Ford to produce Gt-500KR
04-11-2007, 01:05 PM
#61
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cheatin' Chad
HP is the key to acceleration! Along with weight,traction,aerodynamics,driver,weather,track conditions,etc....
Trap speeds don't win drag races. The ET is what matters in most forms of Drag Racing. If I run 10.0@130 and you run 10.1@145 I'll still win the race if we both get off the tree in a similar amount of time.
Ford is, as always, targeting stoplight racers and weekend drag strips goers with this Mustang. The car has a solid axle due to simplicity,weight,cost effectiveness and reliability.
An IRS isn't the holy grail of handling. A car can handle VERY well with a solid axle. I'll refer you to any number of videos posted on this very site with Camaros and Firebirds leaving Porsches and Ferraris in their wake.
Almost nothing in life is black and white. This is especially true for cars.
HP per liter means nothing. NOTHING! HP per LB of vehicle is important. That information all by itself will not tell you what vehicle will win a particular race either. However, all of that is trumped by results though. As heavy as the GT500 is it has gone BLAZINGLY quick at the drag strip with few modifications. There was a firehawk for sale on this site not long ago making approx 330rwhp and running high 11's near 3500lbs. How?! It had a very well setup chassis and a great converter. That won't show up in simple X per N equations.
You sound like another iteration of 25psi. No one was impressed with his flawed logic and I suspect even fewer will be impressed by yours.
Trap speeds don't win drag races. The ET is what matters in most forms of Drag Racing. If I run 10.0@130 and you run 10.1@145 I'll still win the race if we both get off the tree in a similar amount of time.
Ford is, as always, targeting stoplight racers and weekend drag strips goers with this Mustang. The car has a solid axle due to simplicity,weight,cost effectiveness and reliability.
An IRS isn't the holy grail of handling. A car can handle VERY well with a solid axle. I'll refer you to any number of videos posted on this very site with Camaros and Firebirds leaving Porsches and Ferraris in their wake.
Almost nothing in life is black and white. This is especially true for cars.
HP per liter means nothing. NOTHING! HP per LB of vehicle is important. That information all by itself will not tell you what vehicle will win a particular race either. However, all of that is trumped by results though. As heavy as the GT500 is it has gone BLAZINGLY quick at the drag strip with few modifications. There was a firehawk for sale on this site not long ago making approx 330rwhp and running high 11's near 3500lbs. How?! It had a very well setup chassis and a great converter. That won't show up in simple X per N equations.
You sound like another iteration of 25psi. No one was impressed with his flawed logic and I suspect even fewer will be impressed by yours.
04-11-2007, 02:27 PM
#62
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jujitsu
Traps show an indication of power. Your logic is tainted, by assuming your primary racing is done at the track.
For you to arrogate, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed! Since the majority of Super Cars, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Zonda, Lambo, Ferrari, etc..., found it necessary to follow in the footsteps of Ford, by utilizing a solid rear end
.Let me ask you this. Why has Roush, surpassed the GT 500, with their own variation of the supercharged Mustang, with a 450hp! Take a look at the stats and tell me, why did they opt, for an IRS setup. Times posted, exceeded that of the GT 500 in, 1/4 mile, slalom etc.....and everyother category listed.
HP Per Liter, might not mean anything to you, but it proves, that you dont have to stuff, the largest motor possible, to achieve similar numbers! It is idiotic of you, to conceive, that hp/liter is void. If that were the case, there wouldnt be this "WAR" going on, between Chevy and Dodge for hp supremecy! I dont know how many times, on this forum, have I heard ' the Z06 is faster than the viper, despite two less cylinders and less liters"! That alone, tells me, people are focused on hp/liter! On another note. I find it, more impressive, that a manufactor, can produce insanely numbers, from a relatively small displacement motors, such as Honda, Porshe, Nissan, BMW, etc.....
S2000-240hp w/2.0 liters
Nismo Nissan 350z-395hp n/a 3.7 liters
Porshe- 415hp 3.6 liter
BMW M5-500hp 5.0 liter(8500 rpm redline)
This is the kind of ingenuity I like.
The GT 500, is not amamazingly quick stock. I dont know what it is, that your not comprehending. The car traps, at 115! This is not, supercar territory nor is it in competition with any of its competitors.
