July 2006 Car & Driver GT500 First Test

[orangesnake]

orange(tungsten)snake...I haven't actually looked @ the C&D Mag all the hoopla is about. I do know for sure...as you do to...that the July 06 HOT ROD MAG is not a GT500 vs. Base Vet comparison. It is SHELBY ONLY and once again pre-production cars were used. The HOT ROD writers state they had the only 5 GT500 test mules in existence at the time of their testing @ California Speedway....which leads me to believe that too was a longgg time ago.

 

ShelbyWise

 

I think that seems to be the case. Those were early models with some kinks in them still. Oh on the name. I initially ordered orange. I looked it up here and it was too burnt for my taste. I went to the dealership and changed it to alloy with tungstan. The name change on here is not proving as easy.

[kb67]

I don't buy cars to collect 'em; my expectations are more visceral.

 

+1

[Kencobra]

Please remember also that the 03-04's were rated at 390 HP but, have many more HP then that. Most were pushing around 372 at the wheels stock which equates to over 420 HP and they are lighter then the GT500...

[Son of GT]

As stated by another here, this artical was written at least three months ago, maybe more. And in direct indifference to proper common sense, most manufacturer's don't give magazine's "fresh mules" to test. The Mags are given well broken in test units or detuned PR units (Print and TV ads) that have been flogged hard and put up wet.

 

And let's say that the artical is completely accurate. If it is, considering the shellacking SVT took after the 1999 Cobra Horsepower debacle, there is still enough time and a very good chance that the SVT engineers would take some action and tweak a little more juce from the engine before release.

 

Also, contary to what some have said, Carroll was/is deeply involved in the development of this car. It has his name on it, and his name has a reputation that he does not want tarnished, so he not going let SVT release a Dog, and believe it or not, he has enough clout at Ford to force an action. Ford and SVT can't afford to look foolish right now either, so it would be in their best interest to make GD sure that this Mo Fo is right from the get go.

 

How do we know that that Ford did not intentally give C&D a detuned mule? Considering all of the friggin secrecy shrouding the price and technical data for this car over the last several months, could it be possible that Ford was/is trying to skew the performance numbers down intentally?

 

But in the end, this is just another opinion piled on top of all the other opinions here. The best way to resolve this concern is to just ask Ford to respond to the artical. Let's all send them an email asking them to do just that.

[lawdude]

How do we know that that Ford did not intentally give C&D a detuned mule? Considering all of the friggin secrecy shrouding the price and technical data for this car over the last several months, could it be possible that Ford was/is trying to skew the performance numbers down intentally?

 

 

 

So the Ford poobahs called a meeting a said, "There's been too much favorable free buzz and not enough secrecy; let's announce that the car has 500 HP, but then give C&D a detuned mule just for some last minute misdirection, and to overcome all that free advertising."

[DVS2XS]

Why don't we take these articles on the preproduction vehicles at face value. I haven't read the C&D article yet but the numbers are similar to the HR "test", where the engine was tuned rich and the tires "blazed" off the line. So we have 2 articles with similar results - that is meaningful.

 

Traction IS going to be an issue with this weight and torque and especially the Goodyear tires. EVEN WITH 3.31 GEARS! It is going to take a fine control on the throttle and clutch to get good numbers in the 1/4 mile - more than a few minutes in the car will provide.

 

What is written about the handling, ride, and the other aspects of the car is worth reading as well. How often do we get a chance to read test on preproduction mules for a car that has not even started production? Some of these cars are likely set up with varying suspension and power than what will be in production. With drive-by-wire throttle and traction control, better 0-60 and 60 foot times are just a few keystrokes away, and may be different on the final vehicles.

 

(IT is not hard to kill trap speeds with an overly rich tune or a couple of degress of timing pulled out on the top end - trust me, I learned this the hard way.)

 

Ford has promised the most powerful and fastest Mustang ever. They have a LOT on the line here. Let's hope it is the quickest Mustang ever as well. Relax, and let's wait for more information.

[06ragtopGT]

I'll take whoevers bailing outs car (vert please) Dont really care about color.

You all new (but hoped) this thing would beat the LS2 Vette but you knew better deep down. Apple lbs./oranges lbs. I just hope I can dust the ugly G6 I mean GTO's, really a more fair comparision.

