2013 Shelby GT500 Pricing Starts At

[ctrlraven]

http://jalopnik.com/5893536/2013-shelby-gt500-pricing-starts-at-54995

http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/138865/2013-GT500-vs-2012-ZL1-i001.jpg

[F8LBITEva]

hahaha another GM failure

[Fosters]

hahaha another GM failure

That's not fair! :(

[MrBluGruv]

That's not fair! :(


http://moneysavingmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/211_kleenex.jpg

?

[Fosters]

:lol: :beer:

[tbone]

Only $1136 per month!:eek:

[MOTOWN]

hahaha another GM failure

If you call 580hp a failure i would love to fall flat on my face!:banana2:

[sd8683]

If you call 580hp a failure i would love to fall flat on my face!:banana2:


Amen! Always somebody out there that's faster!

[Fosters]

Amen! Always somebody out there that's faster!

In this case, the guy who buys the correct car - the GT500? :D

[Black_Noise]

less power out of more displacement is whats sad

[MrBluGruv]

less power out of more displacement is whats sad

Actually, it takes less effort to fill a smaller volume, so with a smaller volume per cylinder in engines with identical cylinder counts, it should be easier to be more efficient in the smaller engine. This is why Honda can make 4 cylinder engines with well over 100HP/Liter


*IMPORTANT NOTE* this is not me defending Chevy, I count the GT500 as a win for Ford over Chevy, just a statement of fact.

[Fosters]

Actually, it takes less effort to fill a smaller volume, so with a smaller volume per cylinder in engines with identical cylinder counts, it should be easier to be more efficient in the smaller engine. This is why Honda can make 4 cylinder engines with well over 100HP/Liter


*IMPORTANT NOTE* this is not me defending Chevy, I count the GT500 as a win for Ford over Chevy, just a statement of fact.

That's why everyone is looking at strokers and big bore motors, eh?

air + fuel + spark = power. More air + more fuel = more power. Simple as that. The only reason smaller engines are more efficient is not because they can be filled with air easier, but because their rotating assemblies weigh less and thus there are less parasitic losses. Those losses add up quick too; if you count that a set of gears can gain or lose you 2=3hp, same way a lighter flywheel can, the closer you get to the engine, the more impact rotating weight has. However, 2 engines with identical weight rotating assemblies but with different displacements, the bigger engine will make more power (of course, if it is fed proportionally more air and fuel).

And in the end, the camaro lost. And let's be real, it's not because it's that much harder to get more power out of more cubes... :eek:

[CBT]

Actually, it takes less effort to fill a smaller volume, so with a smaller volume per cylinder in engines with identical cylinder counts, it should be easier to be more efficient in the smaller engine. This is why Honda can make 4 cylinder engines with well over 100HP/Liter


*IMPORTANT NOTE* this is not me defending Chevy, I count the GT500 as a win for Ford over Chevy, just a statement of fact.

.....tempting.....

[CBT]

I like the older Mustangs, '67-'70, but Cobra's and Bosses and Laguna SECA's are just ass kickers, who wouldn't want one?

[PonyUP]

I like the older Mustangs, '67-'70, but Cobra's and Bosses and Laguna SECA's are just ass kickers, who wouldn't want one?

Camaro owners ? :dunno:

Oh I'm kidding, I think Ford did a great job on the Shelby. Priced at what it's at though, I wonder if there will be Dealer exceptions that pushed the price way up on previous Shelby's


Pony seal of Approval

[MrBluGruv]

That's why everyone is looking at strokers and big bore motors, eh?

air + fuel + spark = power. More air + more fuel = more power. Simple as that. The only reason smaller engines are more efficient is not because they can be filled with air easier, but because their rotating assemblies weigh less and thus there are less parasitic losses. Those losses add up quick too; if you count that a set of gears can gain or lose you 2=3hp, same way a lighter flywheel can, the closer you get to the engine, the more impact rotating weight has. However, 2 engines with identical weight rotating assemblies but with different displacements, the bigger engine will make more power (of course, if it is fed proportionally more air and fuel).

