[ffrcobra_65]

No worries. Someone will go back to the drawing board and try again. 7 years wasn't enough. You guys will see soon.

[LOWDOWN]

The "interesting" thing about Ford's '13 GT 500 'Ring exercise?

We ALL know they're there...OFFICIALLY!...and if NO TIMES ARE FORTHCOMING, what will THAT tell us?!

"Put up, or SHUT UP", comes to mind...

BTW, the ZL1 was announced in Chicago, winter '11, and was run at the 'Ring, along with the ZR1 and Z06/Z07 in September '11... I'll give you a nod the times would have been a bit slower with (4) Ice 'n Snows, mounted...

[eolson]

Actually it's not the drawing board in my opinion. The SVT team could have tried to vastly improve the monocoque problem with the fixed axel years before as they have in the Boss 302 LS with the X bar, and designed a very sturdy fixed roll center Watts Link which takes most all of the lateral travel out of the chassis(replacing the sliding to left panhard bar and brace set up).

This and variable rate shocks, real traction control and weight loss could have been part of the original GT500 if Ford would have really have a largely improved top model above the GT.

Ford is cheap, and had to be shamed into going all the way by GM. My basic mods to my 06' Mustang GT easily made my car faster, and much more nimble around corners than the original 2007 release.

Ford has still I'm sure not really solved the monocoque problem with a proper under and behind rear seat custom shaped bracing( like the Boss's X brace equivalent) so that the rear inner wheel doesn't lift on hard corners because of the fixed axel. Erik

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by eolson

Ford is cheap, and had to be shamed into going all the way by GM.

That may 'splain the puny 285s, out back...you know, the true limiting factor (along with its nose-heaviness) to its real-world abilities...

There's a thin, fine line between half-fast...and half-azzed...

[eolson]

Actually the only reason the ZL1 isn't as nose heavy or has a more even front to back weight ratio is because it has the heavy IRS in back which evens out the numbers, but adds to the total weight of 4120lbs.

The rear tires on the GT500 and the fronts still make it a candidate for great handling, if the other factors have been solved that I've been concerned about in my above post. Drag racers can always add really wide wheels and tires later IMO. Erik

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by eolson

Drag racers can always add really wide wheels and tires later IMO. Erik

..as can Camaro comrades...and diets are common, too.

But STOCK is "stock"...and 285s "supported" by only 46% are a decided hindrance... The brief clip in the "damp" at the 'Ring clearly indicates such...

[eolson]

If you're really trying to imply there is such a huge difference between high quality rubber at 285 as compared to 305 you could then calculate that the total difference in the width of rubber % wise is a good deal less than the % of weight between the two cars.

Therefore, with real and functional launch control and traction control combined with stiffer damper rates(performance mode) and springs, you can then take the best launch times of the current ZL1 and the 2012(last years model) GT500 for both 1/4 mile as well as back to back same american track times, and take the difference between the two, and know the 2013 GT500 will significantly improve on the 2012's numbers, even with it's same 285 rear width tires.

So what are the best stock listed track times for the ZL1 and the 2012 GT500?? Then we can add the plus signs from there for the 2013 GT500 improvements in dry, warm conditions as the ZL1 was tested in. Erik

[LOWDOWN]

The thing being overlooked, here, by many (not just you) is that you reach a definitive "point of diminishing return".

Adding 100 hp, say from 350 to 450, all other things considered "equal", can have a pretty dramatic effect on vehicle performance. 1/4-mile times for the BOSS, over previous GTs as per magazine "stock" times, improved markedly.

Add that same 100 hp to a BOSS and call it a GT 500...and the improvements are marginal.

Add 100 hp to the 550-horse GT 500...and I fully expect the results (electronics EXCLUDED) to be minimal...

Now introduce the latest electronic nannies, as Chev did with the ZL1, and you have incredible potential of 60' times some here refuse to believe actually happened on 305 GYs.

Now add 70 hp...with appreciably no extra rear weight bias...and narrow each tire by an INCH...and suddenly this vehicle will defy all the "logic" and "practicality" I've just outlined!!

Ford is good...very good, we'll say...but NO ONE is that good!

Sometimes 2+2 = 3.5...sometimes 2+2 = 5...but generally 2+2 = 4.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by eolson

Actually the only reason the ZL1 isn't as nose heavy or has a more even front to back weight ratio is because it has the heavy IRS in back which evens out the numbers, but adds to the total weight of 4120lbs.

Not true... there's more to it than just adding weight in the back. For one the engine was moved back in this model..

[07fx2]

Man I love the new 2013..

[07fx2]

Man, I might just buy a auto

[SSE 4 2SS]

Try to keep the conversations related to the car/s and knock off the personal attacks....

[eolson]

I would agree. If I had my way, Ford would have kept the engine of the new GT500 as the 2012 @ 550HP and put all the money spent on the engine tech gain instead entirely into R&D of better cooling, weight loss and better distribution, solving the monocoque issue and lateral movement of the panhard bar, and even more into the suspension variables, brakes and updated electronic performance aids. Not to mention actually commissioning a tire company like GM does to offer a specific size 315 in the rear and a 275 up front, much like the Corvettes get and the Viper, and many other perfect size option specific performance tires.

Than would have been glorious in my book. They could have even thrown in an eleven lb pulley for chuckles and gotten the car up to 585-90 HP. So we'll see how it performs, but I'm assuming there will be clear benefits from the fully modern launch control and real traction control and better track setting damping. Erik

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

The thing being overlooked, here, by many (not just you) is that you reach a definitive "point of diminishing return".

Adding 100 hp, say from 350 to 450, all other things considered "equal", can have a pretty dramatic effect on vehicle performance. 1/4-mile times for the BOSS, over previous GTs as per magazine "stock" times, improved markedly.

Add that same 100 hp to a BOSS and call it a GT 500...and the improvements are marginal.

Add 100 hp to the 550-horse GT 500...and I fully expect the results (electronics EXCLUDED) to be minimal...

Now introduce the latest electronic nannies, as Chev did with the ZL1, and you have incredible potential of 60' times some here refuse to believe actually happened on 305 GYs.

Now add 70 hp...with appreciably no extra rear weight bias...and narrow each tire by an INCH...and suddenly this vehicle will defy all the "logic" and "practicality" I've just outlined!!

Ford is good...very good, we'll say...but NO ONE is that good!

Sometimes 2+2 = 3.5...sometimes 2+2 = 5...but generally 2+2 = 4.

but the torque making it to the ground in the first gear of the '13 (maybe second and third) is less than how much torque made it to the ground in the previous GT500 models. It is not like they are just adding power.

imo that makes your entire logic path, while generally true, inapplicable to the situation.

and 2+2 never equals anything other than 4. there is always something that isn't being factored in that may make it seem like 2+2 = 3.5. all "magic" has an explanation.