Least I can still get two baby seats in the back of my hefty beast and get alot more looks than the tired 23 year old styling of the Vette (yawn)

Looks like my warranty will be voided quicker than I hoped. Can you say Tweak

[lawdude]

Least I can still get two baby seats in the back of my hefty beast and get alot more looks than the tired 23 year old styling of the Vette (yawn)

 

 

 

Wouldn't have had a Vette from model year 1968 until C6 was released. Love the C6 body style. Unfortunately wifey recently informed me that she doesn't like Vettes, period. So I guess I still wouldn't have one.

 

Before I get hitched again, next wife will have to pass an extensive written exam and agree in writing that I'm the boss.

 

BTW, please don't tell my wife about this since I'm not in the mood for an ass kickin'.

[Jolly Roger]

You can download a digital copy of the July 2006 Car & Driver for $4 at http://www.zinio.com/offer?issn=0008-6002&rf=zCars&ns=zno. Click on "Check out these single copies too!" at the bottom of the page. I couldn't find this issue locally, so I started searching the web. It was worth the 4 bucks - the magazine looks great on my widescreen laptop.

 

I've got my Shelby on order (#1 at a President's Award, SVT dealer ). I can't wait!

[Five Oh B]

By the way, a 112 mph trap speed is indicative of a car that is capable of running the 1/4 mile in the 12.20's given proper traction. A 12.90 means that traction was likely the biggest culprit for C&D.

 

Did I read correctly that they used the traction control to let the computer help them with the launch? I've done this at the local drag strip several times to see how it affects my ET's and can tell you first hand that it cost me more than a 7 tenths of a second penalty in ET due to the computer (Traction Control) backing off the timing & fuel, and applying rear brakes as needed to keep wheelspin under control. Now I always turn the TC off and use a sticky drag tire when I race to maximize performance. Let me drag test a GT500 and I'll show you much better time slip than any magazine jockey.

[bill0754]

OK guys....I just posted the full article on the first page.

[DVS2XS]

INTERESTING read.

 

So they test a 4-seat coupe against a 2 seater costing $10k more. AND the Mustang is a preproduction unit and the Vette has only 700 miles. Still interesting, but a bit irrelevant.

 

What amazes me is that WITHOUT the traction control, they only improved acceleration times by .1 seconds. But Even Ford says they are getting times only .2 seconds better than these. So expect 12.7 second ET's at 115 mph? Does this car need better tires or what?

[Son of GT]

So the Ford poobahs called a meeting a said, "There's been too much favorable free buzz and not enough secrecy; let's announce that the car has 500 HP, but then give C&D a detuned mule just for some last minute misdirection, and to overcome all that free advertising."

 

I sincerely doubt that a "meeting" was called. Did I say that a meeting was called? No. The paragraph that you extracted from my thread and commented on started with the words "How do we know", not "I know for a fact". Do any of us know with absolute certainty what condition and fuel/air calibration the C&D test mule was? No. Other than the obvious "sell every one of these suckers", do any of us really know what Ford's "roll out" strategy is with this vehicle? No. There are just too many unknown's to go and over react to the data presented in this article. By the way, in response to your fictional quote: "Let's announce that the car has 500 HP, and then give..." Please note that the 500 HP rating was only announced about three weeks ago, and this article was written well before then. That's one of the reasons why I believe that C&D recieved a down tuned pre-production flogged out test mule.

 

Look, as I clearly stated in my thread, my rhetoric was just my opinion and theory Counselor, and no more than that. And now having said that again, I do not think that my comments warranted your Fictional and somewhat sarcastic quotes. You are certainly entitled to your opinion(s), and even though the objective of this forum is to share them with the other members here; responses and comments should be respectful and presented in a non-inflamatory manner.

 

As previously stated, the best way to resolve this concern is to just confront Ford with the presented data and ask them to respond to it. I sent an email to FoMoCo last night. Why don't we all do that and then see what they have to say about the data presented in the article?

[JETSOLVER]

OK guys....I just posted the full article on the first page.

 

I think we all owe bill an honest and heartfelt THANK YOU for preventing us a lot of number typing. Thanks The fact that should concern us is "Ford say's it own quarter-mile tests are 0.1 to 0.2 second quicker with 115-mph trap speeds." Cosmic parasitic loss? Blown clutch? Bad engine processor? Doesn't really matter when Ford says the best case is 12.7.

