R&T has GT500 at 13.1/4.7

[lawdude]

Lawdude's over-simplified philosophy of life:

 

Life is a series of expectations. If any given expectation is met, we are satisfied. If it is exceeded, woo-hoo, we're walking on clouds. BUT if the expectation is not met, well there's not much worse than sub-par performance of an expectation level.

 

When the first rumblings of the GT500 appeared, I expected a 450+ hp beast with a back seat for my 10 year old, and a trunk for my junk, all for around $40,000. Wow, how much respect would you get just driving by other muscle cars and tuners in a pavement-shredding Shelby.

 

For the most part the news got better. The muckity mucks bragged about the increase in HP and how well this vehicle would hook up. Since my dealer still hasn't decided to have ADM (or at least let me in on it) there's still an outside shot that I can get one for MSRP. Except for the potential price hike, it looked like my expectations would be met.

 

At least for now I don't have the confidence that my expectations of respect will be met. And if the dealer comes back with some ridiculous ADM, I'm pretty sure that would help make up mind. Which leaves me with a problem. Wife doesn't want a Corvette and there's not really anything else out there at this time to compete. Do I wait for another car mag to come up with a favorable performance review, or do I buy an extended warranty on my G35 and see what the Challenger and Camaro will do? Or do I just go in an entirely different direction and consider BMW's new twin turbo 3 series coupe? Damn.

[DVS2XS]

Tiger MkII,

This car has a RATED 480 lb-ft of torque. At 3200 rpm, it would take a lot of feathering the clutch to keep the wheelspin under control. However, if the traction control was turned on, or in the case of a preproduction car wired with high and low settings (no OFF), the 3200 launch would be easy to get done with the aid of the TC braking, adding fuel, and retarding timing.

 

The acceleration times above 60 mph show great torque. Only the 0-60 is off.

 

I may be wrong, but this is what I make of the wording in the article.

[68fastback]

.

 

Maybe this car would have been better off with land-rover IRS (was considered) and the Whipple which makes less boost low-down (when the GT500 doesn't need it) but comes on strong at high revs when the rootes-type is flat-lining. It would have pushed the MSRP well into the 50s tho and it would still be nose-heavy and heavy overall. If the numbers are truly indicative of a broken-in production car (both HP and run times) and a competant driver (remains to be seen) then lack of traction is the only answer.

 

Maybe it will just take some serious seat time to figure how to hook it up. My '68 (even worse weight distrib with the big iron 390/335 hi-po up front, but much lighter car overall) launches best at about 1,200 rpm (3.00 rear, wide 4 spd) and then get into it gradually. Anything higher/faster and the big torque overwhelms any street tire. And it's a puppy compared to the GT500 motor!

 

But the n.a. '01 Cobra (a little better weight distrib than GT500, and IRS) goes 0-60 in 4.8 (broken-in, good driver) with 320HP. Maybe the combo of weight distrb and the solid axle (that works so nice with he GT's modest horses) is too unforgiving (spring-sqat not prograssive or not soft enough for the Goodyears) when overpowered .

 

If this baby doesn't get under 4.8 0-60 it's history with me. I still think it's awsomely gorgeous and would want one, but not for $40K of my hard-earned dollars. No, this horse has got to gallop to get my money. If it doesn't, shame on Hau Tai-Tang -- next mustang project chief, please!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

When oh when will Ford belly up to the reality bar and bite the bullet on a true sports chassis like the Cobra V10 prototype or the Daytona-revisited -- my favorite car company has been in denial for over 50 years on this hole in the product line! They are technology leaders, have some of the finest talent on earth but won't make the investment in a modern, light-weight, rear-drive, front-engine sports chassis/car because they are so conservative. The market has a way of fixing that! Especially sad since these modular motors are the envy of the domestic industry (don't let GM fool you that they really believe pushrods are great -- they have DOHC but they're just milking the cash cow for as long as they can -- and Ford letting them do it for lack of serious challenge). It's ironic that the pushrod LS1 will get 28 mpg in a 'vett because it's 3350 lbs and has no blower 'overhead' while these little modulars, technology jewels that they are, are having to get power with a s/c because, back 12-15 years ago when first conceived, no one envisioned a HP war would ever reignite -- and the modular's family dimensions (bore spacing and deck height) essentially prevent bigger native displacements.

 

I'm getting old and my patience is getting thin. I want an affordable killer Ford and I want it soon!