Like I iterated before, Ford needs to listen to its competition! Focus on what make a sports car, a sports car.
For you to arrogate, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed! Since the majority of Super Cars, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Zonda, Lambo, Ferrari, etc..., found it necessary to follow in the footsteps of Ford, by utilizing a solid rear end
.Let me ask you this. Why has Roush, surpassed the GT 500, with their own variation of the supercharged Mustang, with a 450hp! Take a look at the stats and tell me, why did they opt, for an IRS setup. Times posted, exceeded that of the GT 500 in, 1/4 mile, slalom etc.....and everyother category listed. HP Per Liter, might not mean anything to you, but it proves, that you dont have to stuff, the largest motor possible, to achieve similar numbers! It is idiotic of you, to conceive, that hp/liter is void. If that were the case, there wouldnt be this "WAR" going on, between Chevy and Dodge for hp supremecy! I dont know how many times, on this forum, have I heard ' the Z06 is faster than the viper, despite two less cylinders and less liters"! That alone, tells me, people are focused on hp/liter! On another note. I find it, more impressive, that a manufactor, can produce insanely numbers, from a relatively small displacement motors, such as Honda, Porshe, Nissan, BMW, etc.....
S2000-240hp w/2.0 liters
Nismo Nissan 350z-395hp n/a 3.7 liters
Porshe- 415hp 3.6 liter
BMW M5-500hp 5.0 liter(8500 rpm redline)
This is the kind of ingenuity I like.
The GT 500, is not amamazingly quick stock. I dont know what it is, that your not comprehending. The car traps, at 115! This is not, supercar territory nor is it in competition with any of its competitors.
Like I iterated before, Ford needs to listen to its competition! Focus on what make a sports car, a sports car.
04-11-2007, 02:35 PM
#63
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the Top Gear power board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
04-11-2007, 03:02 PM
#64
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jujitsu
Traps show an indication of power. Your logic is tainted, by assuming your primary racing is done at the track.
Traps Speeds indicate power. Sure, they "can" indicate how much power a vehicle is making. The FACT remains that for the types of racing most pony cars are involved in it's elapsed time that counts. Unless you are in a form of racing that dictates reaching a certain speed first that figure is still useless as far as winning goes.
I never assumed that track based racing was the first priority for this vehicle and it's potential customers. As a matter of FACT I stated "Ford is, as always, targeting stoplight racers and weekend drag strips goers with this Mustang. "
Are you figuring you have to twist my words in order to "win" this argument?
Originally Posted by jujitsu
For you to arrogate, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed! Since the majority of Super Cars, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Zonda, Lambo, Ferrari, etc..., found it necessary to follow in the footsteps of Ford, by utilizing a solid rear end .Let me ask you this.
.Let me ask you this.Arrogate would mean to take or claim something without the right to do so.
Arrogate is a synonym for appropriate or confiscate.
A more appropriate word for you to use in that context would be : Insinuate
I never came out and said that a solid axle design is SUPERIOR to an independent rear suspension. I said a solid axle rear suspension is capable of great handling.
However, even had you used the proper word your comment would have still been off as I never claimed the solid axle superior. I merely claimed it was sufficient.
Originally Posted by jujitsu
Why has Roush, surpassed the GT 500, with their own variation of the supercharged Mustang, with a 450hp! Take a look at the stats and tell me, why did they opt, for an IRS setup. Times posted, exceeded that of the GT 500 in, 1/4 mile, slalom etc.....and everyother category listed.
That's a quote from TheAutoblog.com concerning The Roush 427R
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/18/i...ge-roush-427r/
I have checked numerous sites including Roush's own site and I have seen nothing that states they use an IRS.
The same website lists a 13.23@108 corected to 1600ft DA
The GT500 is cited at Muscle Mustangs website as running low 12's . Even considering the different venues and circumstances I'd say both cars are at least on the level if anything the GT500 would have a slight edge.
