Shelby GT500 sucks !

greg97svt · Jun 11, 2006

Being a mustang owner myself, it hurts to say this. But after reading Car&Driver and Road&Track this new Shelby looks like a total crap. 500hp! So what? If it can't beat a entry level corvette, this mustang is just a poser.
So you guys will say this mustang is a heavy pig, right? But that's no excuse for the slo-mo performance. Look at the BMW M6: heavier than mustang, same HP, but the performance is day and night difference Ok, mustangs got no traction...But how come the heavier bimmer leaves 1/4 mile 9 mph faster?
Ok, this mustang is still a pre-roduction, blah, blah. Either way, it will never get close to 121 mph. Yes, I know the BMW costs more than twice. But most of that money goes for refinement and luxury, not for a drag race.
Something terribly wrong here: either M6 underrated or our beloved pony overrated.
Sad but true.

Before you post the comments, please read the article:http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11151/2007-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500.html

05MGT · Jun 11, 2006

Read my post about my take on the C&D test.

greg97svt · Jun 11, 2006

05MGT said:
Read my post about my take on the C&D test.

I've read it. And I do agree with you on those subjective measures.
But you can't deny the performance facts. If you say Car&Driver is pro-Chevy, then let it be. Road&Track tested the mustang and it was slow as well. (112 trap speed if I remember)
If a muscle car, like this Shelby, can NOT perform well on a straight line, then where can it? It is a shame that 500hp car traps at mere 112 mph. Ford claims 115...still slow. How come the bimmer made121 mph???
I'm pissed at Ford. This GT500 is more show than go.

05MGT · Jun 11, 2006

So do a pully swap and drop in some 3.73's or 3.55's. It'll be a beast then.

sacrstang · Jun 11, 2006

I picked up the Car and Driver issue at my local Costco. I was disappointed with the review. But everyone on these boards knows that the 2007 Shelby is priced way to high. Lets begin at that point and then it might have started with all this Barret Jackson thing thats going on. Shelby and Ford may have gotten into a room together and made plans to price the pony car to high. They said lets see if we can make some money on the latest trend with these guys with wheel barrels of cash (the barret jackson guys) and you know what happened next, one of the guys at the auction gets a bid in to get first crack at one of the GT500s.
Then Car and Driver sees the $41,000-45,000 price tag of the GT500 and says lets compare what you can get in same price range. So there you have it the pony car being compared to one of chevys better cars. I think the price suks and the marketing behind the car suks as well.

greg97svt · Jun 11, 2006

05MGT said:
So do a pully swap and drop in some 3.73's or 3.55's. It'll be a beast then.

Trap speed would increase, but ET would be the same. This pig is way too much nose heavy. You would think that Ford learned it's mistake with previous mustangs...Ford designers should be in jail for this mistake. Almost 60% of weight is in the front...How stupid they are

66_stang · Jun 11, 2006

C/D SUCKS at road testing, infact, i'm willing to bet 5 dollars that within the first few weeks of the GT500 being released, 11 second time-slips from stockers will be seen. F c/d

greg97svt · Jun 11, 2006

66_stang said:
C/D SUCKS at road testing, infact, i'm willing to bet 5 dollars that within the first few weeks of the GT500 being released, 11 second time-slips from stockers will be seen. F c/d

While ET varies on traction, the trap speed stays more or less the same. 11sec times maybe are feasible with lots of clutch slip and powershifting, but I don't think 121 trap speed is possible in stock trim.

greg97svt · Jun 11, 2006

And I would like to see what a time slip a Bimmer magazine would get if they tested their M6. Probably 11.9 at 125 ??

boss377 · Jun 11, 2006

The obvious handicap is the rear end. Whatever the reason; probably EPA BS,
Ford/Shelby used the 3.31 gears. This ratio is also now the standard rear in the '07 GT, with the 3.55's the optional set. Maybe now Ford will rethink their choice of ratio and correct their mistake before production starts.

sacrstang · Jun 11, 2006

sacrstang said:
I picked up the Car and Driver issue at my local Costco. I was disappointed with the review. But everyone on these boards knows that the 2007 Shelby is priced way to high. Lets begin at that point and then it might have started with all this Barret Jackson thing thats going on. Shelby and Ford may have gotten into a room together and made plans to price the pony car to high. They said lets see if we can make some money on the latest trend with these guys with wheel barrels of cash (the barret jackson guys) and you know what happened next, one of the guys at the auction gets a bid in to get first crack at one of the GT500s.
Then Car and Driver sees the $41,000-45,000 price tag of the GT500 and says lets compare what you can get in same price range. So there you have it the pony car being compared to one of chevys better cars. I think the price suks and the marketing behind the car suks as well.