 

I'll shut up now -- sorry for the ranting post (again) ;-)

<sigh>

[SVTpower]

 

For now I'm hanging tight. I do have one officially on order but some good et's better come out soon or I'm out too. I will cancel if it doesn't run 12.5 or better at 114-115 mph or better factory stock. I just hope it doesn't come to that, and hopefully not a challenge getting my deposit back

[DarkSyde]

 

For now I'm hanging tight. I do have one officially on order but some good et's better come out soon or I'm out too. I will cancel if it doesn't run 12.5 or better at 114-115 mph or better factory stock. I just hope it doesn't come to that, and hopefully not a challenge getting my deposit back

 

 

SVT Power,

 

I echo (and many many many other will as well) your sentiments.

 

That collective moan you just heard were all of those $h!tty dealers that were hoping to ADM everyone to death at least throughout the first production year... One way to look at the bright side! I, for one, hope they choke on their ADM's. Good luck dealers. You'll need it now. As for me, I'm still hanging around as well, but you can bet that I wouldnt pay a damn cent over for this car. Never will. Hell, MSRP might be too much to ask from me now.

[68fastback]

SVT Power,

 

I echo (and many many many other will as well) your sentiments.

 

That collective moan you just heard were all of those $h!tty dealers that were hoping to ADM everyone to death at least throughout the first production year... One way to look at the bright side! I, for one, hope they choke on their ADM's. Good luck dealers. You'll need it now. As for me, I'm still hanging around as well, but you can bet that I wouldnt pay a damn cent over for this car. Never will. Hell, MSRP might be too much to ask from me now.

 

 

Ditto here too... Will never pay over MSRP (hell, I've never paid more than 5% over invoice!) but I'll go MSRP on the Shelby if I have to.

[69deluxe]

My 2005 F150 FX4 has the 5.4L engine and it gets 15mpg routinely. Adding a supercharger is supposed to improve the gas milage, right? How is it that they (C&D) got such poor gas milage (12mpg?) from a car that also weighs about 1500-2000lbs lighter than my truck?

[KingCobra]

WOW!!!

 

Seriously depressing thread!!!

 

Hey Robert,

Could you get an official position on these concerns from Team Mustang,

and settle the issues regarding these reported test results???

 

 

KingCobra.

[wildosvt]

My 2005 F150 FX4 has the 5.4L engine and it gets 15mpg routinely. Adding a supercharger is supposed to improve the gas milage, right? How is it that they (C&D) got such poor gas milage (12mpg?) from a car that also weighs about 1500-2000lbs lighter than my truck?

 

 

Simple. A pig rich pre-production vehicle.

[RUFDRAFT]

Don't know - an '07 GT - put a Roush Charger on - some springs - rims - and you're probably talking about $34-5k? A little over 400 hp and lighter...?

 

That's about $10k less than a Shelby (MSRP, gg tax, freight, and interior options is gonna be around $44k without the Shaker 1000).

[69deluxe]

Simple. A pig rich pre-production vehicle.

 

 

Huh?

[DVS2XS]

40930 MSRP

+ 595 interior

+1295 Shaker 1000

+1300 GgTax

+ 475 destination

= 44,595 +tax/tag

not bad for 500hp and a warranty

 

Sirius adds 195

[RUFDRAFT]

Anybody know what the base MSRP is on C6?

 

I think it's pretty close.

[DVS2XS]

Base MSRP on a 2006 C6 is 43,690

[bill0754]

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.

 

Sounds to me that all the mags are testing the same pre-production car. No wonder all the tests are the same, there are only 5 pre-production Shelbys out there (this according to the HR article). So we have a car with traction issues that was built over 4 months ago. These tests are not for a production car, and I am sure the numbers will improve as soon as they start testing the production units. Just remember, Job one is June 6......so there are no production units out there yet. Hot Rod got a 12.9 @111mph with extreme wheel spin and no power shifting.

[SVTpower]

Don't know - an '07 GT - put a Roush Charger on - some springs - rims - and you're probably talking about $34-5k? A little over 400 hp and lighter...?

 

That's about $10k less than a Shelby (MSRP, gg tax, freight, and interior options is gonna be around $44k without the Shaker 1000).

 

 

Sure, but no T56 tranny, no dual disc clutch, no 5.4, a 4.6 that is safe if tuned properly to about 450 hp, also just a 'GT' so watch it depreciate. When you hurt parts i.e. tranny/or motor, that 10g's won't go far. Heck, a good clutch and labour will be a tenth of that!! In the short term and long, the Shelby is the better buy.

[RUFDRAFT]

Thanks.

 

That what I thought.

 

Sigh.

 

This is becoming a difficult decision.

 

Why would Ford (or any company) let major magazines get their hands on cars that weren't "up to specs?"

