Thoughts on the 2007 Shelby GT500

[Duke]

C.R.Y., look at like this. The new GT500 is like that girl with large breasts you want to do from a distance, but up close you notice she has crooked teeth. And a pirate limp. (lal @ GT500 handing well. Compared to what? a 69 charger?)

 

[C.R.Y.]

i dont think your a evo dickrider. a evo dickrider wouldve put the evo on a throne. about the times, it does run the same times as a lambo. and it wasnt posted by anybody on any forum. it was in an article in a magazine (not no car and driver, or motortrend) whos ford and mustang based, yet managed to drive a BMW M3 into the 12s and an fbody camaro (just to show their not biased). they also managed to have the mustang trap not too far from 120 in the quarter. that is gallardo numbers and near murcielago numbers. them magazines dont mean shit though. because they didnt push the car to its potential. people who own the cars push them the hardest and show what its capable of. its the same thing with EVERY car. im sure you trust people on forums too, because you mentioned that people from evolutionm.net had hit 12s. as long as they provide details and timeslips, even videos, why not trust them?
had it not been for those "untrustworthy" people on the internet, we would only rely on magazines. and truth is the magazines are biased and idiotic. IIRC i read on car and driver, some idiot was driving the a lamborghini and complaining about the ride quality. how the hell do you complain about ride quality in an exotic cars. its not no GT car. it happens very often in magazines.

heres a bolton, pulley changed, and tuned gt500 making over 570rwhp. http://youtube.com/watch?v=rxYf1lf97Bc

heres the same one running 10s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1on034QnCyw

 

[Duke]

i dont think your a evo dickrider. a evo dickrider wouldve put the evo on a throne. about the times, it does run the same times as a lambo. and it wasnt posted by anybody on any forum. it was in an article in a magazine (not no car and driver, or motortrend) whos ford and mustang based, yet managed to drive a BMW M3 into the 12s and an fbody camaro (just to show their not biased). they also managed to have the mustang trap not too far from 120 in the quarter. that is gallardo numbers and near murcielago numbers. them magazines dont mean shit though. because they didnt push the car to its potential. people who own the cars push them the hardest and show what its capable of. its the same thing with EVERY car. im sure you trust people on forums too, because you mentioned that people from evolutionm.net had hit 12s. as long as they provide details and timeslips, even videos, why not trust them?
had it not been for those "untrustworthy" people on the internet, we would only rely on magazines. and truth is the magazines are biased and idiotic. IIRC i read on car and driver, some idiot was driving the a lamborghini and complaining about the ride quality. how the hell do you complain about ride quality in an exotic cars. its not no GT car. it happens very often in magazines.

heres a bolton, pulley changed, and tuned gt500 making over 570rwhp. http://youtube.com/watch?v=rxYf1lf97Bc

heres the same one running 10s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1on034QnCyw

Because those magazines do not solely look at quarter mile figures to determine whether something is a good car or not. Which they're right for doing.

And CRY, you can MAKE any car fast. That's not the issue. Sure you can tune the GT500 so it handles it's power better and rips shit. I, and Deeez, are looking at what the car does when it leaves the factory.

 

[C.R.Y.]

Because those magazines do not solely look at quarter mile figures to determine whether something is a good car or not. Which they're right for doing.

And CRY, you can MAKE any car fast. That's not the issue. Sure you can tune the GT500 so it handles it's power better and rips shit. I, and Deeez, are looking at what the car does when it leaves the factory.

from the magazines i read, they just thought it wasnt good enough in the 1/4 mile. and that the corvette was the better car. otherwise i seen nothing but good talk about it.

and out of factory it does alot. its just that nobody sees it. it was hanging with the vette around corners while providing more grip. and does the 1/4 mile in the low 12s at 118mph bone stock, how is that not good times considering it weighs 3900lbs and cost 45k. dont say the mustang doesnt perform good because a magazine only pulled high 12s at 113. if it ran a better time, then it shows that its more capable than what other people made it out to be. because the low 12 run was showing its real potential. thats like if a z06 only ran 13s. does that mean it cant go above that because i couldnt drive it as hard? no it just means i cant drive for shit. but if someone can push it harder and harder without doing anything to the car, than that means the car was more capable. same case with the mustang. youre saying the car wasnt capable because of the driver. but truth is that it is capable, just put a good driver in there. because you can have the fastest car, but if you dont have a good driver the car is shit.