[Son of GT]

I think we all owe bill an honest and heartfelt THANK YOU for preventing us a lot of number typing. Thanks

 

Yes, I agree. THANK YOU BILL!

[lawdude]

I sincerely doubt that a "meeting" was called. Did I say that a meeting was called? No. The paragraph that you extracted from my thread and commented on started with the words "How do we know", not "I know for a fact". Do any of us know with absolute certainty what condition and fuel/air calibration the C&D test mule was? No. Other than the obvious "sell every one of these suckers", do any of us really know what Ford's "roll out" strategy is with this vehicle? No. There are just too many unknown's to go and over react to the data presented in this article. By the way, in response to your fictional quote: "Let's announce that the car has 500 HP, and then give..." Please note that the 500 HP rating was only announced about three weeks ago, and this article was written well before then. That's one of the reasons why I believe that C&D recieved a down tuned pre-production flogged out test mule.

 

Look, as I clearly stated in my thread, my rhetoric was just my opinion and theory Counselor, and no more than that. And now having said that again, I do not think that my comments warranted your Fictional and somewhat sarcastic quotes. You are certainly entitled to your opinion(s), and even though the objective of this forum is to share them with the other members here; responses and comments should be respectful and presented in a non-inflamatory manner.

 

As previously stated, the best way to resolve this concern is to just confront Ford with the presented data and ask them to respond to it. I sent an email to FoMoCo last night. Why don't we all do that and then see what they have to say about the data presented in the article?

 

 

 

Most conspiracy theories start off with something like "How do we know". Most conspiracy theories are promulgated by dunderheads. I'm sure you're probably NOT a dunderhead, but how do I know?

 

I quoted you and made a little fun. On the frequent occasions when I make an idiotic statement, I expect and humbly accept a little sarcasm. :beerchug:

[Big Shooter]

I do not really care about the all out speed of the Gt500 - I just want a cutting edge all round great handling car. After reading this article I was left un-impressed. I will wait for some further reviews, but at this point, it looks as if the weight is killing the handling. I may pull out get the deposit back and go for an M3.

[kaylan1521]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 27 2006, 10:41 AM) 15671[/snapback]

By the way, a 112 mph trap speed is indicative of a car that is capable of running the 1/4 mile in the 12.20's given proper traction. A 12.90 means that traction was likely the biggest culprit for C&D.

 

Did I read correctly that they used the traction control to let the computer help them with the launch? I've done this at the local drag strip several times to see how it affects my ET's and can tell you first hand that it cost me more than a 7 tenths of a second penalty in ET due to the computer (Traction Control) backing off the timing & fuel, and applying rear brakes as needed to keep wheelspin under control. Now I always turn the TC off and use a sticky drag tire when I race to maximize performance. Let me drag test a GT500 and I'll show you much better time slip than any magazine jockey.

 

Ditto

[mach1fever]

Hate to tell you this but niether gto offering comes anywhere close to this car. Both engine variations in the different year models are around the same weight and have at least 100 less hp. I have yet to have one beat me at the track and I am running 13.1's (should be twelves but I am learning on the drag radials) Either way I personally like them but your giving them too much credit.

[wildcat]

Thanks so much for posting that full article. Great job!

 

Did you all notice in the "final scoring" that the vette even scored higher in the "gotta have it" category (24 points vs. 19 points) Are they crazy? Have they not seen this message board? I'd feel pretty certain (and over MSRP markup would agree) that the GT500 should score off the charts on the "gotta have it" category !!!!!!! :bandance:

[DVS2XS]

I think it is obvious that the C&D writers think differently, a lot differently, than we all do.

[68fastback]

As far as the GT500 performance goes... don't underestimate what 2-tons does to slow things down. Even with a driver, the 'vette is a 1/4 ton less -- that's huge! And the GT500 weight distribution is more nose-heavy.

 

Still this is a pre-production GT500 for sure, so could be some diff, but nothing major I would think.

[jrichard]

I finally read the article. A bit disappointing even though I still plan on buying one.

 

The weight and weight distribution are serious issues...and those things won't change in the production vehicles. So, the handling, braking, and acceleration will all probably be less than we'd all hoped for even if we convince ourselves that CD has lousy drivers and the test mule was tired.

