Aside from the early, dainty-looking Mustangs and their Shelby siblings, I never really "got" the whole 'Stang cult. During my formative years, the mucho macho models cruising the mean streets of Providence were bloated Pony Car parodies; great honking beasts with about as much cornering prowess as a breeze block. The late '70's and '80's Mustangs were small, slow and stupid looking. In the '90's, the design started to come right and SVO made the model into a defensible choice for power mad pistonheads. But I still couldn't understand why anyone would lionize a car whose heyday lay almost forty years in the past. And then the "new" Mustang arrived. Now that I get: a Disney-style re-imagining of an idealized Mustang pulled from our collective unconscious. But the interior! And what's with the solid rear axle? Still, the GT sounds nice, goes OK and looks great. According to Jonny Lieberman, the Shelby GT-H sounds better, goes faster and looks like it sounds and goes. Listen to him preach the gospel to a former Mustang atheist turned agnostic.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Picking an H over a blown 5.4L GT500 for it’s sound…c’mon Liebermann…it’s just a friggin cat back exhaust system, of which there are 20+ different tones available from all the usual vendors.
The GT500 needs headers and a pulley anyway to live up to its performance aspirations….which would help overcome both its weight and sound handicap.
Reminds me of journalists bitching about not wanting the otherwise excellent 6 speed Corvette because of an (easily defeatable) 1-4 skip shift algorithm.
I’m not much of a mustang fan either but I get the interior, it’s cheap and that keeps costs down which lands more sales, it’s basicaly the same story. Also that live rear axel doesn’t cause as much of a perfomance issue as one might think, the rest of the setup is actually prety well designed and most people who drive the new mustang would be hard pressed to say the lack of IRS is it’s most prominent downfall… that does usually fall to the cheap materials used in the interior but the fact remains, it’s there to keep costs down. You’ve got to cut costs from the cars because the unions won’t let you cut costs from them.
Boy DrV8, way to be selective.
In addition to sound, I mentioned that the GT looked better and handled better. And, frankly, felt just as fast up to 60mph.
Now, once you get the GT500 into third-gear, it turns into a freak. Just so much power — but it is fighting itself and who knows whatelse until then.
Again, 57% of the GT500’s weight is in the front.
I can’t believe that in the 21st century, anyone can call a solid rear axle car “Modern.” The fully independent rear suspension was invented what? Over fifty years ago?? Granted, engineering, materials science, etc has also progressed in the past 50 years and today’s “solid rear axle” is theoretically better than my grandfather’s solid rear axle but c’mon.
I’ve actually had the privilege of driving two iconic machines which in many respects are extremely similar, a 1954 Jaguar XK 120, and a 1965 Jaguar E-type (IIRC the original IRS-equipped mass production car)… both are powered by the legendary Jaguar XK engine, with very similar engine performance. However the 120 has a solid rear axle and when it comes to handling can best be described as “A High Perfomance Tractor”. The E-type on the other hand, is light years ahead in handling. A dream to drive… the same massive torque from the drivetrain, but it is able to transform that twist into something far more useful on the road. It corners like a dream. No agricultural allusions.
I realize the above is like talking about Le Mans to a NASCAR buff in the context of a Mustang, but it is my personal experience with regards to rear axle technology in a head-to-head comparison on relatively common platforms.
Could it be that the designers at Ford were trying to recreate that “stop light Grand Prix” muscle car feel? To hinder cornering peformance so as not to make a ‘sports car” but instead give it brick-like heaves as it lumbers through Deadman’s Curve?
Or did the Dearborn Bean Counters insist upon re-use of the axles out of Ford Ranger pickups?
Just wondering.
–chuck
All I can tell you is that Ford and Shelby did an excellent job with the GT-H and the (Shelby) GT.
Not so much with the GT500.
Also… one of these days I am going to convince Farago to record one of these podcasts AFTER 7:00 am my time so I don’t sound so drunk.
BTW, my earliest memory in life is from the backseat of a Mustang. I was born in October of 63. My father owned a dark blue 1964 1/2 Mustang. When I was ~2 years old, I remember standing on the driveshaft tunnel, holding onto the two front seats to maintain balance, as my parents pointed to our new suburban house under contruction. I can clearly see the memory in my mind’s eye, with framers putting up the house’s second storey and my Dad pointing to the place where my room was going to be and me thinking that it would be really cold in that place with no walls.
It wasn’t a Shelby ‘Stang of course. The car literally rusted away by 1968. My Dad replaced it with an MG B. No memories from that car’s back seat!
–chuck
Of course I’m selective…I doubt if anyone cares to hear me comment on each and every point you made.
The weight issue is real, and I understand your dislike for the handling of the GT500.
The observation that the GT500 “felt just as fast up to 60mph,” is really no surprise, given that it doesn’t have any significant traction advantage over the H or the base car. 0-60 is virtually meaningless in a 2WD car with over 400 HP….the benefit of the 500 HP is likely only seen in the second half of the quarter mile, where published numbers for the portly 500 are not much better than the ’03 4.6L Cobra.
To me, these are all fun straight line cars, but the GT500’s appeal lies in that it can be very quick in a straight line with drag radials and a twin screw blower swap. since it’s already got a built for boost 5.4. But as you mentioned, the already unacceptable (to me) nose heaviness of all the S197’s is only exacerbated by that heavy lump up front.
Just to go back to the intro paragraph for a moment… I’ve never been a Mustang guy, either.
