Oh dear...
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear...
Car and Driver did a comparo test between the Shelby GT, 350Z, Audi TT and RX-8 ... and the Shelby didn't come off too well overall (I can hear the C&D sucks retorts already). Their final rankings were:
Fourth Place: 2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT
Third Place: 2007 Nissan 350Z
Second Place: 2008 Audi TT 2.0T
First Place: 2007 Mazda RX-8
C&D does place much more emphasis on overall performance and chassis dynamics than do many/most on this board, and it was in those areas that the Shelby GT's great engine/straightline performance were let down. Of the Stang, they summarized:
On the other hand, they panned the chassis -- "the live axle, on the other hand, is responsible for the worst handling of the group. ... (t)he front suspension is lousy enough that one tester compared the whole package to a 20-year-old pickup truck," "Combine that with the greatest curb weight and its overboosted, numb steering, and it’s easy to see why the Mustang was the last choice on the curvy roads" and "The brakes didn’t inspire confidence, either," though they thought something must be wrong with the brakes. Other nits were the Hurst shifter, hard-to-read speedometer and cheap-feeling interior.
Their last line seemed to sum it up well, "In some respects, its penchant for lurid, tire-smoking slides made the Shelby GT the most fun in the right situation. But then again, the same antics are possible in a $26,440 Mustang GT."
The winning RX-8 was just about the opposite, with by far the least power but the best chassis, summing that up with, "The suspension takes hits from the road like a champion prizefighter, so much so that during our driving loop the RX-8 was actually the fastest car on real-world roads."
The 350Z came in third with almost identical straightline speed and the Stang, but much better handling and brakes to make it the fastest at the track (road course type). They didn't like the coarseness of the motor or exhaust note nor the (also) cheap feeling interior.
The TT cinched a second with refinement and good looks, decent speed and handling and, well, good looks. It lost points on getting a bit rattlely on rough roads and its steep price tag.
Anyways, there goes, one rag's opinion. I'm sure C&Ds broader interpretation and weighting of performance and competence won't necessarily comport with this forum's member's general sole penchant for simple straight line speed, but it does give a useful perspective nonetheless.
Fourth Place: 2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT
Third Place: 2007 Nissan 350Z
Second Place: 2008 Audi TT 2.0T
First Place: 2007 Mazda RX-8
C&D does place much more emphasis on overall performance and chassis dynamics than do many/most on this board, and it was in those areas that the Shelby GT's great engine/straightline performance were let down. Of the Stang, they summarized:
Highs: Rumbling exhaust, power oversteer on demand, gets plenty of gawkers.
Lows: J.C. Whitney–esque hood scoop, not much faster than a Mustang GT.
The Verdict: Still unsophisticated — and proud of it.
They raved about the motor -- "has the sweetest engine note of this pack, a raucous growl that sends shivers down your spine every time you hit the ignition" and "the prodigious torque from the V-8 allows for tail-out cornering in any situation." Lows: J.C. Whitney–esque hood scoop, not much faster than a Mustang GT.
The Verdict: Still unsophisticated — and proud of it.
On the other hand, they panned the chassis -- "the live axle, on the other hand, is responsible for the worst handling of the group. ... (t)he front suspension is lousy enough that one tester compared the whole package to a 20-year-old pickup truck," "Combine that with the greatest curb weight and its overboosted, numb steering, and it’s easy to see why the Mustang was the last choice on the curvy roads" and "The brakes didn’t inspire confidence, either," though they thought something must be wrong with the brakes. Other nits were the Hurst shifter, hard-to-read speedometer and cheap-feeling interior.
Their last line seemed to sum it up well, "In some respects, its penchant for lurid, tire-smoking slides made the Shelby GT the most fun in the right situation. But then again, the same antics are possible in a $26,440 Mustang GT."
The winning RX-8 was just about the opposite, with by far the least power but the best chassis, summing that up with, "The suspension takes hits from the road like a champion prizefighter, so much so that during our driving loop the RX-8 was actually the fastest car on real-world roads."
The 350Z came in third with almost identical straightline speed and the Stang, but much better handling and brakes to make it the fastest at the track (road course type). They didn't like the coarseness of the motor or exhaust note nor the (also) cheap feeling interior.
The TT cinched a second with refinement and good looks, decent speed and handling and, well, good looks. It lost points on getting a bit rattlely on rough roads and its steep price tag.
Anyways, there goes, one rag's opinion. I'm sure C&Ds broader interpretation and weighting of performance and competence won't necessarily comport with this forum's member's general sole penchant for simple straight line speed, but it does give a useful perspective nonetheless.
