I havent seen a GT500 run as yet, but is it fast as Ford claims it to be?
It's fast, a mid 12 second car with a good driver, 13 flat for an average diver (about the same 1/4 mile performance as a base C6) and ppl are still bitchin about the Shelby.
_____________________________
2006 Corvette coupe/Corsa sport exhaust w/ mid-pipe 1999 Mustang GT/stock
Posts: 1045
Joined: 6/27/2006 From: Marietta, ga Status: offline
to me ford is just digging their own grave and have been doing so for a long time. its rediculous that they have to run to shelby for help. they needed to make a badass car that middle class people can afford and they'd start making money. they should of never quit the 5.0, they should of just made a v6 3.8L(?) and a v8 5.0L. thats just IMO. i've been hearing a lot about these new ford trucks having too many problems, my bro works for pike electric and most of the guys are buying chevys now cause of fords bad trucks. back to mustangs, i thought when the shelby came out it was cool and all. but for the price you could build a car and stuff with more than 500 hp and be street legal, get it tuned and stuff. thats even using quality parts. i guess what i am saying is that i don't particulary care for the shelby but each chooses their own. also its pitiful and embarrassing ford had to run to shelby for help, they should of used their brains and done something their selves. i'll probably get flammed for most of this but what the hell, its just my opinion so don't take it to heart you shelby lovers.
_____________________________
1992 Lx Hatch, auto stock RIP 07/29/07 1987 gt hatchback, 5 spd. stock local club for southeast folks! check it out! http://www.musclecar-evolution.com
The Corvette and the Caddy XLR are the same platform.........and the the GTO has the same powerplant...........so that disspells your statment of GM not utilizing Corvette parts in other vehicles.
hey C6 VETTE... why'd you quote me, then make some point about something I never brought up???
I dont know if you meant to talk to someone else or misunderstood me (though im not sure how)
i never said that GM wasnt 'sharing' or 'adapting' parts to several other cars and platforms...
_____________________________
Hopefully running by the weekend. Gonna run her good too!
The Corvette and the Caddy XLR are the same platform.........and the the GTO has the same powerplant...........so that disspells your statment of GM not utilizing Corvette parts in other vehicles.
hey C6 VETTE... why'd you quote me, then make some point about something I never brought up???
I dont know if you meant to talk to someone else or misunderstood me (though im not sure how)
i never said that GM wasnt 'sharing' or 'adapting' parts to several other cars and platforms...
Forgot to type "+1" meaning I was in agreement with your thoughts and wanted to add a few of my own....Sorry dude!!!
_____________________________
2006 Corvette coupe/Corsa sport exhaust w/ mid-pipe 1999 Mustang GT/stock
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12516
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 72MachOne99GT
back to the losing money on teh corvette...
what'd 2000 say, something like 3500 on EACH corvette??
you siad that was TOTAL loss , divided by total number of cars sold righ?? so this is hypethetical, correct me if i interpreted wrong on teh ALL cars lost, so they divided part..
anyways, ****... forgot my points.. anyone else ever do that...
okay, anywyas,, lets pretned that GM actually loses money on a corvette, i think someone said 3500 dollars ish??
my reasonong, though simple and maybe incorrect is this: if GM lost 3500 dollars on it,, they would raise the sticker price on EVER corvette on teh showroom by 3500 dollars,... and i will not believe for one second that a BRAND NEW corvette buyer would not pay that extra 3500+tax.. no way, if youre dropping 50K on that car, 3500 is nothing for you...
how many middle class family guys go out and buy a showroom new C6.... maybe 3????and they probalby wont be family men for long either...
find me some literate 2000 im waiting
GM didn't loose 3500 bucks on every vette. They lost 3500 bucks on EVERY CAR they sold last year.
They can't make money selling impalas and 45K plus pickup trucks, you think they made money on the vette??
I cannot find anything that I can just pull off the internet and post it here. After a honest hour long search there is nothing to point out either way other than the website I posted in the other thread, and thats far from concrete.
Like I said, we got quarterly reports on all of the big manufactueres at my old job, and one of the examples of bad manfucaturing principles at one of the reports was the vette. I have absolulty no proof of this, so take it as you will...
But, from a manufacturing pov, its nearly impossible. This is why the viper (probably still hard to make money on) and the GT are so expensive. The GT at least, had to make money.
