GT500 tested in the new Car and Driver...

Discussion in '2007 - 2014 Shelby GT500 Tech' started by iviustang50h, May 31, 2006.

  1. iviustang50h

    iviustang50h New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I was all excited to get the new car and driver and what do I find on the cover? The Shelby GT500 Vs. The C6 Corvette. Wow, this is gonna be a good one I thought to myself. Well, I was very disappointed.

    The Shelby weighs over 3800lbs and runs a 0-60 of 4.4 seconds and a ¼ mile in 12.9 seconds. I believe these are the same ET’s that the 03 Cobra ran in C&D. 110 more ponies and they still can’t get them any faster. What is the deal? :shrug:

    Anyway, the C6 beat the GT500 in every category but the lane change (oddly enough). What a bummer! :mad:

    Edit: Sorry if this is old news or a repeat post.
     
    #1
  2. 03 SVT VERT

    03 SVT VERT New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I remember correctly that test was done using a detuned pre-production version. I would wait for tests of the production car.
     
    #2
  3. PonyboyIsaac

    PonyboyIsaac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yeah i just got that issue a couple days ago and i was totally disappointed, the new bmw m6 with 500 ponies and which weighs a lil more did the quarter in 12.4 in that same issue, something was wrong with that gt500,or car and driver sucked at driving that day. but even car and driver said "maybe we were off that day" duh u think!!
    Larry webster did that story so i think he had something to do with it. He is the biggest corvette nut that magazine has. Total BS.
     
    #3
  4. mrdci

    mrdci New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you want a sports car by the vette its better at that and the Shelby wont beat it on a road course cause its got ancient suspension components. You buy the GT500 for the name and what the car is an ICON. Who cares about tests its not that important. Maybe if the car had IRS and better wheels tires it might do better. Hey can you pick up 4 hot girls and have a place for them to sit in the Vette I think not.
     
    #4
  5. 03 SVT VERT

    03 SVT VERT New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The vettes suspension components aren’t exactly cutting edge. They still use a horizontally mounted leaf spring, same basic setup they have been using since 1984, and the same basic setup Shelby used on Cobra Roadsters in the 60's. The GT500's suspension is actually a very good setup both for drag racing and road racing. The white body mustangs using the same suspension setup as the GT500 have demonstrated this by winning numerous races. The main thing that kills the GT500 around a road course is the following: weight. The GT500 weighs atleast 4,100lbs with driver, even the regular GT mustang weighs over 3,600lbs with driver. The Vette weighs around 3,400lbs with driver, and the Z06 weighs even less than that. That's a 700lb difference, try loading 700lbs into the passenger seat of a Vette and see how it runs. Yikes.

    Also, I personally think the GT500 needs wider tires, I've got no problem breaking the rear tires free in my 450hp Viper going around turns and those things are wide as hell 335s, I don't think those 295s will cut it.
     
    #5
  6. iviustang50h

    iviustang50h New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Agreed, the weight is killing it! It would have been nice if Ford would have thrown some dollars at removing a bunch of unnecessary weight starting with the unsprung pieces. Then develop some extra light rims and make the suspension components out of aluminum and/or magnesium (and include an IRS--which is heavier, but it will also help move the weight distro back). Also couple them with meaty tires, but not too much, 255/40 or so. From there, work on the accessories, like a light, electric fan, etc.

    They also should have re-engineered the car to redline at 7500RPM (Since it still pulls fiercely a ways past the current redline). The frame and heads would have to be re-engineered, but so what? And of course the base of this would be all aluminum.

    Wow, I just rambled on about what I wish the car was...sorry. A couple buddies and I had a long conversation about this today and I guess I spilled it onto this forum.

    So, I guess I am a little disappointed, though Motor Trend did run the car to 60 in 4.4 and the 1/4 mile in 12.7 (which is better, but still not what I thought it would be). Also they improved the lateral G’s to 92 instead of C&D’s 90. Not bad, but not great for 500HP.
     
