bill0754 Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Has anyone else read this article? As sad as it seems, the base Corvette is quicker than the Shelby GT500. In fact the 2003-2004 SVT Cobras are just as fast as the new Shelby. What gives? I am not sure I want to pay $45,000 for a new Shelby if it has the same performace as my '04 Cobra - but gets worse gas milage. The test showed 11mpg vs my '04 Cobra's 18. Any ideas as to why the Shelby is only posting 0-60 in 4.5 and the 1/4 in 12.9 @ 112? This is really a dissapointing article, I hope it's just poor drivers or a pre-production Shelby. Here is the complete article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill0754 Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Pre-production and lousy drivers, my GT500 will smoke em both...please give it to me already! Yes, it should post much better numbers. I have mine all ordered, so hopefully some other mags will post a better road test. If not, I will keep my 2004 and sell the '07 when it arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSyde Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I also think it may have had to do with the driver.... But the 112 trap makes me want to hurl, and it concerns me. A dead person should be able to pull (at least, I thought) 116 or better throught the traps, no matter how poor the driving/launch/et is. The trap speed is my #1 concern. Where's the beef? That trap is terrible for a car with that much HP, even considering the weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrichard Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I haven't seen the article, but I seriously doubt Ford let CD test a sub-par GT500. And CD doesn't have a reputation for poor technical knowledge nor poor test performance by drivers. I'm guessing this will be very indicative of production performance. It doesn't bug me in the least. But it does tell me this is a $40-$45k car and not a $55-$65k car... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSyde Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 But it does tell me this is a $40-$45k car and not a $55-$65k car... Bingo! We have a winner. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owenkelley Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Did they indicate they were having traction problems? Something seems strange to me, especially considering how well the GT500 apparently did in the One Lap of America, or whatever it was called. Perhaps the GT500 is better suited to road courses than drag strips? Either way, mine is going to be a highway cuiser, although I would like to try my hand at the drag strip down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Shoot! Hopefully numbers will be better than that once the production cars hit the streets. Or ..... have we all just gotten ourselves worked up into such a frenzy that the reality will dissapoint us? :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 have we all just gotten ourselves worked up into such a frenzy that the reality will dissapoint us? It's only a tenth. The GT500 is almost 500lbs heavier. And since when has any Mustang beaten a Vette straight up stock? This is not only the powerful Mustang ever, that is also far and away the best Vette ever. Relax folks its gonna come down to the driver on any given day. And they really are two different cars. I am a bit dismayed by that 6000 rev limit though. I was hoping the powertrain would go higher. I wonder if that is a hangover from the crank issue/fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill0754 Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Did they indicate they were having traction problems? Something seems strange to me, especially considering how well the GT500 apparently did in the One Lap of America, or whatever it was called. Perhaps the GT500 is better suited to road courses than drag strips? Either way, mine is going to be a highway cuiser, although I would like to try my hand at the drag strip down the road. This is what CD wrote: " What surprised us, however, was the GT500's loss in acceleration runs. Its 100-hp advantage should have been enough to leave the Vette in a cloud of rubber dust. The GT500 also has a useful launch-control system that's part of the standard traction control. To get nearly perfect hole shot, all you have to do is rev the engine to 3200 rpm, dump the clutch, and floor it. The system automatically modulates engine power to make the driver look like Kenny Bernstein. With it, we hit 60 mph in 4.6 seconds. But we were able to go even quicker without it, thanks to the terrifically tractable engine that makes it easy to keep the tires hooked up. Moreover, the Shelby has a programmable shift light and audible chirp to free your eyes from monitoring the 6000-rpm redline on the tach. Under full human control, we shaved 0.1 second from the 60-mph sprint, lowering it to 4.5 seconds. The quarter mile required only 12.9 seconds at 112 mph. 150 mph came in 30.3 seconds, and an electronic tether limited top speed to 155 mph". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 It's only a tenth. The GT500 is almost 500lbs heavier. And since when has any Mustang beaten a Vette straight up stock? This is not only the powerful Mustang ever, that is also far and away the best Vette ever. Relax folks its gonna come down to the driver on any given day. And they really are two different cars. Yeah, but that was only the BASE vette, not the 500 hp version, and it still performed better. Not that I don't stll love the GT500, but I expected it to beat the 400hp base vette. :angry2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger mark2 Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Ouch :wacko: I thought for sure we would conservatively have a 12.5 or less. I really can't believe these results. Geez earlier SVT Cobras were almost that fast stock. Someone tell me it ain't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangesnake Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Ouch :wacko: I thought for sure we would conservatively have a 12.5 or less. I really can't believe these results. Geez earlier SVT Cobras were almost that fast stock. Someone tell me it ain't true. How much computer control do you have on the SVT Cobra? How much is in the 07 Shelby. I can tell you this (ouch) there goes my warrenty. You take the computer out of the equation lets say in an 05 mustang and you have a total new animal Mustang gone wild!! boy i cant believe iam telling you this. Put a 4.10 gear and a drive shaft that weighs 30lb less ok some secrets iam going to keep but lets say the 05 will be in the 12's. No nitros and no super charger. pssst throttle by wire will cost you e.t. time also......somebody stop me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 pssst throttle by wire will cost you e.t. time also......somebody stop me Its no secret that the spanish Oak processor and its throttle body delay are an easy fix and EVERY article re the S-197 refers to it. We were talking stock to stock here..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangesnake Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Its no secret that the spanish Oak processor and its throttle body delay are an easy fix and EVERY article re the S-197 refers to it. We were talking stock to stock here..... Does the Vette have throttle by wire? Does the Cobra have throttle by wire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Its an emissions thing. The override leaves a lean burn situation in the manifold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