It is not exaclty suprising that the vette looses money, or that a company would sell a product at a loss. Like the guy from the link said, its a flagship, and it creates brand loyalty, so it makes money "indirectly". But people were all wondering why the vette is such a great bang for your buck deal, and there it is. ...
as for YOU 2000... i can see how it would make sense for a company to lose money in general, but i still find it difficult to believe that a company loses money on every vehicle it sells..
they might be doing bad, not as bad as ford, but still bad
and if they were losing money on every car, then they would have stopped production, layed off employees,
thusly by NOT LOSING money, they'd be 'making money' in comparison to what they were doing
if that makes any sense.. as for corvette still being bang for buck and not a profit vehicle.. if that were the case, i still believe that GM would raise the price enough to make up the difference,, the corvette is a car that is going to sell every single one of them for MSRP regardless of the price..
just like ANY special, nostalgic, or limited production car (ie: the GT500).. even if it were a craptastic car, it'd still sell every one of them
_____________________________
Hopefully running by the weekend. Gonna run her good too!
You don't lose over $3 billion dollars in one quarter by making money on the cars you sell.
quote:
General Motors reported a net loss of $3.18 billion for the second quarter even though revenue rose by 12% to $54.4 billion, up from $48.47 billion. This compares to a loss of $987 million in the year-earlier period.
However, if costs related to GM's ongoing restructuring — including a $3.7 billion after-tax charge related to buyouts and early retirements — are subtracted the company would have posted an adjusted profit of $1.2 billion.
Still, GM isn't profiting from making cars for its home market. In North America, excluding special items, GM lost $85 million, a $1.1 billion improvement over the second quarter of 2005. GM's vehicle sales are down about 12% in 2006 through the end of June compared with a year ago.
< Message edited by BicketyBam -- 9/9/2006 11:49:01 PM >
Even though she is a bit porky, there ain't nothing wrong with the GT500. Besides, Evan Smith ran one to a 12.23@118, so don't go blaming the car for other people not being able to drive. You could say the same thing about the Terminator when it first came out; considerably heavier than the GT or Mach and most people were having trouble running low 13s with it. Besides, that motor in it has plenty of potential. When an eventual KB set-up comes out, probably making 650rwhp with supporting mods, then you'll be glad the car weights five gazillion pounds, at least you'll get traction. Besides, there is always weight reduction...
I agree. The gt500 is a heavy bastard, but its a sound/tight car. No one would be doggin it if it weighed 3400 lbs or so. Its heavy, thus its slower than it should be...a low 12 player for a good driver, mid 12 with an avg driver. Ford should have figured a way to reduce weight...less back seat, carbon fiber hood, fenders, trunk lid, run flat tires/no spare or jack, or whatever...its a well built pig IMHO.
_____________________________
03 Mach 1, auto, wht/blk, 4:10's, bassani off rd-x/borla c-back, c&l intake, 1" shaker ext., ported/polished manifold, steeda sport springs/agx's, 18x9/10 blk FR 500's with 255-40(Michelin PS's)/285-35 nitto DR's, BC auto 3600 stall/t-cooler...SCT tuned.
If I remember Even Smith said it was hard to launch because 1st gear is kinda tall and it has 3.31 gears.A swap to 4.10s and some D.Rs would probably get one well into the 11s.On the other hand,while a 12.23 isn't half bad,I think he got a 12.47 out of a '03,closer than it should be IMO.
I am kind of happy that the GT500 is getting bad press and a negative public reaction. I hope the dealers have a hard time getting rid of them. It will make it that much easier to get one for sticker or less.
Even though she is a bit porky, there ain't nothing wrong with the GT500. Besides, Evan Smith ran one to a 12.23@118, so don't go blaming the car for other people not being able to drive. You could say the same thing about the Terminator when it first came out; considerably heavier than the GT or Mach and most people were having trouble running low 13s with it. Besides, that motor in it has plenty of potential. When an eventual KB set-up comes out, probably making 650rwhp with supporting mods, then you'll be glad the car weights five gazillion pounds, at least you'll get traction. Besides, there is always weight reduction...
