Talk:Shelby Mustang

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonathan.dieguez001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

GT500 displaces 11.6L of atmosphere, why don't we count superchargers displacing air 14.7psia is about the air pressure @sea level 5.8L @14.7psia is not the same as 5.8L @30psia. GT500 has 15psig(30psia) of boost doubling it's displacement

also the testers stated GT500 would only win 3 laps out of a thousand against ZL1, so how is that winning when no track in the world has 3 lap races, with less than 5minutes of racing. heat soaked lap times are more important and accurate!

XXXVaporXXX (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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!

197mph over a 1/4 mile? I don't think so....Unless Shelby bought out a top fueler version..... I think it was misquoted......197+(k?ph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.61.57 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

97.81.78.5 has twice added a 1967 section to this article, and, along with a request to upload a Shelby Mustang collage, these are his only contributions. I think he seems to be knowledgeable about the Shelby Mustang but the edits he has made are so blatantly POV that I see no option instead of reverting them. According to the edit history as far as I can tell, there has not been a 1967 section. If anyone, including the aforementioned anon, will write up a 1967 section which is to some degree palatable, then that would certainly improve the article. Chaparral2J (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

School Project

Hi, everyone. I am an international student from USC. I am doing a school project for the WIKIPEDIA and I chose the section "Shelby GT350" to be my project since I have been a fan of Shelby since long time ago. Anyway, I updated and add third paragraph under the "Shelby GT350" last week. The paragraph was going to be the Shelby GT350 road test based on the Motor Trend, but someone just removed the paragraph after two days. However, I am international and I am new for WIKIPEDIA. I am here to ask everyone's help. I am going to add the paragraph back again, and if you have any suggestions or improvement you went me to make; just let me know instead of remove the paragraph. Thank You. MVD (talk) 22:05, 1 May, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

The wording of the paragraph may be edited to use more encyclopedic language and for other reasons, just like any other Wikipedia article. If you would prefer that people not edit your work, you may want to practice using the WP:SANDBOX in Wikipedia. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Price quote for the KR

According to Ford's website, the proper is listed, I do not know how reliable the $250,000 quote is. A 1967 Shelby Cobra GT500 fully restored costs less according to ebay sales. Unlikely that it costs more for a new than Eleanore. thegreatco (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo Advisory

Caution should be exercised when posting photos of vehicles where the license plate (vehicle's registration tag) is visible. If the vehicle is owned by a rental agency, permission may be needed by that agency. If privately owned, the plate may be subjected to criminal abuse. It would be advisable to have the plate "blurred" or covered up, or to even take the photo without the plate visible. MVD (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Improperly Labeled Picture

I don't edit Wikipedia or anything but I noticed the picture labeled as a "2007-2009 Shelby Cobra Mustang convertible" isn't one. Many things are different than a GT500, like the hood, rims, rear wing, hood pins, front fascia, front grille, and side scoops. The only things identifying it as a GT500 are the cobra emblems on the side. This might be Shelby's newest project, the CS6 or CS8, I don't really know, but I do know that it's not a GT500. I would fix this myself but I really don't know how. Someone should either find out what it really is or remove it.

File:Photo072309001fordshel_bygt.jpg

I just uploaded this file. It's my own work. If anyone wants to use it in the article, go ahead. I don't know what is the year. It's looks like it could be any year from 2006 and later, I guess. I'm not too good at this, lol. --Chewsteraghi (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A N/A engine displaces Atmosphere, a supercharged engine displaces Boost and must be converted to atmosphere, as superchargers add to an engines displacement by displacing air(AKA positive displacement, Forced Induction)

GT500 has 5.8L of mechanical piston displacement & 2.3L of mechanical supercharger displacement. Both compress & displace air. Many times supercharger turns faster than the crankshaft, creating more boost, increasing atmosphere & Effective displacement by causing the engine to displace more air per Revolution. the supcharger will have to displace 11.6L every 2 revolutions to make 15psi on a 5.8L engine

What is engine displacement? how much atmosphere(14.7psia) an engine moves per 4cycles of all the pistons

• Volume is adversely proportionate to pressure, so you can't tell displacement without a set pressure of atmosphere(14.7psia @Sea Level)

Displacement can be noted in Volume of atmosphere displaced for supercharged engines. For N/A they already use atmosphere atmosphere is about 14.7psia @sea level but we will round to 15 for ease. 5.8L @15psia would be 5.8L of air(atmosphere(15psia)) being displaced. GT500 has 15psi boost meaning 5.8L @30psi = 11.6L@15psia or 11.6L of air. 5.8L@30psia is NOT equal to 5.8L@15psi.