And in the end, the camaro lost. And let's be real, it's not because it's that much harder to get more power out of more cubes... :eek:

What's bolded is the key really.

I already agreed that Ford made the better car, it's hard to argue otherwise.

I'm just pointing out volumetric efficiency here. In the practical world it made not matter (kinda becomes ricer math really), but in theory it stands to note that the smaller cylinder volumes require less engine effort to fill.

I guess having boost on both cars kinda makes it not matter though. Ehh, I'm thinking way too technical about this....

[MrBluGruv]

.....tempting.....

Oh just do it already. ;)


(And yes, that makes TWO that you can go for now. :P )

[DOOM]

If you call 580hp a failure i would love to fall flat on my face!:banana2:


Amen! Always somebody out there that's faster!

Yeah FORD is faster!!! :banana2:

[DOOM]

The camaro weighs almost as much as a marauder!!! :eek:

[guspech750]

The camaro weighs almost as much as a marauder!!! :eek:
I thought the same.

[WPG_Merc]

$54,995 is a lot ,But you get a killer Stang that can be tweaked out further with a higher value then the Camaro. :up:
:burnout:

[CBT]

The camaro weighs almost as much as a marauder!!! :eek:


I thought the same.

And we have 2 extra doors. Wonder if tow trucks charge by the pound? They're going to make a killing off towing Camaros.

[dohc324ci]

Both are just bad arse!

[Fosters]

What's bolded is the key really.


It really isn't but I've added that so that someone doesn't say, well, the 1970s pontiac 6.6 liter made 150hp or whatever and there's a honda civic si that makes 190hp with a 1.x liter.

However, I can guarantee you that if you put a big bore stroker with the same rotating assembly weight as your stock motor, and do absolutely nothing to the top end, thus flowing air at the same rate, you will still make more power.

Let's face it, it's not easier to make more power out of smaller motors because you can fill them up easier. If that was the case, everyone would be running smart car engines. That's a bunch of nonsense. It's easier to achieve more hp/liter, but that's not what matters in the end. It's power to weight ratio that matters, and my tax dollars still propped up a 4200lb piece of FAIL on that one.


And we have 2 extra doors. Wonder if tow trucks charge by the pound? They're going to make a killing off towing Camaros.

:eek::D

[MrBluGruv]

Let's face it, it's not easier to make more power out of smaller motors because you can fill them up easier.....It's easier to achieve more hp/liter, but that's not what matters in the end.....It's power to weight ratio that matters.


....huh?

You tell me I'm wrong in your first sentence by taking what I say in a different way than I intended , then you follow it up by trying to tell me the right interpretation is what I've been trying to say all along?

The whole point I was trying to make when I was posting is that the END RESULT of smaller engines being more volumetrically efficient by nature because they require less effort to fill a smaller volume is that it's easier to "achieve more hp/liter." I guess I need to be explicit when I try to make a point from here on out.

Now in the sense of making bigger power, yeah the small engine will pretty much always be at a disadvantage to a bigger one when maxxed out (assuming everything identical except for displacement), but that's not the point I was trying to make, because that's an entirely different discussion altogether.

But in fact, hp/liter CAN matter in the end, it's just not the be-all-end-all that so many import drivers love to claim it is: High HP/liter in a chassis that is exceptionally light can afford you both speed, handling, AND economy even in many cases if built right. Case in point: K-swapped older Honda civic coupes and hatchbacks. You get that thing to around 200whp or so, you can turn 13s and still get over 30mpg on a regular basis. The sad part about that is so many Honda "tuners" still manage to **** it up...

[Phrog_gunner]

Just because rotating mass is a factor in in engine power doesn't mean its the ONLY factor.

Rotating mass has zero to do with the VOLUME of the cylinder, and therefore impossible to be a factor in VOLUMEtric efficiency, which is what the Gruvmeister was discussing.

