GT 500 problem

[K.A.R.R. (09)]

If any of you are going to use a GT500 to make a replica from, this video shows a bad problem with the 500. it has a suspension that can cause the car to wobble and swerve in turns : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os&feature=fvhl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Solid Snake]

Take that with a pinch (bucket load) of salt. Top Gear UK is very quick on bashing American made cars. The suspension in a Mustang is a tested and tried principle of a solid rear axle, perfect for the American roads and the cruising style of driving. Top Gear being a European TV show is used to cars with high tech state of the art independent suspensions (preferably with toys like self levelling). The Mustang however proves that these newer more advances toys are not always better. Independent rear suspension is much heavier than a solid axle set-up, plus it offers less stability in a straight line... Additionally the Mustang is winning the Grand Am Koni series back to back beating BMW M3's, Z4M's and Porsche 997 GT3's all of which more expensive and more sophisticated cars. And... to disprove the naysayers in Europe it is also winning the European GT4 championship.

It is all a matter of perception, however, I do agree that the KR suspension pack (race sourced but still with the solid axle) is much better than the stock GT500 setup, that is why the all new '10 Mustang has this KR pack as standard on the new GT500.

And not to be mean or anything, but the title of this thread is misleading.

[sarfraz]

To be fair to Top Gear, they were very positive about the Roush Mustang. Most if not all the UK reviews I've read about the GT500 have been negative about the cars handling. You don't have to be a pro to see how much the car wallows in the corners. Its fine for the US highways but it will never be quite as agile as a car designed for the European twisty bits. The Roush cars tend to favour better in Europe. I think ones called the 420RE, specifically setup for European roads. Still live axle but uprated springs, dampers and anti roll bars. So of course, it handles the corners!

EDIT: found a review from a pistonheads of the 420RE:
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=12670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've driven a current generation GT Mustang (similar suspension setup to the GT500?) and can understand why it works for the US roads. However, its not a great handling car straight out of the box. Ironically, racing suspension setups tend to be on the more rigid side, which would level out the playing field on axle configuration. The advanced dampers though would help greatly.

Generally speaking if your good enough at setting up a car, you can make anything work (within reason!).

Sarfraz

[Solid Snake]

For the record, the 2010 Mustang is a great improvement over the 2005-2009 models. It in essence is the same car, just with some tweaks underneath its skin which make the car much better than the previous model. Reviewers are liking it very much, even the British Top Gear magazine (to keep it sort of on the topic of Top Gear) likes it and many prefer it over the Camaro as a whole package.

[Tom]

Yeah I also read that review, Snake.

and to be honest, if you buy an American car you do it because you love them, not because they are sophisticated.

[Solid Snake]

I think that statement only applies to some American brands. Ford right now is not one of them, yes you can love and buy them... which I do... but in the case of Ford they are also actually building good, well engineered, well designed, desirable cars, both in the US and Europe. Look at the new Taurus, the new Fusion and soon the Fiesta. Not to mention the Mustang which is a favourite of car critics now... In Europe they have the Mondeo, Focus (European spec) and Fiesta, all of those are praised by car critics and Ford since 1993 in Europe is considered the absolute best in terms of handling and chassis engineering.

However yes, I agree that actually good American cars (with in my honest opinion including the sophistication) have only started to come around in the later half of the '00's (Ford being the prime example).
Though some other brands (who shall remain nameless) still make HORRIBLE quality cars that put the "made in the USA" brand to shame.

[Tom]

Yeah, the Ford cars sold in Europe are manufactured in Germany, and they are well engineered and everything but imo they don't look good. I find none of them interesting. I'm a muscle car kinda guy

[tamatt27]

Though some other brands (who shall remain nameless) still make HORRIBLE quality cars that put the "made in the USA" brand to shame.

Toyota tries to portray a 'Made in the USA' image on the public that most people buy into.

[Solid Snake]

Tom: Of course that is your own opinion, some people like normal cars, some don't. As for manufacturing I need to correct you. Ford's European line of cars are built and engineered in a multitude of countries, including; England, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Russia.


