GT500 dyno test on TG

Your wrong. I even remember an interview where the head of development mentioned that IRS would not be "cost justifiable" or something. Just googling I found this:

Chassis modifications include stronger springs and thicker anti-roll bars, wider tires, new alloy wheels (though remains 18-inch) and Brembo front brakes with 4-pot calipers and 355mm ventilated discs. On the downside, the heavyweight engine and transmission worsens front-rear balance from 54:46 to 57:43, while the solid live axle rear suspension of the regular Mustang is retained (note: the previous SVT Cobra employed independent suspensions).

Not sure about the Rousch tho..

well hell that makes no sense. i thought they were sticking with the IRS. it made sense seeing as how all the other recent stangs have been IRS. whatever, doesn't change much. he still confused the BASE model with the GT which is kind of like confusing a 325 with an m3. little bit of a crow bar seperation there.

i dont get why this is such a big deal. top gear put their foot in their mouths over the hp. big effin deal. it wouldn't be the first time clarkson said something that was totally wrong in just about every way.

any publicity is good publicity and you guys are just feeding his ego because the fact of the matter is you're treating his opinion like it matters when in all actuallity he's just another overpaid limey that doesn't know nearly as much about cars as he lets on.
 
In Hammond's words: "Well, have you met Jeremy Clarkson? Big tall fellow. Curly hair. Idiot. That's your answer, really, isn't it?"
 
I could frankly give a damn. Either way, it's a mustang.
 
I could frankly give a damn. Either way, it's a mustang.

I have noticed Americans using this phrase wrong before and I'm sort of wondering if it's just the American way of doing it.
I mean saying "I could frankly" makes no sense like if someone says "I could care less" which I have seen as well. Is this an American convention or is it just a phrase you don't use and it is just being said wrong. As I said I am just curious, not wishing to start another language flame war.
 
It's a turn of phrase that dates back to the 1930's movie "Gone With The Wind" - wherein Clark Gable uttered the famous line, "Frankly, my dear, I could give a damn."

It's been mangled a bit since then, but the best translation into non-colloquial English is "There is no possible way for me to care less about this matter; I emphatically do not care."

We do also use "I could care less," but that implies that there is some level of care to begin with. That phrase is a corruption of "I couldn't care less" in the first place.

You Brits have a similarly puzzling phrase that is not used over here: "For f**k's sake!" We don't use it at all.
 
It's a turn of phrase that dates back to the 1930's movie "Gone With The Wind" - wherein Clark Gable uttered the famous line, "Frankly, my dear, I could give a damn."

It's been mangled a bit since then, but the best translation into non-colloquial English is "There is no possible way for me to care less about this matter; I emphatically do not care."

We do also use "I could care less," but that implies that there is some level of care to begin with. That phrase is a corruption of "I couldn't care less" in the first place.

You Brits have a similarly puzzling phrase that is not used over here: "For f**k's sake!" We don't use it at all.

Actually, the quote is "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." which is correct unless you really DO give a damn in which case the other way would be correct.

I use "For Fuck's Sake," but I am a semi-pro profanitizer and wore out all the common curses by age 15.

-Justin
 
Actually, the quote is "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." which is correct unless you really DO give a damn in which case the other way would be correct.

I use "For Fuck's Sake," but I am a semi-pro profanitizer and wore out all the common curses by age 15.

-Justin

As I don't happen to have a copy of GWTW handy, I'll take your word for it and type corrected.
 
I have noticed Americans using this phrase wrong before and I'm sort of wondering if it's just the American way of doing it.
I mean saying "I could frankly" makes no sense like if someone says "I could care less" which I have seen as well. Is this an American convention or is it just a phrase you don't use and it is just being said wrong. As I said I am just curious, not wishing to start another language flame war.

You don't know how many people to whom I've told this.

"I could care less."
"So you do care?"
"No, I could care less."
"Right, if you could care less, then that means you care some right now."
"No, I don't care at all."
"So you couldn't care less."
"Right, I could care less."
 
