Another Ford/Shelby concept that may see production...

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Another Ford/Shelby concept that may see production...

It's based on the old Cobra roadster. It's got a DOHC 6.4 Liter V10 that produces 605 Horsepower, yet the car is shorter than a Miata. (Weighs in at 3000 Lbs though.)

It's based on the Ford GT chassis, but I'm sure major changes were required for mounting the engine in the front. (Apparently they were able to achieve 50/50 weight distribution.)


http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010461493_pv.jpg

http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010461302_pv.jpg

http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010459677_pv.jpg

http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010459546_pv.jpg

http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010461408_pv.jpg

http://x.wieck.com/pv/WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010459888_pv.jpg

posted by  Widowmaker2k

Can't let that one go. How can it be "based on the old Cobra roadster" and "based on the Ford GT chassis". It can't. It might be "styled in the spirit" of the original Cobra, or some other lingo like that but unless it has an AC Ace under there it's just a new car. As for the comment about the GT chassis, I don't know for sure that's incorrect but I seriously doubt they took a rear mid-engine and turned it into a long nose/short deck roadster.

And more correctly, it's not a front engine design, it's a front mounted mid-engine design and if I remember correctly it has a rear mounted transaxle.

posted by  vwhobo

okay, you're right. I meant to stay that the styling was baced on the AC, and that the chassis was based on the Ford GT.

Dirrect quotes from the article:
"...the Shelby Cobra concept has a 605-horsepower, all-aluminum V-10 engine mounted at the front of an advanced Ford GT-based aluminum chassis. "

"'We were planning to use the Ford GT suspension systems, and we asked ourselves how much more of the Ford GT could we borrow,' says Manfred Rumpel, manager, advanced product development.

Quite a lot, they discovered."

"The Shelby Cobra team worked closely with John Coletti, head of engineering for Ford's Special Vehicle Team, to maximize commonality with the Ford GT supercar. The bulk rear structure of the Shelby Cobra concept is made from slightly modified Ford GT components, including the massive cast-aluminum suspension nodes, the rear rails and bumper beam, a major cross member and the brackets used to mount the transmission to the car. The center portion of the space frame also has a high level of commonality with the Ford GT, as its major aluminum extrusions are based heavily on existing pieces"

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=16649

posted by  Widowmaker2k

im iffy about the body, but im liking the engine

posted by  mazda6man

Im liking the whole package... :D

posted by  SuperJew

That would be a great car if they decide to produce it! I was never a fan of the Shelby series 1 and seeing Ford and Shelby combine to produce a hopefully awesome car like that......well i'll have a tough decision to make. When I win the lottery....hmmm..Ford GT or this Shelby creation!? ;) I love the V-10 baby!!

posted by  Mustang79

figures, i was in transit that whole day

posted by  SuperJew

Christmas day dude.

posted by  vwhobo

Linginfelter's dead??!?!? holy shit, i had no idea. was it when I was away? because I got no news then at all....we joked that we wouldnt know if a terrorist attacked anywhere on the mainand.

posted by  SuperJew

Butt Ugly! Notice how they jump on the chance to do something like this after Linginfelter's death?

R.I.P. man. I'll miss ya. :( :(

posted by  Satty101

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? The man has been dead less than two weeks. Do you suppose it's possible they put that car together in that short of a time to take advantage of his death? Not likely, no make that impossible. Or maybe the car has been in the design stages for months (years?) and was unveiled now because it was planned that way.

posted by  vwhobo

I'd chew my dogs paw off, possibly your foot, arm or leg for that car :D

posted by  lectroid

You'd have to have that type of mentality to buy it... :D

posted by  BavarianWheels

yeah id love to see the price tag on that...probably well into the $100K mark...

posted by  SuperJew

Is that the price you place on your arm, leg, or foot?

