iceman Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 yeah, I think the dark-only interior colors were a miss -- vert needs a light color. I've got to get a bigger piggybank -- not that the present one is full <lol> just planning ahead My 05 V6 was wind devil blue with the tan top and interior. If I could have gotten that same combo in the GT500 I would have. The V6 looked great. I had the stripes all removed and just looked classy. Drove nice for what it was too....but it was not hard to unload for the GT500 even in triple black!!! But I agree an light color option would be nice to have....but then they need it for the top too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARLEY6LF250SDU Posted April 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 THURS 4/12 Just placed this order in the order bank...............2008....NO PRICING YET Order No: W005 Priority: 80 Ord Code: 180A Cust/Flt Name: RETAIL DLR INV T85 GT CONV PREMIUM ZY VAPOR CC MET K LTHR TRIMD BKT D BLACK/DOVE 180A ORDER CODE .ANTI-LOCK BRKS .TRACTION CONTRL .MANUAL AIR COND 99H .4.6L 3V OHC V8 44K .5-SPD MAN TRANS T7E .P235/55ZR17 A/S 86C CLOTH CONV ROOF .BLACK 18G INT UPGRADE PKG 67D CHARCOAL PANEL 14A ACTVE ANTI-THFT 455 3.55 LTD SLIP 50S SAT RADIO W/6MO 51H HID HEADLAMPS 59B CONVERT BOOT 65A HEATED SEATS 68B PREM TRIM PKG VEHICLE LINE N/A FOR JOB #1 ORDERS randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker45 Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 If I read that right that's for the '08's right? Heated seats are now an option also? If that's for the GT500 I also noticed a 3.55 rear slip instead of the 3.31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedRacer Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 THURS 4/12 Just placed this order in the order bank................NO PRICING YET Order No: W005 Priority: 80 Ord Code: 180A Cust/Flt Name: RETAIL DLR INV T85 GT CONV PREMIUM ZY VAPOR CC MET K LTHR TRIMD BKT D BLACK/DOVE 180A ORDER CODE .ANTI-LOCK BRKS .TRACTION CONTRL .MANUAL AIR COND 99H .4.6L 3V OHC V8 44K .5-SPD MAN TRANS T7E .P235/55ZR17 A/S 86C CLOTH CONV ROOF .BLACK 18G INT UPGRADE PKG 67D CHARCOAL PANEL 14A ACTVE ANTI-THFT 455 3.55 LTD SLIP 50S SAT RADIO W/6MO 51H HID HEADLAMPS 59B CONVERT BOOT 65A HEATED SEATS 68B PREM TRIM PKG VEHICLE LINE N/A FOR JOB #1 ORDERS randy Randy, If I read this correctly, this is for a Mustang GT or Shelby GT??? It shows a 4.6L engine.... If so, it should be posted in a different area... Regards. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Lane Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Randy, If I read this correctly, this is for a Mustang GT or Shelby GT??? It shows a 4.6L engine.... If so, it should be posted in a different area... Regards. Stuart Someone please clarify the heated seat option, if so I'm waiting. My wife is freeezing come fall til summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARLEY6LF250SDU Posted April 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Sorry I have 10+ 08 Mustangs in the order bank. I copied a 08 GT Conv. Still NO heated seats showing, for GT500 2008 MUSTANG SHELBY CONV Order No: W005 Priority: 10 Ord Code: 850A Cust/Flt Name: RETAIL DLR INV T89 SHELBY CONV G9 VISTA BLUE CC G NO GRAIN MINI W DARK CHARCOAL 50A ORDER CODE .ANTI-LOCK BRKS .TRACTION CONTRL .PWR DRIVER SEAT .MANUAL AIR COND .ACTVE ANTI-THFT 99S .5.4L SC 4V V8 44E .6-SPD MAN TRANS T9H .P255/45/R18 86C CLOTH CONV ROOF .BLACK L59 ***GASGUZTAX*** FRT LICENSE BKT 425 50 STATE EMISS 51H HID HEADLAMPS 50S SAT RADIO W/6MO 58X DVD NAV SYS 68S PREM TRIM PKG 852 WHITE STRIPE 95M AMBT LIGHTING VEHICLE LINE N/A FOR JOB #1 ORDERS randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan186 Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 I am just glad American muscle cars are making a come back. I am not a big fan of the ricers, and they sound like crap as they drive by. I hope the Camero and the Challenger are huge hits. I would love to see these cars on the road. As for the GT500 I plan on ordering one in Oct/Nov hopefully at MSRP. Ford's biggest mistake is making the GT500 too heavy. They need to knock off 500lbs. Should of used the Aluminum engine from the Ford GT. PBJ has a half shaft that is like 40lbs ligther and more efficient than the stock one. Light weight Aluminum rims could shed another 20lbs. Using the Aluminum Frame from the Ford GT would also lighten the car quite a bit. Yes Cost would go up, but hey if Dealers can get 25k over msrp, I dont think it would be such a big problem. Maybe the KR w/ 1000 units should do these mods while the GT500 stays the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 I am just glad American muscle cars are making a come back. I am not a big fan of the ricers, and they sound like crap as they drive by. I hope the Camero and the Challenger are huge hits. I would love to see these cars on the road.As for the GT500 I plan on ordering one in Oct/Nov hopefully at MSRP. Ford's biggest mistake is making the GT500 too heavy. They need to knock off 500lbs. Should of used the Aluminum engine from the Ford GT. PBJ has a half shaft that is like 40lbs ligther and more efficient than the stock one. Light weight Aluminum rims could shed another 20lbs. Using the Aluminum Frame from the Ford GT would also lighten the car quite a bit. Yes Cost would go up, but hey if Dealers can get 25k over msrp, I dont think it would be such a big problem. Maybe the KR w/ 1000 units should do these mods while the GT500 stays the same. The Camaro and Challenger will be considerably heavier and larger (4" wider and 6" longer) than the mustang. The alloy block only saves about 80lbs. The supercharger, intercooler, Heat-exchanger, bigger brakes and rotors, HD everything all adds weight. But I agree with wanting it lighter for sure ;-) Using the frame from the Ford GT is, well, maybe a notch easier than swapping a 747's airframe for the Space Shuttle's but still not very doable, imo. It would be a totally different car -- hand built -- with a price tag similar to the Ford GT. But I sure would like to see Ford belly-up to a serious ONGOING investment in a true performance/sports car -- to act as the tech trickle-down vehicle (like GM uses the 'vette/Z06) ...but that's about 50 years overdue now, imo. Beyond that, the lighter wheels, driveshafts, etc are all available from the aftermarket... remember, the mustang has to go down the line with Mazda 6s and other 'stangs in the SAME assembly intervals -- it's sort of amazing, and a testament to the engineering and manufacturing folks, that they were able to build the GT500 this way to begin with. Still, I appreciate what you're craving -- a serious performance platform at 'vette volume-production prices ...long overdue and equally unlikely, I fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloy Dave Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Using the frame from the Ford GT is, well, maybe a notch easier than swapping a 747's airframe for the Space Shuttle's but still not very doable, imo. It would be a totally different car -- hand built -- with a price tag similar to the Ford GT. But I sure would like to see Ford belly-up to a serious ONGOING investment in a true performance/sports car -- to act as the tech trickle-down vehicle (like GM uses the 'vette/Z06) ...but that's about 50 years overdue now, imo. Beyond that, the lighter wheels, driveshafts, etc are all available from the aftermarket... remember, the mustang has to go down the line with Mazda 6s and other 'stangs in the SAME assembly intervals -- it's sort of amazing, and a testament to the engineering and manufacturing folks, that they were able to build the GT500 this way to begin with. Still, I appreciate what you're craving -- a serious performance platform at 'vette volume-production prices ...long overdue and equally unlikely, I fear. +1 Cars have become heavier overall for a variety of reasons, but here are four we cannot ignore have been driven by our own desires. 1) Advanced safety features. This includes strengthening beams in doors, collapsable steering columns, air bags and the associated controls, larger/better braking systems, stability control systems, improved seatbelts (3 point vs. 2 point), laminated front glass, hoods that crumple, and so on. I'm not saying every item above is heavier...but in total there is weight involved in keeping us safe. 2) Creature comforts. Air conditioning (used to be optional...can you even get a car without it today? ), fold down seats, 6-disc CD changers, 10-speaker stereos rather than 2, more comfortable seats, nav systems, engine dampers to smooth the feeling inside the car, multi-speed wipers, auto-on headlights in some cars, 4-wheel drive, larger wheels for improved ride/looks, sound deadening, plush interiors for that luxury feel (carpeting on door panels for example), storage bins for CDs, drink holders, maps, etc., and many many more. 3) Improved fuel economy. 4-6-8 designs (cylinder cutout), advanced engine controls, fuel injection, radial tires, heavy 5-speed automatic transmissions, cruise control systems (could be considered a convenience feature too), etc. 4) Improved emissions. PCV valves, closed fuel storage systems, catalytic converters, EGR hardware, dual overhead cam systems to better control valve timing, and so on. Again, many of the above could easily fit into multiple categories, and I believe most of the above are welcome additions to today's cars. Just pointing out that our "weight problem" is partially due to equipment to make our cars cleaner, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, and more safe. We try to reduce weight in other ways, such as moving from full-frame cars to subframes, etc....but I think the above items outweigh the gains we've made in moving towards plastics and aluminum as well as advanced designs that require less weight. I wonder, if the Big 3 were to design a car that had zero safety requirements, no emissions needs, no comfort features, and no requirement for fuel economy, how light could a 4-passenger sedan be? Obviously a hypothetical...but interesting to think about. AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Excellent thoughts, Dave! Yeah, it's the lightweight M1A1-Abrams problem Safety, amenities and broad-performance vs light-weight. I'd guess sub-2500lb 4-door cars would be possible under the conditions you mention... a CAFE-friendly approach we will never see <lol> One of the broad attractions of hot-rodding older cars now is that, in most all states, you can virtually remanufacture a '60s pony car (or other) into a killer ride with no current safety (or emissions) standards/requirements. What did early Lotus Elans weigh? 1800-2000lbs? My Intermecchanica Torino Italia weighed 2400-ish lbs -- with a cast-iron 302, steel wheels, and a big trunk (for a sports car). The all-aluminum body helped but it really didn't have to meet any serious crash standards in the '60s ...I would not want to hit a wall in it ...even with the seat/shoulder belts on. Btw, the base weight on a '65 mustang hartop was 2,465!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.