July 2006 Car & Driver GT500 First Test

[JETSOLVER]

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.

 

I fear that fewer than I would hope are going to drive this car as it should be. This may be an unintended consequence of taking what was formerly known as SVT "upscale". I have maintained that a lot of new potential customers may be dissapointed when the reality of things like this hit. Which is a darn shame. To get this car through FORD at a time when gas is $70+ a barrel took a lot of political capital and belief. So it isn't a 60k car for 45k. If one gets one for what we think (or somehow for what we were told) it still has the potential to carry the concept forward.

[Five Oh B]

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.

 

 

A 2005-6 Mustang GT runs through the 1/4 mile traps at about 102 mph (stick) or 99 mph (automatic). The GT500 runs through at 112 mph minimum (per C&D's report) and more likely 115 mph when someone like kaylan1521 gets ahold of one. That is one heck of a difference in abilities. Don't let the C&D article lead you to believe that the two cars perform similarly, as they do not.

 

 

Here's more food for thought: 0-100 mph times of the Mustang GT vs GT500....

 

13.5 seconds for a 2005-6 Mustang GT Coupe (stick) per several tests I've read.

 

10.3 seconds for the 2007 GT500 as reported by C&D.

 

That is a huge performace difference!

[bill0754]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 27 2006, 08:11 PM) 15764[/snapback]

A 2005-6 Mustang GT runs through the 1/4 mile traps at about 102 mph (stick) or 99 mph (automatic). The GT500 runs through at 112 mph minimum (per C&D's report) and more likely 115 mph when someone like kaylan1521 gets ahold of one. That is one heck of a difference in abilities. Don't let the C&D article lead you to believe that the two cars perform similarly, as they do not.

Here's more food for thought: 0-100 mph times of the Mustang GT vs GT500....

 

13.5 seconds for a 2005-6 Mustang GT Coupe (stick) per several tests I've read.

 

10.3 seconds for the 2007 GT500 as reported by C&D.

 

That is a huge performace difference!

 

Well, regardless of this magazine test, I ordered mine - thanks to my powerlease I am getting it at $1,000 over invoice. My 2004 Mystichrome Cobra cost almost $39,000 so the new GT500 isn't really that much more when you consider the newer body style, etc. I think I will like it....if it performs as well as my 2004 I guess I should be happy as the '04 is one fast car! If I just want to take a cruise, I'll just jump into my 1970 Mach 1 - here's a shot of my two 'stangs together.

[orangesnake]

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?

 

A Great car is like a Great woman. Built solid from top to bottom. This one is built to last you a long time and take lots of abuse. Carroll would not put his name on anything less!!!!!! This guy is a living legand. You think he would expect anything less than a solid all around perfoming vehicle? He has a resume of success on the track and in the design room/ shop longer than any in the car industry that I can think of. I am a car fanatic living in the racing capital of the world. We live and breath cars in Indianapolis.

 

Think about it.

 

What do a couple of yahwho chumps from C&D know about driving and designing a car compaired to Carroll Shelby? Hell I bet if he was in the drivers seat the guy in the Vet would have been and and and pissing his pant because Carroll is driving circles around him.

 

Do you want a car that will still be performing 30 years from now or one that is falling apart at the seams because it was made cheap.......first 3 letters in Chevy are Che

 

I have faith in Ford and that they made this one right. There is too much riding on this one.

 

Also I think the article was a little bias towards the Corvette. They make refernce to previous articles. They say in the article how much they have always applauded the Corvette C6. Read it again. I maybe wrong but I didnt get the warm fuzzy they had for the Shelby, but I sure did get the one they had for the Corvette.

[bill0754]

A Great car is like a Great woman. Built solid from top to bottom. This one is built to last will last you. Carroll would not put his name on anything less!!!!!! This guy is a living legand. You think he would expect anything less than a solid all around perfoming vehicle? He has a resume longer than anything we own and posses.

 

Think about it.

 

What do a couple of yahwho chumps from C&D know about driving and designing a car compaired to him?

 

Do you want a car that will still be performing 30 years from now or one that is falling apart at the seams because it was made cheap.......first 3 letters in Chevy are Che

 

I have faith in Ford and that they made this one right. There is too much riding on this one.