Increasing boost to approximately 15 psi, the equivalent of two atmospheres, is sufficient to effectively double an engine's displacement along with a corresponding horsepower increase http://www.hotbikeweb.com/tech/0903_hbkp_turbos_nitrous_superchargers/viewall.html

Any Cylinder getting 15psi of Boost(30psia) instead of N/A atmosphere(15psia) is moving(displacing) twice as much air. Any air going into an engine is being displaced, air going into the supercharger @atmosphere(14.7psi) will have to displace 11.6L of air(14.7psia) to get 30psia into 5.8L of volume. Supercharger BOOST/PRESSURE is created by DISPLACING AIR. for GT500 that is 2.3L turning about five times per 2 turns of the crankshaft.

Exercises: Does GT500 engine need twice as much fuel as a 5.8L N/A, keeping the stoichiometric ratio within limit proves the engine must be displacing twice a much, raising air pressure does not lower fuel ratio requirements.

• Does a supercharger agitate the air and magically make the fuel more potent a fuel source or does it increase displacement, more air = more fuel.
• If a supercharger compresses air it is a stage of the entire engine.
• are superchargers called positive displacement for a reason.
• You CANNOT compress 5.8L of air to 30psia and still get 5.8L of volume.
• supercharged engines need to lower compression ratio because they are displacing more air.

Thermal inefficiency is made up by the fact a supercharger scavenges without needing valve overlap. GT500 exhaust valve open to atmosphere leaving 14.7psia in the chamber but when the intake opens to 30psia air flows in, half of the chamber has been scavenged. GT500 9:1 compression means 5.8L would have a .64L combustion chamber, half(.32L) has been scavenged making up for 5.55% of thermal expansion on the kelvin scale.

either a supercharger increases displacement or you believe a supercharger creates black holes from 15psi of boost then air gets accelerated to near the speed of light falling into the black hole to gain mass and have more energy. In the universe you don't get something from nothing. There is no magic way to increase the air going through an engines without it being displaced

If not explain ONE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that would cause a supercharger's actions to make more HP in any other way than increasing displacement.

an engine’s ability to make power is directly proportionate to the amount of air and fuel that can be brought into the combustion chamber. Supercharger increases the displacement or “blows” more air into the engine. This is called “forced induction,”

Simplest way to understand it: Put 15psi(absolute) in 5L you are displacing 5L of atmosphere Put 30psi(absolute) in 5L. That's 1atmosphere Boosted 15psi + 15psi you are displacing 10L of atmosphere Any engines pulling in 15psi Boost(30psia) instead of N/A atmosphere(15psia) is moving twice as much air 30psia is twice as much as 15psia

In one week i will being including the effective engine displacement of GT500 in the article, you have one week to get a more accurate number. ALL i need to source is GT500 15psi boost & piston's mechanical displacement to prove it's effective displacement.

11.6L is much closer to correct than 5.8L which is near to being 100% incorrect.

• a supercharger is a compressor, an engine is a compressor, when rating a 2stage compressor, you don't just count one compressor!

Mental exercise: if you put a 10L engine on top of a 1L engine that spins 10times as fast from it's exhaust with no spark plugs. can you then call it a 1L engine, while it uses/moves 10L of air and needs 10L worth of fuel?

I looked forward to a discussion, but i guess i didn't get it, just non-stop deletes with no reference to prove my references wrong.

References

ALL GT500 engines made in 2000 ARE Modular FORDS

The GT500 engines are Ford Modular engines. The engine design is created by Ford and the design is their intellectual property. Ford chose Honsel to cast the blocks but Ford is still the owner of the Modular design. The GT500 Modular engine is designed by Ford engineers, and that is what designates the GT500 block as a Ford Modular. Who they hire to cast the blocks does not change the GT500 engine is a Ford engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.147.252 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ford Does NOT own Honsel. Ford Does NOT own Honsel Patents. Ford does NOT use Honsel technology. Ford has no right to Honsel casting technology. Ford Needs honsel to cast GT500 aluminum engine block. Ford Does NOT cast aluminum blocks. Ford ONLY provides dimensions. Modular ford means 100mm bore spacing, every engine with 100mm bore spacing isn't automatically engineered by ford, i can prove Honsel does their own manufacturing & research with their own patents, that aren't thrown away just cause ford orders an engine block Honsel does the casting If you poured aluminum into a GT500 engine cast ford makes, it wouldn't work or Ford/consumer would save a lot of money in house — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

GT500 engine displacement

Your souce link does not say anything about the GT500 engine displacement being 11.6L just because of the supercharger. According to the link to House of Power.com, they only said superchargers can make a smaller engine make the power of a larger engine. It never said it makes the smaller engine grown into a larger engine.

