On Wednesday, Ford confirmed production of the Shelby GT as one of 9 new product introductions coming in the next 6 months for Ford and Lincoln Mercury. The Shelby GT will feature a 4.6-liter V-8 producing 325-horsepower and production will be limited in volume (roughly 10,000) therefore assuring its exclusivity like all Shelby Mustang models.
“Our goal is to offer a steed for every need,†says John Felice, Ford brand general marketing manager. “The new Shelby GT is a low-volume, extremely collectable Mustang for enthusiasts. It also offers a few more customers the opportunity to experience firsthand magic of Mustang and Carroll Shelby.â€Â
The Shelby GT is the third modern Shelby Mustang produced through a collaboration of Ford and Shelby Automobiles. In addition to the 2007 Shelby GT500, Ford and Shelby created 500 copies of the Ford Shelby GT-H, which are available only through select Hertz rental centers.
“We have been overwhelmed at the number of people who want to buy a version of the Shelby GT-H,†said Carroll Shelby, CEO of Shelby Automobiles, Inc. “The Shelby GT will deliver the power and balanced handling of the Shelby GT-H, but with more performance potential, especially due to the available manual transmission.â€Â
The Shelby GT driving dynamics are fine tuned with the Ford Racing Handling Pack, which was developed by the same engineers that developed the Ford Racing FR500C, which won the 2005 Grand-Am Cup Championship. New coil springs drop the overall ride height by an inch-and-a-half for a more aggressive stance and reduced body roll. Stiffer dampers and front swaybar further enhance cornering feel and body control. To showcase the key performance modifications, Ford Racing painted all the key suspension components, including the damper, spring, and swaybar Ford Racing Blue.
A front strut-tower brace adds additional strength to the chassis structure, and P235/55ZR18 high-performance tires maximize the benefits of the chassis upgrades.
Under hood, the Ford Racing Power Pack increases the output of the naturally aspirated, three-valve, 4.6-liter V-8 to 325-horsepower, and 330 pound-feet of torque. The Power Pack includes a 90 millimeter cold-air intake and a new performance engine calibration for improved response. The high-flow exhaust system with X-pipe crossover offers better power delivery and a throaty V-8 exhaust note. A shorter rear-axle ratio is installed to capitalize on the Shelby GT coupe’s extra power, especially accelerating off the line. For Shelby GT models equipped with a manual transmission, a Hurst short-throw shifter is installed for more precise shift action.
“The Shelby GT is great fun on the track,†continues Shelby. “It’s got the heart and soul of the Mustang GT pumped up with a strong motor, nimble chassis and great sound. It’s one of those rare cars that’s easy to drive really fast.â€Â
The announcement was made on Ford’s new documentarty site www.fordboldmoves.com.
I think ford should have a super charger option when ordering a new GT.Also I like the LX grill(07) and the LX (07) rear spoiler to be made as an option. I like the suspension option,lowers the car 1″ up front 1.5″ in the rear.
By artie g. September 29th, 2006 at 10:17 amI think the new mustang is the shit but im only 17 i think a lot of cars are the shit. I think Ford should offer a mustang with the v-6 style wheels and pony grill a spoiler no power anything a basic interior and a blower a big un on a 5.4 making somewhere in 425 450 range and call it the Boss 5.4
THey should bring back the marauder also with a blower.
By 86F-15.0. September 16th, 2006 at 6:42 pmI just spent the last half hour typing and my browser randomly decided it didn’t want to run anymore, so this re-type will be somewhat shorter.
– I don’t care about most 80s cars, just the Fox bodies. Aero-Foxes like my T-birds and LSCs, Cougars.. and the lighter box-Foxes. A ‘Mont or Zephyr only weighs about as much as an Escort, (around 2600-2800 lbs. by my research) but is RWD and easy to work on. My next choice would be early to mid-60s Fords like the ‘64 Galaxie I had as a teen, or the ‘64 Fairlane my father had when I was a kid. My truck is also growing on me, but that’s an entirely different story as its a truck I inherited when my grandfather died, and it was his favorite truck.
– Funny that they’d consider the 80s so awful when nearly everything looks the same to me today and none of it appeals to me in the least bit. Even the stuff like the new Rustangs is boring to me.
– Funny how “the media” gets blamed in cases like this. What “media” is coloring my perceptions, exactly? I don’t watch much TV, and what little TV I watch is stuff like the Science Channel.. not exactly hotbeds of car design talk. I don’t read newspapers anymore.. I don’t read most car websites, either. Mostly just this place, a couple car forums related to what I own, and places like Ebay Motors and Auto Trader.com.. also not hotbeds of new car design talk. So what part of that “media” would you blame, then?
I see the product every time I go out for a drive. I see several new Rustangs every time I go for a drive.. they’re all over the place down here. Every time I go to one friend’s house, I pass by the local Ford dealer. All they put out in front are new Rustangs. It seems to me that they think that’s the only car that can bring anyone in. Hell, I see more Fox Rustangs than I do Five Hundreds.. and I see far more 90s Escorts/Tracers than Focuses, while we’re comparing sightings of older vs. newer. Not exactly settin’ the streets on fire with those new car sales, Ford.
By 89LSC. August 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 amWell Mr. “89 Lousy Sacko Crap”…..
You enjoy your vacation.I hope all goes well.
I had a 1985 Thunderbird Elan. Was a nice riding car. But it should with all the extra weight.. But that is my most favorite car of the 80’s hands down.
I do find it funny that the decade which has the label of being the worst time in the auto industry for styling and quality, Is the one your defending…
If people would not believe what the media wants to portray and actually went in to their dealer and seen the product first hand they might learn something.
Then Ford would be back leading the pack.
But thats most of america… Plain lazy.
By Wildo. August 19th, 2006 at 3:57 pmSomeone’s getting a little sensitive about their Rustang and dissenting opinions on it.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
Yes, you ARE talking to the wrong person.. the RIGHT person would be someone who cares how new the Rustang chassis is vs. the Aussie Falcon. What you have in the way of older chassis is irrelevant, because you were talking to me and not yourself. If you were talking to yourself, then what would’ve been the point of posting?
I live in southwest Florida, and most of my cars are from Florida. Neither of my Marks have more than a couple rust spots and some surface rust.. and the worst rust out of any of the four cars is the door rot on my ‘86 T-bird, but that car spent some of its life in Michigan. (my ‘85 Ram D100 also lacks anything worse than surface rust from spots where the paint faded and chipped.. 21 years in the sun will do that) I’d say it’s not too bad for four cars no younger than 17 years old, but you’ll probably say differently just to argue. All my subframes are just fine, thanks. We don’t salt our roads down here like they were french fries from McDogfood’s.
No wonder you think Foxes are crap, you’ve owned the bargain-basement Foxes. I’ve also had two Capris and a Fairmont, and I’d say the T-birds and Mark VIIs are a definite improvement over the lower Foxes. Enough so that if and when I do find a Fairmont or Zephyr to add to the collection, I’ll be trying to add the spare interior from my parts LSC to it.
I would probably say I have no interest in the LS or latest T-bird.
Enjoy a car that looks like someone’s droopy saggy depressed grandmother with her eyes too far apart on her head, like a deer. No, I don’t mean it looks like a grandmother should be driving a Rustang.. it looks like it IS someone’s grandmother. The “retro charm” is definitely wearing off. (and yes, I did throw this comment in because it was a little obvious you were taking the Rustang-bashing personally.. hah) I’d still take my Marks or my T-birds over any Rustang. To me, they have far more class than any Rustang will ever have. Sure, the Rustang may be faster, but I rarely drive above 75 mph anyway.. and I have absolutely zero interest in racing, officially or unofficially, so what’s the point? I have nothing to prove to the snot-nosed teens of the world.
Hell, I’d rather drive a Pinto.
Wake me up when you make interesting cars again, Ford. Until then, I’ll keep my 80s Fords. The styling is more interesting to me, they’re generally fast enough for my wants and needs, and *gasp* they actually get as good as or better mileage than some newer cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/bymanuNF.shtml
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic (5 speed), Regular: 17 city, 23 highway
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Manual (5 speed), Regular: 17 city, 25 highway
- Ford Mustang 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Manual (6 speed), Premium: 15 city, 21 highway
- Lincoln Mark VII 8 cyl, 4.9 L, Automatic (4 sp), Regular: 17 city, 24 highway (that’s about right.. I don’t drive it like my hair’s on fire)
- Ford Thunderbird 8 cyl, 4.9 L, Automatic (4 sp), Regular: 18 city, 27 highway (that too)
With AODs and 17-18 year old EFI systems in both Foxes, even! (fear the mighty EEC-IV.. hahaha) Might have something to do with me not having to lug around all that extra nanny-state garbage.
See you next Tuesday, when vacation ends. Goin’ out of town and I’m not taking “da intarweb” with me.
By 89LSC. August 19th, 2006 at 11:47 amIm not speaking to the wrong person. I have a 2004 Marauder. You want to talk about old? Its started life as a 65 Galaxie ffs.
Ive had a 79 Fairmont, 89 lX Mustang, 1999/2001 w/IRS/2004 w/IRS SN95(widened FOX) Mustangs and now a 07 GT500. The previous cars are straight crap in comparison in comfort and fun factor. Its Funny you mention “Rustang” when that Mark rusts just as fast. How is your front subframe holding up anyhow?
You would probably say that the Lincoln LS and the latest T-Bird were bad cars too.
By Wildo. August 19th, 2006 at 9:46 amI own four cars (trying to make it five) based off the 1978 Fairmont. I think you’re talking to the wrong person about old chassis. I don’t have a problem with that, and I don’t care how much more modern the Rustang chassis is. My Mark VII is more comfortable and fun to drive than some newer cars I’ve been in, and that’s 17 years old. (and it doesn’t even have the air suspension anymore)
By 89LSC. August 19th, 2006 at 8:42 amIm not going to disagree with you on the Falcon. They are very nice cars and they done very well with the re-fresh everytime they have done it (That chassis is as old as many readers cars here on FM) but when you look at the chassis of the new Mustang the Falcon is just “old” and outdated.
