GT500 mule info
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z284ever
It didn't just handle better, it handled waaay mucho better. And the tested Z was a fully loaded luxo-cruiser. Z Roadsters can be had for an MSRP of $34,350, that's $455 more than the tested Mustang GT. Sure the Mustang convertible has softer settings than the coupe...as is the case with the 350Z.
I might spend $20K on a base Mustang. I might spend $25K on a GT. But there is no frickin' way I'd spend nearly THIRTYFOURGRAND!!! on a brand spankin' new ponycar, that can't take down my 16 year old IROC in the twisties.
I might spend $20K on a base Mustang. I might spend $25K on a GT. But there is no frickin' way I'd spend nearly THIRTYFOURGRAND!!! on a brand spankin' new ponycar, that can't take down my 16 year old IROC in the twisties.

Having said that, the mustang isn't a sports car while the 350z is. Pretty much the same way/reason why the upcoming GT500 most likely wouldn't be the corner carver the 40-45k Lotus Elise and C6 are. Those are dedicated sports cars, and they don't have to worry about sharing underpinings and such with a 19k variant.
The mustang has the attributes of a pony car, the 350z those of a sports car. The mustang convertible did do well on one very noticable aspect, acceleration. I doubt the 350z gives you 5.0-5.2 second 0-60's or 13.7 1/4 miles
. Heck, even the lighter 350z coupe isn't capable of putting up such numbers. So i guess you take the good with the bad when it comes to the mustang convertible. All reviews i've read thus far have been fairly positive so the overall package is still good.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z284ever
It didn't just handle better, it handled waaay mucho better. And the tested Z was a fully loaded luxo-cruiser. Z Roadsters can be had for an MSRP of $34,350, that's $455 more than the tested Mustang GT. Sure the Mustang convertible has softer settings than the coupe...as is the case with the 350Z.
I might spend $20K on a base Mustang. I might spend $25K on a GT. But there is no frickin' way I'd spend nearly THIRTYFOURGRAND!!! on a brand spankin' new ponycar, that can't take down my 16 year old IROC in the twisties.
I might spend $20K on a base Mustang. I might spend $25K on a GT. But there is no frickin' way I'd spend nearly THIRTYFOURGRAND!!! on a brand spankin' new ponycar, that can't take down my 16 year old IROC in the twisties.

I can't believe you spent $__________ (whatever you spent on your 16 year old IROC when new) on a brand spankin new ponycar that can't take down my 39 year old Yenko Stinger (corvair road racer).
See how silly it sounds.
BTW, I would venture to guess that the majority of the lack of handling prowess can be traced to the wildly aggressive tires that come stock on the Mustang (yes, wildly aggressive was sarcasm). They are nowhere near the tire that your 16 year old IROC came with stock (as in, they are not performance rubber, but all weather tires). In the ride vs handling trade-off, the Mustangs stock rubber is definitally leaning toward ride. I would be curious to see what the Mustang could do, handling wise, with real rubber on it, instead of all-season M&S's.
Re: GT500 mule info
Considering the intended mid-level Mustang GT convertible goes for just north of $34,000 I'm wondering how the GT500 will be priced south of $40,000 in 2007 dollars like everyone expects. It just doesn't seem to add up.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; May 11, 2005 at 12:25 PM.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
Having said that, the mustang isn't a sports car while the 350z is. Pretty much the same way/reason why the upcoming GT500 most likely wouldn't be the corner carver the 40-45k Lotus Elise and C6 are. Those are dedicated sports cars, and they don't have to worry about sharing underpinings and such with a 19k variant.
.
.
What bugs me though, is all the propoganda spewing - both from Ford and some enthusiasts - that this low rent suspension is "just as good" as a more sophisticated set-up. It's not. Let's be honest about it. I don't care about all this talk of super ninjafied bushings or links that (in Ford's words) "makes the live axle think it's an IRS".....or makes the front struts (paraphrasing now) think they are a sophisticated double wishbone. Bullsh!t.
So Mustang made it's choice - and that's fair. But consider this: the low end pieces that help make a $19,700 Mustang a reality...will need to be carried forward to $25,000, $30,000,$35,000 and beyond versions of this car. People spending that kind of money are usually more picky.