You don't know how many people to whom I've told this.

"I could care less."
"So you do care?"
"No, I could care less."
"Right, if you could care less, then that means you care some right now."
"No, I don't care at all."
"So you couldn't care less."
"Right, I could care less."

That's exactly my point. It's "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". It makes no logical sense the other way around. This sort of phrase has been around for way way longer than Gone with the Wind but I was just curious why Americans seem to use it the other way around.

"For fuck's sake" is just a bastardisation of "For God's sake".
 
Know one here knows exactly how the bhp was measured but for all we know it could have had 400 bhp at the wheels and then calculated as 450 bhp by measuring the transmission losses during the run down.
I dont know how they do it but Ive had my car on a dyno a few times and every time its made the 240 bhp quoted by Prodrive when they have taken into account the transmission losses so I have no problem believing they could work out the crank bhp via the wheels
 
Do you really think Top Gear cares what a bunch of "inbred yanks" think and want them to do? :lol:

And it's not like Top Gear's been awfuly fair in the past either, I don't see what the big deal with the whole 450/500 hp is. It's not such a big difference considering the lackluster chassis and brakes anyway. :lol:

Those inbred yanks aren't always inbred yanks as the whole piece put top gear as a car enthusiast show way below their mark. Like I said before, I am not a fan of the stang, I drive 2 Japanese and a Swedish car, but give it credit where it's due and don't misrepresent something. Pretty low blow on TG's part.
 
Know one here knows exactly how the bhp was measured but for all we know it could have had 400 bhp at the wheels and then calculated as 450 bhp by measuring the transmission losses during the run down.
I dont know how they do it but Ive had my car on a dyno a few times and every time its made the 240 bhp quoted by Prodrive when they have taken into account the transmission losses so I have no problem believing they could work out the crank bhp via the wheels

They got the same numbers that many owners of stock GT500s got when they put their cars on the dyno.
 
You don't know how many people to whom I've told this.

"I could care less."
"So you do care?"
"No, I could care less."
"Right, if you could care less, then that means you care some right now."
"No, I don't care at all."
"So you couldn't care less."
"Right, I could care less."

Its funny when you hear people say "I could care less". It's really such a stupid thing to say.
 
The whole mustang line is simply horrible as far as I'm concerned. I used to have an 03 Cobra, and it was amazing. It flung itself aroudn the track with torque and sheer power. Now, whatever the hell their producing, is really really rubbish. Yes, I know I bought a civic, but I also had a son =P
 
The whole mustang line is simply horrible as far as I'm concerned. I used to have an 03 Cobra, and it was amazing. It flung itself aroudn the track with torque and sheer power. Now, whatever the hell their producing, is really really rubbish. Yes, I know I bought a civic, but I also had a son =P

Well, it's Ford fault for trying to go "Retro" and sticking great internals into a shit design. Hell, I would've settled for a rebadge of the "New Edge" Mercury Cougar. Convert that baby to FR stats, add a decent engine, and I'd buy one.

But no, Ford being the idiots they are, had to ruin the Mustang nameplate with that aerodynamic brick.
 
What about engine dynos? They seem like they'd be reliable as you're indoors. I guess the water flow could affect stuff though...
 
You'll still have a significant variation between brands and models of dyno. This is why in most car forums, people will be asked which machine it was run on when they post dyno figures. There's easily a 20hp+ discrepancy between dyno makes/models.

No one here is saying that there isn't a discrepancy between advertised dyno numbers and numbers you'll find when you run on a dyno. That's the difference we took 100 posts to illuminate on this very thread.

What people are upset about is the fact that Hammond accused Ford of lying about their horsepower numbers. The SAE has tested the GT500's engine and found it ran up to the 500 hp mark, so to say the car doesn't make that much power is a bold claim. And I don't think Hammond would have a leg to stand on if they called him on it.
 
Top