 

Also I think the article was a little bias towards the Corvette. They make refernce to previous articles. They say in the article how much they have always applauded the Corvette C6. Read it again. I maybe wrong but I didnt get the warm fuzzy they had for the Shelby, but I sure did get the one they had for the Corvette.

 

You are so right! How else can you explain the Corvette winning the "gotta have it" points. Get real CD, the Shelby is a legend that will last forever...the vette is the same as the last 2 years. I am buying the car to drive, and as all my Mustangs enjoy. This is are chance to get a real Shelby!! Life's too short not to grab it!!

[lawdude]

A Great car is like a Great woman. Built solid from top to bottom. This one is built to last you a long time and take lots of abuse.

 

Interesting analogy. Hope you don't intend to abuse your car the way you abuse your women.

 

Do you want a car that will still be performing 30 years from now

 

30 years from now I'll probably be thankful just to remember my name.

 

or one that is falling apart at the seams because it was made cheap.......first 3 letters in Chevy are Che

 

So is that your answer? The first three letters of Chevy are the same as the first three letters in cheap?

 

I have faith in Ford and that they made this one right. There is too much riding on this one.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Also I think the article was a little bias towards the Corvette.

 

Like the old saying goes, "I'm not biased, I hate everybody."

 

I am a car fanatic living in the racing capital of the world. We live and breath cars in Indianapolis.

 

I was born in Methodist Hospital in Marion County, Indiana. I graduated from ATHS. I've been to Speedway on more than one occasion. I still watch those open wheel Indy cars zoom around the Brickyard on TV. Does that mean you and I have the same qualifications to comment on automobiles?

[06ragtopGT]

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?

 

 

Yes...Yes...Yes. What about that trouble they went through to save two pounds or something on the Z06's roof panel? Vettes in a league of its own. least it (GT500) will beat most everything (stock) on the street. Whats up with that gas mileage,thats as scary as that lame 1/4 mile time.

 

Looks like i'll be getting one for sticker after all.

[orangesnake]

Interesting analogy. Hope you don't intend to abuse your car the way you abuse your women.

30 years from now I'll probably be thankful just to remember my name.

So is that your answer? The first three letters of Chevy are the same as the first three letters in cheap?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Like the old saying goes, "I'm not biased, I hate everybody."

I was born in Methodist Hospital in Marion County, Indiana. I graduated from ATHS. I've been to Speedway on more than one occasion. I still watch those open wheel Indy cars zoom around the Brickyard on TV. Does that mean you and I have the same qualifications to comment on automobiles?

 

 

Some people have it ......some people dont. Some ARE.....some people wanna be. You figure out what i have said and what I am saying. :bandance: If you cant figure it out "Sorry bout ya" Hoosier slang.

 

As for the Shelby name it will stand for a very long time. There are a very select few that can even stand in the same room as Carroll Shelby and attempt to hold an automotive related conversation.

 

Some guys have it......some guys want it......some guys like to talk about it.....and some like to pretend....but when its said and done at the finish line you find out who the real ones are time and time again....its an elite club and Carroll Shelby is a member ......on the track and off.

[lawdude]

Some people have it ......some people dont. Some ARE.....some people wanna be. You figure out what i have said and what I am saying. :bandance: If you cant figure it out "Sorry bout ya" Hoosier slang.

 

If its a waste of your time. Then dont respond. Pesonally I think true car guys know exactly what Iam talking about. As for the Shelby name it will stand for a very long time. There are a very select few that can even stand in the same room as Carroll Shelby and attempt to hold an automotive related conversation.

 

Some guys have it......some guys want it......some guys like to talk about it.....and some like to pretend....but when its said and done at the finish line you find out who the real ones are time and time again.

 

 

Whatever you said, it's ok with me. :beerchug:

[ratnacage]

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.

 

 

Something had to be wrong with the car. My 89 GT with a Paxton (8psi), ported stock heads, and exhaust work was running 111 mph through the trap - and I know it wasn't putting out 500 hp (probably more like 350 hp). Times can get skewed easily depending on traction, but MPH is the real tell-tale indicator for HP.

[Alloy Dave]

Did anyone notice that CD posted pricing? Not sure how they got this...do we believe it? We'll have to know within a week or so anyway...the darn thing begins life in about 9 days!!!

