Ford officially rules out a GT500 convertible.

[ICU812]

It isn't that it is "too hard." The bottom line is weight and the purpose. The GT500 is fat enough as is and a convertible variant would be an ultra pig what with requisite stiffening panels needed as well as the top mechanism. This would be quite a bit beyond the scope and pretty much neuter the performance the vehicle was capable of. In essence, it was never even a consideration, thank God.

Too bad Hau didn't make this comment at inception or one regarding the fact that there would be no manual transmission S550 GT500. It sure would have saved a lot of wasted bandwidth.

They could , I know I'm crazy, but hear me out.lol
They could build a car that "looked" like a Shelby But with the Gt powertrain for those that want the look.
Wasn't that basicly what the ORIGINAL C/S in the late 60's was?
I don't know why anyone would want a 600+hp convert anyways. Other than my stick is bigger than your stick contest.
But then again, I don't have a death wish. So there is that.

Sponsored

 

[Siege]

Love stats like this.

Any idea how the chassis was adapted for the S550 and why the Shelby may have had the issue? I'm admittedly not the keenest on the convertible variants.

No idea why the Shelby had the issue in this test. They did remove the strut tower bar for the Whipple but the K brace that connects the strut towers to the firewall was still there which IMO is more critical.

I wish they showed the problem area clearer but Shelby replaced the fenders and rocker molding at the area where they reported cracking.

The best information I've seen on structural improvements is this thread:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/interesting-article-on-2015-materials-and-design.15917/

 

[Siege]

I don't know why anyone would want a 600+hp convert anyways.

Agreed, we need way more than 600 due to the extra weight.

 

[TxGT350-52]

They could , I know I'm crazy, but hear me out.lol
They could build a car that "looked" like a Shelby But with the Gt powertrain for those that want the look.
Wasn't that basicly what the ORIGINAL C/S in the late 60's was?
I don't know why anyone would want a 600+hp convert anyways. Other than my stick is bigger than your stick contest.
But then again, I don't have a death wish. So there is that.

They are doing something similar with the Explorer ST for 2022, so I am not sure why they could not do it for the Mustang. Ie. You can buy the Explorer ST package without the 400 HP TT engine.

 

[Classic Lover]

They are doing something similar with the Explorer ST for 2022, so I am not sure why they could not do it for the Mustang. Ie. You can buy the Explorer ST package without the 400 HP TT engine.

The ST badge had been watered down so much at this point it’s a joke.

 

[Epona]

They could , I know I'm crazy, but hear me out.lol
They could build a car that "looked" like a Shelby But with the Gt powertrain for those that want the look.
Wasn't that basicly what the ORIGINAL C/S in the late 60's was?
I don't know why anyone would want a 600+hp convert anyways. Other than my stick is bigger than your stick contest.
But then again, I don't have a death wish. So there is that.

Well, I've supercharged and otherwise modified my 2015 convertible GT, and was told it came out right at 600 HP. But technically speaking I agree with you: this is plenty of power; I really do not want to try for e.g. 700 by going with a Stage 2 unit. Up here in Mile High Land, I figure some of what I've done is just to make up for the thinner air - seriously.

 

[Epiphany]

The convertible S197 GT500 5.8L came with 662 horsepower and 631 ft-lbs of torque in a chassis 13% less rigid then the S550 convertible.

How many S197 GT500 convertibles have pretzled?

According to Ford's data the S550 convertible had a reduction in bending stiffness when compared to the S197 convertible. I couldn't think of a worse location for a reduction than what the Von Mises is showing in the image.

 

[ICU812]

Well, I've supercharged and otherwise modified my 2015 convertible GT, and was told it came out right at 600 HP. But technically speaking I agree with you: this is plenty of power; I really do not want to try for e.g. 700 by going with a Stage 2 unit. Up here in Mile High Land, I figure some of what I've done is just to make up for the thinner air - seriously.

Ya, I guess/. I see a drop top s a cruiser, not corner carving, stop light to stop light drags, vehicle, I know many do use them like that, but using the roof less unitbody as a torson bar isn't the best .

 

[Siege]

According to Ford's data the S550 convertible had a reduction in bending stiffness when compared to the S197 convertible. I couldn't think of a worse location for a reduction than what the Von Mises is showing in the image.

From Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, 1994, Milliken, page 677 :

 

[L8APEX]

Also long as we are discussing end of ICE life options, AWD, electric and so on, why not build a body/chassis out of something lighter and stronger than current material? Aluminum? Titanium? Carbon fiber? Send off the ICE with an exotic version...?

The tooling costs would be prohibitive for such low volume.

 

[Epiphany]

From Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, 1994, Milliken, page 677 :

Milliken is an excellent resource.

That said, and again, the location noted is a critical one in a convertible (typically not what Milliken refers to) and not one where you like to see a given chassis lose strength over a previous version. And the diagram and data is Ford's own. Bottom line, the reference was used as a response to the implication that the S550 was improved over that of the S197. In certain respects, it wasn't.

 

[Siege]

Milliken is an excellent resource.

That said, and again, the location noted is a critical one in a convertible (typically not what Milliken refers to) and not one where you like to see a given chassis lose strength over a previous version. And the diagram and data is Ford's own. Bottom line, the reference was used as a response to the implication that the S550 was improved over that of the S197. In certain respects, it wasn't.

Yeah no disagreements with anything you said, it's just that an undefined reduction in bending stiffness is likely offset by the 19% increase in torsional stiffness which plays a larger role in vehicle dynamics.

I guess my argument is that Ford made the GT500 a convertible in previous generations with the S197 making slightly more torque and 100 less horsepower than the S550 version. Ford saying that the significantly newer convertible chassis is at the limit of the "bandwidth of the architecture" with 460 horsepower seems disingenuous.

Sponsored