it doesnt matter if youre an amature driver, so dont bring up that those are pro drivers. because if you buy the car, you can practice on it since its yours. you can improve you 1/4 times and the way you take corners until you turn good with it. nobody was born a professional driver, they practiced until they got good. if you cant drive for shit, getting a faster car wont help. because youll still drive like shit unless you learn to drive better and improve.

it is right there with a gallardo in the quarter mile that cost over 150k. sure it has 500hp and i know it should do better. but for 45k those are good times, good power and good handling. what other cars can you buy for that price in the market? a vette, g35, an srt8 vehicle. i dont know of any other cars that can put out times like that stock and be cheap.

i dont care what the magazines said they run and i dont think anyone should. because they dont push them to the potential. because it wont be them driving when i go to the track. it will be me. and if i do things right, id be able to bring out the real potential of the car. thats why i think magazine racing is stupid. everybody i know of (i go to automotive school) thinks its stupid. because when you go to the track, what the magazines says isnt shit. its what you are capable of, and what the car is capable of. its like if the magazine state an evo runs 13s. i run at the track and pull 12s out of it stock. doesnt what i did count more than what the magazine did?

the only thing i would trust magazines on is opinions about the cars features and quality, except for some of their stupidity. even then, id rather schedule a test drive to make my decision, that can change your opinion around completely. heres an example. before i drove my uncles srt8, i drove a grand national. had anyone asked me if i would rather have the grand national or a cherokee srt8, id probably say the GN. but that changed after i drove the srt8. im sure the grand national would be faster after some mods, but the cherokee pulled hard, had a nice interior, great handling, 4wd for snow, and would work great as a car to drive everyday. its not the fastest thing for 425hp, but its fast. the gt500 is the srt8. because its a great quality car, with great power, great interior, and great handling. even though with 500hp it couldve performed better, it still performed good.

its like if the magazine state an evo runs 13s. i run at the track and pull 12s out of it stock. doesnt what i did count more than what the magazine did?

 

[C.R.Y.]

Because those magazines do not solely look at quarter mile figures to determine whether something is a good car or not. Which they're right for doing.

so what. thats like dissing an evo because it cant do a burnout. because an exotic car wont have great ride quality. its a car meant to perform, not provide great ride quality. thats why you would buy a cadillac or a range rover. i know they dont look only at 1/4 mile times. thats common sense because they review cars as a whole. but dont thrash a car thats meant for one thing for not having the characteristic of another. i can imagine them bitching about the lotus elise because the seats dont move, theres no cruise control, its small, and has a harsh ride quality. its meant to handle like a gokart thats why. now if a benz had horrible ride quality i would bitch

 

[tennis_dog]

is taking your car to high RPMs bad?? duke said that there are two drivers...one that want torque, the other want high redlined cars....dont you blow an engine that way??

 

[tennis_dog]

what does the "ECT POWER" button do in my lexus...oddly enough, my manual says nothing abot it

 

[C.R.Y.]

is taking your car to high RPMs bad?? duke said that there are two drivers...one that want torque, the other want high redlined cars....dont you blow an engine that way??

not if the engine is built for it. you can take a stock. integra type r thats chipped and make 9000rpms, although you wont make more power up there since the stock cams stop making power at 8000rpms. but an engine that wasnt built for revving high, it can go kaboom. not all engines do. but its a risk you take. example: a single turbo supra on completely stock motor, except cams, can rev to like 7500rpms (revs to 6800rpms stock) with no problem. but you cant take it to 9000rpms unless you have a built motor. same thing with V8s. if it redlines like at 6500rpms, you can probably push it to 7000rpms. but dont try no 8000rpms. you will blow your motor. and if you dont, chances are it wont last long.

