Car and Driver compared it to Nissan 350Z, Mazda RX-8 and Audi TT.

Shelby GT finished dead last.

They didn't like:
-Worst handling in the group.
-Front suspension was compared to 20-year-old truck,
-Big vibrations on rough stretch of road (severe enough that the hood clips worked themselves lose).
-Brakes sucks.
-Hurst shifter is very high.
-Speedometer too crowded.
-Cheap interior.

Mazda won, Audi was 2nd, Nissan was 3rd.

 

thanks Zoran...but we've got it covered....

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=64750

 

****, I'm always late with these things.

 

Hey, But it was the fastest out of the bunch!

 

Not to mention best looking and the only one you're not supporting communism/terrorism/etc by buying.

 

x2!! Thats right!

 

I dont know...I may be able to argue otherwise...

 

The Mazda and Audi are nice if you are a girleyman.

 

The comparison of the front suspension to the 20 yr old truck was funny, since the design was touted to be similar to BMW's in the Ford press materials.

That car was probably beat on too much!

 

how about if all the other folks in the world said they would be supporting liars, imperialism, and fools, if they bought american cars?

I like the 'best looking' language, but lay your other dumb cliches to rest. The world has changed.

 

<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Read this C&D story.
My first impression was that comparing the Shelby to two actual sports cars, TT & 350z and the RX-8, whatever the hell it is, was like comparing a fighter aircraft to a battleship.
Machines built to do two completely differently jobs.
<!--StartFragment -->Finesse vs brute strength
Currently there are no other cars on the market comparable to Mustangs/Shelby's. At least not until the new Camaro's come out.
To even consider the Shelby a sports car or the others a "muscle" car is
completely stoopid. C&D dropped the ball on this one.
Their comparison was completely bogus.

 

Well the two best cars finished last. My friend has a 350z and he's long since given up racing me. The all-around lousy TT and the underpowered RX8??? 350 is a great car, 07 used RX8's can be found by the boat load(they are actually easier to find on used car lots then on the road, and they are death to try to sell. Guess what the ALL get traded in for...). We stopped trying to sell RX8's long ago-they all go straight to wholesale, we don't need any gargoyles on the used car lot.
Don't understand the support whatever stuff, Ford owns Mazda, Renault Nissan, and Germany isn't a communist or terror nation either

C&D 'testers' have never figured out how to drive powerful cars, so who cares what they say anyway?

 

Well, that is a good illustration of potential over execution. The front suspension design is rather similar to a 3-series BMW or even the old Flat Rock built, Mazda-engineered Probe/MX6/626, which was pretty darned good (I know, I have both). But the inherent strengths of the design were compromised by poor, overly stiff tuning typical of Detroit that generally results in pretty impressive test-track numbers but horrible real-world road manners.

BMWs, on the other hand, generally don't have particularly exotic suspensions, heck, my M3 has good ol' McPherson struts just like the Hyundai econo-beater rustin next to it. The difference is the exquisite fine tuning and balance that BMW imparts upon these relatively pedestrian pieces. The result is typically excellent if hardly stunning test track numbers but real world hanlding, performance and balance that borders on the preternatural.

It doesn't help that the GT's clumsily tuned front suspension is further let down by a rear suspension that does, in fact, resemble a 20-, or 50-, year old truck suspension and brakes more befitting the above-mentioned Hyundai than a true track car with the Shelby name on it.

Sure, a big, honking motor is great, as the GT certainly does have, but is hardly the end all, be all of a broad spectrum performance car. The Shelby GT clearly is a quick, cheap (well, for Ford and Shelby at least) and easy FRPP catalog throw-together project that unforetunately suffers greatly from any real chassis tuning to make all those tossed together parts actually play well with each other.

 

wtf..

 

Perhaps for the Ford Racing Performance Parts, but I don't sense that in the GT.

Having only driven BMWs on the street and not the track (including the latest 3 Series), it is my experience that the rear suspension makes a difference in a relative comparison. Also, the solidity of the structure, along with the steering feel, make it an enjoyable drive.

I don't sense a clumsily tuned front suspension. The turn-in is good, the bite is decent at about 6/10 driving (I have not yet autocrossed this car), and the turning radius is reasonable for a car this size.

As for the rear, depsite it being a live axle, it is better optimized than the last generation in the street version. It would be better (most likely) with an indepedent set-up, of course, as has been mentioned here many times.

I am not so certain that it is just "thrown together", based on the tuning that was done between Ford Racing and Multimatic, where these parts were run in a race settings.

It has been my experience that some auto writers seem to extend the hyperbole so much that one thinks something is either better or worse than it really is. In comparison to the group, it might have been "lacking", but when people drive these on the streets, you might be talking about differences that are not as noticeable, except in certain situations. I have have drive a few independent rear suspension cars (Nissan 300ZX, 350Z) that one would swear were jumpy like a live axle car when going into a corner with sharp, short bumps that were close together.

In my opinion, you need to drive it to make an assessment.

PS - I think a 6.0L V8 or bigger is a "honking motor".