 

By the way, I don't get into the Corvette comparisons...these two vehicles are so different I don't compare. The Vette has a much lower seating position (re: uncomfortable), is harder to get in and out of (for those of us with back and knee problems), the Vette parts will likely cost a lot more (I used to be an auto tech...Vette parts are high), insurance will likely be much higher, the Vette tires are $375 each vs. about $250 for the GT500 (depends largely on what brand you purchase), GT500 has the throttle response of a supercharger...something I've always enjoyed, and the Vette comes with the "I'm better than you" image that I've never liked (our local Vette club has been trying to "bribe" car show organizers to get the best parking spots rather than a random order....geesh).

 

I'm not saying the Vette is a bad car...it's just not my style...and I wouldn't buy it if it were $5,000 LESS than a GT500. If anything, I'd consider waiting for a Charger or Camaro...but I'm tired of waiting!!!!

 

[68fastback]

...

 

...and don't forget the 'vette roof panels that fly off at high speed, potentially extracting the occupants from the vehicle. At least that's what CNN reported on about 20 minutes ago -- GM is recalling 30,000 'vettes. No kidding... and a very unusual problem.

[COBRA32]

That 112 mph that the GT500 turned in is a bad MPH in a 1/4 mile race for a 500 horsepower car even at 3900 lbs. The bmw M5 with 500 horsepower at 4200 lbs does 117 mph and the M6 coupe does it at 120 at 3900. Another example is the Mercedes AMG 55 4 door sedan that has 469 horsepower and weighs over 4000+ also, yet its MPH in the 1/4 mile is 116. Ford either is over rating this car or it has serious issues to run that MPH and time. Base price of the vette which has more features and more expensive material used is only 3000 more that the GT500. I was not expecting the GT500 to out handle the Vette, but I was expecting the GT500 to out accelerate the base Vette being so close in price. Its very bad showing for Ford. Sad thing is this is probably the way the car will perform because surely Ford would not send a bad performing GT500 for a comparison test to put in a national publication. I hope you guys find something out soon I'm about ready to cancel my GT500 order.

[NOSHOULDERS]

One thing about this Car&Driver article - I havn't seen much ,if any, postings about unethical car dealers or how much over MSRP people are having to pay. Maybe if some cancle there orders - that may level out the supply and demand curve, and those folks who were so far down "THE LIST" may have a shot at owning a Shelby GT 500.

 

 

I never liked CarDriver anyway. I grew up reading Road&Track. { have you seen the snipett pics of the guys writing the articles in R&T these days --- looks like they could use a round of tetracycline for their zits }.

[orangesnake]

One thing about this Car&Driver article - I havn't seen much ,if any, postings about unethical car dealers or how much over MSRP people are having to pay. Maybe if some cancle there orders - that may level out the supply and demand curve, and those folks who were so far down "THE LIST" may have a shot at owning a Shelby GT 500.

I never liked CarDriver anyway. I grew up reading Road&Track. { have you seen the snipett pics of the guys writing the articles in R&T these days --- looks like they could use a round of tetracycline for their zits }.

 

 

Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle......You must wonder the forums young grass hopper. You will find the answer to your questions. The forums are broad and wide. The journey is long grass hopper. :ninja: Beware in the evil lurks within young grass hopper. When you have finished your journey you will be wise to the "tactic" You will have seen the valley of the dead post and you will have learned to play fair and most of all you will have learn who is full of Learn well young grass hopper. :ninja:

[DVS2XS]

Has anyone seen the GT500 report in Road & Track's SPEED magazine yet?

 

http://shop.roadandtrack.com/index.asp?Pag...PROD&ProdID=315

[07 Shelby Cobra]

Has anyone seen the GT500 report in Road & Track's SPEED magazine yet?

 

http://shop.roadandtrack.com/index.asp?Pag...PROD&ProdID=315

 

 

 

Is this a Pay Site? I don't see a Link to the Article? What do they say??

[Son of GT]

 

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:

 

That's cool, I do, and thanks for the acknowlegement!

 

Cheers to you my friend!

[Son of GT]

...

 

...and don't forget the 'vette roof panels that fly off at high speed, potentially extracting the occupants from the vehicle. At least that's what CNN reported on about 20 minutes ago -- GM is recalling 30,000 'vettes. No kidding... and a very unusual problem.

