tiger mark2 Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 R&T is even worse than C&D. I just can't believe it. With the premium I was ready to pay I think I'm headed to the 400+HP new M3 V8 which I know will be be faster and drive better for nearly thge same price as the GT500 with a good premium. what is everyones thoughts seeing the 2nd road test was also a bummer....sad in cleveland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flattusmaximus78 Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 R&T is even worse than C&D. I just can't believe it. With the premium I was ready to pay I think I'm headed to the 400+HP new M3 V8 which I know will be be faster and drive better for nearly thge same price as the GT500 with a good premium. what is everyones thoughts seeing the 2nd road test was also a bummer....sad in cleveland Don't be so sure about the m3. It's just two articles with the pre production cars with less horses which whould in turn be slower. Give it time and wait it out... but I don't mean to sound like i'm telling you what to do, so please dont take it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach1fever Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 If ford really did make it this slow I think they are going to lose a lot of money. Roger Don't be so sure about the m3. It's just two articles with the pre production cars with less horses which whould in turn be slower. Give it time and wait it out... but I don't mean to sound like i'm telling you what to do, so please dont take it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSyde Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 If ford really did make it this slow I think they are going to lose a lot of money. Roger +99999999999999999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVTpower Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Road and Track are the worst of the worst in tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Shooter Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Hate to say it but you can keep coming up with excuses that C&D are bad testers and R&T are bad testers - the bottom line is the car is what it is. Even Ford admitted to C&D that their tests were only a tenth of a second faster. The bottom line is the car is nose heavy and apparently not all that fast. Either buy the car becuase you love it for what it is or move on. Personally, I think at this time there are better cars out there for the price based on the articles I have read. Am I going to back out of buying one? Probably - becuase I am not a die hard Mustang guy. I like lots of other cars as well so for me the Mustang is not a must have. For others it might be a must have regardless of performance becuase they love Ford and Mustangs. I might wait for the Challenger and see what it can do. I do think that all of those fringe guys like me will reduce the demand for the car though as the performance numbers come in and are not what was expected. My last comment is that I highly doubt the production cars will be THAT much different. I can not imagine Ford wanting this type of bad publicity right up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger mark2 Posted May 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Hate to say it but you can keep coming up with excuses that C&D are bad testers and R&T are bad testers - the bottom line is the car is what it is. Even Ford admitted to C&D that their tests were only a tenth of a second faster. The bottom line is the car is nose heavy and apparently not all that fast. Either buy the car becuase you love it for what it is or move on. Personally, I think at this time there are better cars out there for the price based on the articles I have read. Am I going to back out of buying one? Probably - becuase I am not a die hard Mustang guy. I like lots of other cars as well so for me the Mustang is not a must have. For others it might be a must have regardless of performance becuase they love Ford and Mustangs. I might wait for the Challenger and see what it can do. I do think that all of those fringe guys like me will reduce the demand for the car though as the performance numbers come in and are not what was expected. My last comment is that I highly doubt the production cars will be THAT much different. I can not imagine Ford wanting this type of bad publicity right up front. I agree Big Shooter. I wasn't a real mustang person but the Shelby name coupled with a 12. 2 car for the price was a Go situation, probably the best deal in the auto world. That appears to have changed....The value of the car will not appreciate as I had hoped and paying $10,000 over MSRP will lose me $$$ fast. I hope I am wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdude Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 The lack of expected performance in and of itself wouldn't be a deal killer insofar as I'm concerned. After all, there's more power there than I would ever use. (Sort of like knowing karate and never having to use it). I just wanted a Mustang that said "SHELBY" on the back. No, the thing that could be a deal killer is the thought of being laughed at as I drove by in a 500 HP car that could be smoked by a C6 and seriously challenged by a WRX or anything with a Hemi. Don't know if I want to drive a unit that is known as the Rodney Dangerfield of performance cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I hate to admit agreeing with a lawyer, BUT...I have to be realistic as well. I ordered based on the expected performance, and plans to modify it for even more. But the recent preproduction testing leads me to believe that what is being tested is very close to the production versions. It is very hard to make a 4000 lb car perform as well as one weighing 500 pounds less - and the testing thus far shows it. Still waiting for more results, but it is looking grim. There are other places to spend this