A small bump in the road traversed at the slightest discernible angle on dry pavement at 50mph will send the Shelby GT500’s rear end sideways with enough violence to engage the traction control. If you don't care, God bless you. I fully understand and appreciate your perspective: muscle cars are about power, not finesse. Finesse is for people who aren’t willing to risk their childrens' future to experience a few moments of high horsepower hoonery. Fine. But include me out.
Don’t get me wrong: I love monstrous horsepower. Whether it’s the painful jolt of a Carrera GT or an Enzo stretching the time space continuum, I’m a fervent fan of fast. But I also like to write about it. That means I only deploy as much horsepower as the car can handle without hitting solid objects. First, that requires stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off braking power. Second, it requires a suspension that's several orders of magnitude better than the one fitted to a 1972 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. While the GT500 has sufficient stoppers for a nose-heavy, morbidly obese, 500hp two-door– provided you don’t mind standing on the brake pedal– it serves-up less chassis control than a [very] Flexible Flyer.
Let’s think about this. There you are at a stoplight. It turns green. You give it some. With its live rear axle suspension, the GT500 judders like a giant's attacking the entire car with a humongous pneumatic drill. Switch off the traction control and you're treading asphalt in a cloud of tire smoke. If you accelerate hard over a crap road, the juddering morphs into full-on pavement surfing. And don’t get to thinking that the bone shaking is reserved for those times when your right foot ignores your left brain. If the GT500 cruises over a stretch of broken pavement, it's another surfin' safari.
I know: who cares? It’s a 500hp rear wheel-drive muscle car! That’s like saying it’s OK to shag Adriana Lima even if you know she’s got herpes. Maybe you’ll catch it, maybe you won’t. Why worry when it feels so gooood? ‘Cause it will right until the moment it doesn't. In fact, the only way avoid tree trouble with the ferociously fast GT500’s loosey-goosy handling is either A) drive it on Germany’s glassine roads or B)– nope, that’s it. The TV actor who took the GT500 to Chrysler’s homeland because he couldn’t “find a speed limit he liked” actually made the trip because he couldn’t find a road he could keep it on.
Oh, and the GT500 may be electronically limited to 155mph– enough to get you spanked on the autobahn by any number of lesser-horsed automobiles– but take it from someone who had to get to Beantown in a hurry, I would NOT want to be the one testing Nanny’s leash. I could have made more rapid progress in an Acura TL. Ah, but the TL is an anodyne automobile, a gussied-up Honda Accord with about as much soul as chicken pot pie. The Shelby GT500 is a fire-breathing Mustang hopped-up by the master, with more spice than the homemade hot sauce at Leonard’s Pit Barbecue, 5465 Fox Plaza, Memphis, Tennessee. While I prefer the Mustang GT’s shark-like snout to the GT500’s center-mounted bookshelf, I’ll grant you that the Shelby is one sexy looking beast– from the outside.
From the inside, it’s a rental car. Forty large (without the sucker’s premium) buys you precisely nothing in the interior style department. You’re still ensconced in a car (as Frank Williams puts it) lousy with cheap. The cabin is dour, suffused with nasty ass plastic and bereft of the slightest joyful attention to detail. For example, the vanity mirrors are sub-Barbie quality and the electric driver’s seat reclines manually.
Even the bits where Ford could have made a real statement– the stereo, steering wheel, seats and shift knob– are po’ faced and pathetic. How much would it have cost to make the GT500’s interior special? At such low volumes, why don’t Ford’s "designers" simply ship the uber-Stang off to some aftermarket company to fit top notch ICE, a racing wheel, Recaro seats and a Hurst-style shift knob? Maybe they could even do something about that rear axle…
Now I know many of you are itching to wail on me in the comments’ section with all sorts of blather about retro cool and manly men doing manly things in maximum Mustang muscle cars. Not to mention the economic arguments: bang- for-the-buck and halo car. Besides, if people want to buy them, why not sell them? Because retro is one thing, repeating the mistakes of the past is another. The GT500 may be a die-hard (one hopes) enthusiast's catnip, but it also reveals the ongoing supremacy of Ford's beancounters, and the company's continued inability to produce a fast, affordable rear wheel-drive car that handles as well as it goes.
Read Jonny Lieberman's original review here.
Listen to my debate with Jonny by pressing PLAY below.
(Click on "Play in Popup" and continue reading as you listen.)