Originally Posted by jujitsu
HP Per Liter, might not mean anything to you, but it proves, that you dont have to stuff, the largest motor possible, to achieve similar numbers! It is idiotic of you, to conceive, that hp/liter is void. If that were the case, there wouldnt be this "WAR" going on, between Chevy and Dodge for hp supremecy! I dont know how many times, on this forum, have I heard ' the Z06 is faster than the viper, despite two less cylinders and less liters"! That alone, tells me, people are focused on hp/liter! On another note. I find it, more impressive, that a manufactor, can produce insanely numbers, from a relatively small displacement motors, such as Honda, Porshe, Nissan, BMW, etc.....
S2000-240hp w/2.0 liters
Nismo Nissan 350z-395hp n/a 3.7 liters
Porshe- 415hp 3.6 liter
BMW M5-500hp 5.0 liter(8500 rpm redline)
This is the kind of ingenuity I like.
S2000-240hp w/2.0 liters
Nismo Nissan 350z-395hp n/a 3.7 liters
Porshe- 415hp 3.6 liter
BMW M5-500hp 5.0 liter(8500 rpm redline)
This is the kind of ingenuity I like.
Displacement does not equal physical size. The GenIII v8 is physically smaller than the Ford Modular 4.6l yet displaces up to 7.0l in production form and produces up to 505hp. Engine displacement does NOT equal physical dimensions.
505hp from a smaller physical package than something making 300hp is the kind of ingenuity people that like to win like....
Originally Posted by jujitsu
The GT 500, is not amamazingly quick stock. I dont know what it is, that your not comprehending. The car traps, at 115! This is not, supercar territory nor is it in competition with any of its competitors.
Like I iterated before, Ford needs to listen to its competition! Focus on what make a sports car, a sports car.
Like I iterated before, Ford needs to listen to its competition! Focus on what make a sports car, a sports car.
After reading your reply I now know that I comprehend more than you can imagine! I don't care what the traps are! I get paid by crossing the line in the shortest amount of time NOT at the highest speed.
Ford isn't making a SPORTSCAR in the GT500 it's making a PONYCAR or MUSCLECAR.
We're hijacknig this thread something awful. I will gladly continue this wherever it is appropriate if a mod would like to move this. 
04-11-2007, 04:29 PM
#66
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cheatin' Chad
Traps Speeds indicate power. Sure, they "can" indicate how much power a vehicle is making. The FACT remains that for the types of racing most pony cars are involved in it's elapsed time that counts. Unless you are in a form of racing that dictates reaching a certain speed first that figure is still useless as far as winning goes.
I never assumed that track based racing was the first priority for this vehicle and it's potential customers. As a matter of FACT I stated "Ford is, as always, targeting stoplight racers and weekend drag strips goers with this Mustang. "
Are you figuring you have to twist my words in order to "win" this argument?
First I'll address something for you jujitsu
Arrogate would mean to take or claim something without the right to do so.
Arrogate is a synonym for appropriate or confiscate.
A more appropriate word for you to use in that context would be : Insinuate
I never came out and said that a solid axle design is SUPERIOR to an independent rear suspension. I said a solid axle rear suspension is capable of great handling.
However, even had you used the proper word your comment would have still been off as I never claimed the solid axle superior. I merely claimed it was sufficient.
"Never does the rear axle give any indication of tramp or hop, and in fact behaves better than some RWD vehicles with independent rear suspension."
That's a quote from TheAutoblog.com concerning The Roush 427R
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/18/i...ge-roush-427r/
I have checked numerous sites including Roush's own site and I have seen nothing that states they use an IRS.
The same website lists a 13.23@108 corected to 1600ft DA
The GT500 is cited at Muscle Mustangs website as running low 12's . Even considering the different venues and circumstances I'd say both cars are at least on the level if anything the GT500 would have a slight edge.
No! HP/Liter means NOTHING to anyone that isn't racing in a class that limits displacement. What matters to me is HP/lb,HP/Physical dimensions. Take your beloved BMW V10@5.0l it is physically similar in size to the GenIII GM v-8 yet has less displacement. That right there absolutely kills your argument!
Displacement does not equal physical size. The GenIII v8 is physically smaller than the Ford Modular 4.6l yet displaces up to 7.0l in production form and produces up to 505hp. Engine displacement does NOT equal physical dimensions.
505hp from a smaller physical package than something making 300hp is the kind of ingenuity people that like to win like....
The GT500 cannot be touched in its class (2door,4seat,around 40k,etc.) for 1/4mile times. That makes it: amazingly quick as of 2007.
