darthracer777 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 ....in a road course demo with both cars equally equipped. The results should put to rest the 'Caddy vs Shelby' arguments. However, it probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Nice to see the GT500 pull on it from a roll which is what I would expect it to do. However, from a stop I think the Caddy at least beats it in the 1/4 mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Nice to see the GT500 pull on it from a roll which is what I would expect it to do. However, from a stop I think the Caddy at least beats it in the 1/4 mile. ........not if you use the proper tires (I would use slicks) at the dragstrip. Then, if driven correctly, the GT500 should win every round. I've seen stock '11 GT500s w/slicks that have run low-mid 11s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torched10 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 ....in a road course demo with both cars equally equipped. The results should put to rest the 'Caddy vs Shelby' arguments. However, it probably won't. Cmon guys, i mean i luv my Shelby, but clearly the guy drving the V wasnt pushing the car,you cant even hear the SC or exhaust,only hear the Shelby. It aslo seems the caddy is an automatic,not a 6 speed,like the ShelbyThe V set the course record at Nurburing and cant even keep up,cmon,really--plus the guy doing the commenting seems to have a commercial interest in the outcome.My experience,driving both cars is theyre about the same., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 How about a real comparison? http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q4/lightning_lap_2011-feature/sortable_times_3a_complete_lightning_lap_times_2006_to_2011_page_8 In past years, the CTS-V Sedan managed a 3:04.0. Same as the GT500. Between these two, it's driver all the way, and the CTS driver in your comparo sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexVogel Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 How about a real comparison? http://www.caranddri..._to_2011_page_8 In past years, the CTS-V Sedan managed a 3:04.0. Same as the GT500. Between these two, it's driver all the way, and the CTS driver in your comparo sucked. Weird...I've seen a few 2011 SVTPP times of 2:58 with video...here is one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Cmon guys, i mean i luv my Shelby, but clearly the guy drving the V wasnt pushing the car,you cant even hear the SC or exhaust,only hear the Shelby. It aslo seems the caddy is an automatic,not a 6 speed,like the ShelbyThe V set the course record at Nurburing and cant even keep up,cmon,really--plus the guy doing the commenting seems to have a commercial interest in the outcome.My experience,driving both cars is theyre about the same., Are you serious? Did you watch the same video I did? You and others (JWG223) are making assumptions about the run that you can't back up. Provide evidence please that the CTS-V driver was 'tanking it' or just a 'poor driver'. And you couldn't hear the CTV-S? I couldn't hear the Shelby engine noise at all...it was too far ahead. All I heard was the CTS-V engine. What the heck were you talking about? Dang....it's amazing how a simple a video can be and yet folks see so many things that aren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larwince Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Are you serious? Did you watch the same video I did? You and others (JWG223) are making assumptions about the run that you can't back up. Provide evidence please that the CTS-V driver was 'tanking it' or just a 'poor driver'. And you couldn't hear the CTV-S? I couldn't hear the Shelby engine noise at all...it was too far ahead. All I heard was the CTS-V engine. What the heck were you talking about? Dang....it's amazing how a simple a video can be and yet folks see so many things that aren't there. I have to agree with others here...I feel neither car was really pushing it, as I saw no tail wagg from the GT500. The caddy should have been screaming in its upper RPM band. Also there wasn't a hint of tire squeal. Give me the car and I will have the goodyears begging for mercy! The cars are equally matched as the caddy has a superior rearend setup (as far as roadracing is concerned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Weird...I've seen a few 2011 SVTPP times of 2:58 with video...here is one Reading the caption reveals... The engineers at Ford's Special Vehicle Team (SVT) recently did some track testing of the new 2011 Shelby GT500 at Virginia International Raceway (VIR). This was to test the cars ultimate limits at one of the worlds most technical and grueling road courses. Clicking on the "poster" of the video shows us... Ford Motor Company NOONE! has come close to those numbers from Ford. They are not repeatable thus far by 3rd party testing. Not even close. Are you serious? Did you watch the same video I did? You and others (JWG223) are making assumptions about the run that you can't back up. Provide evidence please that the CTS-V driver was 'tanking it' or just a 'poor driver'. And you couldn't hear the CTV-S? I couldn't hear the Shelby engine noise at all...it was too far