A couple more things I only got the dang magazine because the Shelby was on the cover. I am not saying the GT500 sucks, it is Ford and its sleezy dealerships that I have a problem with. Heck who knows I may fall prey to the evil dealerships if the deal is to sweet to pass up.

bigcat · Jun 11, 2006

read the other mag that compares it to the GTO and charger SRT8. it blows them away.... pre-production testing means nothing. lets see what really happens when they come out. until then everyone is crying about something that may or may not be true. lets get the real unbiased facts before forming an opinion!!

toolttime · Jun 11, 2006

so what don't buy if you don't like it

QCStang · Jun 12, 2006

Did anybody notice that C&D drove the Shelby with Traction Control ON?!??!

FLY2kGT · Jun 12, 2006

LOL...how in the world can you compare a $40,000 Mustang to a $71,000 BMW or a $65,000 Corvette? You could buy the GT500 AND a GT for the price of one of those! Trust me when I say that if you take that extra $25,000 to $31,000 you save on the Mustang, it will eat both the BMW and Corvette like a 6 month hostage! I say if you are going to compare vehicles and their respective performance, you should be at least in the same price range (or close to it). But using your pricing guidelines, I guess everyone out there that bought a new $16,000 Cobalt SS should be upset that it can't compete with the Mustang GT???? (And that's only a $10,000 difference) Doesn't make sense does it?

Bowtiesblow · Jun 12, 2006

FLY2kGT said:
LOL...how in the world can you compare a $40,000 Mustang to a $71,000 BMW or a $65,000 Corvette? You could buy the GT500 AND a GT for the price of one of those! Trust me when I say that if you take that extra $25,000 to $31,000 you save on the Mustang, it will eat both the BMW and Corvette like a 6 month hostage! I say if you are going to compare vehicles and their respective performance, you should be at least in the same price range (or close to it). But using your pricing guidelines, I guess everyone out there that bought a new $16,000 Cobalt SS should be upset that it can't compete with the Mustang GT???? (And that's only a $10,000 difference) Doesn't make sense does it?

There comparing it to a base C6, which starts in the low 40's. A $65,000 ZO6 would piss on the GT500.

bigcat · Jun 12, 2006

a $65,000 Z06 has markups just like the GT500, so the price is not as close as it seems.

nwoh50 · Jun 12, 2006

QCStang said:
Did anybody notice that C&D drove the Shelby with Traction Control ON?!??!

That wouldn't shock me with the # they get out of some cars. There a joke anymore.. who really buys C&D anymore--there times up

mattkimsey · Jun 12, 2006

This car is definately a let down. 4000lbs is just too heavy plain and simple. The price is almost 45k and that is with no markup. For that price, I want a more well rounded car -- I wouldn't care if the GT500 runs 10's with bolt-ons.

I still say they should have went with a all alluminum 5.4 @430-440hp and a 3300-3400lb curb weight. Price it at 37k (with no gas tax) fully loaded and it would be a 'Vette killer. According to the C&D article, the GT500 doesn't even have a spare. With the spare and IRS this car would've been close to 4300lbs!!

The new Camaro @ 3500lbs, with IRS, 403hp and a base price within 2k of a GT sounds really good right now.

DarkFireGT · Jun 12, 2006

If it's anything like the GT's, the stock programming sucks. A programmer and intake alone would cure alot, I'm sure.

Shelby GT500 sucks !

greg97svt

New Member

05MGT

New Member

greg97svt

New Member

05MGT

New Member

sacrstang

New Member

greg97svt

New Member

66_stang

Member

greg97svt

New Member

greg97svt

New Member

boss377

New Member

sacrstang

New Member

bigcat

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

toolttime

New Member

QCStang

FLY2kGT

Bowtiesblow

New Member

bigcat

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

nwoh50

New Member

mattkimsey

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

DarkFireGT

Playing with my wife's really makes me want one.

Similar threads

Shelby GT500 sucks !

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

New Member

New Member

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

New Member

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

Playing with my wife's really makes me want one.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency