Talk:Shelby Mustang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone include some information on the shelby de mexico cars... i would but I don't know enough about them...

i like this car what is the problem with these cars

lol idk

Come on guys.. --^pirate 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] BIAS DETECTED ON GT500?

The last part of this article sounds really opinionated. Sure it got all the fact, but the tone is really pathetic it sounds really biased.

I disagree. It is what it is. The rest of the article can be argued as being biased going the other way. This piece actually balances out the article. One cannot expect everything to be positive. There are always negative components to anything; and they should be laid out to present a full and complete picture. Also, the last part of the article is FACTUAL.
Note this thread is about the GT500 section. I am not complaining about the accuracy about GT500's perfomance, BUT the way the article is written is just bad, it is so unprofessional and deeply biased. It seems it was written by a Chevy Fan saying that "boohoo you can't beat our Corvette".
" This makes the $42,000.00 price tag hard to swallow." - WTF is this?? this is a good example of bad encyclopedia writing. Besides Corvette cost $44,000 (according to Chevy offical website) and it only seats 2 ( another one in the trunk because the trunk is so friggin big). If $42,000 price tag is true, Shelby GT500 is a decent buy and it seats 4 and you got a lot of room to move around. Do you really expect a sports car that is based on a cheap coupe to beat a fiberglass clad Corvette? Take note that the Shelby GT500 is heavier, more inferior suspension setup, and higher centre of gravity.
"Car & Driver put the Shelby GT500 up against the Corvette (not Z06) and could only get 12.9 sec quarter-mile while the Corvette ran a 12.8." - I dont see the problem here, I dont know why someone is making a huge deal about GT500 performance. Besides Corvette's advantage is only 1-3 seconds advantage. Sure the price is est. $42,000 roughly similar to Corvette but GT500 seats 4 and based on a mainstream car! Now lets make a comparisson a $200,000 Bentley vs a $60,000 a Viper!
"Early test performances recently published in the standard periodicals have NOT been very flattering" - Another bad one. It sounds like written by a 16 year old girl.
Really I don't know where to start the GT500's section is so poorly written, it should win a Darwin awards.
Be bold and fix it instead of sitting around here complaining. I've removed the section in question because it is so POV. I'm copying the text below, so the original author or another editor can give it a POV rewrite.
Early test performances recently published in the standard periodicals have NOT been very flattering. Even with all the horsepower it seems the GT500 can't get much better than a 12.9 sec quarter-mile ET. Car & Driver put the Shelby GT500 up against the Corvette (not Z06) and could only get 12.9 sec quarter-mile while the Corvette ran a 12.8. Road & Track magazine could muster only a 13.1 quarter-mile out of the Shelby GT500. It seems the weight of the car is really causing less than ideal performance issues. With a driver the GT500 coupe weighs in at nearly 4100 lbs. The 2003 or 2004 Cobra by contrast can usually get mid 12 sec quarter miles ET's with an average HP dyno measured rating of 430. There seems to be too much hype concentrated on the HP rating and not enough on the actual performance characteristics of the car. This makes the $42,000.00 price tag hard to swallow.
I'm not doubting that the information in the above section is true, as the GT500 does suffer from some severe disadvantages compared to the Corvette. However, it's very poorly written and drags the entire article down.
Note that in my edit summary I said that the above was unsourced, and I was wrong about that. Sorry, it references Car & Driver and Road & Track. It is still badly in need of a rewrite. TomTheHand 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I stressed that I have NO problem about the accuracy of performance figures and I seen the Car and Driver article and I agree with it. I stand on my argument that the GT500 article is biased. I would like to fix it myself, but I dont like giving someone a surprises. I have to let them know that the article needs to be revise (POV-wise) (Reference - http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11151/2007-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500.html)
I understand what you're saying, but don't worry about it - Wikipedia guidelines say to be bold. It's a good idea to check the talk page before making a big change, because there may be a discussion already in progress, but otherwise just do it. If the person who wrote the section in question has a problem with your edits, you two can discuss it on the talk page, but your default action should be to go ahead and make the changes you feel need to be made. TomTheHand 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys sound like a bunch of whiners. The facts are indisputable. Just read the articles in the SOURCES sited. If someone wants to say the same thing differently; that is fine but, the tests are NOT going to change no matter what verbiage is used. The fact that a 2003 or 2004 cobra is going to smoke the shelby is also NOT going to change. Come on guys it is what is no sense in ignoring the facts.

I suggest we compromise and let someone reword the section keeping the facts in place since they are correct.FrankWilliams 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's what's already been said: that the facts are fine but the section is badly written and unencyclopedic. I've read the Car & Driver article, and it has a lot of good things to say about the GT500, so you've managed to write something incredibly biased from a nice, neutral article. I would ask that you refrain from personal attacks in the future. TomTheHand 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that what you said was different than what you did. In the discussion page you alluded to revising the section. In actuality you DELETED the section. User 138.162.5.13 added the section back. As a compromise between the two parties I volunteered to "Rewrite" the section. I don't think it was user 138.162.5.13 intent to personally attack anyone. I read through the discussions and the other users were a bit reactionary. Just my two cents. FrankWilliams 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section to the talk page because it was so full of POV and original research that I felt the article would be better without it. The only facts it contained were the quarter mile time and curb weight, and the rest of it was your personal rant and interpretation. You can't cite a source that describes a car as "the best bang for the buck around" and say that its $42,000 price is hard to swallow. I moved it here because I thought that you might like to use it as a basis for a NPOV rewrite. I thought that user 138.162.5.13 was you, and I apologize for not realizing the distinction. However, "you guys sound like a bunch of whiners" is a personal attack and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. TomTheHand 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look at the discussion log it was user 138.162.5.13 that made those remarks for the record.FrankWilliams 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for pointing it out, and I apologize for accusing you of making personal attacks. TomTheHand 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You TomTheHand. FrankWilliams 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porsche

In the section 1966 it is stated : "Most people would agree that Honda's are better."

