# Siren Song of the Fire Breathing American Cars



## Jever (Apr 16, 2003)

RandyB said:


> I just ordered a GT tonight to replace my '98 SVT Cobra I'm selling. Yeah, I would like to have a GT500, but the price (for a Mustang) and the weight/weight distribution of that car are very disappointing. Price had a lot to do with my decision to get a GT as well - hard to beat for the money. I got a Torch Red GT w/5-spd manual, dark charcoal leather, IUP(Interior Upgrade Pkg), with 18" Bullitt wheels and rear spoiler delete. It may be a few months away but I'm really looking forward to it. Don't worry, I haven't lost my mind. The 330i is staying.


Since you mentioned Bullitt I have a question for you. I'm googling right now but all of the Bullitt Mustangs I'm seeing are in grey/green. The other day I was driving home and saw a beautiful deep red convertable w/ white rims and it had a deep gutteral growl to it. On the back it had a Bullitt badge. Might this have been a poseur or did they make other colors/verts?


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

Jever said:


> Since you mentioned Bullitt I have a question for you. I'm googling right now but all of the Bullitt Mustangs I'm seeing are in grey/green. The other day I was driving home and saw a beautiful deep red convertable w/ white rims and it had a deep gutteral growl to it. On the back it had a Bullitt badge. Might this have been a poseur or did they make other colors/verts?


You are talking about the previous generation of Mustang right?

While I believe they sold Bullitt additions in other colors than that green (I think I have seen a couple in black) I believe you witnessed a poseur. Why...

1. Convertible. I think the Bullitt edition was hard top only
2. White wheels. From the factory the Bullitt wheels where that charcoal grey color with a chrome lip.

Just my 2 cents :dunno:


----------



## Jever (Apr 16, 2003)

Desertnate said:


> You are talking about the previous generation of Mustang right?
> 
> While I believe they sold Bullitt additions in other colors than that green (I think I have seen a couple in black) I believe you witnessed a poseur. Why...
> 
> ...


Yeah, not the 2005's but the last gen. Beautiful car though. I wish I still knew something about Mustangs. It would have been fun to call him out on it as we were next to each other for about 3 min at a stoplight.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

I think if you peel the onion back a little you will find out that this is not a great handling car:

From the _Mustang Heaven_ web address posted above:

*... and a solid-axle, three-link rear suspension with coil springs and a Panhard rod for precise control of the rear axle. ....*

Oh, yeah...precise control of 450Hp with a solid axle and Panhard rod. Good Luck with that. A 1967 Alfa Romeo Spider has a much more precise rear axle control than this "modern incarnation".

I would say the bang for the buck is decent, but don't fool yourself in that this Mustang is a great car. I have driven and owned several 60's muscle cars with similar power and axle design. They are fun, but handle terribly. A great car would not just go fast in a straight line, it must also stop and corner well. Balance is key. Without balance, your riding a wild bronco without a saddle strap (pun intended).

It's unfortunate that many American car manufacturers still rely too much on tire technology and rubber adhesion to obtain their high skidpad numbers. Anyone who has ever tried cornering a modern American "sports car" on pavement that isn't baby-butt smooth will know that your rear end will be all over the place. "Specsmanship" is a numbers game for brochures and car magazine comparisons. Real life will dictate my choice of automobile.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

I think you would be suprised how well the GT will handle, and it just might kick a 330's butt around the right track.


----------



## alpinewhite325i (Jan 20, 2002)

Whatever you do, don't drive a CTS-V.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Artslinger said:


> I think you would be suprised how well the GT will handle, and it just might kick a 330's butt around the right track.


I'd be happy if it could keep up with me on an decreasing-radius clover leaf on the local Interstate . My car is not a sports car-it's a sedan that handles really well. A supposed "sports car" *should* be able to kick my butt around a track-but also a mountain road with bad pavement. The Mustang would have a very difficult time keeping its rubber to the ground I'm afraid.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

DaveH said:


> I'd be happy if it could keep up with me on an decreasing-radius clover leaf on the local Interstate . My car is not a sports car-it's a sedan that handles really well. A supposed "sports car" *should* be able to kick my butt around a track-but also a mountain road with bad pavement. The Mustang would have a very difficult time keeping its rubber to the ground I'm afraid.


That is my fear too with the Mustang.