 

 

Yes, I heard about the recall on the local news radio station early Friday morning. 38,000 units according to that report, and it includes new units that just left the factory too. Aparantly the bonding materal that attaches the roof panel is not adhering properly to the composite roof frame and the roof panels are peeling off at freeway speeds. Frankly, considering the location of the failure, in my opinion that kind of repair should not be made at a dealership (but it will). Although the structural integrity of the vehicle has not been compromised, I can't imagine that the dealer repaired roof panel won't rattle or maybe even leak over the life of the car. The chassis will deflect and flex hundreds and thousand of times during ownership, and that may cause the repaired panel to come loose again months or years after the repair.

 

Now, even though this issue does not concern the perfromance data in the C&D article, it might be indicative of a bigger picture problem regarding the build quality of the vette in general. Yes, I know that Ford does not walk on water and has had it's share of recalls, but I can't remember any recall of a Ford product due to body panels flying off the chassis. Of course, it remains to be seen if the Shelby will have any recalls, but at least I know that if it does, it won't be because body panels flying off of it.

 

I wonder how GM intends to handle their next recall of the Corvette? The recall due to the Vette's door panels peeling off it's body everytime a GT500 passes one at speed.

[orangesnake]

I wonder how GM intends to handle their next recall of the Corvette? The recall due to the Vette's door panels peeling off it's body everytime a GT500 passes one at speed.[/color]

 

Usually in a Vette when a top is being peeled off the driver is getting :tease: sucked not out My next comedy show is at 10 pm thank you thank you

[Son of GT]

I wonder how GM intends to handle their next recall of the Corvette? The recall due to the Vette's door panels peeling off it's body everytime a GT500 passes one at speed.[/color]

 

Usually in a Vette when a top is being peeled off the driver is getting :tease: sucked not out My next comedy show is at 10 pm thank you thank you

 

 

"And don't forget to have the Veal and be sure to tip the waitresses"

[442forever(noolds)]

WOW. I take a day outta here and this board is going off! Well let me hop back in line. The car and driver story is I think as some have eluded to, early on with a sub par unit. If you compare the hr mag article in which they were being closely watched they had to sneak in a hot lap on the infield to get ONE run with a gtech that may or may not have been calibrated right. They say it was running fat to save the engine from catastrophe at testing and the one launch was with wicked tire spin.

It's easy from that to figure that a final prod car leaned out and hooked up is going to be at least, sub 12.5's. And with that it gets 5.0 B's 115mph easy.

Other minor tweaks are going to be right where I expected the car to be.

The ford release of the car being manageable under normal driving is a good thing. Not for me, but for those who are only able to buy this car and use it as an every day car. I am lucky and will use it as a speed fix in the summer. if I want it to be a kidney belt terror I can hook it up. If not, I wont have to pee every 50 miles on the back roads.

I feel so much better after reading the hrm story. c&d scared the bejesus out of me and was not sure wth ford was thinking.

Numbers do lie at times. As to the 67 gt500 test with the 67427rat, it was fords idea to let the test monkeys have an inferior car. They never even released the real power specs. However as one who was living the dream at laguna seca and sears point, I watched the two go at it in many forms of mod, and it came down to the driver. In 67 and 69 there were no production cars in scca with the advantages of the past.

Last I think this car will be what we all expect. A true shelby.

But a 25 pound balancer?

[gt5001]

Does the article say anything about the test drivers? Was there one, two or three, etc. Did the same driver test both the 'vette & the Shelby? Usually, if two staff members are involved, they both do runs in both cars and, I would guess, the best time is listed. I think it is a stretch to say the "bad" time was the driver.

I also find it hard to believe Ford would have provided a "dog" to an important magazine like C&D. Isn't its circulation the largest? If not it has to be in the top 3 - with Motor Trend & Road & Track.

This car is awfully heavy and the F/R distribution isn't good.

[Five Oh B]

OK, I know that C&D says that they disabled the GT500's traction control, but I have been guilty of forgetting to turn it off at the drag strip even though I know how important it is to turn off at the strip. Working at a Ford dealership, I've also heard of a few Mustangs coming through the service department with "stuck" traction controls that couldn't be turned off.

 

When I went to the 2002 SVT Dealer Meeting at the Bondurant Racing School for the intro of the 2003 SVT Cobras, Ford sent a bunch of pre-production Cobras for us to flog, but they had hard-wired the traction control in the "on" position to keep the novices safe on the track. Is it possible that Ford did the same thing with the pre-production GT500 that C&D had?