[Black&Gifted]

wonder what a-plan price is.

[CBT]

wonder what a-plan price is.
......over 9000.....

[Fosters]

....huh?

You tell me I'm wrong in your first sentence by taking what I say in a different way than I intended , then you follow it up by trying to tell me the right interpretation is what I've been trying to say all along?

No, I'm trying to argue the excuse you posted - that it's harder to make more power with a bigger engine:


less power out of more displacement is whats sad



Actually, it takes less effort to fill a smaller volume, so with a smaller volume per cylinder in engines with identical cylinder counts, it should be easier to be more efficient in the smaller engine.

You used this to argue against the guy who pointed out less power out of a bigger displacement. No, it's not harder to make more power with more displacement because the engine is less efficient.


The whole point I was trying to make when I was posting is that the END RESULT of smaller engines being more volumetrically efficient by nature because they require less effort to fill a smaller volume is that it's easier to "achieve more hp/liter." I guess I need to be explicit when I try to make a point from here on out.

Now in the sense of making bigger power, yeah the small engine will pretty much always be at a disadvantage to a bigger one when maxxed out (assuming everything identical except for displacement), but that's not the point I was trying to make, because that's an entirely different discussion altogether.

So, say it with me (and Black Noise): "Less power out of more displacement is what's sad"

:D

Government Motors = fail.

[Fosters]

Just because rotating mass is a factor in in engine power doesn't mean its the ONLY factor.

Rotating mass has zero to do with the VOLUME of the cylinder, and therefore impossible to be a factor in VOLUMEtric efficiency, which is what the Gruvmeister was discussing.

See the first quote, where he was trying to argue it's not sad, because smaller engines have the advantage. :D

[MrBluGruv]

You used this to argue against the guy who pointed out less power out of a bigger displacement. No, it's not harder to make more power with more displacement because the engine is less efficient.

TKYQ5ibxslI


It's not HARD to make bigger power from bigger cubes, however smaller capacity cylinders are volumetrically more efficient than larger cylinders. This is not a question, it's fact. By that sense, technically it's easier to make better HP/liter in a smaller displacement version of identical configuration engines. The end result HP comes down to MANY deciding factors though of course, part of which in this case can be attributed to the fact that Ford's new engines are variably-timed DOHC with more valve area than the GM engines that are 2V per cylinder instead of 4V. It is what it is, and consequently why I'll say again if I haven't already (I could swear I had) that I would pick the Mustang stock-for-stock over the Camaro if it ever came to choosing between the two.

I'm not arguing that the Chevy is the better car, I'm saying it's not an apt argument that bigger engines should automatically make significantly more power just because of displacement alone.

Just like I argued that saying the ZL1 would be crap because GM did an extra QA step was a poor argument as well, as you have a myriad of other REAL points you can make against the ZL1 that makes that argument asinine.

You really have a poor appreciation for rhetoric I believe.

[Fosters]

That's awesome, but that's not what you argued. Did you or did you not answer the claim that less hp out of bigger displacement is sad, with a sign of disagreement starting with "Actually..." ?

Yes or no question?

[MrBluGruv]

That's awesome, but that's not what you argued. Did you or did you not answer the claim that less hp out of bigger displacement is sad, with a sign of disagreement starting with "Actually..." ?

Yes or no question?

That I did, but you are framing my post as a commentary on whether or not that makes GM a bad manufacturer, which *my post* wasn't. (Edited for clarity) It was merely intended as a commentary on the fact that bigger size doesn't always equal better in and of itself due to what I've said many times now, volumetric efficiency, and what I did not post until later (after you felt the need to call me out on it) was further qualification of that statement with the fact that there are a lot more factors for power than displacement alone.

The point I've been trying to make and deciding if the GT500 is better than the ZL1 are two different arguments altogether.

Interestingly enough, in your efforts to refute me, you have given me points for why the ZL1 would have better post-purchase build potential than the GT500, in that (you guessed it) IT'S A BIGGER ENGINE.

