2013 Mustang GT500 MEGA THREAD

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Two points come to mind...

1) Ford's desire to meet CAFE without a GG tax is now being 'splained as a "performance enhancement"?

2) Corner-exit speeds: you mean this car is supposed to eat up ZL1s @ the 'Ring...and VIR? Bring it to Lightning Lap '13 for the answer to that one... As to a 'Ring time, is it still rainin' over there? They better build an ark...

1) taller gearing in 1st gear would hurt city mileage... not help it. and better launching ability = performance enhancement. iirc launching is the same metric you take so much issue with...

2) i didn't mention corner-exit speeds... i said when you are done with the corner.

did you learn how to argue a point from an infant?

what is the point of abbreviating explained as "'splained", it requires the same exact amount of button pushes to type either. same with rainin'.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

1) taller gearing in 1st gear would hurt city mileage... not help it.

2) i didn't mention corner-exit speeds... i said when you are done with the corner.

did you learn how to argue a point from an infant?

what is the point of abbreviating explained as "'splained", it requires the same exact amount of button pushes to type either. same with rainin'.

[lil_chef]

yes?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

So being able to pull as hard in first, but not have to up shift to second as soon, DOES NOT enhance performance?

You're saying Ford should have left the gearing the same? Really?

That is one of the many things he keeps ignoring. They didn't just add power. The thing will hit 60 in first gear, less torque in the first 2 or 3 gears means better tract, the new launch control system, heavily revised suspension with bilstien adjustable shocks, etc, etc, etc. it has it's own wizardry going on.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

1) taller gearing in 1st gear would hurt city mileage... not help it.

2) i didn't mention corner-exit speeds... i said when you are done with the corner.

1) Since when has a reduction in Total Final Drive Ratio (trans/diff/tire diameter) hurt mileage?

'12 Rear = 3.55:1; 285/35 X 19 = 26.9"; 1st Gear = 2.97
'13 Rear = 3.31:1; 285/35 X 20 = 27.9"; 1st Gear = 2.66
.

Total effective ratio drops by about 20%...which only improves economy, and adds the benefit of no shift in the 0-60 sprint. GG Tax is avoided...

2) The speed "when exiting a turn and entering a straight", is aka CORNER-EXIT SPEED...I didn't make this up, it's simply the proper road-racy term for what you described in unabbreviated layman's terms...

[chain777]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

1) Since when has a reduction in Total Final Drive Ratio (trans/diff/tire diameter) hurt mileage?

'12 Rear = 3.55:1; 285/35 X 19 = 26.9"; 1st Gear = 2.97
'13 Rear = 3.31:1; 285/35 X 20 = 27.9"; 1st Gear = 2.66
.

Total effective ratio drops by about 20%...which only improves economy, and adds the benefit of no shift in the 0-60 sprint. GG Tax is avoided...

>

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[LOWDOWN]

How to hook up an overpowered overstressed vehicle, all other things being equal?

Kill the EFFECTIVE FINAL DRIVE RATIO by 20-some % should help GREATLY! Especially on puny 10.5" 285s... Then the "nannies" don't have to be soooo "overworked".

[I've heard this somewhere, in reverse...]

No?

[ffrcobra_65]

Originally Posted by chain777

You say that like it's a bad thing?

as far as our friend LOWDOWN is concerned, anything about the GT500 is a bad thing.

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

1) Since when has a reduction in Total Final Drive Ratio (trans/diff/tire diameter) hurt mileage?

'12 Rear = 3.55:1; 285/35 X 19 = 26.9"; 1st Gear = 2.97
'13 Rear = 3.31:1; 285/35 X 20 = 27.9"; 1st Gear = 2.66
.

Total effective ratio drops by about 20%...which only improves economy, and adds the benefit of no shift in the 0-60 sprint. GG Tax is avoided...

2) The speed "when exiting a turn and entering a straight", is aka CORNER-EXIT SPEED...I didn't make this up, it's simply the proper road-racy term for what you described in unabbreviated layman's terms...

1) It doesn't only improve economy if it requires more torque to move the car. given 2 identical cars save for the first gear ratio you yield the following result: the car with the taller gearing will have to be pushed harder to yield a similar rate of acceleration of the shorter geared vehicle... using more gas... hurting mileage.