166 Comments on “Shelby GT500 Review – Counterpoint...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Okay, so it is a 500Hp POS. Last time I looked 500Hp makes anything better.
Right. Sure. Absolutely. Hey, I've got an idea! Go test drive a 303hp, front wheel-drive Chevrolet Impala and tell me how much better it would be with an additional 197 horses.
Interesting article, though I don’t think any of the arguments you make are as controversial as they seem.
A few questions Robert:
Why would you make faster progress in a TL? Isn’t it likely that when traveling long distances, realistically speaking, both cars would get you to Boston in the same amount of time given that they both have more than enough horsepower to cruise at triple digit speeds (or as fast as you could possibly go in even the most empty of Northeastern roads) with relative ease?
Personally, I think the TL handles quite superbly and is far from “anodyne.” (Quiet certainly, but also with good road feel and a tight suspension.) But is it the TL’s “lack of soul” the reason you would be willing to drive it faster than a Mustang?
I guess this is the contradiction that pops out at me, aren’t cars with “souls” the ones that not only go fast but make you WANT to go fast? Thusly, wouldn’t it be true that a TL (or any “anodyne” top speed cruiser for that matter) is in fact, a car with more of this elusive thing we call an “automotive soul” than a fire-breathing but unrefined out of control Mustang? Is this the point your trying to make?
Overall though, I think the counterpoint makes for a pretty interesting article, a refreshing departure from the constant rar-rar-rar piston head carping at high-powered sports cars.
Another almost-good-enough car from the Ford Accounting…err… Retiree Benefit…err… Motor Company.
If only it had an independent rear and an interior from Fisher Price instead of Mattel……
Isnt it better than good enough for Government work though?
I agree: the TL is a highly under-rated, fine handling automobile. I would dearly love to test drive the Type S.
I could go faster in a TL than a GT500 because it would give me more confidence to, um, maneuver. (MA drivers NEVER move over.) Even on a smooth, straight road, a high speed jink in a GT500 is a tricky proposition. Also, as JL points out in the podcast, the GT500 doesn't feel very secure over the ton.
When I called the TL anodyne, I was speaking as if I was a musclehead. While the TL certainly lacks [exterior] visual or [engine] aural flair (the ICE is awesome), it is still an entertaining machine on many levels.
The automotive soul debate in general is a minefield. TTAC has discussed the disparity between what some enthusiast's call "character" and anyone with an objective perspective would call crap (unreliability, shaking, etc.). I call it the Harley Davidson dilemma: can a car be too good for its own good? NSX anyone?
I can see both perspectives. Call me a woos, but when it comes to high speed driving, I err on the side of safety.
Good enough for government work? If you like that sort of thing and drive with suitable caution, I suppose so. But I would NOT put a young driver/my children behind the wheel of this car.
But I would NOT put a young driver/my children behind the wheel of this car.
That seems like pretty weak criticism, Robert. Only a fool would put a young driver behind the wheel of a 500 horsepower car, regardless of the make or model. Obviously, the cheapest 500 horsepower car is going to have the fewest electronic nannies, which makes the GT500 the worst of the lot. This is a surprise to no one.
The judder you complained about on take-off would only be exacerbated with an independent rear suspension. Ford decided that the cost to develop an independent rear suspension capable of handling the power and weight of the GT500 would not have been justified by the increase in the price. Early adopters notwithstanding, wouldn’t that interior with a $45k pricetag be even more of an affront? You’d be smack-dab in Corvette territory (a vastly superior platform) at that point, as well.
I’m not sure the Mustang could justify much more of a base price. I can only imagine the comments you’d be making about a $50k Mustang – even if it drove excellently.
I think Lieberman “gets” the GT500, which is clearly just a good-lookin’ $40k car with 500 horsepower (i.e., a compromise).
FWIW, there are thousands of people driving similarly-powerful late-model Camaros and Mustangs around – some commuting in them to work and dropping their kids off as school in them – who aren’t flying off the road and killing themselves, live axle and all. To imply that the GT500 is setting some low bar for automotive safety is really pushing it.
Good enough for government work?
I was refering to the fact the Gov’t buys a lot of Ford vehicles. Probably for the driving dynamics.
I certainly would not let my daughter drive a 500HP American slop-mobile. She will get a Mini with a manual transmission when she is old enough to drive… whether she likes it or not. I lived in Germany for many years and understand the importance of handling/braking uber alles.
don’t like the GT500?
you’re a communist.