 

C&D claims a 0.1 second improvement by "turning off" the traction control. That's bull-pucky. My 2000 Mustang GT and my 2003 Mustang GT both have traction control and the difference in acceleration is closer to 0.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile and at least a half second 0-60, so I don't believe for a second that C&D really "turned off" the traction control. That would explain the 12.9 @ 112 mph, too, as the traction control will take away ignition timing & fuel, then apply rear brakes as needed, and adjust the A/F ratio (to keep the supercharger safe). Traction Control takes away horsepower - plain and simple - to keep the car tractable. That would explain the lower 112 mph for C&D versus Ford's own test at 115 mph.

 

Further evidence that C&D left the traction control on (whether by their ignorance or Ford hard-wiring it "on") is that they said the car got great traction throughout the 1/4 mile even though they thought the traction control was off. Again, bull-pucky! My 335hp Mach 1 with sticky 275/40/17 BFG Drag Radials fights for traction at the drag strip, and takes a lot of finesse to keep them glued to the track even after a long burnout to heat them up before lining up at the lights. On 275/40/17 street tires (on 2003 Cobra 17x9 wheels), my Mach 1 will blaze the tires in 1st & 2nd gear, 3rd gear will spin a bit, and 4th gear will still chirp. How can a 500hp Mustang just be so easy to dig in for traction and be so tractable as C&D says without computer intervention from traction control?

 

Think about it! C&D obviously has no idea that they tested the car with the traction control on!

[bill0754]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 28 2006, 04:57 PM) 15937[/snapback]

OK, I know that C&D says that they disabled the GT500's traction control, but I have been guilty of forgetting to turn it off at the drag strip even though I know how important it is to turn off at the strip. Working at a Ford dealership, I've also heard of a few Mustangs coming through the service department with "stuck" traction controls that couldn't be turned off.

 

When I went to the 2002 SVT Dealer Meeting at the Bondurant Racing School for the intro of the 2003 SVT Cobras, Ford sent a bunch of pre-production Cobras for us to flog, but they had hard-wired the traction control in the "on" position to keep the novices safe on the track. Is it possible that Ford did the same thing with the pre-production GT500 that C&D had?

 

C&D claims a 0.1 second improvement by "turning off" the traction control. That's bull-pucky. My 2000 Mustang GT and my 2003 Mustang GT both have traction control and the difference in acceleration is closer to 0.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile and at least a half second 0-60, so I don't believe for a second that C&D really "turned off" the traction control. That would explain the 12.9 @ 112 mph, too, as the traction control will take away ignition timing & fuel, then apply rear brakes as needed, and adjust the A/F ratio (to keep the supercharger safe). Traction Control takes away horsepower - plain and simple - to keep the car tractable. That would explain the lower 112 mph for C&D versus Ford's own test at 115 mph.

 

Further evidence that C&D left the traction control on (whether by their ignorance or Ford hard-wiring it "on") is that they said the car got great traction throughout the 1/4 mile even though they thought the traction control was off. Again, bull-pucky! My 335hp Mach 1 with sticky 275/40/17 BFG Drag Radials fights for traction at the drag strip, and takes a lot of finesse to keep them glued to the track even after a long burnout to heat them up before lining up at the lights. On 275/40/17 street tires (on 2003 Cobra 17x9 wheels), my Mach 1 will blaze the tires in 1st & 2nd gear, 3rd gear will spin a bit, and 4th gear will still chirp. How can a 500hp Mustang just be so easy to dig in for traction and be so tractable as C&D says without computer intervention from traction control?

 

Think about it! C&D obviously has no idea that they tested the car with the traction control on!

You have an excellent point!! My '04 Cobra, with brand new F1 Goodyears can't keep from breaking the tires loose at any time in first gear. Even chirps them in 2nd...so your point is very good...there is no way with 500hp the tires are going to grip the surface with the T/C shut off. I think we have a winner.....let's see what the production cars do before deciding on what the Shelby is capable of.

[68fastback]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 28 2006, 04:57 PM) 15937[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

OK, I know that C&D says that they disabled the GT500's traction control, but I have been guilty of forgetting to turn it off at the drag strip even though I know how important it is to turn off at the strip. Working at a Ford dealership, I've also heard of a few Mustangs coming through the service department with "stuck" traction controls that couldn't be turned off.