As for Tamatt's comment, to be perfectly fair... Ford is the only company currently that is capable to break the barrier of the bad rep that vehicles "made in the USA" have gotten during the '90's. Toyota might have made them look even worse than they actually were... but let us be honest, the cars coming from the US were not exactly textbook examples of great cars during much of the '90's and early '00's. There is however one thing the Asian cars will never be able to beat and that is style and character... European and American cars ALWAYS had more style and character, not matter about their actual quality (or at times lack thereof).

The irony of the story is that most Japanese and Korean car manufacturers started of their factories either by support from Ford or GM, or by imitating and copying products, much like some Chinese companies are doing now.

[Tom]

Ford's European line of cars are built and engineered in a multitude of countries, including; England, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Russia.

That is probably correct

[tamatt27]

As for Tamatt's comment, to be perfectly fair... Ford is the only company currently that is capable to break the barrier of the bad rep that vehicles "made in the USA" have gotten during the '90's. Toyota might have made them look even worse than they actually were... but let us be honest, the cars coming from the US were not exactly textbook examples of great cars during much of the '90's and early '00's. There is however one thing the Asian cars will never be able to beat and that is style and character... European and American cars ALWAYS had more style and character, not matter about their actual quality (or at times lack thereof).

Oh I agree that the majority of the Big 3's products in the 90's weren't anywhere near where they could've been. Ford and GM cars are among the top ranking in terms of quality and reliability now. What gets me is that the typical American will laugh at the thought of buying an 'American' car because of the perceived bad quality, while the Japanese get a free pass to, not only take advantage of US tax breaks but pretty much lock out their home market to foreign competition. Japan has routinely used currency manipulation to aid in the success of their manufacturing base. While I don't fault Japan for actually CARING about their manufacturing base while the US seems to want to outsource everything, I don't think it's fair for them to whine about the playing field being unlevel when it's in their favor to begin with.

[Solid Snake]

Totally agree with that Tamatt! However don't worry, good ol' made in the USA is striking back bigtime (most evident in Fords incredible product lead turnaround).

[tamatt27]

Totally agree with that Tamatt! However don't worry, good ol' made in the USA is striking back bigtime (most evident in Fords incredible product lead turnaround).

Yup! Luckily, Bob Lutz is staying with GM instead of retiring, so GM will continue their product assault as well.

[K.A.R.R. (09)]

I only wanted to point out a potential safety issue for replica builders. I still don't like the fact the earlier GT 500s do this if you're a person who wants screen accuracy and wants to modify a GT 500 to look like a KR.

[Pierre]

if you want accuracy you'll take a GT not a GT500 ,the instruments cluster of KITT is the same as the GT's as well as the Auto trans , the 500 came only with manual trans ^^

[Tom]

You want a manual trans on a car with 500 hp

[knightendo77]

'Top Gear' went further than this small clip shows.

The GT500 has horrible, horrible suspension. For a car that's supposed to have so much power they really shot themselves in the foot by making it so uncontrollable when going at such high speeds. However, 'Top Gear' did quite clearly state on the show that the GT500KR had better suspension, the suspension the GT500 should've had from the word go, and had all the power but with actual control!

Also, the 500 horse power was proven to be an over-estimation once the actual weight of the car and the suspension etc were taken into account for the GT500.

Also, if replica owners want to go the extra mile they'll have to dig further into their wallets as the KR producers (at least of the vastly superior pilot) added a lot of horse power to the engine and altered the suspension etc etc.

[Solid Snake]

Top Gear indeed tested the regular GT500. And as clearly stated the KR is a totally different beast... much more than the two extra letters imply... the KR forms the base of the current 2010 track package and GT500 Mustangs (in terms of suspension). The regular GT500 was 40.000 dollars cheaper for a reason... because it lacked the refinement and capabilities of the KR.