:?

posted by  BavarianWheels

i was referring to the car but still....i wonder how much prosthetic limbs cost nowadays.... :D

posted by  SuperJew

Damn, guys get a freakin sense of humor. You only live once, have a little fun.........at anyones expense :rolleyes:

posted by  lectroid

Must I include a "lol" in every post that is off the cuff?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

posted by  BavarianWheels

dude, I was being a smart-ass. plus I figured they could've held back the releasing for a few months atleast.

posted by  Satty101

I thought Linginfelter did Vipers and Corvettes...

posted by  SuperJew

well, Venom has a Viper. I've never heard of a Linginfelter Viper. he does make Corvettes. I believe they do 0-60 in 1.9 seconds. FAST!!!! He tunes all sorts of Chevys. He died because he crashed his 600+hp Cavalier. He was hospitalized for quite some time and then died Christmas day. :(

posted by  Satty101

:( indeed....we have all lost a great man.

posted by  SuperJew

VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!

*unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf unf*

*cleans up desk*

*basks in the afterglow*

*smokes (http://members.cox.net/slonlo350/NewCobra.WMV) cig*

posted by  asa67_stang

http://www.dodge.com/nav/photo/viper_srt10_3_main.jpghttp://x.wieck.com/pv/ WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010459677_pv.jpg


http://www.dodge.com/nav/photo/viper_srt10_11_main.jpghttp://x.wieck.com/pv /WKA/2004/01/04/WKA2004010461302_pv.jpg

...hmm, is it just me?

posted by  Mr. Horsepower

Intresting...

posted by  Satty101

Oddly enough there's only so much you can do with a two-seat, front-engine roadster. Of course they're going to look somewhat similar, they are going after the same market now, aren't they.

Personally I think Mopar did a better job all the way around anyway.

posted by  vwhobo

to tell you the truth, Mr. Horespower, I think it is you, but whatever. i still have yet to really like the new viper - i preferred the good old days.

posted by  SuperJew

ya. Mopar did do a better job. not too ugly anyways. I miss Linginfelter everytime I read this topic... :(

posted by  Satty101

*sigh*
i guess i gotta do it...

http://www.ec-cc.com/images/vehicles/cobra.jpg http://www.hisinsa.com/hisinsa/graficos/EXOTO/RLG18123.jpg
see that?
know what it is? an early '60s Cobra
know who originally created it?
Carroll Shelby

http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2003/03.dodge.viper/03.do dge.viper.f34.500.jpg
see that?
know who inspired it?
Carroll Shelby

i'll spare us all the pic of the last one in this series
know what it was modeled after?
here's a hint, see the first two pics in this series
know who had a strong influence in it's designing?
Carroll Shelby

besides, it's like hobo said, there's only so much you can do with a two seater, especially one that is modelled after something that came out 30 years before the Viper
........................ :rolleyes:


Satty101 - and as for them post-poning the unveiling of the concept for "a few months"
no, i doubt they could have, unless they could convince all the various auto shows that it was going to be shown at to re-schedule, and much as i like Ford, i don't think they have that much power
did you ever wonder why you always see new cars at this time of the year?

posted by  asa67_stang

he he, SJ, your 16, what good old days do you mean? :P

posted by  lectroid

I don't think Vipers came out before 1990 so he was 3 or 4 then.

posted by  Satty101

Some little kids 2,3,4 can have a hellava memory :)

posted by  lectroid

Dude, we have the same post count! well, mine's 100 posts more.

posted by  Satty101

Ha, I really don't pay attention to that. I'm on this site for fun and try to retain some of the good shit thrown out :D

posted by  lectroid

now THATS the right attitude

and i mean the good old days as in the older design....and i will never forget my ride in my dads friend's RT/10....amazing. 8O

posted by  SuperJew

Ummm, no. That's not exactly how it happened. Carrol Shelby may have influenced the design of the Viper by building the Cobra 30 years earlier, but he was in no way the mastermind behind it.

And yes I'm fully aware of the RT/10 CS model. That was built to commemerate the fact that he drove a Viper pace car for the 1991 Indy 500.

posted by  vwhobo

Things You'll Never Hear At A Nascar Race

"None for me, thanks. That Skoal will do a number on your teeth."
"Hey, shut up! I can't hear the race."
"Dating your own sister? Man, that's sick!"
"My God, this is a splendid Merlot!"
"Hey, you with the large chest. Out of the way! We're trying to watch a race here!"
"Chesterton, be a good lad and retrieve the Wall Street Journal from my atache case."
"What a coincidence, Hank. All my friends are boycotting Hooters, too!"
"These are even better seats than we had for the Lionel Richie concert!"
"Whew! No more beer for me, fellas."
"And now... Singing our National Anthem, international recording artist, Boy George!"

posted by  lectroid

?!?!?!?!?



from Shelby's own site (http://www.carrollshelby.com/timeline.htm)

??

posted by  asa67_stang

Okay, perhaps I'm guilty of minimizing his part but has certainly not the mastermind. The "Dodge sports car" that he built was closer to an old Cobra than a Viper (it had a 360 and a live rear axle). It was that car however that made Dodge say that's a cool idea, but the Viper was designed completely in house.

Shelby American was in fact commisioned to build the first prototype chassis but it was a Dodge design, and I honestly don't think Ol' Shel got his hands dirty on it. So my only real beef is with the word "mastermind".

On the subject of going to "Shelby's own site", was it not you a day or two ago that showed just how unreliable that can be for getting information? Think about semi-forged pistons.

posted by  vwhobo

ok, i edited mastermind

what i was trying to show was that going to a random site that popped up on google and had the info i wanted and saying "look, the manufacturer did this" and calling it fact

maybe what i did was read between the lines that weren't there? oh well, we're all guilty of it at one time or another
if i read the correct info, wasn't one of the prototypes a V8 though?

but you'll agree that my original point still stands, right? the Cobra concept wasn't built to look like the Viper, the Cobra concept was built to look like the Cobra

posted by  asa67_stang

Yeah, everything is built to look like a Cobra. I mean look at it, it just says bad ass.

Yes the prototype was a V8 as I previously stated.

posted by  vwhobo

no, i meant one of Dodge's prototypes, not Shelby's

posted by  asa67_stang

Yes, there was at least one prototype with 360 and also at least one with an iron block V-10. I don't think any had (or needed) fart cannons or underbody neon. ;)

posted by  vwhobo

fart cannons would be fucked up

posted by  SuperJew

Isn't it nice when two people can disagree but still come to an understanding by acting like adults? Life is great dealing with smart people. ;)

posted by  vwhobo

i wasnt saying it was built to look like a viper, i was saying that it seems like there are an awful lot of similarities between them. It just seems like in designing the new cobra, designers may heva taken sume "cues" from the viper.

posted by  Mr. Horsepower

and i was saying that it was much more likely that the Ford team was taking cues from the original, and if anything the Dodge team took cues from the first Cobra
till we get to talk to the designers though, i doubt that we'll know

posted by  asa67_stang

hmm?
oh shit!!

i mean.......... YUO SUCK VWHOMO!! YOU DONT NO ANYTING!!!!!


better? :D

posted by  asa67_stang

Why thank you asshole. ;)

posted by  vwhobo

Oh man you guys are a hoot. Nothing in the middle of this Thread intrests me. All I came in here to say is that I think it is sad that these days they have to make a 10 cylinder engine to be able put out 605 horses!

posted by  drowningseason99

*sigh*
ok, tell us, O automotive genius, how should they have done it?
besides, it's a simple fact that, everything else being the same, more cylinders will make more power

posted by  asa67_stang

Please allow me to intervene. At this point of the conversation we are usually told about the muscle cars of the late '60's/early '70's. The engines of that time DID NOT make as much power, by any measurement, as the engines of today. This is due to todays vastly superior engine management systems and more rigidly controlled manufacturing tolerances.

Yes, if you care to quote published numbers from back then you might get close but... The measurements back the were SAE Gross as opposed to today's SAE Net. That means the testing back in the day was done with no accessories being driven (water pump, alternator, etc), headers, open exhaust and so on. Todays numbers are attained with compete, as installed engines from the air cleaner to the tail pipes.

You may also want to compare the numbers to racing engines but that is stall apples and oranges. Yes, Warren Johnson is getting 1000 plus horsepower from a 500 cubic inch V-8, but can you drive it to the grocery store with the A/C on? I think not. The last comparison is normally the Honda S2000. Yes it puts out more hp per liter, but check the torque numbers and get back with us. Torque will always rule on the street.

posted by  vwhobo

It gets 153lbs-ft at 7,500 rmps so ya for the size it puts out quite a bit of HP but the torque end of it lacks big time. So basically the point that you proved was that off the line most 6 cylinder sedans would take it out. In the long run the honda is a very quick car though. Torque owns nothing. It all depends what kind of driving you are doing really.

posted by  drowningseason99

Now you've done it.