 

When I went to the 2002 SVT Dealer Meeting at the Bondurant Racing School for the intro of the 2003 SVT Cobras, Ford sent a bunch of pre-production Cobras for us to flog, but they had hard-wired the traction control in the "on" position to keep the novices safe on the track. Is it possible that Ford did the same thing with the pre-production GT500 that C&D had?

 

C&D claims a 0.1 second improvement by "turning off" the traction control. That's bull-pucky. My 2000 Mustang GT and my 2003 Mustang GT both have traction control and the difference in acceleration is closer to 0.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile and at least a half second 0-60, so I don't believe for a second that C&D really "turned off" the traction control. That would explain the 12.9 @ 112 mph, too, as the traction control will take away ignition timing & fuel, then apply rear brakes as needed, and adjust the A/F ratio (to keep the supercharger safe). Traction Control takes away horsepower - plain and simple - to keep the car tractable. That would explain the lower 112 mph for C&D versus Ford's own test at 115 mph.

 

Further evidence that C&D left the traction control on (whether by their ignorance or Ford hard-wiring it "on") is that they said the car got great traction throughout the 1/4 mile even though they thought the traction control was off. Again, bull-pucky! My 335hp Mach 1 with sticky 275/40/17 BFG Drag Radials fights for traction at the drag strip, and takes a lot of finesse to keep them glued to the track even after a long burnout to heat them up before lining up at the lights. On 275/40/17 street tires (on 2003 Cobra 17x9 wheels), my Mach 1 will blaze the tires in 1st & 2nd gear, 3rd gear will spin a bit, and 4th gear will still chirp. How can a 500hp Mustang just be so easy to dig in for traction and be so tractable as C&D says without computer intervention from traction control?

 

Think about it! C&D obviously has no idea that they tested the car with the traction control on!

 

You have an excellent point!! My '04 Cobra, with brand new F1 Goodyears can't keep from breaking the tires loose at any time in first gear. Even chirps them in 2nd...so your point is very good...there is no way with 500hp the tires are going to grip the surface with the T/C shut off. I think we have a winner.....let's see what the production cars do before deciding on what the Shelby is capable of.

 

It would be interesting to know who actually did the testing vs wrote the article... C&D seems to take every opportunity to make Fords look bad (not the whole staff, but a couple of individuals of the "I am God, you are dirt" school of literary arrogance). I'm not saying it was 'intentional' but if you've read C&D for decades, their overall bias against Ford becomes fairly apparent -- they seem to always find a way to position GM products favorably and, btw the biggest offender is a died-in-the-wool 'vette biggot -- does anyone recall the article referring to 'little Billy Ford' in the early Ford GT reviews? That's why I switched to R&T... far less bias, no arrogance, and make an effort to write responses to reader letters that address the core of the letter rather than look for letters which they can demean. R&T isn't perfect for sure, but they seem to genuinely try to keep their own biases out of their reviews. I'd like to see a couple of individuals at C&D retire early (or is it just way overdue?). Something is fundamentally wrong when their answer to most any valid reader criticism, the perfunctory ones they dain to print, is that they have the largest circulation so they must be right. I tend not to put too much weight on C&D reviews of Ford products, but that's just my personal eval. I gott think that a broken-in, production, trac-control-off, properly-tuned GT500 in the hands of driver with adequate seat time will be considerably better. I guess we shall see. Can't wait!

[jason0156]

Remember what C/D magazine said about the Ford GT in all it's articles. Then all the other publications love the car. I feel they are doing the same thing to our beloved GT500. You buy a shelby and the first thing you do is change the pulley and retune it. Then you won't have to worry about the C6's anymore. If thats not enough Upgrade the supercharger to a Whipple or a KenneBell, then not even the mighty Z06 will have a chance in a straight line. That's just my opinion.

[Jolly Roger]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 28 2006, 04:57 PM) 15937[/snapback]

OK, I know that C&D says that they disabled the GT500's traction control, but I have been guilty of forgetting to turn it off at the drag strip even though I know how important it is to turn off at the strip. Working at a Ford dealership, I've also heard of a few Mustangs coming through the service department with "stuck" traction controls that couldn't be turned off.