442forever(noolds) Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 The sad thing is to compare the 67-68 GT500 with the same year L55 vette and it was who was driving that won those battles. The zo6 gives the edge to gomer it sounds like. The old era gt was built to EXCEED and Beat the competition. Maybe this was a build of smoke screen and mirrors? 500 hp is enough to get it done, why not release the car with all the power to the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangesnake Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 The sad thing is to compare the 67-68 GT500 with the same year L55 vette and it was who was driving that won those battles. The zo6 gives the edge to gomer it sounds like. The old era gt was built to EXCEED and Beat the competition. Maybe this was a build of smoke screen and mirrors? 500 hp is enough to get it done, why not release the car with all the power to the ground? In todays world its different. Lets compare 4 seats to 4 seats. The weight alone is the limiting factor. Not really sure of the numbers but Mustang 4000lb Vette 3000lb or less 4 seats to 2 seats makes a difference in todays manufacturing world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
442forever(noolds) Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 L88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrichard Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 "....all the power to the ground..." Uh, that comes later. In 2008 or maybe 2009 and maybe it gets a KR designation. Maybe not. But the frenzy starts over. This isn't the last time we'll here an ad tag-line that starts with the words, "Most powerful Mustang ever..." Well, just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
442forever(noolds) Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I guess my main point was the 67-68 shelby was built to be the fastest straight line or track car. This one has the number but not the muscle. off the truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Let me start by saying that I LOVE this car. I've been adicted to the GT500 ever since it was hinted at. I keep pictures of it in my current car just to look at. I check sites like this one several times a day. I go to the car shows just to see the concept GT500. However, I must be real here. These numbers suck . There's no good way to spin it. It's far below my expectations, especially after the bump up in HP from 475 to 500 when the testing was done. This may not be a popular opinion, but I have to be honest about my reaction to the news. That being said, I still want this car. It's beautiful. I'm still going to buy it (in 08). But it clearly won't be the performer that I thought it would be (stock, at least). A sad sad day! Still an awesome car, but these test numbers show it's just a car (in my mind I had made it into something more ... i think!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangesnake Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I guess my main point was the 67-68 shelby was built to be the fastest straight line or track car. This one has the number but not the muscle. off the truck. Here is an interesting site........... http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm Site is a list of the fastest production vehicles. Look what vehicles are where in the list and then draw your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Anyone who has been around a while knows to take magazine test for a grain of salt. My guess is you will see different numbers from different tests. Throttle by wire is a problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpretzel Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Throttle by wire is a problem! Please educate me. I'm not very technical. Why is the throttle by wire a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Please educate me. I'm not very technical. Why is the throttle by wire a problem? Others may be better at explaining but, throttle by wire should not pose any problems but Ford has built in delays to the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach1fever Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 car and driver always ends up with crappy numbers. Wait until muscle mustangs brings theirs out. Remember the vette is a whole lot lighter. Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2go Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 something else to consider is the final drive ratio - 3.31 isn't a great gear to finish the quarter mile. Ford probably went with this gear for better gas mileage averages. and we should all write c&d and tell them to test an actual production unit, instead of a pre-production car just to sell magazines. i'd hate to have to buy the magazine to read a negative spin on the Shelby. they really are comparing apples and oranges ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Roger Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I wonder if Ford tweaked the engine or the chip in some way AFTER they gave C & D a car to test? The final 500 hp rating IS higher than the 450 hp they were claiming for some time. I'll bet they actually did their testing months ago. Hopefully, the stock production vehicle will have more power than the car they tested..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owenkelley Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 I guess my main point was the 67-68 shelby was built to be the fastest straight line or track car. This one has the number but not the muscle. off the truck. Actually, in '67, if you read the Motor Trend report that pitted the '67 GT500 against the '67 427 Vette, the Vette was quite a bit faster than the GT500. One thing that may have been a factor however is that some of the early GT500's that were loaned to the press apparently had 390's in them rather than 428's. This particular article shows pictures of the stock valve covers rather than the Cobra Lemans valve covers, leading to the speculation that this was in fact a 390 car. The GT500 was considered to be the more practical all around car however, but then who cares about practical in cars like these! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Okay, Race Fans - this does it. 3.73's are goin' in. End of story. I've got a snobby neighbor with a C6 - that is begging to get spanked. I will not let Carroll down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.