Can someone explain this to me, as I can't find a reference to Honda in the article. Editing error perhaps? --Efrasnel 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; an anon added that last week and somehow it managed to slip by without anyone noticing. It's been removed. TomTheHand 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC

Why dosent this encyclopedia have anything of the details on this car, such as horse power, as 500 is not relevent to the car, and the materials used to make the body

Sorry, I'm not sure if I understand the question. The page does have details on the new Shelby GT500, down at the bottom. TomTheHand 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarter mile times by Major magazines

Just to comment, those quarter mile times by the majors are pathetic. I watched a GT500 go down a crappy track yesterday and do a 13.5 on the guy's first DRAG RUN IN HIS LIFE EVER. He hasn't even driven a stick in 7 years! How Motor Trend can only get a 13.1 with that car is beyond me. They suck, I could do a flat 13 in that car no problem, and I'm pretty inexperienced. Somebody with skills (i.e. a driver from an actual drag racing magazine, or team) could get that car into the low 12s no problem a la Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, with their 12.2s run. 70.29.190.17 17:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Performance facts

I removed the following paragraph due to several untrue statements:

"The heavy iron block V8, with supercharger and water-to-air intercooler, shift the weight bias further forward than the standard Mustang GT (57/43%; front/rear), but the car is said to handle predictably and ride comfortably. According to Car & Driver, the Corvette was deemed to be a better performance vehicle based on the tests performed, but found the Shelby to be more practical, and to offer a more comfortable ride, and stated that the Shelby offered the "best [overall] bang for the buck around." One of the considerations for the for Car & Drivers statement was based on the top end speed test conducted at the same time. The Shelby attained 155 mph (Electronically limited) while the Corvette reached 186 mph."

Besides the fact that none of this has been properly cited (please use Template:Cite journal to do so), a very recent Car and Driver article (January 2007) has stated facts that disagree with many of these numbers. I have made sure to place a proper magazine citation in the article as a real resource. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph and cited the Car and Driver article. TomTheHand 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also replaced top speed data from July 06 from an early production GT500 with newer data from January 07 from a full production GT500. Roguegeek (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the 2k7 GT 500 is electronically limited to 155 mph, how does it turn the 1/4 mile at 197+ mph? Is this figure theoretical or is it accurate with the PCM speed limiter bypassed? Thanks!

[edit] Little technical information?

Sorry, this is only a sugestion but i found little tecnical information about the Shelbys , the history is OK and great details, but i didnt find any info about what engine and how many HP and torque each produced, only adding those two data would improve the quality IMHO

[edit] Disputed Sentence

The sentence: "The GT500 is the best bang for your buck around, but for pure performance at the price, there’s a better alternative" seems very non-sensical to me. How can the shelby be the "best bang for the buck" but for the price there are better alternatives. ?????? This needs to either be deleted or changed around. I would normally do the edit but for the life of me I really don't understand what the intent of the sentence was. Any help?? FrankWilliams 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a quote from the auto media article. This car is the best bang for the buck in terms of hp, number of seats, enjoyment, ownership experience, etc. Its obvious someone has inserted some weasel words there. CJ DUB 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's what the sentence is attempting to convey I think it needs to be deleted as the statement is:

  • A. POV
  • B. Subjective
  • C. An opinion not a fact.

FrankWilliams 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Beh, actually this exact quote has no weasel words, but since it contributes SFA to the article, I removed it. CJ DUB 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your the man :)FrankWilliams 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Contributions

I totally revamped the section of the article regarding the 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 by adding the car's specifications and performance figures. I hope this can resolve the dispute over its capabilities. I also added a section regarding Carroll Shelby's collaboration with Unique Performance on the GT500E.

  • Anonymous User, 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in Popular Culture Section

Here, it states that Bill Cosby's album, 200 mph, talks about Cos getting a Shelby Mustang. The monologue is actually about his getting a Shelby COBRA "...with dual pipes, dual rollbars, dual....everything." LiveOnAPlane 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Also...about the popular culture section...is every appearance this car ever made in a video game going to end up on here? Every appearance no matter how minor in every movie ever? These "popular culture" sections are getting out of hand on every sort of article in which they appear. Something must be done. Andy Christ 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

-I'd like to add, in the popular culture section, in regard to I Am Legend, does anybody know if it is a 2007, 2008, or 2009 model? User:USS Noob Hunter 1-April-2008 16:00(EST)

According to this article it's a 2007 model (see the image caption on the side).~ Dusk Knight 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gt500KR supersnake

How can you claim that the GT500KR supersnake is faster than the viper when it has not been built yet. The line reads, "and a 0-60 time of under 4 seconds, faster than the Dodge Viper. " Whereas the current Dodge Viper HAS a sub- 4 second 0-60 time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.36.205 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1967

Did 1967 Shelby Mustangs not exist? It just goes from 66 to 68... Zchris87v 00:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone vandalized the page, and it looks like someone else removed that vandalism (along with the entire section) and never bothered to restore it. I just put it back how it was, I did NOT add in a copyvio image, as I simply restored the page as to how it was BEFORE someone vandalized it. 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zchris87v (talk • contribs)


wud up peeps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.160.196.218 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)