dtorre

if 44k is the msrp then expect to be paying well into the 50K's for this car....I remember when the new style of the mustang caused dealerships to charge atleast 10K in some cases over the msrp...

a premium GT coupe was like 26K msrp....... but the cheapest base model I could find was like 31 K .....not to mention all the cars with even the slightest packages costing 2-6k more than that...

my friend rushed out to one of the first to have the car and paid 43K with pretty much all features out the door ((convertible msrp 30K))...

43k for a Conv. GT Stang .....now imagine the GT500...

dtorre

Oh by the way there will be a convertible GT500 and its going to weigh 125 pounds more.....and im sure the price will be rediculous

BunnyGirl

Well, if you do like I am doing on my RX-8, go through Costco and it is a locked in price of a certain amount over invoice. In my case it is $400 over invoice on MRSP over $36K. They can't add on all that mark-up that way. Of course, they may try to tell you they don't have any available or whatever because they want all that extra money.

rx8wannahave

Before I got my 8 I test drove the new Mustang and they wouldn't give me S-Plan pricing (like Bascho said) but on top of that, yes...they wanted alot more for the GT. BUT, the most insulting part of it all...was when the guy tried to convince me to get a V6 Mustang....

I felt insulted...

UFGator12

I could not agree more...

MikeW

More overweight american garbage.
3920 lbs, Wow. and better is the 57/43 weight distribution. And I thought the regular GT was crap at 3500 lbs and 54/46.
5w-50 oil, and ford want their engines to use 5w-20 for better mileage.

rx8wannahave

I won't say crap, but FAT...yes, I agree 100%!

Bascho....why oh why is the Mustang getting fatter and fatter, heck look at the concept from Dodge that sucker comes in over 4K.

Is platform sharing the problem? I just truly feel sports cars should be relatively light, if I was building sports cars none of them would go over 3,200 pounds. Again, I don't mind paying another 1K if you are going to cut 500 pounds off the car.

snizzle

Can you make a 2+2 with a 5.4L V8 & all the rear end work to lay down that kind of power weight much less than mid 3.5s? It took carbon fiber and other techniques to get the Z06 down to low 3s.

snizzle

Isn't that a little harsh?

The car will be tuned by SVT and with Shelby in the name it can't be a slouch on the performance end (handling AND raw power).

I doubt buyers of the GT500 are that concerned about gas mileage with 475 under the hood.

bascho

It's hard to offer all the content that people want, such as 4 airbags, 1000 watt stereos, heated seats, pretensioned seatbelts, body dampening to keep road noise down.......and a huge 5.4 S/C engine and not get in the 3800-4000 lbs range. It's easy to shed weight on these cars by removing many of the items mentioned above......but most buyers want/need those things. I'm not sure of any 4-seater cars with a V8 engine producing 475hp, with comparable convenience equipment that tips the scales at less than 3700lbs.

bascho

Usually the only people concerned with 50/50 weight distribution are autoXers and those people can easily shift weight with aftermarket parts. They make carbon fiber fenders, and hood which would remove at least 100lbs.....then you can relocate the battery to the trunk, another 40lbs.

I am not a weight reduction expert......but I've seen quite a few Mustangs doing autoX and winning.......so SOMETHING must be right about this car.

MikeW

No not really.
5w-50 should not be necessary in a properly designed engine, this supercharger on a regular engine is just a hack.
You can't drive a mustang at night with its terrible headlights. H13s come on. H13s are a dead end, H4 would be a better choice Ford.
Fog lights belong low to the ground so they can light up the road not the fog (this applies to the regular mustang)
The regular mustang has an H coupling in the exhaust when it should be x-shaped because crossplane crank V8s are odd firing on their exhaust banks L R L L R L R R.
and this cost what? double the SRT-ized dodge caliber with 300hp.
and look in the trunk, fix-a-flat.

PoorCollegeKid

Many engines subjected to the kinds of stresses found in an engine of the kind that's in the Mustang and Ford GT need a good, thick oil when running at high loads to ensure durability. Ford recommends a heavy oil rather than recommend a cheaper and potentially less protective brew because of this. I'm not really sure why you take exception to a performance oriented engine requiring performance oriented oils; that would be like buying a sports car and complaining that the manufacturer recommends summer performance tires to optimize your driving experience rather than going with a good set of all-seasons like most other cars do.

What does the odd firing pattern have anything to do with the differences between an H- and X-pipe? Both designes attempt to equalize the pressure in the two sides of the exhaust and try to take advantage of using the exhaust pulses from one bank to help scavange from the other. If they did not use a crossover, then your explanation would have explained why they should have used one, but they already use an H-pipe.

Like you, I'm not entirely sure why they went with an H-pipe instead of an X-pipe. The X-pipe would seem to flow better than an H-pipe would, but in the real world differences are fairly minimal for similarly sized pipes (clicky and scroll down for a comparison of the stock H-pipe with an X-pipe, where the X-pipe shows a ~1% (2-3 hp) gain in power throughout the powerband). As you can see, the difference is fairly minimal, and the lesser cost of a simpler H-pipe was probably the main reason why they went with that design.