And BTW...who says it's ok for ponycars not to handle. Ponycars are all about great handling. And I'm pleased to say that on this VERY important point....it looks like Chevy now "gets it" .
Last edited by Z284ever; May 11, 2005 at 01:18 PM.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by 94LightningGal
That is getting silly............. let me try.
I can't believe you spent $__________ (whatever you spent on your 16 year old IROC when new) on a brand spankin new ponycar that can't take down my 39 year old Yenko Stinger (corvair road racer).
See how silly it sounds.
BTW, I would venture to guess that the majority of the lack of handling prowess can be traced to the wildly aggressive tires that come stock on the Mustang (yes, wildly aggressive was sarcasm). They are nowhere near the tire that your 16 year old IROC came with stock (as in, they are not performance rubber, but all weather tires). In the ride vs handling trade-off, the Mustangs stock rubber is definitally leaning toward ride. I would be curious to see what the Mustang could do, handling wise, with real rubber on it, instead of all-season M&S's.
I can't believe you spent $__________ (whatever you spent on your 16 year old IROC when new) on a brand spankin new ponycar that can't take down my 39 year old Yenko Stinger (corvair road racer).
See how silly it sounds.
BTW, I would venture to guess that the majority of the lack of handling prowess can be traced to the wildly aggressive tires that come stock on the Mustang (yes, wildly aggressive was sarcasm). They are nowhere near the tire that your 16 year old IROC came with stock (as in, they are not performance rubber, but all weather tires). In the ride vs handling trade-off, the Mustangs stock rubber is definitally leaning toward ride. I would be curious to see what the Mustang could do, handling wise, with real rubber on it, instead of all-season M&S's.
And this tire thing. Ok, you're right..my Camaro came with state of the art (for the time, which probably grip as well as modern all season tires) Goodyear Gatorbacks performance tires, and Mustang comes with all season tires.
But my point is that an '05 Mustang GT should so completely annialate my '89 IROC-Z in handling that we shouldn't even need to bring up tires.
Gotta get back to work...........
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z284ever
I understand that Gold. Ford made their choices - I'm sure with sound decision making - on the new Mustang. They decided to go all out cheap with the chassis , in an effort to bring the base car in at under 20K. And we should understand that that's what they did, with no misconceptions. Some may think that's good, some may think that's bad. But it is what it is.
What bugs me though, is all the propoganda spewing - both from Ford and some enthusiasts - that this low rent suspension is "just as good" as a more sophisticated set-up. It's not. Let's be honest about it. I don't care about all this talk of super ninjafied bushings or links that (in Ford's words) "makes the live axle think it's an IRS".....or makes the front struts (paraphrasing now) think they are a sophisticated double wishbone. Bullsh!t.
So Mustang made it's choice - and that's fair. But consider this: the low end pieces that help make a $19,700 Mustang a reality...will need to be carried forward to $25,000, $30,000,$35,000 and beyond versions of this car. People spending that kind of money are usually more picky.
And BTW...who says it's ok for ponycars not to handle. Ponycars are all about great handling. And I'm please to say that on this VERY important point....it looks like Chevy now "gets it" .
What bugs me though, is all the propoganda spewing - both from Ford and some enthusiasts - that this low rent suspension is "just as good" as a more sophisticated set-up. It's not. Let's be honest about it. I don't care about all this talk of super ninjafied bushings or links that (in Ford's words) "makes the live axle think it's an IRS".....or makes the front struts (paraphrasing now) think they are a sophisticated double wishbone. Bullsh!t.
So Mustang made it's choice - and that's fair. But consider this: the low end pieces that help make a $19,700 Mustang a reality...will need to be carried forward to $25,000, $30,000,$35,000 and beyond versions of this car. People spending that kind of money are usually more picky.
And BTW...who says it's ok for ponycars not to handle. Ponycars are all about great handling. And I'm please to say that on this VERY important point....it looks like Chevy now "gets it" .
Damn straight.
The stang is what it is. A low rent suspension on a decent chassis. And when powered by a boosted mod motor, it becomes a monster on the street. That's it. One big compromise.
The 350Z, Vette, Ferraris, etc have the CORRECT hardware to be awesome handling sports cars because that's what they are. No compromises. Take a look in the mirror, decide what you want out of your car, and buy accordingly, but all the Ford fanboys need to quit believing the stang handles anywhere near a 350Z.
