2007 Ford Shelby GT500: Muscle Car? You Bet! But...
I can't believe I'm going to say this -- but the 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 is too much of a muscle car for me. Maybe I should add, "...old-world muscle car..." to that statement for better clarity. I just had possession of a GT500 convertible for a couple days, and I was fully ready to hand the keys off when my allotted time was up.
A comparison between this car and a 1971 Hemi 'Cuda can not be avoided. Both cars make approximately 500 horsepower. Both cars weigh approximately 4,000 pounds. Both cars use a live-axle rear end. And both cars are about as subtle as 50 Cent lyrics when their engines rev past 5,000 rpm.
Problem is, I don't have much interest in driving a 1971 'Cuda convertible these days, and the same holds true for the most radical version of Ford's new Mustang. In both instances, a more balanced version of each car is available (AAR 'Cuda in one case, Bullitt or Shelby GT in the other).
Maybe it's a sign of aging, though I prefer the term "evolving." Regardless, I first noticed this a few years ago when I found myself preferring seat time in my 65-horsepower Saab Sonett over my 400-horsepower Plymouth GTX. As a former drag racing fanatic that's tough to admit. Basically, going fast in a straight line still appeals to me, but if it means sacrificing steering response and/or handling balance I won't make that trade.
The 2005 and later Mustangs sit on a superb chassis with excellent dynamic potential. The Bullitt and Shelby GT versions further elevate that chassis' potential. The GT500, with its 1,000-pound drivetrain over the front wheels, dilutes dynamic greatness in the name of zero-to-60 times. Even the stance of the GT500 isn't as good as the "cheaper" Bullitt and Shelby GT models. Maybe the nose-heavy front end requires greater wheelwell clearance to account for the GT500's body motions, thus it can't be lowered like the other versions.
In fact, my favorite aspects of the GT500 (chassis rigidity, steering feel, retro styling, relaxed-yet-effective traction control system, seductive exhaust note, quiet cabin -- even in the convertible at highway speeds, etc.) all come on the base V8 GT model for $25,000 ($30,000 for a convertible). At roughly half the cost it's a no-brainer as to which one I'm buying for myself.
Posted by Karl Dec 12, 2007 7:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Ford | Muscle Car | Retro Revivals
opfreak
- Dec 12, 2007 7:18 am
(#1 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
live rear axel. the reason the gt starts at 25k
which for that price, mildly acceptable. At 50k. LOL. come on now, even a 17k impreza now has an independent rear suspension
|
|
 | |
redliner
- Dec 12, 2007 10:06 am
(#2 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
I don't know of this is true or not, but i heard that ford didn't put an independant suspension on it becuse it would have costed them an additonal 5k.
For 25k The GT is a good buy. At 50k, it's ovepriced, no matter how "special edition" it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
Ford didn't put an IRS on because the previous generation Cobra did have it and nobody cared.
Mustangs are for those that want cheap thrills with a reliable V8. For the money it offers good performance. However, for my money I want a better interior, and more sophisticated handling. I am willing to sacrifice some power for that trade off.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 12, 2007 11:31 am
(#4 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
Yes, its ok for a base mustang, even a gt. But the Shelby gt500, or the kr editions are anything but basic. At 40+ grand, that rear axel is both old school, and stinks of cheap.
ford said an irs would cost 5 grand. imho, thats a load of bull, what it meant is that ford did not want to spend any money on engineering for the suspension. Like I pointed out, a lowly imperza has awd, and an irs, at a price under 17k, i doubt that rear suspension costs suby 5k.
I'm not a fan of the mustang, it has grown on me. but the thing is still very much old ford. cheap interoir. cheap engineering. all in a pretty marketing package.
|
|
| |
comp386
- Dec 12, 2007 11:40 am
(#5 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
I agree with everything said here. For 25K the GT with the live axel is just fine. Plenty of fun and muscle. But for 40+.... I'd spend my extra money on a Roush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I would give up my first born for a 71' Cuda... :Drool:
Still, for the money a Roush or a Saleen would be my choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
Wow, I cant believe what Im hearing. If I had the keys to that, you would have to pry them out of my fingers to get it back.
Sure the Shelby GT500 isnt cheap, but in case folks havent noticed the price of performance cars is going up. The WRX STi in the recent road test was $39K, an RS4 is $70K, an M3 is about $60K so the price of this one sounds pretty reasonable. As far as it being old school, well to me thats the point of it. Thats what seperates it from all the fast Euro cars.
|
|
| |
|
|
Given that the base Mustang starts out around the $20K mark I really dont see how Ford thiks they can stretch out the M U S T A N G this far as there will be plenty of compromises. The car in the above picture proves just that. Overall chassis balance and weight distributiion took a back seat to 1/4 times. On the contrary this car will sell regardless as we all know there is a extremely large Mustang fan base.
I think if Ford really wants to play in this price range a dedicated, lighter weight, better balanced, SPORTS CAR is needed. Something that could really compete with Chevys mighty Corvette thats purspose built for this level of performance. Corvette coupe starts at $47K and the convertible is $54K. Id take the Vette without question.
|
|
| |
|
|
As much as I like my Subaru, there is no way in hell that it's rear IRS would stand up to the power and torque of the Mustang GT. Before you start saying "what about the WRX and STI", they are 4 wheel drive and the power is split front and rear.