ahead. All I heard was the CTS-V engine. What the heck were you talking about? Dang....it's amazing how a simple a video can be and yet folks see so many things that aren't there. I have already provided evidence that the CTS-V and the GT500 are nearly mechanically identical in performance around a road-course, or as close as a human can measure. You're seeing a GT500 skull-drag a CTS-V, and contrary to factual data, are choosing to belive a video that has no explanation. It would be like me gunning it from a light in my 4-cylinder G20 and videoing a GT500 fading into the distance. Who's to say they weren't racing, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedyman Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Reading the caption reveals... Clicking on the "poster" of the video shows us... NOONE! has come close to those numbers from Ford. They are not repeatable thus far by 3rd party testing. Not even close. I have already provided evidence that the CTS-V and the GT500 are nearly mechanically identical in performance around a road-course, or as close as a human can measure. You're seeing a GT500 skull-drag a CTS-V, and contrary to factual data, are choosing to belive a video that has no explanation. It would be like me gunning it from a light in my 4-cylinder G20 and videoing a GT500 fading into the distance. Who's to say they weren't racing, no? Agree. The GT500 in that video runs away as if the CTS-V is standing still. There is no way that two cars so closely matched are equally driven. What is seen in the vid is meaningless but makes for fun internet chatter and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 ........not if you use the proper tires (I would use slicks) at the dragstrip. Then, if driven correctly, the GT500 should win every round. I've seen stock '11 GT500s w/slicks that have run low-mid 11s. Sorry I'm talking OEM to OEM. Not everyone wants to put slicks on their car. As they come off the showroom floor the Caddy is a little faster. I really hope Ford focuses on better rear tire sizes as the next GT500 upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedyman Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 An interesting comparrison of these two vehicles would be the rolling 30-70mph(or 30-100) run that the magazine tests used to run years ago. 0-60 and 1/4 miles evaluations are far to dependent on the launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 An interesting comparrison of these two vehicles would be the rolling 30-70mph(or 30-100) run that the magazine tests used to run years ago. 0-60 and 1/4 miles evaluations are far to dependent on the launch. Those runs are a bit short/gear-dependant. Here are the 0-150's for both cars, though, with source-links: CTS-V Coupe (automatic): 22.5 Seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/11b0e54abe3c786ee5f44aaf8a28559a.pdf CTS-V Sedan (Manual): 22.3 Seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/6f5dff4a85f828c8ab0928fecabab91f.pdf GT500 STVPP: 23.6 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/bb668c9e792188fe06724a61be6477a5.pdf The Automatic CTS-V beats the GT500 0-60 and 5-60, while the Manual is slower that the GT500 0 and 5-60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical08 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't get why we are comparing the GT500 to the M3, the Cadillac, the Viper, the Vette, etc, if we are going to compare let is be GT500 to GT500. I like the CTS-V but I'm not selling my GT500 to get something else faster because it's not a GT500. I will get beat by many cars now that I push 577rwhp because I can't get traction in 1st or 2nd with the current Goodyear rear tires. From my experience with the Vette 2005 C6 I had, there are not than many after market parts out there for it like the Shelby and Mustang and they cost far more. The same will be for the Cadillac. There will always be something out there be it a ricer or a caddy that may or will beat you. I would rather know more upgrade, tech and topics that specifically apply to the GT500. The gage pod would be next on my list of how-to's. Anyway not bashing anyone but every time some car is produced that is fast here comes the comparison and waht if's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Reading the caption reveals... Clicking on the "poster" of the video shows us... NOONE! has come close to those numbers from Ford. They are not repeatable thus far by 3rd party testing. Not even close. I have already provided evidence that the CTS-V and the GT500 are nearly mechanically identical in performance around a road-course, or as close as a human can measure. You're seeing a GT500 skull-drag a CTS-V, and contrary to factual data, are choosing to belive a video that has no explanation. It would be like me gunning it from a light in my 4-cylinder G20 and videoing a GT500 fading into the distance. Who's to say they weren't racing, no? And you seem to believe any magazine article test that makes the '11 GT500 seem a bit slower than the competitor. Why should we trust their numbers? Can't magazine editors/testers have their own biases, as well? Why should I trust them when competing magazines have different results for the same cars tested? A case in point is the recent '11 5.0 stang vs. Camaro SS tests. It's always been that way. Trusting magazine tests is like trusting politicians. You might find an honest one, but it's rare. I'll agree that when cars are close in performance, then it does come down to the driver. However, you seem to always give the benefit of the doubt to the Shelby's competitors. Why? I'll stick with the Shelby. I have zero complaints with my '11 800 HP Shelby. I'm sure it'll be a blast to run it at the dragstrip (with proper tires-slicks). I don't think I'll have trouble beating any Z06, ZR1, or CTS-V I come across at the strip. But, then again, you rarely see those vehicles at the drags---at least at the tracks I've raced at. So, it's a moot point. Have fun with your '6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDrool Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 It always burns me up when two indifferent vehicles are compared. Here we have a '09 Caddie for about 62 grand vs. a '11 GT500 for about 58 grand. in "09 the CTS-v was roughly 20 grand mor than the '09 GT500. I mean, really, the '09 Caddie costs more than a '11 GT500. This is an apples to oranges comparison and cannot be taken seriously. Infact, the only reason there are bogus comparisons with the GT500 is because there isn't any other vehicle in the same league as the GT500. Simply, nothing competes with the OEM GT500 in it's price range. Give it a rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexVogel Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Reading the caption reveals... Clicking on the "poster" of the video shows us... NOONE! has come close to those numbers from Ford. They are not repeatable thus far by 3rd party testing. Not even close. I have already provided evidence that the CTS-V and the GT500 are nearly mechanically identical in performance around a road-course, or as close as a human can measure. You're seeing a GT500 skull-drag a CTS-V, and contrary to factual data, are choosing to belive a video that has no explanation. It would be like me gunning it from a light in my 4-cylinder G20 and videoing a GT500 fading into the distance. Who's to say they weren't racing, no? I get your point but....It's a constant video with telemetrics. Time it with your own stop watch. The car does 2:58. Because they pushed it to the edge, its not valid even though there is video proof of it? I don't follow you. Having driven my car on that same track around the same route and feeling how ridiculously strong, stable and fast around the track it was I'm much more inclined to take the video at face value. Not to mention, for about 3500 bucks I'm at 654/648 making my total out of pocket about 57,500 out the door costs. Thats a bargain for what you get. I know how it felt prior to the TVS upgrade...if the base SVTPP did a 2:58 in that video, I'd love for them to run mine around once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KEYSTONE Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 You need to take any road test with a grain of salt. I was reading an old 1969 copy of Hot Rod magazine (or a similar car mag, can't recall which it was) and they were testing a then-brand new '69 Camaro SS 396 that Chevy had given them. This car was lighting the dragstrip on fire, simply annihilating every car it came up against. Lo and behold, after about 15 runs the magazine's driver grenaded the motor and took the car to a friendly local Chevy dealer for a reload of the 396. Problem was, a post-mortem exam of the motor in the car showed it was a 502 CID hand-built special from Chevy Engineering. Ooops! So much for "impartial magazine comparison tests". Any car can be a ringer. Pontiac did it all the time with the GTO's (putting in 428's when it was supposed to be a 389...), so why wouldn't Ford do it with a GT500? Unless the car setting the spectacular track/strip time is immediately dyno-tested by an imparitial 3rd party, don't believe anything you read...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I get your point but....It's a constant video with telemetrics. Time it with your own stop watch. The car does 2:58. Because they pushed it to the edge, its not valid even though there is video proof of it? I don't follow you. Having driven my car on that same track around the same route and feeling how ridiculously strong, stable and fast around the track it was I'm much more inclined to take the video at face value. Not to mention, for about 3500 bucks I'm at 654/648 making my total out of pocket about 57,500 out the door costs. Thats a bargain for what you get. I know how it felt prior to the TVS upgrade...if the base SVTPP did a 2:58 in that video, I'd love for them to run mine around once. Of course the video is legit. It's the car that I don't think is legit. It's 5 seconds faster than anyone else has managed. That's HUGE! Ford could easily have slapped a pully on it or who knows. I just know that NOONE has come close to their time, and by close, I mean within 3 seconds. Now if people were hitting 2:59-3:01's, I would agree whole-heartedly that 2:58 was fully possible. But 3:04 is the closest so far. And you seem to believe any magazine article test that makes