Oh and BTW, the current 350Z has gone up to 298hp, so the coupe will be running nose to nose with a Mustang GT through the 1/4 mile.
Re: GT500 mule info
Which ponycar that Chevy currently has........ "gets it??"
Back to handling. Are you looking at the g's posted by the vert, or the slalom speed??? Have you looked at the slalom speed of the coupe???
The way you are talking, the Mustang doesn't handle as good as a 1975 Cutlass Supreme.
You do understand that the Mustang comes with M&S all-season tires, right??? You do understand that the Z in the test had high performance summer tires on it, right??? Yet, you expect them to handle the same???
The Mustang GT coupe has a slalom speed of 66.1mph. This is higher than the Cadillac XLR (64.0), BMW 545i (66.0), G35 sport (65.2), SRT4 (65.9), Mercedes SLK55 AMG (65.9), and GTO (63.6). It is equal to the 745i sport, and is very close to the M3 competition (66.6), CTS-V (66.8), 575M Maranello (66.2), Murcielago (66.2), Volkswagon R32 (66.5), and Mini Cooper S (66.5).
Now do understand that I am not sitting here saying it is a Lotus Elise for goodness sakes. Just that it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be.
BTW, if the Mustang is such a poor handling vehicle, what does that make the GTO???
Back to handling. Are you looking at the g's posted by the vert, or the slalom speed??? Have you looked at the slalom speed of the coupe???
The way you are talking, the Mustang doesn't handle as good as a 1975 Cutlass Supreme.
You do understand that the Mustang comes with M&S all-season tires, right??? You do understand that the Z in the test had high performance summer tires on it, right??? Yet, you expect them to handle the same???
The Mustang GT coupe has a slalom speed of 66.1mph. This is higher than the Cadillac XLR (64.0), BMW 545i (66.0), G35 sport (65.2), SRT4 (65.9), Mercedes SLK55 AMG (65.9), and GTO (63.6). It is equal to the 745i sport, and is very close to the M3 competition (66.6), CTS-V (66.8), 575M Maranello (66.2), Murcielago (66.2), Volkswagon R32 (66.5), and Mini Cooper S (66.5).
Now do understand that I am not sitting here saying it is a Lotus Elise for goodness sakes. Just that it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be.
BTW, if the Mustang is such a poor handling vehicle, what does that make the GTO???
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z284ever
And BTW...who says it's ok for ponycars not to handle. Ponycars are all about great handling. And I'm please to say that on this VERY important point....it looks like Chevy now "gets it" .
Thank Heavens.... - I'm looking forward to what else happens (motor wise
to compliment it)
Last edited by ced8; May 11, 2005 at 01:08 PM.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by 94LightningGal
Which ponycar that Chevy currently has........ "gets it??"
BTW, if the Mustang is such a poor handling vehicle, what does that make the GTO???
Re: GT500 mule info
Z284Ever, you cleverly avioded the actual numbers documenting the Mustang handling very respectably through the slalom. I've found lots of glowing reviews on the handling of the Mustang. Why don't you find me one where an article bashes the handling of the coupe, if the convertable thing is all you could dig up then you're really stretching.
http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/ar...shootout.shtml
As for the 2005 Mustang:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...ng/index2.html
So how exactly does your IROC handle better? Your finely calibrated SOTP meter? Have you even driven a 2005 Mustang? That article there compares it favorably to most of the cars tested. Most of them for several thousand more will give you much slower acceleration and slightly improved handling. Please link me to an article about the Mustang GT coupe that has negative comments about the handling, I'd love to read a professional's criticism of the car and not just forum bashing.
