[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

My prediction for the GT500 is 10:70s @ 133-mph reviewed.

Ok. Great!

I'm thinking about the rising cost as these cars have advance.

Hellcat/ZL1 => Hellcat wide-body => Redeye wide-body/GT500.

$65k is a lot for a car. Moving to $80 or $90k (Redeye)

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by newmoon

My prediction for the GT500 is 10:70s @ 133-mph reviewed.

All really depends on what the actual HP numbers turn out to be... remember, this could easily be a 720 hp GT 500...which wont sniff 10.70 at all..

Or it could be a 790 hp....which 10.70 is completely possible..

The ZR1 does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and does the 1/4 in 10.6 @ 134-135...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Shaffe, we've been over this plenty times. It isn't one area where the GT350 fails. It fails everywhere against cars that have less power, cost less, and are lower tier. The GT beats it in the quarter mile. The SLE can beat it around a track. The PP2 had to be handicapped so it wouldn't beat the GT350. The GT350R loses to the ZL1 everywhere. In each case these are cars that are either cheaper or have less HP. What is cheaper than a ZL1 or has less HP that can beat it at anything? The only car that can beat the ZLE and that is cheaper is the ZL1 and they have the same powerplant. The Hellcat was slower than the Viper stock for stock while the Viper was in production. And even then the HC had more HP and TQ. Even if the HC managed to pull off a win it wasn't even close around a track. And comparing different trims of the Viper, still they have the same powerplant. The GT350 is the only car that cannot beat any of it's competitors that are similarly priced at anything except for a HC around a track. And it is the only one that consistently loses to cars with less HP or that are cheaper or in some cases both cheaper and with less HP in every performance category. Nobody in their right mind can look at this info and still conclude that the GT350 is not a failure. Even the R since it can only beat the HC around a track. It loses in every other category to every other car in it's price range. I mean, maybe it can squeak out a win against a 3LT Stingray since it would technically be cheaper. But that's a bit silly. The Shelby is the only car that manages to lose against cars that have less HP and cost less.

Fair enough

This all goes back to something I think you and me agree on that the GT350 and R was short sighted in development because the clear target was the Z/28 which it did beat while being cheaper and offering more options. What happened after that was better cars came out after it and the 350 and R were left virtually unchanged since 2015. And as much as you want to call the car a failure, people are still buying them. So obviously there is either that many idiots out there or something about the car is still appealing.

I think what we have here in the GT350 and 350R is a car that when it came out was great. It beat it's primary competition (and in turn would beat all the cars the Z/28 beat) but it didn't age well. That's on Ford for focusing on a niche market of the high revving NA track car. The competition caught up and surpassed it very quickly and Ford kept it around much longer than they should have. I think that is a fair assessment wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

https://www.torquenews.com/106/next-...dge-challenger

Interesting info. So it looks like the S650 won't be around until 2026 , will grow in size , and will need another refresh between now and then . Way to go. So the question is why would they have to keep it around that long? And will they finally ditch the failure that is the GT350 or keep it around and give it a refresh too? Will the GT500 stick around as well and will it too get a refresh?

Growing in size makes sense if the Mustang is moving to the same platform that the Explorer and Avaitor will be built on. My guess on why they need the S550 to stay around longer is maybe working on ways to make the new platform smaller or lighter. Or maybe just maybe they are planning on the competition getting better as well haha.

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

All really depends on what the actual HP numbers turn out to be... remember, this could easily be a 720 hp GT 500...which wont sniff 10.70 at all..

Or it could be a 790 hp....which 10.70 is completely possible..

The ZR1 does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and does the 1/4 in 10.6 @ 134-135...

The ZR-1 is also probably a good 4-500 pounds lighter. GT500 got its work cut out for it to get deeper into the 10s than just a 10.90

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Ok. Great!

I'm thinking about the rising cost as these cars have advance.

Hellcat/ZL1 => Hellcat wide-body => Redeye wide-body/GT500.

$65k is a lot for a car. Moving to $80 or $90k (Redeye)

The pricing is ridiculous IMO. Spending 75k-90k for a new or late model Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger is crazy. Think about what you could be driving lightly used for that kind of money.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

https://www.torquenews.com/106/next-...dge-challenger

Interesting info. So it looks like the S650 won't be around until 2026 , will grow in size , and will need another refresh between now and then . Way to go. So the question is why would they have to keep it around that long? And will they finally ditch the failure that is the GT350 or keep it around and give it a refresh too? Will the GT500 stick around as well and will it too get a refresh?

Originally Posted by shaffe

......
Growing in size makes sense if the Mustang is moving to the same platform that the Explorer and Avaitor will be built on. My guess on why they need the S550 to stay around longer is maybe working on ways to make the new platform smaller or lighter. Or maybe just maybe they are planning on the competition getting better as well haha......