As for horse power, the GT500KR is officially certified as a 540 hp car... which in actuality is wrong... the car is underrated, it actually produces more power directly measured from the engine...589 hp. Ford has a history with billing cars as less powerful than they really are... the new 2010 GT500 is similarly underrated that actually produces approximately 560 hp directly from its engine (according to dyno tests).

For the pilot however (and the series for the most part) the cars on screen are NOT GT500KR's, they are just re bodied GT's. Why? Simple, during the shooting of the pilot there was only one KR in the world, and that was a prototype in silver and blue colours... the crew could obviously not get that car and as the car was not being produced yet they got the body mouldings of the KR and used those to create a body-kit to make the cars look like KR's. During the series however a different reason was used, cost... a KR costed anywhere upwards of 80.000 dollars, hence it makes more sense to play dress up... especially for stunts (a feat done on the original series too by the way).
Recent reviews of the KR and the 2010 Mustang clearly state that new Mustang is an excellent cornering car that actually does extremely well on a race track... better than the new Camaro.

Fact is the new Mustangs are the best of the stable, it is the best all-round pony car you can buy ... and are damn good cars in general... come next year the Mustang is about to get smaller and more fuel efficient engines too that will actually have similar power but much less fuel usage (3.5 litre EcoBoost engine and the new 5.0 "Coyote" V8).

[Tom]

Recent reviews of the KR and the 2010 Mustang clearly state that new Mustang is an excellent cornering car that actually does extremely well on a race track... better than the new Camaro.

Fact is the new Mustangs are the best of the stable, it is the best all-round pony car you can buy ... and are damn good cars in general...

damn straight

[Harry Singh Jr.]

I'm the proud owner of an 07 GT500. I also have access to Pocono Speedway where I've tested the car. I had no Problems at 160 mph. Car handle pretty well. It's basically a drivers car. You get that feel under you what the car is doing. My previous car was a Cadillac XLR, which is built off the Corvette Platform. The electronic suspension had me feeling funny in the corners, hard to feel what car is doing at times. But in the rain it handled well at 125 mph.

[Harry Singh Jr.]

[knightendo77]

I know the GT500 was used in the pilot, (and the Knight Rider stunt crews and production crews also increased the horse power beyond even what the GT500KR can do) I was just clearing up some things because 'Top Gear' was being misrepresented, and I work for the BBC.

In addition, I find it strange that you say Ford understate how powerful their cars are, as TG found the GT500 to be nowhere near the amount of power Ford had said it had.

[Solid Snake]

Top Gear said that about the 2007 GT500 and not the 2008 KR which I used in my previous post. Additionally Top Gear stated the power that comes through the wheels, not directly out of the engine... measuring through the wheels gives a power rating that is 15-20% lower than it would be when measured directly out of the engine. Again there is a reason that the KR is 40k dollars more expensive, because it is a better car than the regular GT500... However, in 2010 you can get all those advantages in an excellent (heck even improved car) for 40k dollars less, and that is the 2010 GT500, which uses all the good bits from the KR (minus the hood... but give Shelby a call, they have a KR hood for you for the 2010 Mustang).

And it was a regular GT, not a GT500 used in the pilot... the GT played dress up and made look like a GT500KR.

[knightendo77]

I did clearly state that they were trying out the GT500 and not the GT500KR, my point was that Ford stated its horsepower but this was a gross over-estimate. 'Top Gear''s equipment is professional, hired for this particualr purpose and measures accurately the horse power, taking into account the method used to measure it.

[Solid Snake]

I am not disputing you and your belief in the equipment used for Top Gear, but like I said Top Gear used a rolling road to test the horse power at the wheels, not the horse power actually coming out of the engine. If you take 500 hp coming out of the engine and say 15% is lost through the wheels and suspension and gearbox, the power at the wheels is about 375 horse power, which was the approximate figure used in the show... this is the case for any car, the manufacturers always bill the power output out of the engine... not the wheels, thus testing the wheel output gives an inaccurate depiction of horsepower.