GT500 in the July Car and Driver
6/1/06 | 10:41 AM
#42
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
Originally Posted by TerpGT17
Just saw the times for it over on SVTPerformance. They compared it to a C6 Vette, it went 12.9 @ 112 with a 4.5 second 0-60 run. The Vette did 12.8 @ 113. Is anyone else disappointed with that time?
12.9@112 = 3900+lb steel bodied 4 passenger coupe
12.8@113 = ~3200lb fiberglass bodied 2 seater
And maybe C&D drivers aren't very good?
6/1/06 | 10:45 AM
#43
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 29
From: Conroe, TX
Originally Posted by Vermillion06
Not bad considering:
12.9@112 = 3900+lb steel bodied 4 passenger coupe
12.8@113 = ~3200lb fiberglass bodied 2 seater
And maybe C&D drivers aren't very good?
12.9@112 = 3900+lb steel bodied 4 passenger coupe
12.8@113 = ~3200lb fiberglass bodied 2 seater
And maybe C&D drivers aren't very good?
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48106
Motor Trend ran a 12.7 @ 116.
6/1/06 | 02:40 PM
#45
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
Originally Posted by TerpGT17
Just saw the times for it over on SVTPerformance. They compared it to a C6 Vette, it went 12.9 @ 112 with a 4.5 second 0-60 run. The Vette did 12.8 @ 113. Is anyone else disappointed with that time? Seing as the old SVT Cobra ran pretty much the same thing and we were promised an upgrade over it?
6/1/06 | 02:46 PM
#46
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 29
From: Conroe, TX
Originally Posted by Vermillion06
When Motor Trend tested a 2003 Cobra, they got 13.12 @109mph out of it. The GT500 is faster. The 2003 Cobra also had a curb weight of 3780 lbs.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48118
It states out of the 5 magazines that tested the GT500, the best time was a 12.25.
6/1/06 | 03:44 PM
#47
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
Originally Posted by TomServo92
You guys need to read the scanned article in this thread:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48118
It states out of the 5 magazines that tested the GT500, the best time was a 12.25.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48118
It states out of the 5 magazines that tested the GT500, the best time was a 12.25.
6/1/06 | 05:46 PM
#48
Member
Joined: March 10, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TomServo92
You guys need to read the scanned article in this thread:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48118
It states out of the 5 magazines that tested the GT500, the best time was a 12.25.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48118
It states out of the 5 magazines that tested the GT500, the best time was a 12.25.
.
6/1/06 | 06:37 PM
#49
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 29
From: Conroe, TX
Originally Posted by iviustang50h
Anyone know if that is factual or not? Do you think MM&FF is the mag who ran that time? That is a HUGE difference from MT and C&D!
.
.
6/2/06 | 07:39 AM
#50
GT Member
Joined: April 22, 2006
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Well
I'm glad I spent the exrta money on a complete suspension (20) part change out, brake upgrade to Stoptech 14", and Saleen supercharged my car with the right tune, pully,injector and mass air change out(retaining stock fuel pump,clutch, and pistons and rods). It is on the same chasis and frame as the GT500, I have a 3550 lb car, a better suspension by far, as good of brakes, 425 rwhp, 490 flywheel, a better front/rear balance, all for a grand total including original premium package, sales tax, all upgrades and labor in California for $44,650.00 so far which includes tinting and new car air freshener. For a street car and a driving enthusiast, adding more horsepower unless your going to the track is pointless. The better engine does not make up for the clumsy handling, the additional suspension parts needed anyway, and the price,sales tax, not to mention insurance for the GT500. I'm glad I guessed right about the Gt500, and went with the Mustang GT with upgrades.The magazine articles verify this for me. This car needs to be at a 4.1 or 4.2 and a 12.2 or 12.3 1/4mile. Sorry, love Erik
6/2/06 | 08:56 AM
#52
GT Member
Joined: April 22, 2006
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
The Vette..
I love the look and idea of the reborn Mustang fastback. Corvettes are great for others, I've always liked the variety and muscle potential of Mustangs, and in particular this one. I just feel that for fast street car lovers, why waist all that money on just engine, when weight and handling can be exploited far more reasonably with the Mustang GT I guess,as well as the engine. I just expected more from a car that could have been supercharged and only weigh maybe 3750, not 4000, and really given more suspension goodies than just better springs, shocks, struts, and an average quality front swaybar. You can by that kit for the Mustang from steeda used for $550.00 and the StopTechs will run about $2000.00 Again, I think the GT500 is more for track guys that can turn it into a staightline monster, which they will be putting over 1000 HP to it I'm sure, but that doesn't make it a better street car like the Vette, or a changed out Mustang GT, for $44,650 as I mentioned. Vettes full package with sales tax and Insurace are a good deal more than that in LA, and they all look the same. Stangs have personality. Erik
6/2/06 | 10:12 AM
#54
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 2,409
Likes: 1
From: Union Grove,Al
Here's the article from this months 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords.
http://mustang50magazine.com/feature...ive/index.html
http://mustang50magazine.com/feature...ive/index.html
6/2/06 | 10:41 AM
#55
GT Member
Joined: July 27, 2004
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Rampant
Please explain. I understand the point about getting that much power for so cheap, but how does being a good driver overcome physics? The lighter the car, the easier it is to acceleration, decelerate and turn. What does driving abilities have to do with that?
I could see where you would need skills to get the most out of the car (feathering the throttle so not to spin the tires exiting a turn, etc.), but you are still going slower because of the weight.
I could see where you would need skills to get the most out of the car (feathering the throttle so not to spin the tires exiting a turn, etc.), but you are still going slower because of the weight.
6/2/06 | 12:54 PM
#56
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 29
From: Conroe, TX
Originally Posted by n3cr0mncr
You stated exactly what I was getting at....It is fast in the straightaway....so you just need to learn the ropes of making it as fast as you can through the turns.
If there's a downside to this drivetrain, it's poundage. Ford lists the GT500's curb weight at 3,920 pounds in coupe form and 4,040 pounds for the convertible. That's about 400 pounds more than the equivalent Mustang GT. Much of that bulk comes from the drivetrain, which is about 350 pounds heavier than the GT's. This also means the weight gain is largely on the front half of the car, suggesting front-end flabbiness compared to the base Mustang's nimble character. Yet we're happy to report that Ford didn't sacrifice the GT500's cornering capabilities for the sake of straight-line acceleration.
The link to the article can be found here:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=48163
6/2/06 | 10:00 PM
#58
Team Mustang Source
Joined: February 7, 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by TerpGT17
Just saw the times for it over on SVTPerformance. They compared it to a C6 Vette, it went 12.9 @ 112 with a 4.5 second 0-60 run. The Vette did 12.8 @ 113. Is anyone else disappointed with that time? Seing as the old SVT Cobra ran pretty much the same thing and we were promised an upgrade over it? It's not just C&D either, Road and Track did a 13.1 @ 112. I understand that they may not be able to launch the car all that well, but the 112 trapspeed disappoints me. They tested an M6 in the issue that did 12.4 @ 121 and it weighs more than the Shelby. Ah well, may be time to put in a call to Kenne Bell
6/2/06 | 10:19 PM
#59
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 13, 2005
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by AnotherMustangMan
Just further reinforces my belief that when you get past 300 hp, I would rather lose 50 pounds than gain 10 horsepower.