money. The Z06 is looking better all the time - as is the "Blue Devil" version of the Vette with 600 hp. http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm?...001/country/acf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSyde Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I agree as well Shooter, and I agree with you Tiger. I too wasn't a 100% Mustang guy, but thought the same thing as you did. Almost took the plunge on a Terminator when they came out (regretted not doing so several times, went with an 03 EB/MR Z06), loved the modability of the 03/04's. With this car, I saw the same aftermarket potential, with more cubes, and starting at 500hp! Needless to say, so far it hasn't lived up to my expectations. In fact, it's been a bit damn dissapointing. Unless something changes, I will not be picking one of these up. I will continue to follow the Shelby after it's release, hoping for better 'real-world' performance figures, and watching aftermarket support. But I'll be damned if I drop 40k-plus for a Mustang that can't run better than 12.50, hell that can't beat my sedan head to head! How is this possible!!! Hell, my daily driver when STOCK went 12.72, and it weighs 4200lbs!!! And it actually has luxury and amenities to justify it weight, and then some! Hmmmm. Maybe, I'll hold onto it, and mod the piss out of it instead... Who knows. This sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three Cobras Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I recall some testers were able to drive the car on the condition they not comment on their results and driving impressions in writing until after June 1st. If I were a deeply suspicious person, maybe I might conclude that Ford was worried about disappointing news. Like these reports perhaps? Personally, I never expected a car like this to eat Z06s. I realize some would like it to, but I'm not sure that is/was realistic. We can hope, of course. But Physics is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 This does not bode well. This thread will be very active. All testers aren't idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Oh B Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 We may very well have found the point at which too much power can overwhelm the Mustang chassis & tires. 0-60 mph and 1/4 miles show lots of evidence of too much power with too little traction, hence the relatively stout mph at the end of the 1/4 mile (111-115 mph) versus lousy 12.9-13.1 ET's. However, a look at the 0-100 mph figures shows that the GT500 is making some serious horsepower. Just over 10 seconds to 100 mph is pretty damn impressive. My Mach 1 takes almost 12 seconds to get to 100 mph and a 2005-6 Mustang GT takes about 13.5 seconds to get to 100 mph. The GT500 just needs a good set of slicks, proper drag shocks to better transfer weight upon launch, and a skilled driver and it will easily run 11.90's at 115 mph. I personally stake my reputation on that! Heck, even without the drag shocks, and just slicks, I'd bet a good driver could run 12.20's at 115 mph in the 1/4 mile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdude Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 B)--> QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 30 2006, 01:06 PM) 16308[/snapback] The GT500 just needs a good set of slicks, proper drag shocks to better transfer weight upon launch, and a skilled driver and it will easily run 11.90's at 115 mph. A highly skilled driver I ain't, but that is a constant and cannot be changed. The question is, "do I want to slap on a good set of slicks and change out the shocks just to be competitive between stop lights?" The answer to that, at least for me, is obvious. Don't get me wrong. My heart still says Shelby, but my brain is starting to say something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra8u Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I recall some testers were able to drive the car on the condition they not comment on their results and driving impressions in writing until after June 1st. If I were a deeply suspicious person, maybe I might conclude that Ford was worried about disappointing news. Like these reports perhaps? Personally, I never expected a car like this to eat Z06s. I realize some would like it to, but I'm not sure that is/was realistic. We can hope, of course. But Physics is what it is. Or Ford knew these preproduction cars were sub-par and didn't want the early tests released until there were real production models available. Either way I don't care because my 96 Cobra started with 257 rwhp and ended up with 442 rwhp before I sold it to buy the GT500and the new Shelby will end up with a heck of alot more than that before I'm done with it. You can bet mine will be eating Z06's in about year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Brian, If the traction is as bad as it looks to be. I don't know many guys that will drive around in the GT500 with even a set of Nitto drag radials all of the time. I did not expect the Goodyears to be great on traction, but this is a LOT of spin. Is this car going to be a nightmare to drive if you get caught in a bit of rain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 . ...also remember this is an early pre-prod vehicle -- with mag lead times, this had to be back in March -- times are typically 60 days or more. Who knows what nums Ford had flashed in the Spanish Oak back then. There's no way it can be slower than than the '03/'04s unless something's wrong with it. 135 crank horses outpush an additional 150-200 lbs by a good margin. I'm still hopefull (but finding it more difficult to be ;-) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Riddle me this: Why would you send a car (preproduction or not) that is sub par, or performs LESS than the production units will to several magazines for testing? Why let anyone test anything that is not what you want