I agree. The gt500 is a heavy bastard, but its a sound/tight car. No one would be doggin it if it weighed 3400 lbs or so. Its heavy, thus its slower than it should be...a low 12 player for a good driver, mid 12 with an avg driver. Ford should have figured a way to reduce weight...less back seat, carbon fiber hood, fenders, trunk lid, run flat tires/no spare or jack, or whatever...its a well built pig IMHO.
In reality this car is a low 12's car with a PROFESSIONAL driver, mid 12's with a GOOD driver. There are very few ppl who will get this car running low 12's bone stock. Ranger got a bone stock C6 to run 12.2 as well and I have yet to see anyone else run that. Evan Smith and Ranger are a rare breed getting cars to run #'s that most GOOD drivers can't touch.
_____________________________
2006 Corvette coupe/Corsa sport exhaust w/ mid-pipe 1999 Mustang GT/stock
My thoughts are as follows. I have an 06 stick GT with some basic mods for reference that puts about 300 to the tires.
There is nothing wrong with the GT500 per say. What is wrong is the pricing. To call it a 45K dollar car is innacurate IMO. I was thinking of ordering one a few months ago when I got my GT. I found order locations at a few dealers on cars coming in about now. All were 15-20K above sticker in northern NJ.
For 45K, it would have been something different for ford to offer. It should have been made in VOLUME, priced at 45K with no markup allowed. They would be selling them like hotcakes and making good money on each one. And yes, I probably would have one.
My main problems with the car are as follows though. Keep in mind, my comments are compared to the current mustang GT and also cars based at similar 60K dollar prices.
- Weight, weight, weight. It is too darn heavy. At the very least, it should have an aluminum motor. At 4000 lbs, it is 500lbs heavier than a friends GT that was weighed at the track with spare and jack and 4 gallons fuel. And to top it off, it is all in the nose, and the car doesent even have a spare or a jack. the weight distribution is terrible. Worse in fact than the original gt500 from what I have read. That is a joke for a serious sports car effort. Look at any serious upscale sportscar. ZO6, etc. You dont make a better version of a car by adding 500lbs in the process.
-Looks. Exterior doesent quite do it for me. It is not bad, but aerodynamicly, the drag coeficient is modestly worse on the GT500 than the normal GT. I like the standard GT nose better for some reason. Also, the interior looks plain, dont like the black rockers. Ford took away alot of what I like about my GT. Foglights in grill, aluminum dash, aluminum steering wheel, vintage gauges, interior colors other than black or red/black, etc, etc.
-Engine. IMO, the GT500 should not be a supercharged car. The original wasent. The mustang GT at least has a nice light block package that makes good power for what it is. But when you start with a heavy iron block, which more than cancels out the benifit of the increase to 5.4. Then throw in a heavy blower and associated hardware, what did they expect this thing to weigh??? So we have added 500lbs, 150 HP or so compared to a mildly modded 06 gt, and straddled it with 3.31 gears.
Engine should have been a 400+ ci, overhead cam, all aluminum, 500hp motor that weighed hardly any more than the 4.6. And the only reason I say overhead cam is because that is what ford likes, I prefer pushrod motors. Should have kept the 3.55 gears. The 6 speed is a good idea but I dont know what it weighs. Brakes seem to be nice.
An aquaintance drove one that belonged to a friend of his, he owns a 05 GT. His thoughts were that it was quick, but as far as which car feels more nimble and tossable and fun to drive normally, the mustang GT wins hands down. He also said that the normal GT has a nicer sounding exhaust by far in his opinion.
Because of all this, ford missed the performance mark IMO for a 60k dollar car. For a 45K dollar car with no markup and made in volume, it is not bad. And would sway some vette buyers to ford. But at the current pricing, I dont see it. Other than modifying the suspesion for the extra 500lbs, I havent even really heard that it is drasticly different from the normal GT. I think they changed the steering feel, but that might be the tires. It doesent even handle all that much better from what I have read.
Looking at a normal mustang gt. Throw on a whipple blower, gt 500 brakes, some nicer tires, maybe a rear sway bar to eliminate some push, and probably a clutch, and you have a car that will run with a stock GT500 in a straight line for less than 8500K dollars in parts.
The mustang GT is definatly the drivers car for a roadcourse. The GT500 could have been built to be 80% of what a ZO6 is. I dont think it is even 50%.
Printable Version
RE: GT500 -ford's big mistake? - 