I never said it did, & you have no link saying i said it did. your link doesn't prove smurf's exist so I must be right. "It never said it makes the smaller engine grown into a larger engine." ACTUALLY IT DID!!!!! You can't makes over 600hp at 6000rpm with only 5.8L of air & gasoline displaced per 2 revs, there is only so much energy in gasoline, superchargers don't make gasoline a more potent fuel. 5.8L GT500 engine will need approximately 200% volumetric efficiency to make 662hp. oops see how that works. this information has been blocked from being edited by Ford fans before. make sure to use tilde(~) 4 times to sign your posts. also read and learn, this car and it's setup is perfect to learn and comprehend superchargers and how they make power, don't let it go to waste because of brand loyalty. XXXVaporXXX (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Increasing boost to approximately 15 psi, the equivalent of two atmospheres, is sufficient to effectively double an engine's displacement along with a corresponding horsepower increase

Read more: http://www.hotbikeweb.com/tech/0903_hbkp_turbos_nitrous_superchargers/viewall.html#ixzz2eHW2x0l5 How about math: N/A engines displace atmosphere(14.7psia) GT500 5.8L @15psi boost displaces 5.8L @30psia which equals 11.6L of atmosphere(14.7psia)XXXVaporXXX (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, your link to House of Power is only a brochure to their products. An advertiseing page or a home page to a store website is not an appropriate source.

Just because everything is sold by someone does NOT make a tech article about it a ADVERTISEMENT There is NOTHING for Sale or SOLD on that websiteXXXVaporXXX (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Provide a more substantial source such as an engineer's techinical paper or SAE document that directly backs up what you added.

Otherwise, what you contributed and the source links you cite are not reliable and are not proper to be included in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.147.252 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Superchargers displace air, aka how superchargers work

A technical paper about products that are for sale, does not mean the website sells them. THIS WEBPAGES WAS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A STORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"approximately 15 psi, the equivalent of two atmospheres, is sufficient to effectively double an engine's displacement" Quoted from Read more: http://www.hotbikeweb.com/tech/0903_hbkp_turbos_nitrous_superchargers/viewall.html#ixzz2eH2cn4qF

"supercharger increases the displacement or “blows” more air into the engine. This is called “forced induction" Quoted from http://www.houseofpower.com.au/index.php/performance/

15psi AKA 30psia is twice as much as N/A(15psia) Math not feelings

Would you like a link on how to do MATH

5.8L with 15psig boost is 5.8L@30psia

5.8L@30psia is 11.6L of atmosphere. Atmosphere is what engines displace

XXXVaporXXX (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nordschleife

My uncle's brother tested this car in Germany (at the Nordschleife), and it completed in under 7:20.000. Guess what? It completed in just 7:13.547 (100% stock)!

BTW, it was tested in normal condition and by a professional driver. :D

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131009204827AA9GHqb

Mrtacos2 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

The usage of Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

73 "Eleanor" Mustang is NOT a Shelby Mustang - Why is it on this page?

I was just wondering why the 1973 Mach 1 "Eleanor" Mustang from the original "Gone In Sixty Seconds" is included on this page. It was not produced by Shelby and is not a Shelby Mustang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.220.32 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lap times after coolant is warm

IS there a race in the world that lasts 5 minutes, and everyone goes home. how about we start using lap times where you pack ice under your hood. if the lap can't be repeated, then it shouldn't count.

if i am not mistaken, the tracks GT500 ran on went in a circle cause you are supposed to continue racing. If a drag car could do it fast, but the brakes stop working and the filled block overheats before you coast across finish line, should it still count.

if you have an opinion on this, also include whether you think Ford is the best brand in the world, AKA a Big. Fan.XXXVaporXXX (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In particular, trying to go to the Mustang disambiguation page now takes one straight to the Mustang (horse) article; that is, the horse editors have claimed that their article is primarytopic, at a discussion that was not advertised to editors of the various car, airplane, and city articles affected, and was also not advertised as WP:RM as is standard. This notice is an attempt to get wider participation from editors of affected articles, but so far it has not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Snake auction

The authentic 1967 GT500 Super Snake sold in January of 2019 at Mecum Auctions for 2.2 million dollars Conan312 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Original 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Eleanor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Page split

This page is pretty big and not the easiest to navigate either. The article covers cars from not only Shelby American but also SVT and Ford Performance, yet makes no mention of this distinction aside from having separate sections for them. I think a page split is in order.

I think the first generation would be a straightforward split into an article titled Shelby Mustang (first generation), but beyond that, I'm open to ideas on how to handle the rest. Since the generations in this article don't align with those for the Mustang in general, that's a potential point of confusion in article titles, so something like Shelby Mustang (2005) might be preferable. --Sable232 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Split by generation, but should there also be articles for some specific models? (ie Shelby GT350, Shelby GT500, or something similar) Somegreenguy (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Split all generations of the Shelby Mustang accordingly. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 02:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)