It’s that simple!
No, but seriously, awesome car, rather flawed. I’d say its’ odd you didn’t point out it’s major flaw – it’s about 400lbs overweight, and is vastly front heavy.
Sorry, the ‘vette, any vette, is a better car. Power is worth nothing without control.
Jon Furst: And there are a lot of people driving late model, over-powered Yank tanks who ARE slinging themselves into trees.
OK, not so many because A) Mustang excepted, I can't think of another US car with such bad handling and B) Darwinism (both mechanical and personal) has removed most of them from our roads.
Also, why would I criticize a $50k Mustang if it were superb (inside and out, horspower and handing)? That's still cheaper than a Boxster, and THEN those 500 horses would mean something… incontrovertible.
lzaffuto:
I critized the new 'Vette for its suspension over rough surfaces. Relatively speaking, it's a minor distraction. Far superior car.
Mrb00st:
I did mention that it's heavy. They could put the engine in the middle of the car and I don't think it would make much difference– except you'd spin, and presumably stop spinning, sooner.
Thank you Robert – this all needed to be said.
Billy Ford’s checklist for BOLD MOVES:
* Minimal engineering investment
* Minimal durability testing (overheating SVTs and Ford GTs)
* Maximum marketing the bejesus out of it (and you’re not an American if you don’t buy it)
* Morbidly obese weight (4000 pound Mustangs)
* Trot out the glories from a million years ago (poor ‘ole Shel almost looks like Captain Pike)
* Appeals to low common demoninator (Americans are stupid, so as far as they know this junk is the best there is)
* Build the best stuff overseas (Aussie Falcon and Euro Focus – Americans are stupid, so as far as they know we get the best there is)
* Claim everything is new when it’s not (2008 Escape with yesterdays engine and transmission)
* No suspension sophistication at all, borderline dangerous (4000 pound Mustang)
* Cheap Plastics
* Bury the best engineering (missing IRS for Mustang – developed and then cancelled)
* Tide things over until what you really needed was ready (3.5 V-6 mysteriously delayed)
* Cancel everything and anything Jacques did because you know he was better than you (cancelled product plans, cancelled small rear wheel drive chassis, cancelled LS/T-Bird project, cancelled IRS and Cobra, cancelled large rear wheel drive platform, cencelling Euro Forcus for North America).
* Spend the company money like there is no tommorrow (and by canelling the product plans, there isn’t)
* Use everybody else’s platforms but your own (Mazda and Volvo make up the majority of products now)
* You’re rich so you don’t have to worry about a job (70,000 departures, 38,000 buy-outs).
It’s “cheap” ($40k for a car is never cheap), it’s fast in a straight line, and that’s about it. I’ve ridden in a modded 2003 Cobra making more than 500hp and as someone who has daily driven a 3000lb WRX making 300hp at the wheels(no idea what the crank horsepower is), I can honestly say that the Stang did not feel especially fast. It was absolutely more torquey than my low compression 2L, but it did not feel significantly more powerful. I must admit that the supercharger whine from its aftermarket pulley was totally cool, though. :)
3900lbs is simply too much weight. For a couple thousand more, you can pick up a discounted C6 Vette weighing nearly 900lbs less, that does everything else better, and looks more attractive on top of everything else. I’m with Farago on this one…the GT500 is what it is, but what it is isn’t anything super special. The Giugiaro Mustang being shown at the LA auto show…now that’s an altogether different story!
I think I’ll take the used NSX over ole shel’s new ’stang. At least you would know you would get to where you were going and then bitch about then anodyne styling. And Ayrton Senna’s rep trumps Shelby’s.
Fear not for the safety of American roads!
As most of these GT500’s are going for well over sticker to a demographic group that can not only afford the car but the usurous insurance rates that would accompany a car that has “Mustang” and “500″ in it name.
My guess is that most owners will be loving their GT500’s in a “clean room” garage and taking them out for occasional cruises (if/when I can afford one, the cruises will be in Montana where I have a better chance of getting in a stampede than rush hour).
The Mustang formula of cheap, good-looking and fast still works. Is the car antediluvian? Sure. Does it matter? No. There are several examples of more advanced performace cars littering the “cars that were better than a Musatng but nobody wanted them” section of automotive history (pick a company, they’ve all got some).