After reading your reply I now know that I comprehend more than you can imagine! I don't care what the traps are! I get paid by crossing the line in the shortest amount of time NOT at the highest speed.
Ford isn't making a SPORTSCAR in the GT500 it's making a PONYCAR or MUSCLECAR.
We're hijacknig this thread something awful. I will gladly continue this wherever it is appropriate if a mod would like to move this.
I never assumed that track based racing was the first priority for this vehicle and it's potential customers. As a matter of FACT I stated "Ford is, as always, targeting stoplight racers and weekend drag strips goers with this Mustang. "
Are you figuring you have to twist my words in order to "win" this argument?
First I'll address something for you jujitsu
Arrogate would mean to take or claim something without the right to do so.
Arrogate is a synonym for appropriate or confiscate.
A more appropriate word for you to use in that context would be : Insinuate
I never came out and said that a solid axle design is SUPERIOR to an independent rear suspension. I said a solid axle rear suspension is capable of great handling.
However, even had you used the proper word your comment would have still been off as I never claimed the solid axle superior. I merely claimed it was sufficient.
"Never does the rear axle give any indication of tramp or hop, and in fact behaves better than some RWD vehicles with independent rear suspension."
That's a quote from TheAutoblog.com concerning The Roush 427R
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/18/i...ge-roush-427r/
I have checked numerous sites including Roush's own site and I have seen nothing that states they use an IRS.
The same website lists a 13.23@108 corected to 1600ft DA
The GT500 is cited at Muscle Mustangs website as running low 12's . Even considering the different venues and circumstances I'd say both cars are at least on the level if anything the GT500 would have a slight edge.
No! HP/Liter means NOTHING to anyone that isn't racing in a class that limits displacement. What matters to me is HP/lb,HP/Physical dimensions. Take your beloved BMW V10@5.0l it is physically similar in size to the GenIII GM v-8 yet has less displacement. That right there absolutely kills your argument!
Displacement does not equal physical size. The GenIII v8 is physically smaller than the Ford Modular 4.6l yet displaces up to 7.0l in production form and produces up to 505hp. Engine displacement does NOT equal physical dimensions.
505hp from a smaller physical package than something making 300hp is the kind of ingenuity people that like to win like....
The GT500 cannot be touched in its class (2door,4seat,around 40k,etc.) for 1/4mile times. That makes it: amazingly quick as of 2007.
After reading your reply I now know that I comprehend more than you can imagine! I don't care what the traps are! I get paid by crossing the line in the shortest amount of time NOT at the highest speed.
Ford isn't making a SPORTSCAR in the GT500 it's making a PONYCAR or MUSCLECAR.
We're hijacknig this thread something awful. I will gladly continue this wherever it is appropriate if a mod would like to move this.Arrogate:
to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.
Dictionary.com is your friend!
IF you would like to continue this, I would be more than happy to.
04-11-2007, 05:10 PM
#67
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When, exactly did TOYota make a "supercar"??!!
And please, DO NOT tell me that the MKIV is a "supercar"!!!
It certainly can be heavily modded to be faster than a "supercar", but it is NOT one none the less (except in the minds of import worshipping fanboyzz).
And please, DO NOT tell me that the MKIV is a "supercar"!!!
It certainly can be heavily modded to be faster than a "supercar", but it is NOT one none the less (except in the minds of import worshipping fanboyzz).
04-11-2007, 07:42 PM
#68
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Camnlt1
Have a look at the Top Gear power board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
04-11-2007, 08:08 PM
#69
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ATL/Savannah Georgia
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was quite surprised and frankly....a bit skeptical. A ford focus RS is faster than a CTS-v? Also, according to their chart, a noble M12 is only .2 sec faster than a CTS. Strange considering it weighs less than a C6 ZO6 and makes 350+hp with race engineered chassis from the ground up. Something fishy... 
I'd like a little more to back these times up. Notice how fast a subby sti and evo are and a civic Si is only .3 sec slower than a aston martin vanquish V12??
or maybe I'm wrong, i must be missing something?
I'd like a little more to back these times up. Notice how fast a subby sti and evo are and a civic Si is only .3 sec slower than a aston martin vanquish V12??or maybe I'm wrong, i must be missing something?