 

Ford knows the circulation of C&D and R&T, etc.

 

If anything - they might be tempted to "tune" them to be sure.

 

And somewhere on this site, I read there were several dozen Shelby's prancing around Michigan.

[king]

Thanks.

 

That what I thought.

 

Sigh.

 

This is becoming a difficult decision.

 

Why would Ford (or any company) let major magazines get their hands on cars that weren't "up to specs?"

 

Ford knows the circulation of C&D and R&T, etc.

 

If anything - they might be tempted to "tune" them to be sure.

 

And somewhere on this site, I read there were several dozen Shelby's prancing around Michigan.

 

 

All true Ruf,

I have to say this; IMHO the Shelby is turning into one big stinkin sloth! This is so disappointing. If anyone thinks, these numbers are going to improve drastically... how? Did the mag drivers only remember how to shift and drive a car down a straight line when in the corvette? Did they both bump their heads when getting in the gt500 and forget how to drive fast and strait, or is this some big conspiracy cooked up by both c&d and mt to bash what should be the greatest thing Hank ever built? I am sorry this probably really hurts some of the faithful, if believed. I know it is killing me.

[RUFDRAFT]

Excellent point.

 

The same drivers drove both cars.

 

I'm getting depressed.

[06ragtopGT]

12.8 Vette 12.9 SVT. Thats a tie on the streets in my little town.

[Jolly Roger]

You can buy a digital copy of this issue of R & T at www.zinio.com/issue?is=144664808&ns=zno for $4. I bought the recent C & D issue here too. I too am disappointed by the performance described in these articles. 4.7 s 0 - 60mph? My '05 Mustang GT was clocked at 4.9 - 5.3 s 0 - 60 mph, depending on the article.

[RUFDRAFT]

So - 4.9 - then add a Roush blower - $200 for some gears - and what kind of GT would you have?

 

Perhaps one that would smoke a Shelby? For $10-12k less?

 

I'm not sure who Ford is targeting with this car - but it appears as though it's not enthusiasts.

 

Hell - add another $1k for some tape stripes! And a Snake emblem!

 

I feel like the air's been knocked out of me.

 

I feel betrayed - bewildered - confused. (Bird Cage!) :happy feet:

[LoneRanger]

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.

 

 

 

I agree with you, lawdude. When you're at the top and everyone knows it, it's nice not having to prove yourself all the time. With all the hype that has built over the last year, this car had very high expectations and now it looks like it just won't "get no respect" (sorry for the double negative). I've been dreaming about owning this car for over a year and now the dream is starting to fade . . . . .

[Jolly Roger]

So - 4.9 - then add a Roush blower - $200 for some gears - and what kind of GT would you have?

 

Perhaps one that would smoke a Shelby? For $10-12k less?

 

I'm not sure who Ford is targeting with this car - but it appears as though it's not enthusiasts.

 

Hell - add another $1k for some tape stripes! And a Snake emblem!

 

I feel like the air's been knocked out of me.

 

I feel betrayed - bewildered - confused. (Bird Cage!) :happy feet:

 

 

You and me both, RUFDRAFT. You and me both. I emailed my dealer today to tell him I am concerned about the suboptimal reports in the C & D, R & T, and Hot Rod magazines today and to ask if he had heard any rebuttal from Ford. I also indicated that I wasn't sure I was comfortable with the $10K markup I agreed to. No answer yet. Surely Ford has read these articles, and I would hope someone at SVT has their finger on the pulse of the Mustang enthusiast crowd (e.g. by reading posts on this site). I'll let you guys know when he responds.

[Son of GT]

Robert,

Could/would you please confront FoMoCo with the articles and their resulting data? I am quite courious to see if or how they respond to our/your inquiry about this matter.

 

I sent them an email the other day regarding the C&D data, and I have not recieved a response to it yet. Could you please give it a shot? If not, could you get all of us an email address where we can blitz them with the burning question that we all have on our mind about this data?

 

Thanks.

[Jolly Roger]

I mean, the '05 Mustang GT is only 400 lbs lighter than the Shelby, but the Shelby does 4.5 - 4.7s 0 - 60 mph vs 4.9 - 5.3 s 0 - 60 mph for the '05 Mustang GT despite two hundred (200!) more bhp. What is going on? Good grief!

[Hans]

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.!!!

 

 

The big problem being that most of us are having to pay a huge payment above MSRP, with the thought that the Shelby would be one of the fastest cars on the road from the factory. When you pay an extra ten grand from the start and than have to shell out more money to get it to the way you want it to perform, you may have to think about this deal your getting. Not sounding too good to me right now.