    #6
  7. 03 SVT VERT

    03 SVT VERT New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think if they did anymore to it they would have had to bring the price up. The MSRP on the car is already almost $42,000 for the coupe, any more and you would be pushing corvette/M3 territory, which is not what Ford and the SVT team wanted. I guess they figure a large percentage of people who buy them do some modifications on there own. Not a bad idea, since I know I'd rather spend the money saved on very good aftermarket components than slightly better factory ones.

    By the way, I've heard this Cobra is only meant to be a temporary replacement. After the two year run of this model the next one is supposed to blow this one away completely. It's heresay, but it makes you wonder.:shrug:
     
    #7
  8. tjredgt2000

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Motor Trend also has a cross-country test of the GT500 in the issue just hitting the newstands. Their accelaration times were similar to C&D and overall they loved the car. BTW - Motor Trend never had a previous Cobra as fast as C&D's so they were impressed with the power in the new GT500.
     
    #8
  9. mk2001c

    mk2001c New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're right on with the porkiness factor. Ford really should have used an aluminum block. That alone would have dropped 110# and significantly improved weight distribution. I don't believe the BS that you need an iron block on a boosted engine. The Ford GT doesn't need one. They seemed more concerned with big dyno numbers than making a sports car that can hold its own on a road course.
     
    #9
  10. mk2001c

    mk2001c New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares if the Vette suspension is not the latest in suspension design? It works terrific. Thumbing your nose at the transverse leaf spring is like the Eurotrash that always scoffs pushrod engines. I could care less about technology for technologies' sake. What matters is how it performs as both a track car and a daily driver. Show me another car in the Corvette's price range that can hang with it on a road course.
     
    #10
  11. srothfuss

    srothfuss Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Woodward Ave.
    HotRod also got to blast around in two preproduction vehicles. Both were running a bit rich according to the article and they didn't have a lot of time to test the cars but they reported similar numbers also.
     
    #11
  12. WSD42

    WSD42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Madison, AL
    After reading the article, I started doing a little rough math on the rearend and transmission ratios. That is the only reason the Vette beat the GT500. (Ok...weight, tires and ride height too.) It would have been equal or probably a little bit faster with similar gear ratios. But consider this....the GT500 does weigh more and has 500 hp but the Vette was the 400 hp version (not the 505 hp version). At least C&D gave the GT500 a chance.

    Before you rant at me, I am a Mustang fan and own a '05 GT. There are so many negative things we can come up with in this comparrison that it will give you a migrane headache thinking down to their level (C&D and others - Vette Forums for one).

    Yep it was an early production GT500, improvements can and will be made by Ford & Shelby. A New Muscle Car Era has started again, so just wait till the new Camaro & Challenger hit the streets! Ford (hopefully) & Shelby will be gunning for them with more power, better handling and a more refined Mustang. I can't wait!
     
    #12
  13. 03 SVT VERT

    03 SVT VERT New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you read the full thread that was in response to mrdci's comment that the GT500 has ancient suspension components. I was just saying that the Vette has ancient components as well and they work fine. As well as the GT350 race cars have basically the same setup as the GT500 and they have been doing quite well against M3's, Porsches, ect.
     
    #13
  14. mk2001c

    mk2001c New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I misunderstood your post. I agree on the solid axle - I raced a Stang with solid axle and a panhard and it handled great.
     
    #14
  15. ufnavy06

    ufnavy06 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    I read the article and thinking oh man, this is gonna be killer. But honestly it all makes sense. Many of you talked about the iron vs. aluminum block with the s/c. Here's one of the issues and Ford's done this to us before. Remember the Taurus SHOs? 220 hp from the Yamaha V6 which supposedly could be tuned to somewhere in the vincinity of 300 but Ford wouldn't allow it because the Mustang GT only had 215 at the time. They didn't want a family sedan with significantly more hp than their pony car. Think the fact the Shelby and Ford GT are within 50 hp of each other didn't play a role? Ford had to do something to make sure the Mustang didn't outrun its supercar and weight it the key here. As much as the Shelby name has behind it, the GT is a Ferrari killer. I'm just disappointed cause I was very close to trying to get my hands on a Shelby. I certainly hope the actual production ones do perform better.
     