#2
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
All these rags have their own agenda. I for one would NEVER own an RX-8. Not after seeing how many problems a co-worker had with his. Totally unbelieveable for that amount of money. And they trash the live axle? Well, I don't want to start a SRA/IRS debate (its been beaten to death 10X over), but I guess the Mustang Race Cars do rather well with it. C&D
#3
I'm not disputing the C&D test.
I want to point out that in 2005, Edmunds did a comparison test with Mustang, RX-8, and 350Z. The mustang finished 1st, followed by RX-8, and 350Z. I believe the all three cars have pretty much the same specs for 2007, except I'd like to think that the Shelby is slightly improved.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...6/pageNumber=6
I want to point out that in 2005, Edmunds did a comparison test with Mustang, RX-8, and 350Z. The mustang finished 1st, followed by RX-8, and 350Z. I believe the all three cars have pretty much the same specs for 2007, except I'd like to think that the Shelby is slightly improved.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...6/pageNumber=6
#7
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
They got 13.7 in the quarter mile.
You can tell by the 0-110mph speed they shifted into 4th before the end of the run.
They could have shaved a half second off the time by staying in 3rd.
It would have easily been the fastest.
You can tell by the 0-110mph speed they shifted into 4th before the end of the run.
They could have shaved a half second off the time by staying in 3rd.
It would have easily been the fastest.
#8
I'm not disputing the C&D test.
I want to point out that in 2005, Edmunds did a comparison test with Mustang, RX-8, and 350Z. The mustang finished 1st, followed by RX-8, and 350Z. I believe the all three cars have pretty much the same specs for 2007, except I'd like to think that the Shelby is slightly improved.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...6/pageNumber=6
I want to point out that in 2005, Edmunds did a comparison test with Mustang, RX-8, and 350Z. The mustang finished 1st, followed by RX-8, and 350Z. I believe the all three cars have pretty much the same specs for 2007, except I'd like to think that the Shelby is slightly improved.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...6/pageNumber=6
If they picked an RX8 over a 350 they have no credibility as auto enthusiasts and should stick to avalons.
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dream: since Mazda and Ford are part of the same company, for whatever next Mustang, have Ford do the drivetrain, styling and HVAC while Mazda does the suspension, steering, brakes and interior finish. Voila, the best of both worlds - Mustang power and panache with Mazda poise and polish. Now there a bang for the buck car that would be batting 10's in every category.
#10
Cobra Member
C & D is French owned...
Car & Driver is owned by a French publishing company. Look at the articles. 90% or more are foreign cars, and they appear to be in bed with the Germans (unless it's a Chrysler) who can do no wrong. I was a subscriber (about 30 years) and have since canceled. They are no longer on my list. My .02
#11
$38,000 for a lowered Mustang GT? No thanks. The $12K premium gets you a "Shelby" nameplate, and not much else. I agree with the C&D article on most points. The only thing that really ****ed me off was the slow times, and the lowest rating in the "performance" category. It ran the 2nd fastest lap time, best 0-60 & 1/4 mile, and highest G's on the track. So it goes from 1st to worst b/c of braking? Which, btw, sucked and they thought they had a bad car. There is a sidebar saying you can pretty much build your own Shelby GT performance wise for ~$2500.
#12
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from the honking motor (and resultant straight line speed, though only equal to the 350Z), NASCAR exhaust note and good looks (goofy phony scoops aside), the Shelby GT didn't come off too impressively.
Seemed to go well enough on very smooth tracks (as long as you didn't have to stop much), but the handling went to Hades in a handbasket at the first bumby real world road (live axle: great at strip/stoplight, kinda sucks everywhere else).
Torquey V8's great to release one's inner adolescent and go hoon around in great smoking circles, but only as quick down the straights as the 350Z which spots it over a liter, nearly 25hp and a mountain of torque?
The brakes have never been that great, and were worse than normal here apparently, kinda surprised Shelby didn't at least slap on the GT500 Brembos for the premium they're charging (like Ford did with the Bullitt back a few years ago).
Whole thing seemed a real life demonstration of the difference of how fast a car goes, which the Stang does, at least in a straight line and under rather ideal conditions, versus how well a car goes fast, which the ostensibly much slower RX-8 does exquisitely in actual off-track, real world driving.
Ford does have the basis for a potentially great performance car in the Stang, as opposed to a cheap, single-focus drag car, but needs far better brakes, suspension (IRS) and general suspension tuning to be a truly great real-world car, especially in the more up-market SEs (you can excuse a bit of penny pinching in the bargain basement GT). The looks are there, the motor's there, the chassis makes for a stout foundation, now Ford just needs to take it that extra few yards.
Seemed to go well enough on very smooth tracks (as long as you didn't have to stop much), but the handling went to Hades in a handbasket at the first bumby real world road (live axle: great at strip/stoplight, kinda sucks everywhere else).
Torquey V8's great to release one's inner adolescent and go hoon around in great smoking circles, but only as quick down the straights as the 350Z which spots it over a liter, nearly 25hp and a mountain of torque?
The brakes have never been that great, and were worse than normal here apparently, kinda surprised Shelby didn't at least slap on the GT500 Brembos for the premium they're charging (like Ford did with the Bullitt back a few years ago).
Whole thing seemed a real life demonstration of the difference of how fast a car goes, which the Stang does, at least in a straight line and under rather ideal conditions, versus how well a car goes fast, which the ostensibly much slower RX-8 does exquisitely in actual off-track, real world driving.
Ford does have the basis for a potentially great performance car in the Stang, as opposed to a cheap, single-focus drag car, but needs far better brakes, suspension (IRS) and general suspension tuning to be a truly great real-world car, especially in the more up-market SEs (you can excuse a bit of penny pinching in the bargain basement GT). The looks are there, the motor's there, the chassis makes for a stout foundation, now Ford just needs to take it that extra few yards.
#14
The most interesting aspect of this article for me is that I did not consider and have absolutely no desire to own any of the cars in the comparision except the Shelby. They could have compared the Shelby to three dishwashers for as much interest as I have in the 350z, TT, and RX8.
#15
Cobra Member
Join Date: April 7, 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any comparison focused on "overall performance" will be subjectivelly biased when comparing different spec cars.
This subject has been debated every time any such kind of comparative test was done by the automotive media and the test results were always obvious to anyone. Remember the Mustang GT vs Exige S race done by TopGear?
Now I'm going home to compare a 911 Turbo to a combine harvester, just for the sake of it.
This subject has been debated every time any such kind of comparative test was done by the automotive media and the test results were always obvious to anyone. Remember the Mustang GT vs Exige S race done by TopGear?
Now I'm going home to compare a 911 Turbo to a combine harvester, just for the sake of it.
#16
Cobra R Member
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: London, ON. Canada
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much high speed cornering driving do most people really do? All these race track performance comparsions really don't apply to the average person.
I love the way my 05 GT pulls away from a stoplight! My joy comes from quick acceleration and getting my car up to speed. I've had my car for 2 years and have not gotten a ticket yet. So I don't race madly around the city like I'm in the Fast and the Furious. My cars a daily driver and I just want to have it drive fairly comfortably, sound great and have some straight line quickness when I give it some gas.
A SGT sounds like it's exactly what I want.
I love the way my 05 GT pulls away from a stoplight! My joy comes from quick acceleration and getting my car up to speed. I've had my car for 2 years and have not gotten a ticket yet. So I don't race madly around the city like I'm in the Fast and the Furious. My cars a daily driver and I just want to have it drive fairly comfortably, sound great and have some straight line quickness when I give it some gas.
A SGT sounds like it's exactly what I want.
#18
Cobra R Member
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: London, ON. Canada
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the article. But the point I'm trying to make is- how the car ranked or finished doesn't mean it's a poor auto.
If it looks good, drives well and has plenty of get up and go, then for my needs that is enough.
I don't care if some other car handles better on a road course, etc. I love the look of the Mustang. And if it's got decent straightline power and is a fairly comfortable ride- then for most us it is probably enough.
If it looks good, drives well and has plenty of get up and go, then for my needs that is enough.
I don't care if some other car handles better on a road course, etc. I love the look of the Mustang. And if it's got decent straightline power and is a fairly comfortable ride- then for most us it is probably enough.
#19
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
#20
Love it or hate it, want it, or shun it, in the end, 20 years from now, a majority of these other cars, including a base Mustang GT, will be razor blades or rusting in some junk yard. The majority of Shelby GT's will still be shining in some garage or on the road. As a current GT owner I can tell you that it costs a hell of a lot more than $2800 to make your car the same as a SGT. I know I've actually sat down and tried. I think after I got done with everything with labor, it was going to come to a little over $5,000. For me the extra $3K is cheap when you consider future resale. A GT with all these mods is STILL just a GT and your investment will be worth pennies on the dollar while the SGT will be a collector's item. Hey...your opinion my vary but then you don't have to buy one!