[Seahorse]

Well, I have to say that I'm another prospective Shelby owner that has been given some serious pause by these (yes admittedly pre-production) test results. I'm not saying "nay" for sure just yet, but I'm no longer overly concerned if I end up with a 2007 instead of a 2008 (if at all). Now, I WANT to see some actual production model tests, and more importantly, how they do in the hands of actual onwers once they start hitting local tracks around the country. Myself, I'm not overly concerned with ET's, as has already been pointed out, that is as much a factor of skill and setup as outright power. What I am concerned about is the low trap speeds which is largely independant of either setup or skill, and much more indicative of actual power, than ET. I was looking for, expecting (hoping?) to see at least 115mph there. And 111 is a long way from there.

 

Yes I've also spent many years drag-racing with local clubs, but always in full street trim - only concession to the gods of traction being in my use of Nitto DR's. BUT I also use those as my daily tire, not just at the strip. I like my cars to perform at the track exactly as they do on the street, so no drag only suspension setup which adversely affects the overall handling of the car (I also occasionally autocross - with the exact same car setup the exact same way as for drag racing), no slicks, and no stripping of parts for weight reduction. I drive to the track, tech in, race, then drive home - no changes to the car whatsover. Like I said, squeezing the last bit of ET out of a car is not my main concern. Maximizing that ET in full street is a fun goal in itself. But I want the power there to blow the doors of the competition once underway, and for that, trap speed is more important. ET wins at the track, but trap speed and top end pull are what'll embarrass your buddy in those little impromtu highway runs. That'll get you street cred and keep you from being picked on by all those pesky STi's and EVO's and such *L*.

 

So, I'll fence sit a little longer - wait for some clearer indication of actual production model performance. Pay above MSRP now? Not a chance!!!

[SVTpower]

 

All you guys are funny.........and depressing at the same time. Give it a chance for Pete's sake. I am and I have an order confirmation unlike some. When HotRod is positive and writes fat (rich) tune, only 475 hp, spinning badly, no g-tech calibration and extremely confident of an EASY 12 sec car.............you guys are ready to bail.

 

Case # 2. When MM&FF got a stock 300 hp GT running mid 13's, and 12.90 @ 106 mph with a few mods and an SCT tune and tires, you don't think these mags ( I call the better drag racing mags) such as HotRod and MM&FF will do better with 200 hp more???? C'mon, lets get real and give it a chance. As I posted in the past, MM&FF thought they will crack low, low 12's or crack the 11's with the GT500 and that was a while back when Ford claimed 450+ hp.........now we're at 500 hp. Do many of you even drag race at all.............if this car does 114-116 mph in the 1/4, that is a mid 11 time with sticky tires bone stock.

 

Unfortunately, the power of the internet can take us up or bring us down too with negative crap. Sounds like some bailers are here but hey, it's a free country. I for one am going to wait a bit more........yes it's tough to be patient as Í'm sure all of you read this daily like I do.

[68fastback]

My 2005 F150 FX4 has the 5.4L engine and it gets 15mpg routinely. Adding a supercharger is supposed to improve the gas milage, right? How is it that they (C&D) got such poor gas milage (12mpg?) from a car that also weighs about 1500-2000lbs lighter than my truck?

 

 

It's relative... adding a s/c can get you better milage realtive to making the same HP with a gigantic motor. But if you put a s/c on an identical engine and drive both down the highway, the nat.asp. will kick the s/c's butt mileage-wise since cruising at 55 on the highway only uses about 12 HP! ...and all the energy to drive the s/c is just, well, overhead.

 

As far as C&D mileage, they usually give the actual mileage they've experienced while flogging it or at least driving it very enthusiastically. When you use that 500HP it will suck the gas. Your 5.4 150 can't suck all that much gas even when you're pedal-down 'cause it makes so much less power. So, no matter the weight, it can only use so much gas.

.

 

 

 

Why would Ford (or any company) let major magazines get their hands on cars that weren't "up to specs?"

 

 

 

Hey Brian, I suspect they may have intended this as just a seat-of-the-pants early first-drive for the magazines. Years ago that was fine. Today, they'll just smuggle a pocket-sized peformance GPS unit in and then publish results ...as if they were using a 5-th wheel and comp-timer (which I assure you they weren't). That's why I say take C&D nums with a grain of salt -- they're famous for this crap. This was likely an early pre-production flash on the chip, TC-on, not broken in, unfamiliar driver, etc....

 

I'm havin' faith, but not likin' the wait (or the weight!)

.