 

[C.R.Y.]

what does the "ECT POWER" button do in my lexus...oddly enough, my manual says nothing abot it

it holds the gear longer so you can take it closer to redline.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

it was hanging with the vette around corners while providing more grip.

And this is based on what? The same magazines you denounce?

it doesnt matter if youre an amature driver, so dont bring up that those are pro drivers. because if you buy the car, you can practice on it since its yours. you can improve you 1/4 times and the way you take corners until you turn good with it. nobody was born a professional driver, they practiced until they got good. if you cant drive for shit, getting a faster car wont help. because youll still drive like shit unless you learn to drive better and improve.

They ARE professional drivers. While they might not be Mustang experts, they have been doing various tests beyond straightline acceleration on all sorts of cars--naturally aspirated, turbocharged, I-4, I-6, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-12, AWD, FWD, RWD, etc.--for years, and they don't have to drive a specific car for weeks upon weeks to wring out its potential. Even if I were to buy a GT500 tomorrow, I could eventually learn the car's dynamics and know how to get the best acceleration and track times; however, those magazine journalists will be able to do that within the first few minutes of getting into the car, whereas even your run-of-the-mill above-average driver would need to hit the drag strips and autocross courses a few times. I do agree that you can practice on your own car and potentially push it to 100% of its ability (something that not all journalists do on a consistent basis, though they get close), most owners will not even come close to 100%, and I will continue to trust journalists more. Why? Because it's not their car, so they could car less about driving the shit out of a car and potentially breaking something or rolling it, whereas a car owner will take extra precaution and not willingly test the car's limits on a regular basis.

but for 45k those are good times, good power and good handling.

Will you PLEASE stop saying that. At close to 4000 pounds with a live rear axle, the Mustang, whether in regular, GT or GT500 trim, is a pig with two left feet. The only thing that gives it a fighting chance on anything with turns is its powerful engine that helps make up on the straights for its shortcomings in handling.

i dont care what the magazines said they run and i dont think anyone should. because they dont push them to the potential. because it wont be them driving when i go to the track. it will be me. and if i do things right, id be able to bring out the real potential of the car. thats why i think magazine racing is stupid.

You SHOULD care what magazines say they run, for the reasons I have been stating for the last couple days. However, don't put all your money on just one magazine; my point is that all magazine testers from different publications are all good drivers and try to test their cars in similar, realistic conditions (with full tanks of gas and everything in place, since some guys only have 1/4 tank or yank out stuff like the spare tire when dragging, which is why I don't always believe all those internet websites), and you look for patterns and consistency. So if several magazines are running 12s in one car or another car corners at 1.0g, then it's pretty safe to mirror claims made by publications. However if one magazine has times that are much faster or much slower then the others, then obviously it is an outlier and you can't always call it a valid test until others mirror similar numbers.

even then, id rather schedule a test drive to make my decision, that can change your opinion around completely.

Good luck getting a test drive in a fast car at age 17. At a dealership, that is, unless you've got more uncles with other cars.

its like if the magazine state an evo runs 13s. i run at the track and pull 12s out of it stock. doesnt what i did count more than what the magazine did?

Yes, but car models and makes aside, you will never have a driver who completely obliterates car magazine's performance test results that drastically. While I do believe that there are drivers who can probably surpass a few magazine results by a tenth or two, more than that is VERY unlikely.

Also, I would recommend putting more stock on something other than quarter-mile times and trap speeds. There's 60-0 braking, skidpad, slalom speed, road course times, top speed, power-to-weight ratio, coefficient of drag, fuel efficiency and so much more stuff. Talk about those numbers for once.

 

[Duke]

And this is based on what? The same magazines you denounce?