Keeping S550 around does not equate to not doing anything with the architecture. It is most likely that Ford has simply scaled back how much change they want to make in the next gen Mustang to fit within the parameters of a major upgrade, as opposed to a new platform or architecture. Automakers do that all the time. S550(2) could be a significantly improved product in the ‘22 - ‘23 timeframe.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Oh but you're ok with GSJ talking down to everyone else here because they have no interest in racing? I'm seriously asking you that as a question. Are you being hypocritical?

Guess what? An Ecoboost Mustang IS beneath a ZL1. That is why they cost $25K and ZL1s cost $40K more. That is a fact. Plain and simple. Mustang GTs are beneath ZL1s too. So are GT350s. And the fact that a GT350R cannot beat a ZL1 at anything means that they are beneath ZL1s as well as far as performance is concerned. Pull up to a Z06 in a modified GT and he won't even look in your direction. That's just how it is homie.

I don't care.

I don't remember everything he has posted, but I think he's trying to call you out because you talk big and constantly talk about how the Mustang is a failure. He's basically smack talking you, which isn't necessarily the same as telling someone they are beneath you as you've done multiple times. My biggest gripe with that coming from you is you're not a racer, yet you act like going around a track is the end all be all for these cars, and forget that most will never touch a track or drag strip.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Keeping S550 around does not equate to not doing anything with the architecture. It is most likely that Ford has simply scaled back how much change they want to make in the next gen Mustang to fit within the parameters of a major upgrade, as opposed to a new platform or architecture. Automakers do that all the time. S550(2) could be a significantly improved product in the ‘22 - ‘23 timeframe.

Ford has also kept each Mustang generation for at least a decade (give or take). Chevy, in general, too, with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Camaros and C4 (12 years). Heck even C6 was around what, 9 years? The fact that the Challenger is 11 years old now, while old, is not unprecedented. Another significant refresh for the Mustang would be the norm, as they've often refreshed styling/engines/etc. throughout a generation. Camaro, too, (I.e 91, 98, 14, 19 etc.). The 5th gen Camaro was short lived, by past standards.

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

The ratios I listed are for 2018...

https://www.mustang6g.com/2018-Mustang-eSourceBook.pdf

The MT82-D4 uses the following ratios...

3.24
2.10
1.42
1.0
.81
.62

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Ford has also kept each Mustang generation for at least a decade (give or take). Chevy, in general, too, with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Camaros and C4 (12 years). Heck even C6 was around what, 9 years? The fact that the Challenger is 11 years old now, while old, is not unprecedented. Another significant refresh for the Mustang would be the norm, as they've often refreshed styling/engines/etc. throughout a generation. Camaro, too, (I.e 91, 98, 14, 19 etc.). The 5th gen Camaro was short lived, by past standards.

Exactly. It would have been easy to improve on Zeta for a 6th Gen Camaro, but the target was to make it a world class sports car and the Alpha architecture was there for the taking, so there you have it. Plus the ability to reduce an architecture from the portfolio. Notice that CT5 / CT4 are on “Alpha2” instead of an all new platform. Alpha2 is a focused improvement of the Alpha platform. And for the record, I’ve been away from GM long enough to NOT know what the improvements are. And even if I did know

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

The MT82-D4 uses the following ratios...

3.24
2.10
1.42
1.0
.81
.62

Thanks for the correction... apparently they didnt update the information lol

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Exactly. It would have been easy to improve on Zeta for a 6th Gen Camaro, but the target was to make it a world class sports car and the Alpha architecture was there for the taking, so there you have it. Plus the ability to reduce an architecture from the portfolio. Notice that CT5 / CT4 are on “Alpha2” instead of an all new platform. Alpha2 is a focused improvement of the Alpha platform. And for the record, I’ve been away from GM long enough to NOT know what the improvements are. And even if I did know

The Zeta was never going to be improved, and honestly, I'm glad they didn't try. These cars are so much better than the 5th gen performance wise, and with the exception of the added space, there isn't anyway they were going to keep it around...

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

The Zeta was never going to be improved, and honestly, I'm glad they didn't try. These cars are so much better than the 5th gen performance wise, and with the exception of the added space, there isn't anyway they were going to keep it around...

In GM Planning world, it was an option. It may not have stayed “on the table” very long, but it was an option. Pretty much the starting point. The decision to go IRS and the desire to reduce mass significantly eliminated it pretty quickly.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

In GM Planning world, it was an option. It may not have stayed “on the table” very long, but it was an option. Pretty much the starting point. The decision to go IRS and the desire to reduce mass significantly eliminated it pretty quickly.

Myself not being an alpha or zeta chassis expert, what makes the alpha lighter than the zeta? Smaller, materials (I.e more aluminum?), etc.?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Myself not being an alpha or zeta chassis expert, what makes the alpha lighter than the zeta? Smaller, materials (I.e more aluminum?), etc.?

Yes and yes. Plus evolution and learnings in structure design and load management. Also advances in “near form” manufacturing. Manufacturing the part so that there is very little excess material (flanges, fastening surfaces and bolt bosses, webbing).