In defense of your IROC, it looks like it did edge out the Mustang LX of that year. Congratulations, that car is the king of 1989.
http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/ar...shootout.shtml
On to the skidpad, where the Camaro ran flat and stable to a stellar 0.90g lateral acceleration score. The higher center-of-gravity Mustang siffered more with understeer, but still returned a very good 0.88 g. In the 600-ft slalom, the Mustang surprised everyone by clicking off a 64.2-mph trap speed, beating the Camaro's best of 63.3 mph. In a given situation, the Camaro's chassis handles better, but the Mustang make up for a lot with its power, as it was able to do in the slalom.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...ng/index2.html
Unlike most action heroes, though, the GT does its own stunts. The new SOHC, 4.6-liter V-8 romps with 300 horsepower--it'll kick the GT from 0 to 60 mph in just 5.1 seconds and through the quarter in 13.5 at almost 104 mph (leave cumulous tire smoke and stripes of melted rubber in your wake at your discretion). The five-speed shifter stirs up torque without slop. The steering is tidy. Cornering prowess is inspiring: the GT powers through the slalom at better than 65 mph. Yes, the Mustang's live axle has been roundly criticized for being a blatant cost-cutting measure, but all those sniffy "Independent Rear Suspension" badges won't do other drivers much good when your GT is already leaving exhaust echoes around the next bend.
600-foot slalom, mph 65.4
600-foot slalom, mph 65.4
In defense of your IROC, it looks like it did edge out the Mustang LX of that year. Congratulations, that car is the king of 1989.
Last edited by MunchE; May 11, 2005 at 02:51 PM.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Of course I have.
Last edited by MunchE; May 11, 2005 at 03:05 PM.
Re: GT500 mule info
Oh, and here's something to get you started Z284Ever:
Road and Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
Car and Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2
Motor Week:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2405.shtml
Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford...ontent...Ford*
Apparently, even though every major media outlet handles great, some guy named Z284ever on the internet doesn't like it. Shocking that someone with a neutral handle like that would come out biased against a Ford! So, if your opinion of the Mustang is that it's not for you, that's great, but don't crap all over other threads with BS about how it can't handle unless you're ready to back it up.
Road and Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
Praise was also forthcoming on the handling loop, where we found moderate body roll, manageable push and a tail that could be wrestled into oversteer with aggressive throttle input yet stayed obediently in place otherwise. Weaknesses are few: a brake pedal that sinks too far on hard application and the chassis' slight indecision on turn-in, which happily transitions to solid composure in steady-state cornering. The much-improved rear suspension really pays dividends here, proving that you can teach an old axle new tricks.
"This is a really solid car," said Patrick, "ripe for upgrades from the factory or tuners to kick it up a few notches." Let me add that it's pretty remarkable in stock form. But darn if Patrick's quote doesn't work as an excellent segue to the next two cars.
"This is a really solid car," said Patrick, "ripe for upgrades from the factory or tuners to kick it up a few notches." Let me add that it's pretty remarkable in stock form. But darn if Patrick's quote doesn't work as an excellent segue to the next two cars.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2
The Mustang now rides on a heavily modified version of the Lincoln LS and Jag S-type platform. Unlike those luxo-cruisers, America's favorite pony car retains its blue-collar solid rear axle. But now it's a three-link coil-over layout, abetted by a tubular Panhard rod.
...snip...
The next best thing about the Mustang is that it now rides like a modern car. Less jarring crash-through, fewer expansion-strip jitters, no lateral wango-tango over broken pavement, less suspension-borne road noise. Yet even with the far cushier ride, handling has improved. Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it. Pitched hard into corners, the Mustang is initially neutral, then tends toward understeer. If the push annoys you, just stab the throttle and you can induce power oversteer. Neutral, understeer, oversteer. Quite a smorgasbord. And the tail-happiness now materializes more gently, rather than in one heart-stopping twitch. Throughout, extraneous body movements are nicely damped.
Gone is the nervousness of Mustangs of yore, and gone is the oh-so-annoying head toss that has historically been the trademark of live rear axles. In fact, every C/D tester peered at least once under our GT's rump to ensure there weren't a couple of pricey half-shafts whizzing around in there. You only notice the live axle at step-off, when you turn 90 degrees while simultaneously applying major throttle. Then the rear end briefly binds and skitters ******d a few inches, feeling a trifle awkward, momentarily confused. It's amazing what conscientious engineers can do these days with solid axles. If you don't believe us, check out the latest Toyota 4Runner. Fact is, there's a precision to this Mustang's movements that makes the old car feel like Mr. Ed. Did we just say "precision" and "Mustang" in the same sentence?