I don't want to get into that argument though, because there are even two sides for that too: the value of each car for those that want to mod the car post-purchase, and the value of each car for those that don't.


How about this though: for someone who likes to bash democrats and liberals and whatever group you like to pick on for any given day, you sure do pursue debate tactics that you most often associate with these groups you hate so much...

[Fosters]

That I did, but you are framing my post as a commentary on whether or not that makes GM a bad manufacturer, which it isn't. It was merely intended as a commentary on the fact that bigger size doesn't always equal better in and of itself due to what I've said many times now, volumetric efficiency, and what I did not post until later (after you felt the need to call me out on it) was further qualification of that statement with the fact that there are a lot more factors for power than displacement alone.

If you want to get into volumetric efficiency, I'm sorry, but that is not the leading cause the smaller engines make bigger power. 2 engines with the same volumetric efficiency of 2 different displacements - the bigger one will make more power. Again, if you bore and stroke one of our engines, it will make more power. It will be less volumetric efficient, I guarantee it, if you don't change the top end, but it will make more power.

So in conclusion, it is to be expected that the bigger engine will make more power. But it doesn't. And that part is sad. Especially since my tax money made sure it happened, otherwise it would have been bought by the chinese, and the Camaro would have been powered by a 1.5 liter diesel.


The point I've been trying to make and deciding if the GT500 is better than the ZL1 are two different arguments altogether.

Interestingly enough, in your efforts to refute me, you have given me points for why the ZL1 would have better post-purchase build potential than the GT500, in that (you guessed it) IT'S A BIGGER ENGINE.

...which, doesn't help it, sadly. Just thought I'd remind ya there


I don't want to get into that argument though, because there are even two sides for that too: the value of each car for those that want to mod the car post-purchase, and the value of each car for those that don't.

Good strategy - not going into that one. There's also the little fact that mod motors have been in the 6s at the dragstrip long before the almight larger LSx motors. :D



How about this though: for someone who likes to bash democrats and liberals and whatever group you like to pick on for any given day, you sure do pursue debate tactics that you most often associate with these groups you hate so much...

I do feel the right wing has played nice for far too long and are afraid to come out swinging for fear of not hurting some feelings. Ever hear the phrase, fight fire with fire? :fire:

Obama just gave some islands with a lot of oil to the Russians, while gas is going up at the pump. Do you see the GOP going ballistic over it? Newp - they're afraid some greenies might be butt-hurt, and they're still trying to save face over some stupid birth control pills that cost 3 grand per year. :mad2:

But that's another thread altogether. :D

[MrBluGruv]

If you want to get into volumetric efficiency, I'm sorry, but that is not the leading cause the smaller engines make bigger power. 2 engines with the same volumetric efficiency of 2 different displacements - the bigger one will make more power. Again, if you bore and stroke one of our engines, it will make more power. It will be less volumetric efficient, I guarantee it, if you don't change the top end, but it will make more power.

You just don't get it, do you? Are you reading a single thing I type? Are you even reading what YOU type?

I KNOW that size isn't why GM lost this battle of HP, it was design choice. Poor design choices, arguably. Hell, I'd bet a cam with 10degrees extra duration on both intake and exhaust side and a slightly more aggressive tune would easily make up the 70 crank HP difference, as even on naturally aspirated LS1s, WHICH ARE SMALLER THAN THE LS3-SIZE LSA, bolting on headers and swapping in a baby cam has been known to show nearly 100rhwp gains.

The entire point of my post, as it's always been, was to point out that large size isn't the sole determining factor of power for engines, and thus saying that that alone is what makes GM bad is a weak argument.




Especially since my tax money made sure it happened.

I could making a drinking game out of how often you say this.


There's also the little fact that mod motors have been in the 6s at the dragstrip long before the almight larger LSx motors. :D

And again, you are going in a direction I was never headed, trying to make this about Ford VS. Chevy instead of fact VS. hunch.