2) No, i was simply describing the point in time where you floor the gas pedal while on a track. Given that your previous statement had to do with why would you want more power, one could conclude my statement was not singling out the GT500 vs ZL1 corner exit speed it was merely a statement on when you could use more power despite the inherent increase in launching difficulty....

[LOWDOWN]

Anyone, here, ever dirt-track race something with mega-power? On a slick, slippery track? Anyone, here, drag race on an unprepared track with mega-power? How do you get the car to hook?

"Pull out" gear...i.e. reduce the gear ratio.

Won't hook with 5:38s? Try 5:13s...or 4:88s...right?

That's what Ford did..."pulled out" gear...

That 20+% taller effective 1st gear? It'll give a great 0-60 magazine time...for a greatly overpowered car with little 10.5" street tires, with LOTS of "nanny" help...

Or will it?

Guess we'll all find out together...

Did they release that 'Ring time yet? Must be still rainin' over yonder...

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Really, neither car is ugly although they both have questionable design elements. The Camaro design is clean, blocky, modern although from certain angles it could be said to be plain. Consider it the Audi in this comparison. The Ford is classic, aggressive, curvy although it could be said to be over-designed and "busy"; very much the BMW in this comparison. I find the BMW/Audi reference apt as it also applies to both cars driving sensibilities in the last few years of magazine reviews. Simply put, both are equally stylish interpretations of the same basic template rendered to appeal to somewhat different yet closely related enthusiasts. And on that count they both succeed. "Ugly" is an oversimplified, personal and uniformed opinion from either camp.

I think the majority of both camps agree about that rearend.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

1) It doesn't only improve economy if it requires more torque to move the car. given 2 identical cars save for the first gear ratio you yield the following result: the car with the taller gearing will have to be pushed harder to yield a similar rate of acceleration of the shorter geared vehicle... using more gas... hurting mileage.

2) No, i was simply describing the point in time where you floor the gas pedal while on a track. Given that your previous statement had to do with why would you want more power, one could conclude my statement was not singling out the GT500 vs ZL1 corner exit speed it was merely a statement on when you could use more power despite the inherent increase in launching difficulty....

1) ?????? You're forgetting something...revs per 1,000 rpm. Taller gears, lower revs, and therefore greater vehicle speed per engine revs.

Why-oh-why do Manufacturers put taller gearing in their "economy" versions of specific Models? To BURN MORE FUEL IN THE CITY? Not exactly... Look up the Cruze Eco, for instance...taller gearing with the same trans gearing as the 'regular" versions. Fact.

2) The ZL1's superior suspension system, combined with more appropriate tires sizing, will not only exit FASTER, it will exit QUICKER...@ CORNER-EXIT...

Wait 'n see...

[newb]

After following this thread for days and reading almost every post, I am truly amazed at how skilled everyone here is at picking up on details. I just finally watched the video and saw very little to take away from this collage of very short clips.

I am amazed at how with 0 empirical data many of you already know that the GT500 will excel/fail in any category. I look forward to the GT500 and ZL1 comparisons when the mustang hits the streets. We should all be happy to live through the second coming of the HP wars. We may never see this again.

Good video and that thing does sound nasty! But I still don't like the looks. Just not a mustang fan.

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

1) ?????? You're forgetting something...revs per 1,000 rpm. Taller gears, lower revs, and therefore greater vehicle speed per engine revs.

Why-oh-why do Manufacturers put taller gearing in their "economy" versions of specific Models? To BURN MORE FUEL IN THE CITY? Not exactly... Look up the Cruze Eco, for instance...taller gearing with the same trans gearing as the 'regular" versions. Fact.

2) The ZL1's superior suspension system, combined with more appropriate tires sizing, will not only exit FASTER, it will exit QUICKER...@ CORNER-EXIT...

Wait 'n see...

1) The Cruze ECO sees its city mpg improvement from the weight reduction. which i believe is around 100 lbs over the LS model. The LS and ECO also have much different tires and wheels which will have a more significant impact on fuel economy than a slight change in axle ratio.

2)