They ARE professional drivers. While they might not be Mustang experts, they have been doing various tests beyond straightline acceleration on all sorts of cars--naturally aspirated, turbocharged, I-4, I-6, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-12, AWD, FWD, RWD, etc.--for years, and they don't have to drive a specific car for weeks upon weeks to wring out its potential. Even if I were to buy a GT500 tomorrow, I could eventually learn the car's dynamics and know how to get the best acceleration and track times; however, those magazine journalists will be able to do that within the first few minutes of getting into the car, whereas even your run-of-the-mill above-average driver would need to hit the drag strips and autocross courses a few times. I do agree that you can practice on your own car and potentially push it to 100% of its ability (something that not all journalists do on a consistent basis, though they get close), most owners will not even come close to 100%, and I will continue to trust journalists more. Why? Because it's not their car, so they could car less about driving the shit out of a car and potentially breaking something or rolling it, whereas a car owner will take extra precaution and not willingly test the car's limits on a regular basis.

Will you PLEASE stop saying that. At close to 4000 pounds with a live rear axle, the Mustang, whether in regular, GT or GT500 trim, is a pig with two left feet. The only thing that gives it a fighting chance on anything with turns is its powerful engine that helps make up on the straights for its shortcomings in handling.

You SHOULD care what magazines say they run, for the reasons I have been stating for the last couple days. However, don't put all your money on just one magazine; my point is that all magazine testers from different publications are all good drivers and try to test their cars in similar, realistic conditions (with full tanks of gas and everything in place, since some guys only have 1/4 tank or yank out stuff like the spare tire when dragging, which is why I don't always believe all those internet websites), and you look for patterns and consistency. So if several magazines are running 12s in one car or another car corners at 1.0g, then it's pretty safe to mirror claims made by publications. However if one magazine has times that are much faster or much slower then the others, then obviously it is an outlier and you can't always call it a valid test until others mirror similar numbers.

Good luck getting a test drive in a fast car at age 17. At a dealership, that is, unless you've got more uncles with other cars.

Yes, but car models and makes aside, you will never have a driver who completely obliterates car magazine's performance test results that drastically. While I do believe that there are drivers who can probably surpass a few magazine results by a tenth or two, more than that is VERY unlikely.

Also, I would recommend putting more stock on something other than quarter-mile times and trap speeds. There's 60-0 braking, skidpad, slalom speed, road course times, top speed, power-to-weight ratio, coefficient of drag, fuel efficiency and so much more stuff. Talk about those numbers for once.

Aye, good post. CRY seems fixated with horsepower and straight line acceleration numbers, but there's a whole lot more to a car than that.

And on those fronts, the American hamburger technology falls hopelessly short.

Cheap way to get 500 hp and thrills? Aye. It's also an unsophisticated lump of iron.

Given the choice to buy a car for 45k, I sure as hell wouldn't get a GT500.

 

[C.R.Y.]

And this is based on what? The same magazines you denounce?

to be honest yeah, a little bit. but mostly from what ive read on the internet.

They ARE professional drivers. While they might not be Mustang experts, they have been doing various tests beyond straightline acceleration on all sorts of cars--naturally aspirated, turbocharged, I-4, I-6, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-12, AWD, FWD, RWD, etc.--for years, and they don't have to drive a specific car for weeks upon weeks to wring out its potential. Even if I were to buy a GT500 tomorrow, I could eventually learn the car's dynamics and know how to get the best acceleration and track times; however, those magazine journalists will be able to do that within the first few minutes of getting into the car, whereas even your run-of-the-mill above-average driver would need to hit the drag strips and autocross courses a few times. I do agree that you can practice on your own car and potentially push it to 100% of its ability (something that not all journalists do on a consistent basis, though they get close), most owners will not even come close to 100%, and I will continue to trust journalists more. Why? Because it's not their car, so they could car less about driving the shit out of a car and potentially breaking something or rolling it, whereas a car owner will take extra precaution and not willingly test the car's limits on a regular basis.

they dont push their cars? ive seen a shitload of owners from different cars on the internet who push their cars in autox, circuit racing, drifting, and drag racing even though its theirs. what im trying to get at is that they cant wring out its potential as good as other people. those other people bring out better times on the same car. so the car can do better.