MikeW

The point being the regular mustang is overpriced crap at 30K, so at least ford is attempting to rectify the situation. But the cost of the supercharger and other incremental cost should make this a $35K car.
I would expect the engine, even with upgraded bearings to use Xw-40 oil.
The SLR mclaren uses 5w-50 oil, but has a lysholm supercharger like the ford GT.

Shoafb

Try 25k for the base GT, around 27800 for a loaded GT with Leather. Hardly overpriced crap or they wouldn't be selling so well. Try driving one.

rx8wannahave

Yeah, I've test driven the new Mustang...outright crap, it aint. Could it be better...sure, but it's not crap.

Guys...Ford should be able to do better than 3800, I know maybe not low 3's but certainly not near 4K pounds.

Last I heard the Rotary aint that light really (Chevy V8 is not that much heavier) and it has alot of options, usable rear seats, and comes in a little less than 3k or just over it. I know the Mustang can't match that...but gosh, it shouldn't be 700 pounds heavier either.

If they used more Aluminum and got a bit more creative they could have done better.

BUT, Bascho knows more about this than I do. Oh well...

Japan8

This supercharger and the cast iron block engine were cost cutting... but I think Ford dropped the ball anyway. The aluminum block used in the Ford GT is lighter... which this car needs. Just drop the dry sump system to reduce costs. The heads are the same. The supercharger... they should have stuck with the twin screw they were running on the Ford GT or added an intercooler if they were going to switch to a crappy roots blower.

Headlights... in this day and age you are selling a nearly $30k car without offering Xenon headlights?! Ford dropped the ball here... no question. The "driving lights"... I've said it before... I don't care which classic Mustang had it... I don't like it. The GT500 front end is MUCH better.

H pipe? Wah wah. Buy a widely available low-priced X-pipe. While you're at it pickup some hi-flow cats and a cat back (since the stock system is so quiet). Common mod on ALL V8 Mustangs...

bascho

The cast iron block was definitely about cost cutting.....big time! If Ford used the aluminum block they would have to ask $50K for this car. The supercharger used on the GT could not be produced in high enough volume to meet GT production and GT500 production......that is why they couldn't use it. The headlights are a matter of replacement cost evaluation. Ford is trying to make repairs on the new Mustang less expensive in a push to reduce insurance premiums. The insurance companys use repair costs of in a rolling 4 model year period when estimating premiums for every car. The repair costs of the SN95 were extremely high and therefore cause insurance rates to be high. The S197 Mustang will not see lower premiums until 2008. HID lighting is very expensive to service.....in the event of front collision, the headlamps alone can run the bill up several thousand dollars. Standard halogen lamps bring the repair cost in the low hundreds. While I love HID ligting systems......I would rather have lower insurance.

snizzle

Can you explain the numbering you used?? Not all of us work @Ford and/or love Mustangs

SN95 = older gen?
S197 = new gen?

The sweet blue glow of HIDs are nice.... and i've got them on the 8 but I agree that lower rates win out.

rx8wannahave

Ah come on Bascho...that sounds crazy. So, an aluminum engine would raise the price by 10K? I can't disagree with you about the HID...I'd also rather have lower insurance, but I still think you guys could have done better with the weight of the car.

Regardless, it's a hell of a bang for your buck sports car.

bascho

Anytime you replace a very cheap cast iron part or steel part with a more expensive aluminum or titanium one, total vehicle cost increases exponentially. I definitely think Ford could have brought the weight of the vehicle down to 3400-3500lbs without eliminating creature comforts....but the base price of the car would be more than $50K. The goal of the GT500 project was to be able to offer the best Mustang ever and not raise the base price from the last SVT Cobra Mustang. That was a major undertaking.....believe me.

snizzle

C5 Z06 is 7.7lbs/hp, C6 Z06 is 6.2lbs/hp and the GT500 is 8.2lbs/hp.

The Mustang is significantly cheaper (or will be after dealer markup, etc slows down) so i'd say the weight thing isn't a huge deal. I'd venture a guess that all of you bashing the GT500 would be the same people grinning from ear to ear behind the wheel.

bascho

Sorry about the internal vehicle line coding.....but you guessed right. The SN95 represent the Mustang from 1994-2004. S197 is 2005-??.

I love my HID also.....at least until it comes time to replace one of the components. I really hope they fail while I'm under warranty.

bascho

It's not all about material costs.....it's about production costs. The plant casting the blocks has to recover the costs of tooling, labor, etc. The more blocks they can make and sell, the lower the piece price per block. The cast iron 5.4 is produced in very large quantities for all Ford trucks and vans......hence the price per block is very low compared to the very low volume aluminum 5.4.

snizzle

You mean like the Renesis? hehe