Prepare everyone...butter or plain?

:popcorn:

posted by  BavarianWheels

haha I'm ready........I enjoy playing the devils advocate quite often.

posted by  drowningseason99

Look at what I wrote, street driving. Unless you fully understand the dynamics of horsepower and torque and how they affect the drivability of a car this conversation is pointless. On the other hand if you did I wouldn't be typing this right now.

posted by  vwhobo

Just because you are racing in the street doesn't mean that you arn't going for top speed or distance. If I were trying to outrun a cop on the STREET, I think that I would feel a little better knowing that I could get away and reach higher speeds then if I stopped and lined up with him, that I could start to burn him at around 60 feet.

Eh, it is pointless arguing this. We obviously both know what the difference between torque and horsepower are.

posted by  drowningseason99

Great, now that that's over, how about addressing the rest of that three paragraph post that you so conveniently chose only the last sentence to contest.

Point of interest. I never said anything about racing and certainly not on the street. The term "street racing" is on oxymoron.

posted by  vwhobo

.
.
This is my interpretation:

HORSEPOWER

posted by  BavarianWheels

.
.
TORQUE

posted by  BavarianWheels

I feel that if some critical thought is applied to your above examples we will find;

1. Is more an example of torque than horsepower. The engines available in that style of Peterbilt produce between 350-600 horsepower and between 950-1500 lb/ft of torque.

2. Is an excellent example... of balance.

posted by  vwhobo

.
.
Well...that's why I mentioned it's MY interpretation...

::thumbs nose (knowing my interpretation is flawed)::

posted by  BavarianWheels

That's why I used the term critical thinking, I wasn't entirely sure if you were being specific or using the old gut feeling. :?

As for the thumb thing, try your index finger, it fits so much better. ;) Remember, you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't (or shouldn't) pick your friends nose.

posted by  vwhobo

Ok well excuse me. If you were just "street driving" then neither torque nor HP would be much of a concern of yours. My grandfather goes "street driving" all the damn time. Do you really think that he cares about either of those. NO, he doesn't. We all know you didn't really mean just driving along in the streets.

For such an itellegent person, you really talk circles around yourself to the point where you try to make soooo much sense that you make none. You really shouldn't take things in such a litteral way just to try and create an arguement. I see no point in that.

Obviously testing cars back in the day is less accurate then today. We have new more advanced tools and gadgets these days. I think that it would be interesting to take a car that was tested...let's say in 1980 and check the specs, then teste the same exact car today and compare the specs. I really don't feel that there would be that much of a difference.

I think that you over analyzed my statement. The basic message was meant to be along the lines of....It was nice when you could buy a car with a stock 350 in it and work on it yourself to add horse power. You can't do that these days, if you wan't more horse power you either have to to spend tons of money on electronic parts or fork over tons of money and buy a car with lots of horsepower to begin with and plan on being happy with it because you can't really do too much to engines these days yourself. Unless you have the tools.

posted by  drowningseason99

Are you sure "back in the day" was less accurate...and then say that, "I really don't feel that there would be that much of a difference." ???

Seems a bit off as two different conclusions within one small paragraph.

posted by  BavarianWheels

2 is less then 3 but not by much. Ya know.

posted by  drowningseason99

i'm not sure that you do know the difference between torque and horsepower

street racing is what idiots do, it's what those at the shallow end of the gene pool enjoy, it's stupid, pointless, and dangerous

but, if you are on the street, in everyday driving, you want torque, why? because torque will move you out of the way

(yes, that was tasteless, so am i at times)


first question still stands, if a V10 was an idiotic way to do it, how would you have done it?
V8?
V6?
I6?
it has to be less than 10 cylinders, because you said that 10 cylinders was "sad"
oh, and by the way, what type of forced induction would you recommend for this miracle engine you would put in there :rolleyes:



ummm......... no, in the '80s they used the same testing that they do today (when did they start using SAE net testing Hobo?) the problem is that the manufacturers LIE about their numbers, so there has to be independent testing, which doesn't often happen

and if you think that you can't upgrade engines today, you are a tool, why aren't there very many parts for the 4.6L mustang engine? BECAUSE IT IS NEW
it takes time for parts to be made, there are mod motors that are in the 9's, saying that you can't get speed stuff for them is stupid

if a human made it, another human can improve it

posted by  asa67_stang

you said "teste"!