But oh geez, Mazda can make 238 HP from a 1.3 liter engine, why couldn't Ford do any better with their SOHC panther cars? That's how the world works right? :shake:


Maybe one day you won't feel like you have to jump on the sword for Ford even when the person you are arguing with doesn't even care about who's better (and especially when they already agree with you anyways).

[Fosters]

You just don't get it, do you? Are you reading a single thing I type? Are you even reading what YOU type?

I KNOW that size isn't why GM lost this battle of HP, it was design choice. Poor design choices, arguably. Hell, I'd bet a cam with 10degrees extra duration on both intake and exhaust side and a slightly more aggressive tune would easily make up the 70 crank HP difference, as even on naturally aspirated LS1s, WHICH ARE SMALLER THAN THE LS3-SIZE LSA, bolting on headers and swapping in a baby cam has been known to show nearly 100rhwp gains.

The entire point of my post, as it's always been, was to point out that large size isn't the sole determining factor of power for engines, and thus saying that that alone is what makes GM bad is a weak argument.


Nope, your point was that it's not sad to say that, because smaller engines are more efficient.... insinuating that it's somehow easier to make more power with them. My point is, that he's right, it is sad, and it is usually expected that a bigger engine makes more power.



I could making a drinking game out of how often you say this.


I'm sorry to hear the truth will drive you to become an alcoholic, sometimes it does hurt. :beer:


And again, you are going in a direction I was never headed, trying to make this about Ford VS. Chevy instead of fact VS. hunch.

But oh geez, Mazda can make 238 HP from a 1.3 liter engine, why couldn't Ford do any better with their SOHC panther cars? That's how the world works right? :shake:

For the same reason GM can't make a car faster than a goped:
SkooEFgiaiE :D


Maybe one day you won't feel like you have to jump on the sword for Ford even when the person you are arguing with doesn't even care about who's better (and especially when they already agree with you anyways).

That'll be the exact same day you stop jumping into every thread that might make a negative remark about GM, on a Ford forum, and start making excuses for them. I don't think you've skipped a single thread so far... :D

[MrBluGruv]

Nope, your point was that it's not sad to say that, because smaller engines are more efficient.... insinuating that it's somehow easier to make more power with them. My point is, that he's right, it is sad, and it is usually expected that a bigger engine makes more power.

What's this? USUALLY? Could it be, that you're finally backing down off your high horse for once, and maybe not admitting an absolute? :eek:




I'm sorry to hear the truth will drive you to become an alcoholic, sometimes it does hurt. :beer:

Hey, I hate the thought that the company that built the car I drive now took government funding to stay afloat just as much as you do (yes, it's possible), but it just gets tiring to hear it EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL/GM RELATED POST.



For the same reason GM can't make a car faster than a goped:
SkooEFgiaiE :D

Oh now you just be trollin'. :P


That'll be the exact same day you stop jumping into every thread that might make a negative remark about GM, on a Ford forum, and start making excuses for them. I don't think you've skipped a single thread so far... :D

I think I left you a box of tissues at the beginning of the thread for you crying about that. :flamer: :lol:

[Fosters]

What's this? USUALLY? Could it be, that you're finally backing down off your high horse for once, and maybe not admitting an absolute? :eek:


Well, I've admitted to it before, in the pontiac 6.6L vs the honda civic SI argument. But it's not because the honda motors are easier to fill up with air because they're smaller. It's because they're easier to fill up with air because they breathe better, and because they rev to the moon, something GM hasn't figured out yet.



Hey, I hate the thought that the company that built the car I drive now took government funding to stay afloat just as much as you do (yes, it's possible), but it just gets tiring to hear it EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL/GM RELATED POST.


And yet you decided to support them. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.



Oh now you just be trollin'. :P


And the wankel vs panther bit wasn't? :lol:



I think I left you a box of tissues at the beginning of the thread for you crying about that. :flamer: :lol:
Used them up when Dr Pepper came out my nose laughing at some of your arguments. :banana2: