Road & Track tests the 2008 Shelby Super Snake

[Joe Fan]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6056


Seems kind of suspect that a 605 hp car only did a 4.4 sec 0-60 and a 1/4 mile of 12.5 seconds, when the 500 hp GT500 did 4.6 and 12.8. Three tenths of a second faster than the 500 hp GT500 in the 1/4 mile? A 100 additional horsepower should equate to about a full second improvement in the 1/4 mile.

Let me drive it and I'd bet that I could squeeze it into the 11s. Or maybe they just need to take off those 20 inch wheels and put on some 17 or 18 inch wheels.

Now I wonder what the 725hp upgrade Super Snake would do in the 1/4 mile. I had estimated high 10s but based on this info above, it appears to be low 12s.

If this is the case, I am getting happier by the minute with my lightly modded 2007 GT and its 4.8 sec 0-60 and 13.4 sec 1/4 mile for 30 grand.

 

[LV51FER]

Here's why it's not much faster:

 

[Power4]

LOL LV51FER. Yeah I love Mustangs but I would just never be able to buy one of those, even if I had the money, ultra-powered variants especially from Shelby. If I were rich I would much rather get a GT then modify it the way I want and produce comparable numbers. I don't even have to be rich to do so either

 

[Joe Fan]

Here's why it's not much faster:

I don't think it should be that much heavier than a GT500.

One thing I will add, when Road & Track tested the 2005 Mustang GT, their 1/4 mile time for a manual was 13.9 seconds. Car & Driver got 13.5 secs out of a manual. So one wonders who the hell is testing these cars for Road & Track, 400lb women?

 

[tomustang]

*

 

[Joe Fan]

Well that settles why the 0-60 is bad

Massive wheelspin? I read that and it appears that Shelby is looking at finding different tires that hook up better.

 

[1965coupe]

The peeling stipes cause drag... Thus slowing the car down..

Who cares how well they perform- most of the guys that buy them won't even let them see the light of day.. They'll be locked up for 20 years..

 

[joeymustang]

a guy over here is doing just that with his 06 gt....spent 6 grand on the original body kit...guess hell spend like 15 in the whole drivetrain....and you've got yourself a gt 500 clone for a lot less

 

[kooldawg6]

The performance #s are traction limited. A year or so ago, there was an upgraded Ford GT with about 100 more HP and it's 0-60 time was actually .1 second slower than stock. Cars like these are not factory drag cars, but could do alot of damage on a road course Compare the Super Snake and stock GT500 on a road course and see what happens. Added power and better suspension will easily win. It's already been proven by the Roush Stage 3 toasting the GT500 that way, but it did it with less HP and weight.

 

[homebrewer]

I agree with Kooldawg.... traction and tires play a huge amount into the numbers. It may seem simple and cheap to fix, but like someone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these cars ever make it out of their trailers.

While it may only put down those numbers, look at some of the muscle cars from the hey-day of muscle cars, and imagine what they can do with modern tires. Hell, in 1970, the HEMI challenger could run a mid to low 14 second quarter at around 104... And that's from an engine that was poorly underated, and actually made around 500 hp of more.

What it boils down to, for me at least, is how it feels. While the numbers might not be there, if the fun factor is, that's all that matters. The only place that bench racing matters is here online.... Out on the street/strip, the only thing that matters is how it feels. The numbers are just that.... numbers.

 

[Revlefty]

It's gotta be the 20s. I bet it'll pick up at least 1/2 second with even the wheels from the GT500.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I sink about as much faith in initial Magazine testing as I do that Strype will ever land Elisha Cuthbert. Evan Smith ran 12.5 in a bone stock (right down to the air filter) GT500 a year or so back. Remember when Hot Rod racked off a staggering 13.3 with an '03 Cobra, yet were able to run 13.0 with an STi? It's funny how Evan Smith (yet again) was able to run consistent 12.7's in a '03 Cobra (Convertible) no less with a little practice.

These cars have a LOT more potential in them than whats generally been wrung out of them by a couple of "jack of all trades" stunt drivers, at a cold track on a weekend photo shoot.

 

[Joe Fan]

It's gotta be the 20s. I bet it'll pick up at least 1/2 second with even the wheels from the GT500.

I don't know what the fascination is with 20 inch wheels these days. Sure, they look fashionable and Chip Foose-like but they aren't good performance tires for 0-60 and 1/4 mile ratings. And I would expect a Super Snake to be all about performance.

 

[kooldawg6]

Evan Smith is a great drag racer(he got a bone stock manual S197 GT to run 13.3). Most of the staff at MM&FF really put the Stangs through it's paces. They have broken many parts/cars during testing getting every last drop of power to the ground. On the other hand, you have the "other" mags kind of taking it easy as they have to return the cars in working/unbroken condition. Plus I highly doubt most of them have the skills that Evan does, so it's no shock to see a huge gap in the times. Another thing is that New Jersey(MM&FF)weather conditions are usually better for performance than California where most of the other mags test.

 

[300bhp/ton]

On ething these mags do highlight though is that some of these less than brilliant ET's are more reprosentative of what most of "Jo" Pulic are likely to see.

We all know a Terminator is way quicker than a STi but in the hands of a novice the STI is probably easy to get quicker off the line due to its 4wd setup.

605hp means that is a MONSTER of a car and capable of speeds way in excess demonstrated so far.

 

[Joe Fan]

Another thing is that New Jersey(MM&FF)weather conditions are usually better for performance than California where most of the other mags test.

I went back and looked at Road & Track test of the 2005 Mustang as there is a link to their car tests in that article. When they got 13.9 sec 1/4 mile out of a 2005 GT, they listed the weather during the test at the bottom as 91 degrees, 35% humidity and a track elevation of 350 feet.

Why they didn't list barometric pressure is beyond me as this is nearly important as temperature and more important than humidity on times.

And why they don't density altitude correct these test numbers is also beyond me as it levels the playing field for other tests and eliminates any accused manufacturer bias as they could test some makes in better weather conditions.

 

[1965coupe]

I sink about as much faith in initial Magazine testing as I do that Strype will ever land Elisha Cuthbert.

ROTFLMFAO!!!

 

[Daggar]

So one wonders who the hell is testing these cars for Road & Track, 400lb women?

Nope....

View attachment 351195

You didn't think she was dead, did ya?


I've always considered both car and driver and road and track to be grocery isle car rags that only folks with more money than brains lend any credence to.

 

[85ragtop]

Nope....

View attachment 351193

You didn't think she was dead, did ya?


I've always considered both car and driver and road and track to be grocery isle car rags that only folks with more money than brains lend any credence to.