 

When I went to the 2002 SVT Dealer Meeting at the Bondurant Racing School for the intro of the 2003 SVT Cobras, Ford sent a bunch of pre-production Cobras for us to flog, but they had hard-wired the traction control in the "on" position to keep the novices safe on the track. Is it possible that Ford did the same thing with the pre-production GT500 that C&D had?

 

C&D claims a 0.1 second improvement by "turning off" the traction control. That's bull-pucky. My 2000 Mustang GT and my 2003 Mustang GT both have traction control and the difference in acceleration is closer to 0.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile and at least a half second 0-60, so I don't believe for a second that C&D really "turned off" the traction control. That would explain the 12.9 @ 112 mph, too, as the traction control will take away ignition timing & fuel, then apply rear brakes as needed, and adjust the A/F ratio (to keep the supercharger safe). Traction Control takes away horsepower - plain and simple - to keep the car tractable. That would explain the lower 112 mph for C&D versus Ford's own test at 115 mph.

 

Further evidence that C&D left the traction control on (whether by their ignorance or Ford hard-wiring it "on") is that they said the car got great traction throughout the 1/4 mile even though they thought the traction control was off. Again, bull-pucky! My 335hp Mach 1 with sticky 275/40/17 BFG Drag Radials fights for traction at the drag strip, and takes a lot of finesse to keep them glued to the track even after a long burnout to heat them up before lining up at the lights. On 275/40/17 street tires (on 2003 Cobra 17x9 wheels), my Mach 1 will blaze the tires in 1st & 2nd gear, 3rd gear will spin a bit, and 4th gear will still chirp. How can a 500hp Mustang just be so easy to dig in for traction and be so tractable as C&D says without computer intervention from traction control?

 

Think about it! C&D obviously has no idea that they tested the car with the traction control on!

 

 

Very compelling, Five Oh B! I will be paying $10K over MSRP for my Shelby, and I read the C & D article with some concern. I'm buying a Shelby, because I really like my '05 Mustang GT and what I've read about the Shelby so far (with the exception of this article). :happy feet: I'm not buying the Shelby to flip it or for a long term investment (although I do plan to keep the car for years), but articles like this adversely affect the demand for the car, and I'm concerned the value will go down as a result. Like many on this site, I have been able to (perhaps only somewhat reasonably) justify the cost for this car by telling myself that it will hold its value, because 1) This may be the LAST factory Shelby Mustang, 2) There will likely be a limited supply of these cars, 3) 500 hp!, 4) Demand for the '05 & '06 Mustang GT's has been very strong, etc. This article gave me a bit of pre-buyer's remorse, but your post makes sense and lifted my spirits. Thanks!

[DVS2XS]

I think Brian/Five_Oh_B has some EXCELLENT points. The TC being set up differently, or even hard wired constantly on, would make the 12.9 ET a reasonable result. AND it would make sense that .5-.7 seconds can be reduced in the production cars with a good driver and a bit of time to get used to the car.

 

After reading both articles from C/D and HR, the writers leave you with completely different feelings about the car based on what was written.

 

Only later PRODUCTION testing is worth reading, but we will see a LOT more tests on pre-production cars over the next couple of months.

[68fastback]

Remember what C/D magazine said about the Ford GT in all it's articles. Then all the other publications love the car. I feel they are doing the same thing to our beloved GT500. You buy a shelby and the first thing you do is change the pulley and retune it. Then you won't have to worry about the C6's anymore. If thats not enough Upgrade the supercharger to a Whipple or a KenneBell, then not even the mighty Z06 will have a chance in a straight line. That's just my opinion.

 

 

I think Ford is kinda counting on that... if you want more HP it's easy to do and the drivetrain is good to 650HP or thereabouts. The GT500 reps told me that in almost so many words -- they're leaving that to the aftermarket.

 

I just lament the weight and weight distrib, since I don't want to go with carbon-fiber fenders, hood, decklid, and reloc the battery to the trunk and STILL weigh in at over 3700lbs and about 55/45 WD. But I love the car, and it's built solid as a rock (I would not want to be in a 'vette in an accident with a GT500!) so a pulley kit, 'jectors, and a reflash of the Spanish Oak, filter, maybe flowmasters, springs, fatter bars, and I'll have a 650-700HP 'sleeper' that will handle great ... for under $2K, maybe! How can ya go wrong!