I had an '04 V6 Mustang as a rental for a month and it was a total POS. A far cry from the current gen in material quality that is for sure.

My worry is the solid axle for that very reason. My old Grand Am had a hard time with rough surfaces in a turn and I noticed the 04 Mustang did as well. When cornering under light load on a tight cloverleaf or turn in Mt Rainier National Park that had rough pavement, I could feel the entire back end of the car hop and get real squirley. Not my idea of a good time.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

alpinewhite325i said:


> Whatever you do, don't drive a CTS-V.


That is a fear of mine...and it does have four doors and a trunk! I fell in love with one at the auto show!


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

alpinewhite325i said:


> Whatever you do, don't drive a CTS-V.


Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment. Doing a quick search for road tests on the CTS-V to exhibit my point, I came across an article from _Motor Trend_ on a test of a CTS-V versus a Jaguar S-Type R.

Here is their impression on the CTS-V:


> Thumbs down, though, on the car's rear-axle hop, which made launches for 0-to-60 and quarter-mile times tricky. Sure, the car has been Nuerburgring-developed and feels best running up and down the gears on winding roads and racecourses, but it's still V-8 American luxury, which suggests it should be able to hold its own at the dragstrip. It doesn't feel dragstrip-ready, however. Hard launches in the 2500-2800-rpm range left a staccato thumping of tires and little black squares instead of proper black stripes.


Now, I'm sure that even the idiots at _Motor Trend_ can at least launch a car for a 1/4 drag without hopping the drive wheels. But see, the car has 54% front-46% rear weight distribution. If the rear suspension was executed properly, the drive wheels wouldn't hop. Do you ever hear of an M3 or M5 doing this? No, I don't either.
Next Topic.

Edit:
Add _Automobile's_ comments on the CTS-V:


> The CTS-V has an axle tramp problem, and it can be quite frustrating. Wheel spin excites the back of the car like a heroin addict with the DTs. And like a heroin addict, we couldn't resist trying to burn out repeatedly. It always ended the same way: passengers terrified of the bucking, and forward progress retarded by lack of tire contact. Cadillac sent us an early-production 2005 CTS-V because its engineers have refined the rear end to lessen the wheel-hop problem. The situation is better but not yet solved.


I think there's a trend here.....


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

DaveH said:


> I'd be happy if it could keep up with me on an decreasing-radius clover leaf on the local Interstate . My car is not a sports car-it's a sedan that handles really well. A supposed "sports car" *should* be able to kick my butt around a track-but also a mountain road with bad pavement. The Mustang would have a very difficult time keeping its rubber to the ground I'm afraid.


Are you guessing or do you know this to be fact? :dunno:


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Excerpt from the July 2005 Car and Driver review of the 2007 Ford Shelby Cobra GT500

Price: $39,000.

"But with the fatter Goodyears managing power delivered by a Tremec six-speed manual transmission and limited-slip rear end, O'Connell is confident the GT500 will sprint to 60 mph in "less than 4.5 seconds," even with its tallish 3.31:1 rear-axle ratio. We expect that when we put the spurs to a test car early next year, a 0-to-60 number will come up in four seconds flat, and the quarter-mile will be 12.5 seconds at 116 mph. For perspective, those runs would be representative times for a C6 Corvette.

Other predictions: O'Connell forecasts a skidpad number of "0.91 or 0.92 g." We think that's a little conservative. Our last two C6 Corvette coupes [C/D, September and December 2004] produced identical 0.98 skidpad numbers. The GT500 will weigh in considerably higher, but it matches the Vette's rear rubber and has even more contact patch up front. Accordingly, we expect to see at least 0.94 g.

Braking: The GT500's 18-inch wheels will shelter huge 14.0-inch vented front rotors with four-piston calipers applying squeeze and 11.8-inch vented rear rotors. (The Mustang GT has 12.4-inch front rotors and 11.8-inch rears, all vented.) Given its Brembo braking system, bigger footprints, and stickier tires, we expect stops from 70 mph in less than 170 feet, which is, once again, Corvette territory. The front rotors on the GT500 show car were cross-drilled and vented. The production car's brakes will lack cross drilling, which looks sexy but tends to produce cracks in hard use.

Handling: The GT500 has hefty front and rear anti-roll bars-a tubular 1.4-inch bar up front and a solid 0.9-inch rear bar-and the spring rates and damping profiles have been adjusted to complement the massive power. There's more roll stiffness, but it's remarkable how supple the suspension manages to be, particularly with a live axle at the rear."