Don’t bury Caesar when he does something right (and has a 40 year track record to back him up) praise him instead.
One last thing: am I the only person that sees “Pontiac Bonneville” every time I see a TL?
RF values a well sorted out suspension far higher than most GT500 owners. Which is true, but irrelevant. This is a drag car with admirable on-road handling.
But even I, a confirmed 5.0 Mustang fan, have a hard time getting interested in this Shelby. From the cheesy retro interior, oversexed exterior, portly dimensions and too many badges/names (Ford Mustang SVT Shelby GT500 Cobra) this ain’t my kind of Pony Car.
If someone threw the Shelby’s 5.4L and a Griggs suspension into a 1979 Mustang 2-door sedan, Mustang SVO, 1987 GT, or ASC Maclaren Droptop…well then we’ll have something.
This is all about hyperbole and not about real world experience.
I’ve driven the Shelby GT500 through a variety of rough and smooth roads in North Georgia for well over 500 miles one weekend. It actually does an EXTREMELY good job and doesn’t require the inputs of a so-called expert driver.
Does it handle like a Porsche or Vette? Absolutely not. But making over-the-top generalizations is not going to make your points valid.
I should also note that the Shelby receives more attention than the other two vehicles combined… and anything else that’s recently been made by the Japanese Big 2.5 in the American market.
A Shelby designed like this one is definitely a positive for Ford. Now the real challenge for them will be to develop designs that are this striking for their mainstream platforms.
Luther: Buying the manual Mini for your daughter may make safety sense from the handling/braking perspective, but remember that tiny cars can be at a disadvantage in, God forbid, a collision with a heavier vehicle.
Here’s another example of what the former SVT has become: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330056576873
Surely Hau Thai-Tang had a hand in this!
CSJ, Sajeev, and macarose make a great point: this car will probably never see the use. Idling in a parade, waxing it at the local Shelby meet, or lighting ‘em up in the local parking lot will never uncover the weakness of the GT500’s underpinnings.
It’s like a bodybuilder. Looks strong and is certainly stronger than most. Posing flexed muscles draws attention (just enough to scare off most contenders), but the gun show is just that: a show. Bench pressing 500 pounds is impressive, but when it impairs agility and flexibility you are merely musclebound.
jwfisher: shhhhh, I’m the winning bidder so far!
macarose:
"I’ve driven the Shelby GT500 through a variety of rough and smooth roads in North Georgia for well over 500 miles one weekend. It actually does an EXTREMELY good job and doesn’t require the inputs of a so-called expert driver."
I can't account for your report– especially the capped EXTREMELY– unless you were driving relatively slowly or have a limited point of reference. As you've pointed out, it's all a matter of what you're used to.
Anyway, I wan't making a generalization; I was making a characterization. If I wrote a list and description of all the times the GT500 got bent out of shape, I'd use-up my 800 word allocation. (Might make interesting reading, but I had other stuff to say.)
As we've posited here many times, if you don't understand it, it's not for you. The problem I'm having is that I DO get it and it's STILL not for me.
Hi Sajeev,
While we’re both on the keyboard. In Jonny’s GT500 review I commented on the Mustang II as an example of a version that strayed from the “formula” and was a failure.
You were correct on your assesment that the `Stang Deux was a huge hit in year one (1974 Sales were 385,693 which I think makes it the fourth or fifth best sales year for Mustangs). Sales dropped in the four model years following and I think it is remembered more as an affront to Mustang lore than actually being one.
I happily stand corrected.
Yeah, if they could take the SVO approach with the GT500 mill… now that would be a spicy meat a` ball!
Perhaps, Mr. Farago, this is simply too much car for you. It's not an Acura…it's not supposed to be. Either you "get it" or you do not. You simply do not. There would not be dealer mark ups if there were no demand. If you don't have the sense to keep your teenager from behind the wheel with out teaching them how to properly respect horsepower, you are probably going to lose them somehow anyway, as you are an unfit parent. Mr. Farago, please do not review cars that you do not understand because it does not do anyone any good. People that don't "get it" will continue to give you kudos and you will continue to lose credibility with those that do "get it".
Even an R32 Nissan Skyline would leave the ancient fossil (ole’ shel’) Mustang shaking its self to pieces.