    #15
  16. Frank99TA

    Frank99TA New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I personally am disappointed. I think the 500 hp is inflated if it only runs 12.7. I remember reading on the cover of Car and Driver of an 02 WS6 Trans Am running 13.0 in the quarter at 315hp. My old z06 rated at 405hp was tested by gm high tech performance pulled off an 11.96 bone stock and a 0 to 60 in 3.9 sec. Even factoring in the weight difference, 500 hp should smoke through the quarter. That car should run at least low 12's all day long. Hell, the 390 hp Cobra was as quick. The fact that people are gonna pay 60 to 70 grand is ridiculous. I think once the rich guys get theirs, they're gonna have a hard time selling a 42000 dollar mustang. My Dad bought a brand new corvette for 42000. I love my stang but is the shelby worth 16,000 more than a regular GT? Just my 2 cents.
     
    #16
  17. CatmanJJ

    CatmanJJ Captain Tangnet

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Maryland
    MM&FF tested a GT500 to a tune of 12.257 at 117.18 MPH, pretty good in my book.
     
    #17
  18. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ocala, FL
    C'mon, I'm disgusted that a bunch of car guys are sitting here tossing elapsed times back and forth, and nobody has mentioned the only real measurement that COUNTS, the MPH at the end of the quarter. Motor Trend recorded a terminal 1/4 trap speed of 116 mph, with two different cars, at two different venues. THAT is damn good. In fact, it's amazingly good, considering the fact that Mustangs are absolute wind-bricks. Elapsed time is hugely affected by chassis and traction limitations, and the weight amplifies the problems in getting it going from a dead stop. Think about it, it doesn't take as much traction to get a lightweight 3,100 pound Z06 off the line from a dead standstill, it's simple grade-school physics. 12.7 might not be that much quicker than the 13.0 that you say Car & Driver did (I don't remember anything that quick, but whatever), but I know for a fact, watching dozens of WS6 T/A's run the 1/4 mile at Gainesville Raceway, only a few hundred feet above sea level, that those cars could barely manage 104-106 mph at the end of the 1/4, on a cool day, bone stock. 116 mph?? That's HUGE. That means that, FROM A ROLL, the new GT500 is a beast. Is it stronger than a new Z06? No, but that would be stupid to expect. Is it stronger than a standard C6?? Oh yes. The elapsed time doesn't show it, but a simple understanding of what it takes to accomplish a quick launch and a quick E.T. explains that, and it's no big surprise. But from a roll, you'll be waving "buh bye" to the C6 right up to the point the speed-limiter shuts you down. Remember, a Porsche Carrera S posts quicker 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than a C6 Vette, with almost identical weight and 35 less h.p, due to it's rear-engine layout allowing superior launches..... 0-60 and 1/4 elapsed times are very dependent on launch, which in real-life driving, isn't terribly relevant.
     
    #18
  19. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're 110# is too high.
    From Ford's own #s the 4.6 AL block weighs only 70lb less than the iron block it replaced.

    Given that for 500HP an aluminum 5.4 block would have to be beefed up the weight savings would be 80 lb. at best.

    The other problems with the GT-500 engine are the big and heavy 4V heads. The pair of 4V heads adds 80 lb over the 3V heads. The S/C, it's drive pullies, huge vibration damper, intercooler, etc. probably add at least another 150 lb.

    I rather have a 400HP, N/A, 5.4L, 3V with aluminum block that would weigh 350 lb less than the GT-500 engine with its required hardware.
     
    #19
  20. The Fang

    The Fang Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Tallahassee Fl
    lol, lets not forget that there is only a can of fix-a-flat instaed of a spare. :)
     
    #20

Share This Page