is a pig, but you can safely abuse it.