But the GT-H and the Shelby GT…. those I get.
And those I want.
And before someone points out that I raved about the Regular GT — it was a convertible. It is very hard to hate on a 300hp convertible.
My motorcycle smells like a musclecar when it’s warming up. reminds me of the good old days before the EPA
I don’t understand why Ford would only sell this version of the Mustang to Hertz…
How does that make financial / marketing sense? Is it a long-term creating a classic idea? Is the ploy to make a consumer excited to buy a regular Mustang GT and mod it with Ford Racing Parts?
And what happened to SVT?
Sorry for all the questions, but both Ford and GM baffle me in their product-roll-out and marketing strategies.
Ford does sell the Shelby GT-H in the form of the Shelby GT. The only difference is the hood scoop. Plus, you can get the Shelby GT in a manual transmission… The H is auto only.
Antone: Pretty much what 1984 said.
The Shelby GT is mechanically identical to the Hertz car, with the choice of a manual, 18″ wheels and the ability to turn the anny off. Plus the hoods are different, as is the paint and the badging.
1984: & Jonny Lieberman:
Thanks for the correction. I though you were referring to the GT500.
So to sum the line-up: V6, GT, Shelby GT, Shelby GT-H, and the Shelby GT500.
Correct, there are other slight trim levels and variations such as the “California Special” and Saleen or Roush unfitted cars sold through the dealer with cosmetic only and some with superchargers. It’s confusing.
And, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
I heard mentions of a Shelby GT-R.
Think lighter with better brakes.
There’s also an extremely rare “Stampede” edition for folks (un)lucky enough to live in Texas or Oklahoma. Link here
FWIW, I’m not interested in the Shelby (GT) name, its fake scoops, goofy stripes and price premium when I can buy the performance packs JL mentioned and have my Ford dealer install them on a Mustang GT. You get the same car without the played-out muscle car cliches.
Even better for the gearhead, grab a copy of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine and buy the better functional goodies for less cash. I think there’s a vendor in the mag that even sells the badging for those so inclined to make a Shelby Hertz clone.
Sajeev — without the nipple rings, you have nothing.
LOL, you and your nipple rings! :-)
Dude, factory installed Nipple Rings?
Um… does it get any better?
Maybe a ’64 Thunderbolt is cooler… maybe.
I guess running a wire from the nipples to the battery would make a great anti-theft device. Other than that, its just a cool way to scratch up your paint. :-)
hey nipple rings are the tits!
and lol at the “stampede” edition. I though if you wanted to “texasize” your ride you would just add some big bull horns on the front.
“And what’s with the solid rear axle?”
Well… granted, for those who want a better handling car, those would prefer IRS. But the Mustang isn’t known as a well handling car(IRS or not). Too heavy being just one problem. Plus, the people who typically buy these cars tend to drag race them(all it’s good for).
When the 2003 Cobra came out with IRS, people were braking those axle shafts left and right. One guy even carried a spare in the trunk and the tools needed to change it on the spot!
Ford really should offer both the solid and the IRS so everyone can get what they want.
“When the 2003 Cobra came out with IRS, people were braking those axle shafts left and right”
Some how I fail to believe half shafts are something man has yet to conquer. There may even be a car in Fords recent past that had IRS parts they could salvage. Hmmmm… anyone… Bueller…
The problem is a disrespect for the customer and the marketplace. How is Ford going to expand their customer base by only serving their legacy customers? There are clearly enough variants of this car to allow for some degree of differentiation. Put IRS on one of these vehicle and let the weekend racers take it to the Corvetts at the auto-x and track and let the car gain some real respect in the process. Plus I’d be intersted in buying one…without IRS, strickly no go.
Ed: Drive the Shleby GT before you make that blanket statement.
Pretty sweet little ride. Just need new brakes.
Why doesn’t Ford just put 15″ rotors front and back like the Carrera GT has?
A Focus, a Mustang, an F350? 15″ rotors front and back and nothing less!
And no more of this rotor with a quasi drum brake in the core for the parking brake(Jeep Grand Cherokee). Just take a look at the rear calipers on an RSX for how to do the parking brake.
Ed, it would take a helluva lot more than adding IRS to make the Mustang competitive with Corvettes in the twisties. The Corvette is a clean sheet sports car design with a low cG and wide track, and favorable F/R weight distribution that the Mustang’s passenger sedan’s basic roots can never match.
I like it okay…until I see it parked next to the vintage GT500. The original is streamlined, hot and sexy… the new one looks like it’s retaining water.
Lesley — the photos don’t do it justice
Here’s one I took
http://www.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/09/gthfront2.jpg
Not a grat photo, but oh baby what a ride.
Sure, it’s a good looking car. For me though, it just doesn’t compare to the earlier fastbacks (pre-1969).
I was lucky-enough to work with a guy who owned a 1966 Shelby GT-350 in perfect condition. He would bring itin to work every month. It is freak’n beautiful! Red with white strips! He also had the pleasure of owning a Conv GT-500 at one point. The car (GT-350) auctioned at RM (at the Boca Raton Polo Club) for over 90K… with the nipple-rings.
I have owned two mustangs (’90 GT Conv and a ‘89 5.0 LX). Both were a ton of fun… both were a POS. I know, no real comparison to the current offerings but I thought I would share.
I wish someone would make a Japanese build-quality TVR-like (back to the basics philosophy) V8 boy-racer. I would buy it in a second!
End of rant….