HEATHROI:
Perhaps not the best example. While the R32 would leave the GT500 for dead (and a 911), the Nissan was the hardest riding car I've ever driven. Even harder than the GT500.
every silver lining has its cloud…. now where did those fillings go to?
The thing about the GT500 is that Ford is finally doing what it does best. There’s no way Ford (or Detroit) can out Toyota Toyota or out Honda Honda. They just don’t have the development cycle to be able to even keep up. So rather than trying to build a car that’s reliable, technologically advanced, has a nice interior, etc, they should be making cars that have soul. (Wasn’t there a TTAC article a couple weeks back about how Toyota’s biggest problem was that they have no history?)
I think the GT500 is the first car to come out of Detroit in 20 years that goes back to it’s roots and doesn’t try to be something it isn’t. It’s a muscle car in the truest sense of muscle cars, and that’s what Detroit is known for. To me it doesn’t matter if the interior isn’t great (I remember sitting in a used ’70s vette at a dealership when i was about 14 while my parents were shopping for a car. I was shocked to see how GM-like the interior was, at 14 I didn’t know about parts bin sharing and stuff. But the crappy interior didn’t take away from the soul of the car), what matters is that the car makes you smile, and I know this car would make me smile (I bet it even made you smile, Robert).
I just wish that FoMoCo would make a bunch of these. It’s no fair that these are $40K+markup, that means only the rich car collectors are really going to get one and then they’ll just sit in a garage looking pretty. If they’d bump the volume up by a factor of 10 or so, bring the price back to about $30k so us normal folk could buy one, I’d add one to my stable. It’d even be my daily driver. And It’d be great visibility for Ford. Do you think anyone notices when someone brings their 500 or Fusion to work? But if there were people bringing rumbling GT500’s to work everyday, people might start thinking about Ford as a viable purchase again.
I hope this car is a sign of the future for Detroit – I think it’s the only way they’ll survive.
I’m reminded of a brief encounter years ago with a modded Fox-based Mustang, wide tires, loud paint, louder exhaust, farting/revving it in local traffic.
Mustang slows down to make a right hand turn, is carrying too much speed and after braking and completing the turn ends up in in the left lane. And lo and behold, finds itself passed in the right lane by yours truly in the stock Miata which had no problems holding a tight line at not-very-high speed.
Of course, the embarrassed/furious Mustang owner feels obliged to rev it and pass me, given he’s got triple the horsepower.
While we’re both on the keyboard. In Jonny’s GT500 review I commented on the Mustang II as an example of a version that strayed from the “formula” and was a failure.
CSJohnston: yes, it was more of an insult to the Mustang tradition, which didn’t bother me much. I have some respect for them after attending a classic Mustang show and meeting the guy with a souped up 302 in his resto-mod Mustang II notchback. Engine, tranny, firmer suspension, nice wheels, you name it… it was all done, but the vintage plaid seats and other Mustang II “necessities” were still there.
Everyone gave him dirty looks, but he had the most agile car out there, and everyone turned away when he challenged them to put their money where their mouth is. He was my kinda guy, and that’s my impression of Mustang IIs.
Now that the Mustang’s gone retro, I seriously doubt “Mustang” people think the Foxbody Mustang had the right style either, but that’s my definition of Mustangs because of its minimalist style, trim dimensions and that classic long hood and short deck.
I’m reminded of a brief encounter years ago with a modded Fox-based Mustang, wide tires, loud paint, louder exhaust, farting/revving it in local traffic…. lo and behold, finds itself passed in the right lane by yours truly in the stock Miata which had no problems holding a tight line at not-very-high speed.
So funny you mention that, starlightmica. I had the same experience when some smart guy in a Miata thought he could out corner my modified Foxbody Cougar on a side road after losing to me on the interstate. Owning a sleeper is so great; that was a fun afternoon. :-)
Actually i don’t mind the Mustang but I just don’t think it has ever lived up to its name.
In fact its maker and the other 1.5 outfits rests (way too much) on an American Graffiti allusion. Unfortunately for every American Graffiti there is a Full Metal Jacket.
I personally grew through this phase of motorhead development, having started out as a wrench turning knuckle dragger with a 350hp 67 Cougar. But, without the suspension & steering bits in place you simply can’t employ the power. I realized this, sold the car, and moved on.
Its astonishing that a car with that many acronyms can’t put IFS in the mix. Marketing over engineering.