them to see? Now I can believe traction and traction control are issues. Three tests seem to say nearly the same thing. And this is still a great car, just less than I expected. Changes in tuning MIGHT be different but I would not expect big differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 This is all very interesting. What makes it even more interesting is the upcoming MSRP. That may: a. compensate for these performance #'s b. drive even more potential buyers away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regalt87 Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Guys, I like many of you are disapointed with the published results, I would have thought they would have been better. But there are many factors that make a good ET. First the set up. 5 oh B makes a very important point about traction and the suspension and the possibility of the traction control turned on. A few modifications and a minimal amount of money will make this car what you want it to be. Lower drive pully, more boost and gears for example. Since when have any of us ever left any thing stock? We been hopping up cars since day 1. You pay $45,000 for a car and let some one tell you for another $1500. you can have 650 HP your going to do it. Another thing, to get a good ET you must know the car and KNOW IT WELL. PRACTICING 60 FOOT TIMES IS A MUST. You can't expect the publishers drivers to have enough seat time to be good with every car they test. Once you GET TO KNOW THE CAR it will be fast. That is if you practice your 60 foot times and launch combination. If any one is bailing on thier MSRP deal I will take it.!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 That's all very good advice - for those who plan to drag race the car. If 500 hp is causing traction issues - what's another 150 hp going to result in? (for a daily driver?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra8u Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Brian, If the traction is as bad as it looks to be. I don't know many guys that will drive around in the GT500 with even a set of Nitto drag radials all of the time. I did not expect the Goodyears to be great on traction, but this is a LOT of spin. Is this car going to be a nightmare to drive if you get caught in a bit of rain? DVS2XS, Have you ever driven a car with 500 hp? My 96 had about 535 at the crank, but had alot less torque than the GT500, and I drove it with Nitto or BFG DRs on it most of the time. With regular street tires it was scary on dry roads and I never drove it the rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
150man Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Are willing to sacrifice your warranty right off the bat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Regal87, Nice try! The warranty on mine won't last long before parts of it are VOID! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdude Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I guess the track guys have one perspective and the street guys another. An interesting question is "what about the 'investment guys'?" If they perceive that subsequent value won't be there, will they continue to want a Shelby at any cost and provide impetus for the premium prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Oh B Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Yes, being familiar with the car and its characteristics to make the most of its performance will be paramount in a car with this much power and limited traction. Let me remind you guys of what happened with published tests and real world performance of the 2003 Mach 1's as an example. The magazines all said 1/4 mile times of 13.8 @ 103 mph for the most part. Ouch - that was barely better than 260 hp Mustang GT's of that era. Then, Paul Svinicki (very good Mustang driver - nationally known) took a bone stock Mach 1 to Atlanta in late 2002 and ran a 12.97 @ 105+ on drag radials, but otherwise bone stock. Then, Evan Smith (MM&FF magazine editor who races his own Mustang often) ran a bone stock Mach 1 on the factory tires to the tune of 13.13 @ 106 mph. I've run my own Mach 1 to a best of 13.01 on drag radials and 13.36 on the factory tires. So, my point is: how did the car magazines of the day all get 13.80's with the Mach 1's in the Ford press fleet? Why such a big difference in performance? Who knows, but it is deja vu right now with the GT500 tests. On a side note, the GT500 will be a good all season car with the right tires and if you leave the traction control on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger mark2 Posted May 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 both magazines, C&D and R&T said that they had NO problems with the launch. In fact C&D said it was amazing how they got all that power down to the road at 3400RPM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVS2XS Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Tiger, THAT is the very reason that I believe the traction control WAS working - even though the button MAY have been turned off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger mark2 Posted May 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Tiger, THAT is the very reason that I believe the traction control WAS working - even though the button MAY have been turned off. DVS...please explain your traction comment....thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06ragtopGT Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Everyones talking about traction issues. The Car&Driver comparo talks about how easy to launch with traction control on then only .1th quicker with it off (0-60) ?????? I wonder did they feather it off the line or let her rip for the 2nd 0-60 time? If there was no spin why the lame 1/4 mile time. No mention of traction issues in that article. Would love to see the Road &Track article, cant find it anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.