Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Gt500: Loses weight, get's faster avoids gas guzzler tax.

Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:08 PM
  #1  
Z284ever's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Gt500: Loses weight, get's faster avoids gas guzzler tax.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...y-gt500-88877/
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:13 PM
  #2  
Beanboy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 233
100+ pound savings up front and 2-3 seconds faster a lap on two tracks. Definitely seems to be a bit more balanced of a car.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:14 PM
  #3  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
10 more HP, 1 more MPG and 100lbs. lighter
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:16 PM
  #4  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I see where the engine lost 102 lbs, but nowhere indicating the total weight of the complete package.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:26 PM
  #5  
Mike94ZLT1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,665
From: Livonia, Mi
“One of the biggest changes for this Shelby is that the convertible acts and feels like a coupe,” said Jamal Hameedi, SVT chief nameplate engineer. “Before, they had a very different character, and the convertible is taking a big step in the sportiness and handling precision area, without degrading the ride.”

I did Jamal's Home Theater system He has a freakin SWEET upper level penthouse in Royal Oak, Michigan.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:58 PM
  #6  
81Z28355's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
I am going to the dark side. My 81 Z/28 will not have a Z/28 stable mate.

Sorry GM, to little to late again, I waited for the Z/28 for as long as I can. I am sure the Dealers will screw everyone over for a few years just like they did the Shelby and SS.

I just place my order for a 2011 SVT Shelby GT500. I am paying invoice price. You can hardly mod a SS with a super charger for that AND still keep your warrenty.

Off to the Mustang Forums.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 01:59 PM
  #7  
STOCK1SC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
From: Confederate States of America
I'm really starting to want this car, especially with the gas tax finally gone, I hate throwing away a grand for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. I also like being able to see out of the Mustang which I can't in the Camaro. Hate to say it but maybe a mustang in my future.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 02:09 PM
  #8  
Beanboy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by jg95z28
I see where the engine lost 102 lbs, but nowhere indicating the total weight of the complete package.
120 total.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 03:06 PM
  #9  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally Posted by 81Z28355
I am going to the dark side. My 81 Z/28 will not have a Z/28 stable mate.

Sorry GM, to little to late again, I waited for the Z/28 for as long as I can. I am sure the Dealers will screw everyone over for a few years just like they did the Shelby and SS.

I just place my order for a 2011 SVT Shelby GT500. I am paying invoice price. You can hardly mod a SS with a super charger for that AND still keep your warrenty.

Off to the Mustang Forums.
Congrats on your purchase! It's a great car, I am sure you'll love every moment being in it.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 03:57 PM
  #10  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
According to the media site, base weight is 3820 pounds. Looks pretty neat.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 05:34 PM
  #11  
ZZtop's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,217
From: Greenville, SC
Originally Posted by teal98
According to the media site, base weight is 3820 pounds. Looks pretty neat.
Hmm, thats basically what it always was for real. The consensus of all the numbers I have seen and sights I have been to was 3,850 without the Shaker 1000 stereo. I guess Ford just rated it less conservatively this time as that's not any significant REAL weight savings......
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 07:57 PM
  #12  
MarcR94v6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,960
From: San Diego, CA
I just can't see past the new rear of the mustang, it turns me off of the whole thing, but it looks better on the Shelby.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 08:16 PM
  #13  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by MarcR94v6
I just can't see past the new rear of the mustang, it turns me off of the whole thing, but it looks better on the Shelby.
If your car was faster you may be able to see around it.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 08:36 PM
  #14  
TOO Z MAXX's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
It still is an overweight pig, I just hope GM gets it. Lightweight is king in a performance car. I agree the backend looks like **** and kills the whole car for me.
Old Feb 8, 2010 | 11:15 PM
  #15  
94LightningGal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Does this mean the SS Camaro is an overweight pig also??

Or, is 3820lbs on a Mustang, a pig.............. and 3860lbs on a Camaro, a good solid platform??

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 PM.