The Aussies get to play with the engines more with their different standards for emission’s.
Heck even Mazda NA has a turbo 4 (Ford will have some turbo’ed app’s pretty soon) where currently Ford does not. Ever look at the Mazda Speed 6? I wouldnt mind one, But I prefer the V8 in my Marauder and the added interior room.
Everyone has their own opinion and thats what makes all of us special. Except the ones who think killing people “in the name of “pick your God here”"..
By Wildo. August 19th, 2006 at 4:28 amWell I’m surprised, to be honest. I thought I was in for a good solid lynching here for posting that stuff.. but so far, not so much. (maybe later? heh)
The Aussie Falcon would of course have to be tarted up a bit, as the Brits would say, before bringing it over here.. but I’d still take one over most of Ford’s current offerings. Definitely would take one over any Rustang no matter how much more powerful or how many names they tack onto it.
By 89LSC. August 16th, 2006 at 5:24 pmYeah, the Falcon is a very cool car… I have a hard time deciding if I like the turbo I-6 or the V8 model better… they make very close to the same power, I think one makes slightly more torque and the other slightly more horsepower, but I’d almost put money on the turbo I-6 getting better mileage, and being easier/cheaper to mod for slightly more power.
By Motrhed. August 16th, 2006 at 1:46 pm“Who else has a V8 RWD car for under 30K in North America?”
I’m going to make a statement that’s probably considered blasphemy around here, but..
I don’t care about a V8.
I own five of them. Three 5.0s, (1 SO, 2 HO) a 351W, and a 318. I have my fill of V8s. I want *INTERESTING*. To me, a Rustang is about as interesting as a lawn gnome, and this Shelby Rustang is about as interesting as painting said lawn gnome neon green. It’s still a lawn gnome.
Hell, forget what I said earlier about Aussie-Falcon-as-nu-Thunderbird thing.. just bring me the Aussie Falcon in LHD. With a twin-turbo I6 I guarantee you it’ll sound like few things still on the road.. and it’ll still move. So, many of you here wouldn’t want one because it’s not a V8.. that doesn’t mean everyone thinks like you. You’ll still have your Rustang.. give the rest of us something else. Give us a little more CHOICE, Ford. Dare to put out something that’s not a V8 Rustang but that’ll keep up with it. So you risk eroding some of your sales figures for the Rustang.. SO WHAT? They’d still be buying YOUR CARS. Ford REEKS of no imagination to me. Just keep slapping the same stupid horsie name plate on the same formula and the drones will buy it. Slap another name on it and rake in a few more people. Way to tread water. Bravo. I’ll stick to what’s already in my driveway.
By 89LSC. August 16th, 2006 at 12:25 pmWho else has a V8 RWD car for under 30K in North America?
By Wildo. August 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI agree with 89LSC, although not to the same degree… I like the Mustangs, and I think the pic of the Shelby GT looks awesome, but Ford needs a fullsize car with a V8 and performance option, something like the Mercury Marauder a few years back, that thing was cool. Hell, at least they had the Lightning (not a car, but still an alternative), but they dropped the axe on that as well, so as 89LSC said, we’re stuck with the Mustang if you want any kind of performance Ford vehicle.
By Motrhed. August 16th, 2006 at 11:58 amCome to think of it, FORD, how about ANYTHING sporty that doesn’t have that stupid horse on the front end? Some of us are fans of the brand and NOT Rustang fans, you know. At this point I’d take any kind of gesture from them as a good sign. How about a T-bird re-resurrection based off the Aussie Falcon with that sweet turbo I6? (and not some watered-down poser like the last T-bird) How about some kind of Fairlane Thunderbolt, while we’re in this retro craze? You remember that car, dontcha? The car with hair on its chest back when the Rustang was just a secretary’s car. Hell, at this point I’d settle for a revival of the ‘Stang-based Capri or even a revival of the Ranchero/Fairmont Durango.. ANYTHING that doesn’t have that stupid horse on it but is still an INTERESTING car. Until then, I’ll stick to my four Fox-bodies. They may not be the fastest things on the road, but at least they’re interesting.
I will not buy a new Ford as long as it is decreed that the Rustang can be the so-called king of the hill. (and it wouldn’t hurt to stop antagonizing the fan base over naming nonsense, while you’re at it) I don’t care how many old names you tack to it. At this point I’d rather have a Shelby GLHS Turbo over this car, IF I absolutely *had* to own something with the Shelby name on it.
By 89LSC. August 16th, 2006 at 10:31 amBring back the Cougar and maybe I’ll be interested. Otherwise, I can’t stand Rustangs. They’re the only Fords I dislike.
By 89LSC. August 16th, 2006 at 10:15 amCool! I would actually think about buying one of those over the GT 500. The 500 I consider too expensive and weigh too much. As long as these hover around 30k then that would be perfect. I hope they dont come filled with a load of options that drive the cost and weight up.
By 19Mach69. August 16th, 2006 at 4:42 am