Will you PLEASE stop saying that. At close to 4000 pounds with a live rear axle, the Mustang, whether in regular, GT or GT500 trim, is a pig with two left feet. The only thing that gives it a fighting chance on anything with turns is its powerful engine that helps make up on the straights for its shortcomings in handling.

it might weigh alot but who said it cant handle good?

You SHOULD care what magazines say they run, for the reasons I have been stating for the last couple days. However, don't put all your money on just one magazine; my point is that all magazine testers from different publications are all good drivers and try to test their cars in similar, realistic conditions (with full tanks of gas and everything in place, since some guys only have 1/4 tank or yank out stuff like the spare tire when dragging, which is why I don't always believe all those internet websites), and you look for patterns and consistency. So if several magazines are running 12s in one car or another car corners at 1.0g, then it's pretty safe to mirror claims made by publications. However if one magazine has times that are much faster or much slower then the others, then obviously it is an outlier and you can't always call it a valid test until others mirror similar numbers.

what if that magazine had a better driver? theyre not good drivers if they cant pull the best times out of it. thats what im trying to say. theyre average drivers. those same people who barely pulled a 15 second 1/4 out of an Si got beat by the owners who managed to put down mid 14s and the same stock car. and even if they did lighten it up, remember that 100lbs only equals 1/10th in the 1/4 mile. which leaves the rest to having a better driver, and #2 nobody that i know that goes drag racing tries carrying around the most weight. whenever i go to the track (e-town, atco) every car that i see is empty. theres no realistic conditions in drag racing. when you go to the track you can prep the car, like change tire pressure, take spare tire out, etc. its not like theres people carrying their laundry in their backseat lol. and if youre street racing, well then youve got another problem to worry about.

Good luck getting a test drive in a fast car at age 17. At a dealership, that is, unless you've got more uncles with other cars.

that was an example. besides the car i look to buy in the future isnt in dealerships. give you a hint: its a toyota

Yes, but car models and makes aside, you will never have a driver who completely obliterates car magazine's performance test results that drastically. While I do believe that there are drivers who can probably surpass a few magazine results by a tenth or two, more than that is VERY unlikely.

idk bout you, but a tenth or two is like 1 or 2 cars of difference. thats big enough of a difference if you ask me. especially when were supposed to expect them to bring "the best" out of the car.

Also, I would recommend putting more stock on something other than quarter-mile times and trap speeds. There's 60-0 braking, skidpad, slalom speed, road course times, top speed, power-to-weight ratio, coefficient of drag, fuel efficiency and so much more stuff. Talk about those numbers for once.

skidpad: 0.90gs
70-0: 172ft (only 11ft behind vette and weighs like 700lbs more)
drag coeff: is 0.38
top speed: 155mph governor limited

i cant find the rest right now though. since its almost time for me to leave to school, my bus comes at 11:21

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Aye, good post. CRY seems fixated with horsepower and straight line acceleration numbers, but there's a whole lot more to a car than that.

Precisely, but keep in mind he's 17, and when you're that young you're not necessarily into every aspect of cars. I'm not dissing his age, but a lot of us will agree that you tend to learn things at an exponential rate during your adult years that re-shape your views and make you dig deeper beneath the surface.

And on those fronts, the American hamburger technology falls hopelessly short.

Yes, only now has GM started adapating DOHC VVT and direct injection to their upcoming 3.6-liter V-6 that is supposed to have a maximum output of 267 hp. While it's a step in the right direction, they're years behind, plus the 3.5-liter V-6 engines it competes with all existed YEARS ago, and most had more hp and torque when they debuted. So imagine if Ford sacked up and developed similar technology and applied it to the Mustang V-8. They could've made similar numbers, but with a smaller, lighter V-8 (maybe their 4.6-liter) that would allow to car to be a bit quicker and more nimble.

Given the choice to buy a car for 45k, I sure as hell wouldn't get a GT500.