The Mustang is a great car for the price and the solid axle works fine.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 12, 2007 7:32 pm
(#11 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
my point wasn't to say that the suby irs would be able to handle the power. my point was price, which everyone missed.
at 17k, the suby has awd, and an irs.
the mustang starting at 20k has a solid rear axel. Do I need to mention more cheap cars with an irs?
yes its a throw back to the 70's. But thats what it is, a throw back. And while some dont like the top gear people, the drove this and the roushe back to back, the roushe with less power and a firmered up rear end (rather then the midly updated rear end supesion on the gt500) beat shelby on their track. The shelby rear end was dancing all over the track, and was unable to put the power down to the ground.
So no subys rear end couldnt handly it. they'd get close, the sti is able to hold down most of that 300hp to the rear end.
i'm sure ford could have done it if they wanted to, and it wouldn't have costs 5000k.
in fact dont call this a SHELBY 500, dont pay the old guy the rights for the name, and theirs your money for a irs.
instead ford went cheap because they pocket more money, and people buy it.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
"Sure the Shelby GT500 isnt cheap, but in case folks havent noticed the price of performance cars is going up. The WRX STi in the recent road test was $39K, an RS4 is $70K, an M3 is about $60K so the price of this one sounds pretty reasonable."
Yes, but those cars are all WELL ROUNDED performance cars. They're fast AND they handle and stop well. The GT500 is really only good as a straightline machine. The weight of the drivetrain means there's no balance to the chassis. At best it's a handful around a racetrack, and every car you listed above would smoke it in terms of lap times. What would be interesting would be to pit a Shelby GT or Bullitt Mustang against a GT500 on the same race track. I'm betting the lap times would be close either way, and the Bullitt/Shelby GT might even win.
And I KNOW which would be more fun to drive under such circumstances.
Like I said -- I've evolved. If a car only goes fast in one direction at a time I have no need for it. Even back in high school when I loved racing my 440 GTX I still wanted it to stop and turn with some level of confidence. There were those guys who put pizza cutters on the front and wheelie bars on the back of tubbed muscle cars, then they installed 4.56 rear-end gears. I always thought the sacrifices they made to be strong in ONE area (going straight) at the cost of having NO turning or stopping or highway cruising ability were stupid.
The GT500 isn't that single-minded, but compared to a LESS EXPENSIVE Bullit or Shelby GT -- or even A base V8 GT -- the GT500's combination of handling compromise and price destroys my interest in owning one.
|
|
| |
|
|
hondacura4
Totaly agree. Buy a Vett.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 13, 2007 4:55 am
(#14 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml
Just to prove the point karl makes.
while the roushe is not nessercaliy cheaper. It has 70 less hp.
and beat the shelby gt500 by 2 seconds.
in fact look at that, theres an older sti on the list. a whole .1 second slower then the shelby gt500. with what? 200hp less? no this ford car is amazing.... in terms of cost
|
|
| |
gcn
- Dec 13, 2007 10:22 pm
(#15 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
If memory serves me well, the current Mustang is built on a modified LS/S-Type/T-Bird platform, from which IRS was removed to make it less expensive for the Mustang. Which makes the absence of IRS on the GT500 even more ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
opfreak, thanks! How about that lap the cheaper and "less powerful" Roush Mustang recorded at 1:28 flat? :o)
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 14, 2007 4:52 am
(#17 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
the roush might be cheaper. I think ou need like a stage 3 package from them, and when looking it up, it cost roughly 22k or so. it might be a bit cheaper. But even so. car in their drive was much better planted because the roush team balanced the package better, tweaked the suspension better, and planeted the rear end more.
the shelby gt 500 would be a perfect after market, roush like mod. insanse amount of power in a body not able to use it all.
But to accept that from the factory. and at that price. In my book is crazy. I can see where a few people might get it. (the uber fans, collectors, just loaded car guys). but to try to push it to a wider audience, ahhh. ford faliure
|
|
| |
|
|
I agree with what you said about those other cars being well rounded by my point is that the Shelby GT500 doesnt need to be well rounded, because it is a muscle car at its core. If it were to change those roots you can bet people would cry foul, so they're giving the typical traits of going fast in a straight line with less emphasis on handling and cornering.
But anyway speaking of muscle cars Im excited about reading a review of the upcoming Challenger. I'd probably get that over the Shelby if I had the choice
|
|
| |
|
|
"is that the Shelby GT500 doesnt need to be well rounded, because it is a muscle car at its core. If it were to change those roots you can bet people would cry foul, so they're giving the typical traits of going fast in a straight line with less emphasis on handling and cornering."
Daytona, I agree and disagree. Muscle cars never focused on handling and braking performance and some people might cry (agreed). On the contrary with 500HP it seems like one would want more control and balance. At this price "the package" should be standard fair especially considering that the lesser Mustangs (GT-Bullit) drive better. I think the biggest problem with this certain car is the weight/placement of the drivetrain.
The Corvette (sports/muscle car) has both qualities. It can give you that BIG TORQUE muscle car spirit in a straight line but can also turn, stop, and remain composed for a wee bit more money.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 15, 2007 6:48 pm
(#20 Total: 20)
|
|
|
|
i'm sorry I thought the days of cars being good to just go straight died in the 70's
|
|
|
|