HawaiiJim, I have to completely agree with you. In my quest for a fun four-place convertible with an attitude, I am faced with the VW Eos, Mini Cooper S, and Mustang GT. I fit in the Mini, love the way it drives, and it has appropriate attitude. But my daughter’s head ends up +/- 12″ from the back bumper, and here in the land of road yachts (Texas), I can just imagine some cell-phone gabbing idiot plowing into me at a stop light.
And the Eos is too girly.
So the Mustang it is, cheap plastic and all. “Soul” counts for a lot, or we’d all be driving Camrys……
Okay, so if I understand correctly this car is scary to drive over 100 mph in… I have an ‘89 Prelude (135 hp folks) that isn’t scary to drive at that speed (in fact it gets BETTER at 80 mph)… What the hell? What’s the point of 500 hp?
Seriously, it’s a penis car. You can say you have 500 hp but that’s about it. Maybeif you enjoy the feeling of imminent death the car is fun. That’s just sad… I thought maybe the Mustang had evolved since it got on the new chassis. Certainly the glossies neglected to mention that it still doesn’t handle.
Though the car itself is sad, it is selling. I guess Ford IS a nostalgia brand.
Robert said: “there are a lot of people driving late model, over-powered Yank tanks who ARE slinging themselves into trees.”
Well, yes. Ditto with Porsches, BMWs (I saw one, a 3-series, in a ditch on the way home last night), the occasional bisected Enzo, and other very expensive Eurozoomers, and also with hopped-up Japanese speedboxes. My inclination is to think that the problem isn’t with the car, or the power, it’s with the driver. Including whether the driver’s judgement is impaired when buying more car than he or she can handle. Even a base Mini can be a deathtrap in the hands of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing (or worse, doesn’t care).
Dave M, what about the Volvo or BMW verts?
We had a S70 that bled us to death with repairs, as well as it doesn’t do “it” for me style-wise.
I like the Bimmer, but am afraid it’s about $15k out of my range. I thought of the CPO program, but I plan on having the vehicle pretty much the rest of my life (not a daily driver), so buying new I guess is advantaegous for me.
I like the style of the Saab as well, but was less than impressed on the test drive….
The problem with the GT500 isn’t that it’s a modern day Hemicuda (which it is). The problem, as I pointed out in the comments section of Lieberman’s article, is that the GT500 is priced too closely to the BMW 335i, a car that can be driven at the same speeds the GT500 purports, but in a much safer, more comfortable, liveable way.
Knock about $10k off the price of the GT500, and it would be a different story. This was the case a few years back with the Cobra and the M3. They both ran at similiar velocities, the Bimmer was better, but also a lot more expensive, so it was easy to overlook the foibles of the Cobra.
With the GT500’s price much closer to that of the much more refined (and nearly as fast) 335i, there’s no longer any financial incentive to overlook the crudeness and buy the Ford.
Obviously, many of your have a lot more money than I do, $40k+ markup is not chump change to me. It is nice I can get 500bhp for $40k, but why does it have to come with an interior 1975 would be proud of and a suspension that is firmly in the mid-60s? I think I can get a 325 for less than $40k with variable cam timing and the one of the most sophisticated suspensions on the face of the planet. The 500 is being specifically marketed towards those guys who go to the Barrett Jackson auctions and pay $115k for a ‘65 Corvette. The 500 is the automotive equivalent of the chick who’s got a heck of a rack, but you find our her iq is around 80, and her ex and her have cleaned out your bank account after a couple of months.
Now if only Ford would release a 500hp Town Car…
They could advertise its “road hugging weight”!
I’m really not sure who would seriously cross-shop a GT500 and a BMW 335, or even M3. They are apples and broccoli.
Robert is right about this being a ‘heavy’ car on the road. It’s not the tossable, flickable sports car that a BMW or an Acura represents.
The GT500 is more comparable, in performance and brand marketing, to the Dodge Viper. This vehicle is being used as an image vehicle (or halo vehicle) for the more sporty vehicles in Ford’s lineup. It will put a few more eyeballs on the Mustangs, make the rest of Ford’s lineup appear to be more performance competitive (these vehicles will actually be showcased for a while at the dealerships), and will be reflective of Ford’s desire to make more sporty and soulful vehicles for the public in the coming years.
It’s a very smart move that will sell well primarily in the South, Midwest, and Southwestern areas of the U.S. In these areas of the U.S. American muscle cars are popular and well-regarded.