the '11 GT500 seem a bit slower than the competitor. Why should we trust their numbers? Can't magazine editors/testers have their own biases, as well? Why should I trust them when competing magazines have different results for the same cars tested? A case in point is the recent '11 5.0 stang vs. Camaro SS tests. It's always been that way. Trusting magazine tests is like trusting politicians. You might find an honest one, but it's rare. I'll agree that when cars are close in performance, then it does come down to the driver. However, you seem to always give the benefit of the doubt to the Shelby's competitors. Why? I'll stick with the Shelby. I have zero complaints with my '11 800 HP Shelby. I'm sure it'll be a blast to run it at the dragstrip (with proper tires-slicks). I don't think I'll have trouble beating any Z06, ZR1, or CTS-V I come across at the strip. But, then again, you rarely see those vehicles at the drags---at least at the tracks I've raced at. So, it's a moot point. Have fun with your '6. You can't knock the Lightning Lap feature and then chamion a Youtube video that provides no background or numbers, lol. Im not GIVING anything. The GT500 is equal to the CTS-V to the point that it's all about driver. No advantage to either. Why you are refusing to belive this I do not know. Personal bias? This Youtube video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 THE BEST TIME THAT I SAW FOR A GT500 IS 11.9@120 ON STOCK TIRES.DRIVER,EVAN SMITH. :happy feet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
16n69 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Those runs are a bit short/gear-dependant. Here are the 0-150's for both cars, though, with source-links: CTS-V Coupe (automatic): 22.5 Seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/11b0e54abe3c786ee5f44aaf8a28559a.pdf CTS-V Sedan (Manual): 22.3 Seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/6f5dff4a85f828c8ab0928fecabab91f.pdf GT500 STVPP: 23.6 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/bb668c9e792188fe06724a61be6477a5.pdf The Automatic CTS-V beats the GT500 0-60 and 5-60, while the Manual is slower that the GT500 0 and 5-60. Was out at the Vegas speedway...by Shelby American. Saw 2 pro drivers foolin around. One in the CTS-V coupe face off with a 2011 GT500 SVT. They took 3 runs, straight down the track, then a 4th around the track. Caddy beat the GT500 all 4 runs. Both were stock, and yes the CTS-V does cost 15k more, but still, that is due to mostly bling bling and perhaps brand. GT500 needs a dual clutch tranny like DCT or PDK...better rear end and dump that antique live axle, 550HP & 510 torque does little good if much is wasted and does not get it to the pavement. GT500 is already 400 lbs. lighter than the CTS-V , but it would not hurt to lighten it up more, closer to 3500 lbs., maybe even a carbon fiber roof, like the M3 coupe, lower the weight & center of gravity...and better tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Was out at the Vegas speedway...by Shelby American. Saw 2 pro drivers foolin around. One in the CTS-V coupe face off with a 2011 GT500 SVT. They took 3 runs, straight down the track, then a 4th around the track. Caddy beat the GT500 all 4 runs. Both were stock, and yes the CTS-V does cost 15k more, but still, that is due to mostly bling bling and perhaps brand. GT500 needs a dual clutch tranny like DCT or PDK...better rear end and dump that antique live axle, 550HP & 510 torque does little good if much is wasted and does not get it to the pavement. GT500 is already 400 lbs. lighter than the CTS-V , but it would not hurt to lighten it up more, closer to 3500 lbs., maybe even a carbon fiber roof, like the M3 coupe, lower the weight & center of gravity...and better tires. The roof of the car isn't a big weight deal. I know that the Z06 is different than the GT500 in roof-area, but on a Z06/ZR1 comparo, the ZR1 roof is, I belive, 7# lighter. I couldn't see the GT500 roof being much more than 20# lighter if done in CF. It is up top, so it WOULD help handling, yes. The main killer is all that METAL Ford seems bent on using. In the early 90's, GM started using fiberglass and polymer anywhere they could. Ford has doggedly kept to sheet-metal, so while GM's 'vette and F-body came in light (except this new abomination of an SS), the Ford's have continued to get heavier. Ford should think about fiberglass panels. That would really add up, prevent door-dings (love that about a 'vette, can't door-ding 'em, just paint-smears, still sucks though). The main hold back is the antidiluvian SRA. The geometry of the SRA causes it to move left/right when the suspension is compressed/rebounded. This means that while you COULD fit a 315 under the car static, when in motion, it may get eaten by a fender-well. The Mays system helps eliminate this, but again, it's a bandaid, not a fix. A true IRS is really where it's at, as it allows independant articulation. When one wheel finds a slight irregulatiry, its grip is compromised. With SRA, this carries over and modifies the position of the other tire in relation to the road. With IRS, the other tire never even gets the memo. Plus the geometry allows full use of those fender-wells. In short: Bigger rubber, no cumulative effect of small irregularities. Fiberglass or composite body panels =less corrosion/ding issues, lighter weight. The GT500 has stepped into a price-bracket where these features are expected, and I fully suspect Ford will incorporate them in the next platform. It's just too expensive to re-do the car mid-model. SVT has done a remarkable job of making the SRA what it is, but it's done and time to move on to better things. It is interesting how Ford is leading Detroit (and Japan, as they rented technology for Nissan to use in the 2009 GT-R) in engine technology, and yet they have not done anything to improve suspension since 2005 when they put a pan-hard bar in the GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezareth Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 The roof of the car isn't a big weight deal. I know that the Z06 is different than the GT500 in roof-area, but on a Z06/ZR1 comparo, the ZR1 roof is, I belive, 7# lighter. I couldn't see the GT500 roof being much more than 20# lighter if done in CF. It is up top, so it WOULD help handling, yes. The main killer is all that METAL Ford seems bent on using. In the early 90's, GM started using fiberglass and polymer anywhere they could. Ford has doggedly kept to sheet-metal, so while GM's 'vette and F-body came in light (except this new abomination of an SS), the Ford's have continued to get heavier. Ford should think about fiberglass panels. That would really add up, prevent door-dings (love that about a 'vette, can't door-ding 'em, just paint-smears, still sucks though). The main hold back is the antidiluvian SRA. The geometry of the SRA causes it to move left/right when the suspension is compressed/rebounded. This means that while you COULD fit a 315 under the car static, when in motion, it may get eaten by a fender-well. The Mays system helps eliminate this, but again, it's a bandaid, not a fix. A true IRS is really where it's at, as it allows independant articulation. When one wheel finds a slight irregulatiry, its grip is compromised. With SRA, this carries over and modifies the position of the other tire in relation to the road. With IRS, the other tire never even gets the memo. Plus the geometry allows full use of those fender-wells. In short: Bigger rubber, no cumulative effect of small irregularities. Fiberglass or composite body panels =less corrosion/ding issues, lighter weight. The GT500 has stepped into a price-bracket where these features are expected, and I fully suspect Ford will incorporate them in the next platform. It's just too expensive to re-do the car mid-model. SVT has done a remarkable job of making the SRA what it is, but it's done and time to move on to better things. It is interesting how Ford is leading Detroit (and Japan, as they rented technology for Nissan to use in the 2009 GT-R) in engine technology, and yet they have not done anything to improve suspension since 2005 when they put a pan-hard bar in the GT. Some of us like that "antidiluvian SRA." But you continue to beat that horse.... None of that has any bearing on why the CTS-V is beating the GT500 at the strip. The answer is one thing only: Automatic Transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Some of us like that "antidiluvian SRA." But you continue to beat that horse.... None of that has any bearing on why the CTS-V is beating the GT500 at the strip. The answer is one thing only: Automatic Transmission. It does, however, have a very strong bearing on how a GT500 is being tied with around VIR by a car that weighs 400# more and puts less power to the ground. If the Mustang is going to play in the twisties, it's going to have to adapt, and lose the SRA and a few pounds. By Ford's own admission this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 It does, however, have a very strong bearing on how a GT500 is being tied with around VIR by a car that weighs 400# more and puts less power to the ground. If the Mustang is going to play in the twisties, it's going to have to adapt, and lose the SRA and a few pounds. By Ford's own admission this is true. Well, the 'outdated' live axle is best for drag racing....much stronger than IRS. Since I'm a drag racer, that's good for me. All you need is the right tires (yes, slicks), add a single DS, driveshaft loop, maybe a 'tweak' to the suspension and you're good to go. It'll be fun to take mine to the 'strip. I'll take some vids and share them on TS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Some of us like that "antidiluvian SRA." But you continue to beat that horse.... None of that has any bearing on why the CTS-V is beating the GT500 at the strip. The answer is one thing only: Automatic Transmission. You are correct, sir. It's not the SRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWG223 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Well, the 'outdated' live axle is best for drag racing....much stronger than IRS. Since I'm a drag racer, that's good for me. All you need is the right tires (yes, slicks), add a single DS, driveshaft loop, maybe a 'tweak' to the suspension and you're good to go. It'll be fun to take mine to the 'strip. I'll take some vids and share them on TS. IRS works