Exactly. I could care less about the bragging rights of 500 hp. I'd want decent quality and all-around performance up to today's standards. It definitely has a lot of pull once you have traction, but straightline sprints are only fun for so long.

 

[tennis_dog]

hell, if i had 45 grand i'd get a loaded lexus is350..... or a stock GS... dunno...but it'd move me above and beyond a GTO...which is what i'd get with 35 or 36 grand....

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

hell, if i had 45 grand i'd get a loaded lexus is350..... or a stock GS... dunno...but it'd move me above and beyond a GTO...which is what i'd get with 35 or 36 grand....

An IS350 would be a good choice, but I don't think a GS is really worth it, unless you regularly haul around four people who are all above 5'10". But for $45k, I think the best (brand new) all-around car out there would have to be the BMW 335i Coupe. BMW handling, lagless and underrated twin-turbo I-6, up to 29 mpg, plus the luxury that comes with the nameplate. You won't be bitchslapping any cars on the drag strip or on a road course, but it's such a good overall package.

 

[tennis_dog]

aren't the M3's the ones that are turbocharged??? i dont think the regular 3 series are....but i could be wrong...i'll go look it up...

and as for the GS, im 6'2ish and growing, so.... the hybrid GS sounds nice too, but i think hybrids are kinda overrated.... plus in a luxury car...i dont think so.... but lexus is also coming out with the ls600h.... i think that's a hybrid to get....v6 mileage and v10 performance....sounds to good to be true, so we'll wait for the reviews, but lexus, if they're wrong, can't be too off... the new ls430's are dope though

 

[tennis_dog]

nope, you were right.... it is turbocharged...my bad... 41 grand

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_335i.asp

with the usual off topic question, how do they assign the letters at the end of beemers...they always got to me...xi, xci, xli, whatever the hell the rest are... same thing, actually, with other cars...GL, LE, LS...

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

with the usual off topic question, how do they assign the letters at the end of beemers...they always got to me...xi, xci, xli, whatever the hell the rest are... same thing, actually, with other cars...GL, LE, LS...

ci usually means coupe, xi usually means AWD, if there's an L (it's usually uppercase and after the i) that means it's the long wheelbase version (usually only in the 7-Series). Most other car makers don't have as consistent of a lettering system.

 

[C.R.Y.]

Precisely, but keep in mind he's 17, and when you're that young you're not necessarily into every aspect of cars. I'm not dissing his age, but a lot of us will agree that you tend to learn things at an exponential rate during your adult years that re-shape your views and make you dig deeper beneath the surface.

age doesnt have nothing to do with it. i enjoy all aspects of cars and enjoy all cars. from evos, to 68 camaro, and even the ariel atom. but if only looked at one aspect i wouldve picked the bugatti because it puts out the best numbers. i didnt even look at one aspect on the mustang. i looked at price, interior, hp, handling, stopping distance, looks, sound, modability, etc. i looked at it as a whole package like i do every car and thought it was a good deal for 45k which is how i feel. but i dont look at one aspect. it mightve looked like one aspect because i only talked about performance. but thats how the debate got started. on performance.but i always look at all aspects of a car. hence why my perfect DD would be a C6 vette or a srt8 cherokee. i even show it in one of my favorite cars, which is the gt500 eleanor. its my dream car, but not because of power or handling. but because i can imagine driving a car that has the modern look (the rims, grille, paint job, etc) with the old school fastback body, mixed in with the old school interior and muscular sound

 

[C.R.Y.]

Yes, only now has GM started adapating DOHC VVT and direct injection to their upcoming 3.6-liter V-6 that is supposed to have a maximum output of 267 hp. While it's a step in the right direction, they're years behind, plus the 3.5-liter V-6 engines it competes with all existed YEARS ago, and most had more hp and torque when they debuted. So imagine if Ford sacked up and developed similar technology and applied it to the Mustang V-8. They could've made similar numbers, but with a smaller, lighter V-8 (maybe their 4.6-liter) that would allow to car to be a bit quicker and more nimble.

i think the mustang gt does have VVTI or something like it.