By the way, what Mr. Farago said in his write-up has merit. Although I think it would have been better to make more hay out of other potential options for Ford (make Shelby versions of other Fords and Lincolns to increase their market presence), I think he had very valid points overall.
Good write-up!
During the podcast, Liebermann said “it takes you back to the ’70’s…”
Isn’t that condemnation enough? I don’t remember a single good American car from the ’70’s. The cars I remember are the Ford LTD (which got worse and worse as it went along), the Lincoln Mark of that era (a superb vehicle for grossly overweight detectives) and the ‘77 Chevell Malibu (we had the misfortune to own one).
True, there were probably better cars on the road but those were the cars we used every day. And smog controllage was in its infancy and all the cars I remember had “operational difficulties” as a result.
Oh – and I almost forgot the Gran Torino. Gaaack.
Eric Miller added, “I’m really not sure who would seriously cross-shop a GT500 and a BMW 335, or even M3. They are apples and broccoli.”
That’s easy. A toy buyer. In fact, the one redeeming quality of the GT500 is that it’s so obviously a toy. When you purchase this – or a classic car, etc – it’s a statement that you’ve made enough money that you can afford to buy a car that makes no sense to drive. The BMW doesn’t make that statement.
But how many toy buyers are at home with the brochures spread out on the table truly fretting between a GT500 and a BMW 335? Not many, if any.
I don’t presume to be cross shopping between 325 and a 500. The real question that must be addressed is why is the interior of a 500 not that of a $40k car and the suspension is basically crap? This is not a question for the buyers of a 500, this is a question for the people who run Ford! How dare you put a half-assed car out there. Since we know people will pay $50k for it, make it bloody right. This whole “close enough” stuff has gotta stop in Detroit.
Obviously, we live in a free society. Enthusiasts are free to choose whatever car they like for whatever reason floats their boat [sic].
I'm more concerned about what the GT500 says about Ford.
First, the extreme version of a car reveals to us (if no one else) the quality of the base model. The M3/335i tells me the 328i is a sound automobile. The GT500 tells me the base Mustang is a sub-standard sedan. (A weekend behind the wheel of a rental Mustang V6 confirms this suspicion.)
Second, the GT500 tells me that Ford hasn't advanced its engineering in THREE DECADES. Is that the best they can do for pistonheads for $40k? If so, they'd better improve– soon– or settle for the whole Harley Davidson dinosaur niche.
The real question … is why is the interior of a 500 not that of a $40k car
Because the motor is closer to that of a $70,000 car
You are all missing the point if you are trying to review this car as a drivers car. Everyone knows its a brutal engine strapped to a shopping cart, and that’s not going to be pretty.
See, americans are obsessed with stats and numbers. And there is one number that you can impress people the most with and that’s HP. This car simply provides the highest number for the least $, which is what the non-driver types care about most.
For those same non-driver types, its unrefined handling will be a bonus. After impressing their buddy with the number 500 and showing him what this car can do, the car becoming unstable after taking off from a traffic light will seem very exciting to them, and a demonstration of POWER. Put these same non-drivers in, say, a 911 turbo, and they will think its a less powerful, less exciting car because it takes off from the traffic light in a perfectly balanced and controlled way.
Never mind that one can take you around bends at speed with milimeter precision, and the other will just slide into the grass.
It goes together well with american’s straight line obsession, as thats about the only way this “car” can shine.
I think Ford are very smart for bringing cars like this out, the average consumer doesn’t understand why it is not a bargain at all anyway. 500hp in a shopping cart is about as useful as a pentium 4 in your toaster, I’d rather use 300HP for 100% than 500 for 20%
… or settle for the whole Harley Davidson dinosaur niche.
If the GT500 is a Harley, was the Ford GT a Buell?
To further RF’s (and my) point is that 100% of the developmental money that Ford spent on building the 500 went into boosting the horsepower of that old ohv V-8 from 350hp to 500hp. Congrats, but those were developmental expenses that are not transferable to the base model or any other Ford. If they had spent the time and money working on the rear suspension, the whole corp. would have benefited. When you have just mortgaged your entire infrastructure you do not have the time or money for vanity games.
I would guess that developing the supercharged engine was a walk in the park (and relatively cheap) based on groundwork laid by the GT program, the 03 SVT Cobra, and the Lightning/Harley Davidson F150s.