 

In some respects, it's good news as it might kill some of the unrealistic hype surrounding the car and I'll get one at MSRP sooner. I hope.

 

On another note, I stumbled on the 12/05 edition of Car & Driver (my 3 year old son keeps my old CDs to cut out pictures of cars he likes and then my wife helps him make placemats, cards, etc., with the pictures). They tested a Z06 (v. a Viper).

 

Z06 0-60= 3.4 sec (!); 1/4 mi = 11.8/125. Wow!

 

So, if you're paying +/-$50k for a GT500, do you think it is worth moving to a Z06 for +/-$65k?

 

I guess a more relevant option for folks is buying a C6 instead since it's priced comparably to a GT500 (...forget about the $10k difference in CD...that was because the C6 had a bunch of extras that you don't need for performance).

 

But, geez, the Z06 is really pretty amazing and huge bang for the buck.

 

I'll stick with the GT500 and maybe go on a diet to help it out some. I could stand to lose about 15% of my body weight, too. That's an inexpensive performance-enhancer. Hey, maybe the GT500 will drive sales at Jenny Craig!

[lawdude]

The reason I decided on the GT500 was because of the bang for the buck factor. At least at this point, with the expected ADM and the C&D article, there seems to be less bang for more buck. Dayum.

[DVS2XS]

Yes, but if you plan on modifying it, the potential of the GT500 is fantastic.

[orangesnake]

Yes, but if you plan on modifying it, the potential of the GT500 is fantastic.

 

 

 

About the weight issue. I want you guys to think about something because I really dont feel like typing it all out. Ford designed a platform that comes in a convertable that offers a car (Shelby) with 500 hp. Now Chevy in their 500hp model doesnt offer a convertible? Why? The answer to this question showes you the solid design of the Shelby as opposed to the Chevy. Trust me guys its going to be a well put together car. As the old saying goes Who wants twigy when you can have a gal that has it all from top to bottom!!!!

[wildosvt]

Weight distribution is the same as the 04 Cobra.

[bill0754]

Thanks so much for posting that full article. Great job!

 

Did you all notice in the "final scoring" that the vette even scored higher in the "gotta have it" category (24 points vs. 19 points) Are they crazy? Have they not seen this message board? I'd feel pretty certain (and over MSRP markup would agree) that the GT500 should score off the charts on the "gotta have it" category !!!!!!! :bandance:

 

You guys are welcome!!

 

As for the article, I noticed several categories that were stupid. Styling in and out...that's a personal choice....but how a corvette is better than the stang I'll never know. Truck space, back seat, etc. are not important to this segment either. As for quality...the vette is all plastic inside, and not very well assembled for over $55,000, so I don't know how CD can say it has a better quality till it drives a production Shelby. This whole article is really irrelivent until the first production Shelby is built on June 6th and tested.....until then, let's hope Ford sees this test and corrects the performance to exceptable levels.

[Big Shooter]

ok - this is what I do not get. i am assuming that most people that want this car are planning on flogging it, using it at the drag strip, the race track, or for those that are not, they will be driving it pretty hard on the road. so why is ford (in their media announcements) constantly talking about the car's civilized ride and how it behaves like a regularly mannered car when you do not drive it hard? I would think that most people buying this car would like to see the damping, spring rates, ride height and geometry at a point where the car is more of a performer than a pleasant driving experience. I mean I would like to see the car with .95 skidpad, under 4.5 for 0 to 60 and less than 12.5 for the quarter. If I want a nice sunday driver that goes fast and performes reasonable well I will buy the Mustang GT or the new California Special for thousands less. I just do not get why they have not cranked up the overall performance on the GT500 to meet what I see as the demand of what I think most people want or expected from this car. It, at this point does not seem worth the extra $$$ for the GT500 over a GT. I know I am ranting based on one article but it seems as if the performance is going to be pretty close to what is said about the car in c&d.

 

I recognise you can modify - but then you have to start comparing the overall costs to much higher priced alternatives. I think ford has missed the boat on this one.

[lawdude]

Now Chevy in their 500hp model doesnt offer a convertible? Why? The answer to this question showes you the solid design of the Shelby as opposed to the Chevy.

 

 

So, what is the answer? Does it have anything to do with the carbon-fiber fenders, wheelhouses and floor panels? Or the aluminum frame? Or the magnesium engine cradle?

 

I give, what is the answer?