just fine at the strip. Plenty of people are pulling 1.4X's with the 'vettes and vipers on stock IRS (obviously with powertrain mods and tires). You are correct, sir. It's not the SRA. I dunno. The CTS-V does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and the GT500 in 4.1 seconds. The GT500 puts down more power and has about 400# less to lug around. I would think it would beat it by more than .2 seconds. Comparing manual to manual with those times, btw. I used the best "magazine" times I could find for either. The "range" of times I found overlapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 IRS works just fine at the strip. Plenty of people are pulling 1.4X's with the 'vettes and vipers on stock IRS (obviously with powertrain mods and tires). Then why don't Pro Stockers, Pro Mods, Funny cars, & Top Fuel cars use IRS? IRS may work fine on the 'strip, but it's not the best or ultimate setup. Road racing is a completely different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushinator Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I was skimming through the back of one of the rags (Road & Track) I believe it was and going through their list of car specs. The next closest car to the GT500 in performance and price is the CTS-V. Typically, that car costs $15 to $20K more than out beloved Shelby's. This shows what a true value our cars are. There are a total of two cars under $100,000 new that beat the Shelby pretty consistently. They are the Z06 and the Nissan GTR. My main attraction to the Shelby was performance per dollar, performance potential and ease of maintenance. At $55,000 there is nothing that comes close to the Shelby. Nothing. And sorry to all you multi-millionaires out there that would argue, but the price difference from the CTS-V of $15,000 to me is a lot. Not that I'd buy a Caddy anyway even if I could. My point is this. If you start adding IRS, heated seats, heads-up display,carbon fiber this and composite body material that, and all those dodads and thingamajigs to the Shelby, it suddenly loses it's appeal of an affordable musle/sports car that your average blue collar guy can afford. Argue all you want amongst yourselves over which car is better and faster. I couldn't care less. I've owned just about every form of affordable sports car/muscle car you can think of and my Shelby so far is the favorite car I've owned. By the way, IN THE REAL WORLD, magazine times don't mean squat. I've been to rented track days and Corvette club track rentals and I've seen first hand what REAL people in their "mid 11 second" C6 Z06's can do. It's actually quite amusing and I highly recommend going to a track rental and watching these guys that THINK they know how to drive actually do it. So please, no quoting magazine times. They are not the standard as to what these (or any) cars are capable of. Truthfully, they're just bragging rights for people that will never take their car to the track. The CTS-V's only advantage over the Shelby is the automatic. Plain and simple, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthracer777 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I was skimming through the back of one of the rags (Road & Track) I believe it was and going through their list of car specs. The next closest car to the GT500 in performance and price is the CTS-V. Typically, that car costs $15 to $20K more than out beloved Shelby's. This shows what a true value our cars are. There are a total of two cars under $100,000 new that beat the Shelby pretty consistently. They are the Z06 and the Nissan GTR. My main attraction to the Shelby was performance per dollar, performance potential and ease of maintenance. At $55,000 there is nothing that comes close to the Shelby. Nothing. And sorry to all you multi-millionaires out there that would argue, but the price difference from the CTS-V of $15,000 to me is a lot. Not that I'd buy a Caddy anyway even if I could. My point is this. If you start adding IRS, heated seats, heads-up display,carbon fiber this and composite body material that, and all those dodads and thingamajigs to the Shelby, it suddenly loses it's appeal of an affordable musle/sports car that your average blue collar guy can afford. Argue all you want amongst yourselves over which car is better and faster. I couldn't care less. I've owned just about every form of affordable sports car/muscle car you can think of and my Shelby so far is the favorite car I've owned. By the way, IN THE REAL WORLD, magazine times don't mean squat. I've been to rented track days and Corvette club track rentals and I've seen first hand what REAL people in their "mid 11 second" C6 Z06's can do. It's actually quite amusing and I highly recommend going to a track rental and watching these guys that THINK they know how to drive actually do it. So please, no quoting magazine times. They are not the standard as to what these (or any) cars are capable of. Truthfully, they're just bragging rights for people that will never take their car to the track. The CTS-V's only advantage over the Shelby is the automatic. Plain and simple, that's it. Excellent post. I wish more of you were here on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.