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Artslinger said:


> Are you guessing or do you know this to be fact? :dunno:


Art: 
I'm not sure which part you're asking about, but I have driven a friend's new 2005 Mustang GT. I did not perform any maneuvers in it other than mildly drive it and politely say it was nice. The new Shelby GT500 is not out yet, but has the same deficient axle design and I have not driven The Caddy CTS-V.

My statements are opinions of my observations from owners and reading. My engineering background and my limited SCCA SoloII involvement 20 years ago taught me dynamics and good design practices.

Independant, multilink suspensions offer the best multi-situational control of the contact pad for the tire-period. They are more expensive than a solid axle design and that's why American manufacturers continue to use the inferior design. I do not know why the Caddy wheel hops. I am inclined to believe the "soft suspension" e.g. extended bushings many drivers say is a plus for the caddy's "Interstate ride" promotes the uncontrolled vertical oscillation of the drive wheels during extremely hard acceleration.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

The Mustang and the 3 Series are different cars with different reasons for ownership. I have owned both cars and both have their good bad points. There is little reason to compare the two. I could sit here and nag about the E46 short comings (and there are plenty) but why?


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Art: You must type a heck of a lot faster than I do.

Let me state for the record that I hope that the new ShelbyGT500 is everything to everyone. I love a great car and at that price, it would be a masterwork, indeed.

My problem is with history. Ford went cheap on the last edition Mustang and added and Independant Rear Suspension (IRS) much later in the model run. The IRS was put into production after Ford swore up and down that the existing live rear axle was ideal. All I can say is "here we go again".

I understand that the suspension/wheel alignment/tire patch is one of the most difficult compromises in the entire automobile engineering-wise. I believe that BMW has been very good at providing the right balance of all things. It is one of the main reasons I bought one. If the American manufacturers can make the car handle great first, then add decent power, *and* keep quality of materials high- well, then they'd be very tough to beat.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

From my understanding the reason why the solid rear axle was chosen for the new generation was because of urging from large segment of buyers that wanted a solid rear axle, it was not because of price concerns other than it was not cost effective to offer two versions.


----------



## TLudwig (Mar 30, 2004)

What about the new Dodge Charger SRT8? :dunno:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> From my understanding the reason why the solid rear axle was chosen for the new generation was because of urging from large segment of buyers that wanted a solid rear axle, it was not because of price concerns other than it was not cost effective to offer two versions.


The problem is not so much the live axle, but rather the way they chose to hold it in place. The Mustang has a 3 link suspension, which is almost the worst way to use a live axle. At the very least I would have rather seen a 4 link design used. Even if it was a customer demand, which I highly doubt, what is the point? Most IRS designs are just as robust as a live axle and handle MUCH better. At this day and age, there is absolutely no reason to use a live axle in something you are boasting as a sports car.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> The Mustang and the 3 Series are different cars with different reasons for ownership. I have owned both cars and both have their good bad points. There is little reason to compare the two. I could sit here and nag about the E46 short comings (and there are plenty) but why?


Not really, I would compare an M3 to a Mustang. The money in the BMW is all on interior, fancy lights, nice materials, sound absorbtion, and yes the BMW motor is expensive(BUT almost the same power as the Mustang GT). At the end of the day, both cars are 300HP Rear wheel drive cars. Why didn't ford make an M3 with the usual cheap interior and cost cutting measures they do. :dunno: Now that car would rock my world!!!


----------



## gojira-san (Mar 1, 2004)

TLudwig said:


> What about the new Dodge Charger SRT8? :dunno:


That black one Dodge has on the website looks pretty cool, but I'd have to try one out. I finally got a chance to drive a regular V8 Magnum a while back, and while it was quick and stopped pretty well, I prefer the handling of my 6 year old 528 Touring to it. Guess I'll have to try a SRT-8 when they become available :rofl:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

Desertnate said:


> Why was the GTO such a pig? Was it sprung to softly? Weight distribution all wonky due to the V8 up front? Yeah it weighs 3700lbs, but my 323i is what, 3200 lbs? Far from a svelt in the high performance car world.


inside wheelspin, bad axle hop off the line, too soft, not enough wheel/tire for the weight, bad understeer


----------

