The not-a-sleeper Mustang

[Demon-Xanth]

...should be damned quick though. 🙂

 

[LS8]

It looks menacing and I bet the speed is incredible. I don't think anyone is going to buy a $149,995 Mustang (at least not a new one anyway, maybe a classic).

 

[thomsbrain]

Hideous.

And given Ford's track record for overly ambitious power claims for the GT500, if they claim 750 HP from the 5.4L, does mean 550 HP in real world power?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its fast, but $150K for a 1980's mullet rebody of what was once a semi-decent looking car doesn't appeal to me at all. I wouldn't be caught dead in that regardless of the price, and I'm not exaggerating.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Hideous.

And given Ford's track record for overly ambitious power claims for the GT500, if they claim 750 HP from the 5.4L, does mean 550 HP in real world power?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its fast, but $150K for a 1980's mullet rebody of what was once a semi-decent looking car doesn't appeal to me at all. I wouldn't be caught dead in that regardless of the price, and I'm not exaggerating.

You understand that all car manufacturers advertise flywheel horsepower, not wheel horsepower, right? Mercedes, BMW, Chevrolet, Mitsubishi, everyone. Sometimes a manufacture, like Ford, will actually underrate a car. The 2003 and 2004 Cobras were a good example; Ford rated the cars at 390 horsepower but most cars were actually producing about 400-410 horsepower.

 

[TehMac]

Yeah, rear wheel horsepower is going to be about 20% less than bhp. However, I agree with thomsbrain, this Mustang doesn't look appealing at all. It's just a dragster, so it'd be fun as maybe a fooling around car, but it doesn't really sound exciting to me.

I was reading about this on Motor Trend, and it sounds like Shelby didn't do much to the suspension, brakes, anything, etc.

But Shelby hasn't been doing that recently.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Hideous.

And given Ford's track record for overly ambitious power claims for the GT500, if they claim 750 HP from the 5.4L, does mean 550 HP in real world power?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its fast, but $150K for a 1980's mullet rebody of what was once a semi-decent looking car doesn't appeal to me at all. I wouldn't be caught dead in that regardless of the price, and I'm not exaggerating.

if you're referrning to Top Gear's test of the GT500, they measured wheel horsepower where they showed only at 10% loss, IIRC. all cars are rated at the crank/flywheel, which does not include many drivetrain losses.

i do agree that this car is hideous though.

 

[TehMac]

I like the GT 500 alot better than I like this thing, the GT500 isn't as expensive, and it looks a lot better, imo.

 

[RichUK]

I don?t doubt that it?s a fun car to drive, it just lacks the class and luxury I tend to look for in a daily driver. Personally, I?d be embarrassed to be seen in one.

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t doubt that it?s a fun car to drive, it just lacks the class and luxury I tend to look for in a daily driver. Personally, I?d be embarrassed to be seen in one.

Ditto, no joking I'd rather be driving my Accord.

EDIT: OK I'd probably drive the Mustang over my Accord but still it looks like doo doo.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t doubt that it?s a fun car to drive, it just lacks the class and luxury I tend to look for in a daily driver. Personally, I?d be embarrassed to be seen in one.

Agreed.