Originally Posted by Camnlt1
Have a look at the Top Gear power board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps
For as crappy as you say the Gt500 is, it laps the track faster than alot of cars you mentioned:
Porsche 911 Turbo
BMW M3
Nissan 350Z
Mazda RX-8
Lotus Elise
Ferrari 575M Maranello
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish
Honda S2000
04-12-2007, 02:57 PM
#70
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jujitsu
Arrogate:
to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.
Dictionary.com is your friend!
IF you would like to continue this, I would be more than happy to.
to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.
Dictionary.com is your friend!
IF you would like to continue this, I would be more than happy to.
Your sentence: "For you to arrogate, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed!"
Synonyms of arrogate:appropriate, assume, commandeer, confiscate, demand, expropriate, preempt, presume, seize, usurp
Your sentence with a synonym in use: "For you to CONFISCATE, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed!"
"For you to DEMAND, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed!"
"For you to COMMANDEER, that a solid rear end setup, handles just as well as irs, proves to me, that your logic is flawed!"
Before you stick "ASSUME" in there and hope that all is well know that there are multiple definitions. The one with a meaning similar to ARROGATE means: appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp: to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
NOT
to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.
Does that help you understand a little better?
Yeah, Dictionary.com IS your friend.
Start a thread in an appropriate forum and send me a link.
If you do I promise I'll stop the remedial vocabulary lesson if you stop trying to to sound more literate than you are.
Back on topic: I think the 500KR is a great looking car that should perform well for what it is.
04-15-2007, 08:02 PM
#71
Originally Posted by cookba
if its only going to have 540hp that pathetic. the new vette will have 600+ as does the new viper. and i bet this stang will have a price tag close to the vette. for the top dog cars 600hp is the new. HELL i can wait for the new Camaro to come out with 500hp (SS or Z28 edition). but it is a nice looking car
04-17-2007, 01:46 PM
#74
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one reason I will never buy one, I work for a Ford dealer and I won't pay $60k for a 325 hp Shelby GT or $70k for a GT500 or certainly not the $85k plus the KR is sure to cost. There is no way in the world I would pay that kind of mark up when I can call my Friend who is a general manager at a Chevy dealer and pay MSRP or below for a Z06. Then its LT's, tune, CAI and a cam and my RWHP # starts with a 6 and I have a car well into the 10's.
Its a great car no doubt, but the GT500 certainly does not "feel" that fast. Now of course they don't open up until there broken in but alot of the C5 Z06's I have driven feel faster than that GT500 did.
Its a great car no doubt, but the GT500 certainly does not "feel" that fast. Now of course they don't open up until there broken in but alot of the C5 Z06's I have driven feel faster than that GT500 did.
04-17-2007, 01:48 PM
#75
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if another person says its the the fastest car in its class at its price range I will just slit my wrists. Its not the fastest $40k coupe, because you can't buy one for $40k. MSRP only matters if you can buy one for that.
04-17-2007, 03:26 PM
#76
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BAD2000TA
Oh, lots of girls at school I'm guessing!!!
The other 95% of Mustangs in this town are base model V6's driven by females.lol. Unfortunately, the opposite applies....apparantly chicks dig firebirds too!
05-07-2007, 03:31 PM
#78
Staging Lane
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unit213
You understand that people run 10's with 400rwhp right? 540hp quickly
turns into 700rwhp with a few mods. Ever driven a car with that much
power? I'm guessing you haven't.
This car looks pretty damned mean. It's my understanding that
you have to purchase a GT500 first, then you send it off to Shelby
for the mods..which are around $12.5K. I don't see how there could be
dealer mark up on this given the nature of how it's modified. Mark up
would be on the GT500 itself at the dealer. People who buy these
cars generally aren't concerned about money anyway.
turns into 700rwhp with a few mods. Ever driven a car with that much
power? I'm guessing you haven't.
This car looks pretty damned mean. It's my understanding that
you have to purchase a GT500 first, then you send it off to Shelby
for the mods..which are around $12.5K. I don't see how there could be
dealer mark up on this given the nature of how it's modified. Mark up
would be on the GT500 itself at the dealer. People who buy these
cars generally aren't concerned about money anyway.
