Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

CAR and DRIVER 2011 GT500 Road Test


Recommended Posts

I apologize if this was already posted but I didn't see it anywhere. Decent article with 0-60 and quarter-mile times at 4.1 and 12.4, respectively. Cheers.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q2/2011_ford_mustang_shelby_gt500-road_test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given up on trying to read any apples to apples comparison between the 2011 and the 2010. It appears all the magazines, as well as Ford, are always going to use the SVT package with the near-race compound tires to compare the 2011 to the older models that always got crappy tires. I'd say a minimum of 80% of the new car's improved stats can be attributed to the grippier tires, so kudos to Goodyear and Ford's marketing team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize if this was already posted but I didn't see it anywhere. Decent article with 0-60 and quarter-mile times at 4.1 and 12.4, respectively. Cheers.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q2/2011_ford_mustang_shelby_gt500-road_test

 

good post--other than not undersatnding the difference netween oversteer and understeer, it seems pretty good,although as usual, bai\\iased away from American cars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given up on trying to read any apples to apples comparison between the 2011 and the 2010. It appears all the magazines, as well as Ford, are always going to use the SVT package with the near-race compound tires to compare the 2011 to the older models that always got crappy tires. I'd say a minimum of 80% of the new car's improved stats can be attributed to the grippier tires, so kudos to Goodyear and Ford's marketing team.

 

 

And you and bpmurr won't be getting one anytime soon. I think as you pointed out, the marketing team doesn't have a lot of incentive to go with the regular GT500 and would rather have the world see their best effort. Sometime later, probably one of the mags will pick up a head-to-head comparison between the two model years on the 'base' coupes.

 

Theoretically, losing over 100 lbs. total should be good for 1/10th. The extra 10 hp could be written off as a rounding error. The 250rpm earlier torque peak could nudge things a bit more. One of the big wildcards is the new h/e. With hot lapping, will the new setup not pull as much timing?

 

All things being equal, could the 2011 base coupe be .1-.2 faster than her 2010 sibling? Ahhhh, bench racing.

 

And then on the road course, how much does the extra bracing help? The revised weight distribution? Were there any other changes Ford neglected to mention (like the differential cover, painted axle, different strategy mapping)?

 

I was with a buddy at a car show yesterday parked side-by-side with his '10 and we were checking out the differences. One thing we noticed, the LCAs *look* different. His look like they have some pieces and rivets in them. Mine look like they were made from billet. Not saying either of these are fact - just what it looked like. We are setting up an appointment to go under both cars with a camera. The reason I specifically bring that up is that stickier tires should have exacerbated the wheel hop problem and, as I reported earlier, the wheel hop problem seems much improved. Did Ford 'fix' something and neglect to mention it? Questions, questions......

 

Wish the 2011 parts list was out. That would provide a few clues as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lurking in the background is another Ford Mustang that’s almost as fast, handles just as well, and costs a comforting 20 grand less. Unless you’re a complete Mustang nut who has to have the biggest of the breed in the garage, a GT—particularly now, with the new 412-hp, 5.0-liter V-8—will give you most of what the Shelby offers. It’s a bit like the Cavs: Was it really a good idea to spend all that money to get Shaq?"

 

 

Ouch. :lurk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lurking in the background is another Ford Mustang that’s almost as fast, handles just as well, and costs a comforting 20 grand less. Unless you’re a complete Mustang nut who has to have the biggest of the breed in the garage, a GT—particularly now, with the new 412-hp, 5.0-liter V-8—will give you most of what the Shelby offers. It’s a bit like the Cavs: Was it really a good idea to spend all that money to get Shaq?"

 

 

Ouch. :lurk:

 

 

I think any GT500 owner already knows the answer to that question. Especially you guys that have done a blower swap and are now pushing 700 at the wheels. With a few simple upgrades you have a car that will trash 99% of the opposition on the street, drive like normal to work every day, drive it down to the track on Friday night, change up the shoes and run 10's (and even 9s in some cases).

 

That's a quality of the GT500 that gets overlooked in these little reviews. Potential. As the author pointed out, "Unless you are a complete Mustang nut..." Guilty. (Thank God).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given up on trying to read any apples to apples comparison between the 2011 and the 2010. It appears all the magazines, as well as Ford, are always going to use the SVT package with the near-race compound tires to compare the 2011 to the older models that always got crappy tires. I'd say a minimum of 80% of the new car's improved stats can be attributed to the grippier tires, so kudos to Goodyear and Ford's marketing team.

 

 

 

Certainly a large part of any performance car is based on grip/ I agree. However grip comes from many different factors, not limited to rubber!

 

Suspension, weight, and of course the front to rear weight proportion has a lot to do with grip.

 

So while I agree the tires have a large part of the performace factor, I disagree that it is 80% of the reason the 2011 is faster than the 2010.....if thats the reason, get the tires and save a ton of cash and I'll see you at the track!

 

No I believe Ford and SVT will continue to improve their performance and it won't be just tires....as that is just too easy, and they want to sell more cars!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lurking in the background is another Ford Mustang thats almost as fast, handles just as well, and costs a comforting 20 grand less. Unless youre a complete Mustang nut who has to have the biggest of the breed in the garage, a GTparticularly now, with the new 412-hp, 5.0-liter V-8will give you most of what the Shelby offers. Its a bit like the Cavs: Was it really a good idea to spend all that money to get Shaq?"

 

 

Ouch. :lurk:

 

 

Kinda of a cheap shot IMHO. Car and Driver was whining just last month that the non-premium GT left something to be desired as far as quality of the interior:

 

"For 2010, Ford spruced up the Mustangs interior with soft-touch materials and more brightwork. But to get the full effect, you have to buy the Premium upgrade, a $3200 hit. On the base GT, plain, deep-grained plastic abounds, the steering rim a no more thrilling ring of plastic to grip than a Hula Hoop. The base interior is a bit impoverished considering the $30,495 starting price, much less our $32,980 as-tested sticker"

 

This month they all of a sudden decide the base GT is acceptable to get to the $20K price difference.

 

If one goes for the GT premium and then checks the directly comparable GT premium option boxes to match what is included in a base GT500 like HID, Brembo's, etc. a GT Premium quickly runs up to $38,000 vs. a base GT500's $49000. (It gets even closer if one then goes through the accessory catalogs to match things like lighted door sills.)

 

Other than the handling package, the options that that they seemed to be adding in their "fully loaded" GT500 to get it close to $60K, like the glass roof and electronics package, cost roughly the same in either model.

 

After one gets to loaded GT vs base GT500, the difference is largely HP, and I'd argue $11K for 150 HP additional, on a base of 400 HP is a pretty good deal in the current market for new, non-modded cars.

 

Yeah - I need to practice my arguments, my bother is looking at GTs and emailed me the Shaq qoute already......

Edited by rhlgt500
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly a large part of any performance car is based on grip/ I agree. However grip comes from many different factors, not limited to rubber!

 

Suspension, weight, and of course the front to rear weight proportion has a lot to do with grip.

 

So while I agree the tires have a large part of the performace factor, I disagree that it is 80% of the reason the 2011 is faster than the 2010.....if thats the reason, get the tires and save a ton of cash and I'll see you at the track!

 

No I believe Ford and SVT will continue to improve their performance and it won't be just tires....as that is just too easy, and they want to sell more cars!!!

 

I'll see your bet and raise it to 85%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - I need to practice my arguments, my bother is looking at GTs and emailed me the Shaq qoute already......

 

 

rhlgt500,

 

Shaq and Shelby??? A Ford Mustang GT will never be a S H E L B Y!!! The new GT will be like a Vette, everybody and their brother has one. There's nothing special about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding my 80-85% comment...

 

2011 SVT Package (w/ near race compound tires) vs 2010:

 

4.1 / 4.5 secs 0-60 mph = 2010 at 90%

 

12.4 / 12.7 secs 1/4 mile = 2010 at 97.6%

 

151 / 165 ft 70-0 mph = 2010 at 91%

 

1.00 / 0.91 g grip = 2010 at 90%

 

 

Now show me a 2011 base model with the same crappy tires that comes on the 2010 - 2007 and lets see how that gap narrows. Or, just ask any seasoned racer what proper tires does for a car on a track and I think you'll see Ford owes all their marketing hype to Goodyear.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 2011 is an AWESOME car, but I'm tired of it being played up as manna from heaven when the biggest single contributor is quality tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding my 80-85% comment...

 

2011 SVT Package (w/ near race compound tires) vs 2010:

 

4.1 / 4.5 secs 0-60 mph = 2010 at 90%

 

12.4 / 12.7 secs 1/4 mile = 2010 at 97.6%

 

151 / 165 ft 70-0 mph = 2010 at 91%

 

1.00 / 0.91 g grip = 2010 at 90%

 

 

Now show me a 2011 base model with the same crappy tires that comes on the 2010 - 2007 and lets see how that gap narrows. Or, just ask any seasoned racer what proper tires does for a car on a track and I think you'll see Ford owes all their marketing hype to Goodyear.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 2011 is an AWESOME car, but I'm tired of it being played up as manna from heaven when the biggest single contributor is quality tires.

 

 

You have a point and I guess the numbers speak for themselves, but I would like to think that there is more to it than just some modified rubber....I guess the only way you could really find out is to do what you said, put last years tires on this years car and get it to a track!

 

One thing for sure, you're car is bad ass!! Love what you have done too it!! One of the nicest black GT500's I've seen!

 

I hope my car will show up this week, cuz' it was in transit as of May 26th, and its not that far to Toronto!!!

(I went with Black also ....vert svt, nav.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point and I guess the numbers speak for themselves, but I would like to think that there is more to it than just some modified rubber....I guess the only way you could really find out is to do what you said, put last years tires on this years car and get it to a track!

 

One thing for sure, you're car is bad ass!! Love what you have done too it!! One of the nicest black GT500's I've seen!

 

I hope my car will show up this week, cuz' it was in transit as of May 26th, and its not that far to Toronto!!!

(I went with Black also ....vert svt, nav.)

 

I'm starting to become a little jealous of you vert guys! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding my 80-85% comment...

 

2011 SVT Package (w/ near race compound tires) vs 2010:

 

4.1 / 4.5 secs 0-60 mph = 2010 at 90%

 

12.4 / 12.7 secs 1/4 mile = 2010 at 97.6%

 

151 / 165 ft 70-0 mph = 2010 at 91%

 

1.00 / 0.91 g grip = 2010 at 90%

 

 

Now show me a 2011 base model with the same crappy tires that comes on the 2010 - 2007 and lets see how that gap narrows. Or, just ask any seasoned racer what proper tires does for a car on a track and I think you'll see Ford owes all their marketing hype to Goodyear.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 2011 is an AWESOME car, but I'm tired of it being played up as manna from heaven when the biggest single contributor is quality tires.

 

 

Not to mention... The '11 with SVT package has 3.73's. Just adding 3.73's and stickier rear tires to a 2010, what do you think that would do for the straight-line performance of the '10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention... The '11 with SVT package has 3.73's. Just adding 3.73's and stickier rear tires to a 2010, what do you think that would do for the straight-line performance of the '10?

 

 

You really can't take that into consideration because the 3.73's on the 2011 with 285/35-20 tires is roughly the same as a 2010 with 3.55's and 285/35-19 tires - it's basically a wash.

 

As a FYI - I have 315/35-20 tires with 4.10 gears, so my effective gear ratio is around a 3.80.

Edited by TX STIG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention... The '11 with SVT package has 3.73's. Just adding 3.73's and stickier rear tires to a 2010, what do you think that would do for the straight-line performance of the '10?

 

 

 

I think he was talking universal sticky tires on drag rims like the testers use. Take off the stock rubber and throw on some ET's like MMFF does but instead put 3.73's on the 2010 then it would be a fair fight against the 2011 with the same tire set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am beginning to wonder if there is really much of a difference in quarter-mile performance between the 2010 and 2011. I've wanted to purchase the 2011 but now am starting to think that maybe buying a 2010GT500 or 2008-09 KR might be just as good. I'll be interested in the times MMFF gets for the 2011. Here's what they got for the 2010:

 

From MMFF:

2010 Shelby GT500 Scorecard

Run 60-Foot 1/4-Mile/MPH

1. 1.852 11.855/117.66

2. 1.850 11.784/118.93

3. 1.825 11.805/117.36

4. 1.778 11.592/118.45

5. 1.913 11.951/120.29*

* Run with stock tires; all other

runs with 26x11.5x17-inch Mickey

Thompson E.T. Streets

 

Here's the link to that article:

 

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0910_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_test/index.html

Edited by VegasMichael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am beginning to wonder if there is really much of a difference in quarter-mile performance between the 2010 and 2011. I've wanted to purchase the 2011 but now am starting to think that maybe buying a 2010GT500 or 2008-09 KR might be just as good. I'll be interested in the times MMFF gets for the 2011. Here's what they got for the 2010:

 

From MMFF:

2010 Shelby GT500 Scorecard

Run 60-Foot 1/4-Mile/MPH

1. 1.852 11.855/117.66

2. 1.850 11.784/118.93

3. 1.825 11.805/117.36

4. 1.778 11.592/118.45

5. 1.913 11.951/120.29*

* Run with stock tires; all other

runs with 26x11.5x17-inch Mickey

Thompson E.T. Streets

 

Here's the link to that article:

 

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0910_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_test/index.html

 

 

 

...and here's what MM&FF ran with a 2008 KR:

1.90 0-60 - 11.92 @120.77 mph (with stock tires)

1.77 0-60 - 11.58 @122 mph (with Mickey Thompson ET Streets)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, now they compare the 2010 to a pig. And its not any better than the 2007-2009. I thought last year C&D said there was a great improvement over the prior years in handling etc. Make up your minds C&D, when these idiots use the word pig and GT500 in the same sentence they need to have their heads examined. What a bunch of jerks. :finger:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am beginning to wonder if there is really much of a difference in quarter-mile performance between the 2010 and 2011. I've wanted to purchase the 2011 but now am starting to think that maybe buying a 2010GT500 or 2008-09 KR might be just as good.:

 

 

All are different cars. 1/4 mile isn't very indicative of much due to the differences between the stock rubber being different on all three.

 

You can build a much cheaper 1/4 mile rocket instead of dropping 50K+ on a GT500 if that is the only thing you care about. It's about the whole package, not any one piece, and that is what makes the '11 GT500 preferable over the other two to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I, too, am beginning to wonder if there is really much of a difference in quarter-mile performance between the 2010 and 2011. I've wanted to purchase the 2011 but now am starting to think that maybe buying a 2010GT500 or 2008-09 KR might be just as good. I'll be interested in the times MMFF gets for the 2011. Here's what they got for the 2010:

 

From MMFF:

2010 Shelby GT500 Scorecard

Run 60-Foot 1/4-Mile/MPH

1. 1.852 11.855/117.66

2. 1.850 11.784/118.93

3. 1.825 11.805/117.36

4. 1.778 11.592/118.45

5. 1.913 11.951/120.29*

* Run with stock tires; all other

runs with 26x11.5x17-inch Mickey

Thompson E.T. Streets

those are the true times of the GT500.not the 12.4-12.7 crap that has been put out.

Here's the link to that article:

 

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0910_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_test/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding my 80-85% comment...

 

2011 SVT Package (w/ near race compound tires) vs 2010:

 

4.1 / 4.5 secs 0-60 mph = 2010 at 90%

 

12.4 / 12.7 secs 1/4 mile = 2010 at 97.6%

 

151 / 165 ft 70-0 mph = 2010 at 91%

 

1.00 / 0.91 g grip = 2010 at 90%

 

 

Now show me a 2011 base model with the same crappy tires that comes on the 2010 - 2007 and lets see how that gap narrows. Or, just ask any seasoned racer what proper tires does for a car on a track and I think you'll see Ford owes all their marketing hype to Goodyear.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 2011 is an AWESOME car, but I'm tired of it being played up as manna from heaven when the biggest single contributor is quality tires.

 

 

No dog in this fight but, I canspeak to the11's track manners. Certainly the tires are a huge factor in how well she corners but, the weight off the front end of the car is the biggest factor when on the road course. Much, much better than my 08. I have not driven a 10 but I suspect it is very close straight line but, not so much on the road course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dog in this fight but, I canspeak to the11's track manners. Certainly the tires are a huge factor in how well she corners but, the weight off the front end of the car is the biggest factor when on the road course. Much, much better than my 08. I have not driven a 10 but I suspect it is very close straight line but, not so much on the road course

 

I've seen a 2010 GT500 with the FR3 suspension and proper track tire walk away from a 2011 on a road course (could have been the driver that made the difference). Also if a guy does a tubular k-member and front control arms along with relocating the battery to the trunk you can shave close to 80 lbs off the front of the car. I'd like to see a stock 2010 against a 2011 non PP car for comparisons sake. It only makes sense that with each evolution of the GT500 it improves.

Edited by Cdvision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a 2010 GT500 with the FR3 suspension and proper track tire walk away from a 2011 on a road course (could have been the driver that made the difference). Also if a guy does a tubular k-member and front control arms along with relocating the battery to the trunk you can shave close to 80 lbs off the front of the car. I'd like to see a stock 2010 against a 2011 non PP car for comparisons sake. It only makes sense that with each evolution of the GT500 it improves.

 

 

Bingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
...