When these new cars come out, everyone is expected to just fall in line and go along with whatever gets cranked out. Magazine and book writers rarely speak out, because it can get them cut out of the automotive press and corporate loop. However, sometimes, it takes that kid to point out that "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
This is one of those times.
The '65-'67 Shelbys and the Shelby Automotive/Ford cars of '68-'70 ALL had a sense of individualism. The Shelby enthusiasts have been waiting for over thirty years for a way to recapture that spirit. The early cars had "seat-of'the-pants" engineering, and race on Sunday, sell on Monday attitude. They stood out from the regular Mustangs in so many ways. Carroll had a hand in every aspect, and the engineering and styling teams worked together so well, producing cars that were greater than the sum of their parts. Shelby had created a true history for the Mustang; something that every Mustang owner could be proud of. They knew that every Shelby had a little bit of GT-40 in it. Just pick up any issue of SAAC's "Shelby American", and there is that unique Shelby mythos.
This new GT-500 may have a hot SVT engine, but it does not stand apart from it's Mustang root. There is the Shelby name, but it's tied to the SVT name; so it's really an SVT Mustang with a Shelby badge. So what? As much as I'm NOT enamoured with the Saleen cars, the new S-281 has more success as a stand-alone vehicle than the GT-500. What Shelby did in '67 and '68 was cleverly make a few fiberglas pieces that completely transformed a Mustang into a completely new car. A style that still rings strong, by the popularity of the GT-500-E, and how the '68 styling cues ended up on the 2005 overall.
As a designer myself, I find the comment "form follows function" a bit of as misnomer, since if that were truly the case, most of the historic Mustang design cues wouldn't be on the car to begin with. The '67 Shelby prototype "Little Red" had only one problem. The front of the hood made the car lift up, and limited it's speed to 140. I, actually would have preferred that Camilo Pardo had designed the Mustang, and repeated the "GT-40-to-Mustang" trickle down design thinking from 1965. He is the only designer at Ford that has the knack for translating the original Mustang design cues into a contemporary translation. The design team on the new Ford GT, and the Cobra Coupe should have been in on this Shelby GT-500 project. They had the thinking right on both cars. This car--after all the hopes and desires of Shelby Mustang enthusiasts for over 30 years--falls short. If there was a unique body design part, it COULD have been made by one of many outside OEM vendors out of carbon fiber, fiberglass, or other materials as a limited run.
The appeal of the Shelbys has always been the uniqueness of the look of the car. The Shelby team in the 60's would have found a way to make anything happen in design and/or engineering "by hook or by crook". (this car at least could have retractible shoulder harnesses mounted in the roof, just as Fred Goodell made happen from an F-4 Phanton ejector seat he saw at an L.A. airshow).
Why is there no IRS suspension? Ford touts the "solid axle" like it was something new and exciting, because marketing doesn't want anyone to ask "why not IRS"? Shelby had an IRS ready to go in '68. It was on the "Green Hornet" prototype. IRS is a Shelby type of unique item. I guess the bean counters nixed that idea. If you're going to have that kind of HP, you're going to want IRS to handle the corners. Otherwise, it's just useless as another straight-line musclecar. IRS would have truly made this an ultimate Mustang (until the next one comes out).
SVT has a formula for doing their cars. Big engine, tweak the suspension, leather interior, and name badges. Period. This is the corporate way to produce cars on budget, and let marketing (and the magazines) hype this for the consumer. The real Shelbys of the 60's were not dictated by corporate suits telling them what and what not to do. They just did it. Clever design and engineering by folks that by today's standards would be called "radicals'. In that spirit of that original Shelby team, in my opinion, this car is a failure--in that it will never recapture that spirit.
Paul M. Newitt
GT/CS Registrar, and SAAC Member.