:beavis and butthead laugh:

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/bb22.jpg

posted by  SuperJew

1. I said street and I meant street. Horsepower and torque are in fact very important issues on the street. One extreme example is if you have none of the above you're pushing your car. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth and don't interpret what I say.

2. I'm the one trying to start an argument? Please tell exactly who it was who said;
3. As long as the testing procedure was conducted the same way (Gross or Net) you would be absolutely correct. Modern "tools and gadgets" have nothing to do with power production.

4. I didn't over analyze anything, I only responded to what you said;
You made no mention of building your own engine or how you may have gone about it. Words mean things and what you're saying in the two posts aren't even close.

posted by  vwhobo

It's 50% less, quite substantial.

posted by  vwhobo

you mean 33% less....50% less would be 1.5

posted by  SuperJew

Oops, look like I just had a dumbshit moment. Thank you for the correction.

posted by  vwhobo

Maybe SJ actually means 33.333333333333333333333333...%

Since he's doing corrections.

posted by  BavarianWheels

or for that matter it could be 1/3 less!

posted by  SuperJew

At any rate it seems our "devils advocate" has left the building. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

posted by  vwhobo

I never claimed that I knew a how to make an engine. I am an amature in the field compared to you old farts. I personally feel that it is sad because there are several different ways that you could have gone about it. Similar to how a 6 cylinder Porche will toast the majority of 8 cylinder cars on the road.

I never once said that torque and horsepower were not important. Don't put words in my mouth either. I said that it wasn't a concern to a lot of people like my grandfather.

"You made no mention of building your own engine or how you may have gone about it. Words mean things and what you're saying in the two posts aren't even close."---I didn't get what you meant by this....

Anyways....I am sick of arguing with you guys about this. It is getting old and going nowhere.

Oh an P.S. HOBO--If I was pushing my car, wouldn't there still be torque involved.

posted by  drowningseason99

Heee's baaaack!

posted by  Satty101

No, I was just taking a break. I don't get upset about things like this. It's just a forum filled with people who matter nothing to me. No offense to anyone. I will admit when I am wrong. My originally post on this thread was an opinion, nothing more.

posted by  drowningseason99

You don't get it and you won't get it because you are 21 years old, know everything and are fairly adept at making excuses. Your question about pushing the car would be self eveident if you truly knew what torque is as you said in a previous post. The very basic definition of torque is twisting force, so unless you were intending to twist your car down the road I'm gonna say no.

posted by  vwhobo

I was being sarcastic about the torque thing.

I never claimed to be a know it all. I wasn't making an excuse either, I was simply saying that you are not teaching me anything here and it is pointless to continue this arguement. There is no need to attack me as a person. How are you if you don't mind me asking.

posted by  drowningseason99

I'm sure he's fine.

:D

posted by  BavarianWheels

Just great, how are you?

posted by  vwhobo

Oh shit my bad. I meant how old are you? I had one of those moments that you had when you said that 2 is 50% less then 3. haha

posted by  drowningseason99

I'm 46 years old. Old enough to know better, but fuck it!

posted by  vwhobo

holy shit dude you could be my dad....

(sorry to rub it in) :oops:

posted by  SuperJew

that is the way to live life!

posted by  drowningseason99

that is the way to live life!

posted by  drowningseason99

double post

:flame:

posted by  SuperJew

what the hell! I tried to delete it....sorry

posted by  drowningseason99

No I couldn't. My vasectomy is older than you.

posted by  vwhobo

haha oh man!!!

posted by  drowningseason99

i see...my dad also had one o those

posted by  SuperJew

Does that tell you anything?

posted by  BavarianWheels

Yeah SJ, you might be another poster child. ;)

posted by  vwhobo

Your Message