The rack-and-pinion steering still isn't a paradigm of accuracy or feel. Road textures, in particular, are transmitted only vaguely. But at least the effort is light at all speeds, the power assist never feels artificial, and there's no kickback. Fortunately, the suspension is sufficiently adept at maintaining path control that you aren't dialing in many mid-turn corrections anyway.
...snip...
The next best thing about the Mustang is that it now rides like a modern car. Less jarring crash-through, fewer expansion-strip jitters, no lateral wango-tango over broken pavement, less suspension-borne road noise. Yet even with the far cushier ride, handling has improved. Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it. Pitched hard into corners, the Mustang is initially neutral, then tends toward understeer. If the push annoys you, just stab the throttle and you can induce power oversteer. Neutral, understeer, oversteer. Quite a smorgasbord. And the tail-happiness now materializes more gently, rather than in one heart-stopping twitch. Throughout, extraneous body movements are nicely damped.
Gone is the nervousness of Mustangs of yore, and gone is the oh-so-annoying head toss that has historically been the trademark of live rear axles. In fact, every C/D tester peered at least once under our GT's rump to ensure there weren't a couple of pricey half-shafts whizzing around in there. You only notice the live axle at step-off, when you turn 90 degrees while simultaneously applying major throttle. Then the rear end briefly binds and skitters ******d a few inches, feeling a trifle awkward, momentarily confused. It's amazing what conscientious engineers can do these days with solid axles. If you don't believe us, check out the latest Toyota 4Runner. Fact is, there's a precision to this Mustang's movements that makes the old car feel like Mr. Ed. Did we just say "precision" and "Mustang" in the same sentence?
The rack-and-pinion steering still isn't a paradigm of accuracy or feel. Road textures, in particular, are transmitted only vaguely. But at least the effort is light at all speeds, the power assist never feels artificial, and there's no kickback. Fortunately, the suspension is sufficiently adept at maintaining path control that you aren't dialing in many mid-turn corrections anyway.
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2405.shtml
The new Mustang turns in quicker, and holds its line through fast corners with minimal effort. There's also much less tendency for the tail to break loose if you give it too much gas mid-corner, and expansion joints are far less upsetting.
In every respect, the reaction of the new chassis is light years ahead of the old car, and finally brings the American pony car into the 21st century.
In every respect, the reaction of the new chassis is light years ahead of the old car, and finally brings the American pony car into the 21st century.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford...ontent...Ford*
But the more dramatic improvement over the old model is in the handling: in spite of Ford's decision to save some money by sticking with a solid rear axle (rather than using a modern independent suspension) the car manages irregular pavement and hard cornering like an expensive sports sedan.
Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by BigBlueCruiser
Damn straight.
The stang is what it is. A low rent suspension on a decent chassis. And when powered by a boosted mod motor, it becomes a monster on the street. That's it. One big compromise.
The 350Z, Vette, Ferraris, etc have the CORRECT hardware to be awesome handling sports cars because that's what they are. No compromises. Take a look in the mirror, decide what you want out of your car, and buy accordingly, but all the Ford fanboys need to quit believing the stang handles anywhere near a 350Z.
Oh and BTW, the current 350Z has gone up to 298hp, so the coupe will be running nose to nose with a Mustang GT through the 1/4 mile.
The stang is what it is. A low rent suspension on a decent chassis. And when powered by a boosted mod motor, it becomes a monster on the street. That's it. One big compromise.
The 350Z, Vette, Ferraris, etc have the CORRECT hardware to be awesome handling sports cars because that's what they are. No compromises. Take a look in the mirror, decide what you want out of your car, and buy accordingly, but all the Ford fanboys need to quit believing the stang handles anywhere near a 350Z.
Oh and BTW, the current 350Z has gone up to 298hp, so the coupe will be running nose to nose with a Mustang GT through the 1/4 mile.

Re: GT500 mule info
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
Considering the intended mid-level Mustang GT convertible goes for just north of $34,000 I'm wondering how the GT500 will be priced south of $40,000 in 2007 dollars like everyone expects. It just doesn't seem to add up.
A loaded Sn95 Mustang GT convertible was within a few grand of the Sn95 SVT Cobra coupes so this GT convertible coming within 4-5k of the Cobra coupe is nothing new nor that big of a surprise. Convertibles can get relatively pricey, especially when compared to other coupes.


