Shelby tops Roush and Saleen

226embarcadero · Mar 3, 2008

Read an interesting article in this month's edition of Motor Trend.

It pitted a new Shelby vs. a Roush stage 2 and Saleen.

Long story short, MT found the Shelby performed the best and was the most preferable of the bunch.

It was great for me to read it, because I am such a fan of Shelby Mustangs... and most people here always take issue when I mention their superiority to Roushes and Saleens.

Couldn't find the article online, but I found the road tests for the Shelby and Roush in separate.

Enjoy..

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0804_2008_shelby_gt_c/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0804_2008_roush_stage_2/

LV51FER · Mar 4, 2008

They like the Shelby GT in the UK too. It's the GT500 they think is the poor relation.

Power4 · Mar 4, 2008

Too bad Motor Trend is a bunch of sell-outs. They'll make up anything as long as they're handed enough money. I stopped trusting those magazines a long time ago.

ufnavy06 · Mar 4, 2008

That's why I trust those Brits on Top Gear.

romancer · Mar 4, 2008

LV51FER said:
They like the Shelby GT in the UK too. It's the GT500 they think is the poor relation.

Link?

cowtown · Mar 4, 2008

I love top gear a lot, in fact we have viewing parties at my house when I get a few episodes of a new series however you have to be careful about what they represent on the show, in particular around Mustangs.

The last one where I went WTF?! They had a Mustang racing an RC car (and loosing). They said oh yeah it's a 500HP fire breathing beast from tuner Shelby. They were saying it was a GT500 when in this case it was just a Shelby GT.

At any rate, yeah the mags are blatantly biased, especially Automobile with their love of BMW and the Vette. Not that they're bad cars mind you, but it's like.

"In this battle of budget hatchbacks the BMW is the best choice out there."

"In our offroad battle the Z-06 easily beat the Range Rover and was far more comfortable than a Jeep Commander, we choose it as our off road vehicle of the year. "

226embarcadero · Mar 4, 2008

Power4 said:
Too bad Motor Trend is a bunch of sell-outs. They'll make up anything as long as they're handed enough money. I stopped trusting those magazines a long time ago.

OK, but how do you argue with statistics? They Shelby was largely faster and performed better.

Stangshark · Mar 4, 2008

I just got done reading this article. I was given this subscription by gift not preference! I dont know how you are claiming it was largely faster after reviewing the data. Straight from MotorTrend:
0-100mph
Roush 13.4 Secs
Saleen 13.7 Secs
Shelby 13.8 Secs

1/4 mile
Roush 13.8@100.9
Saleen 13.7@102.1
Shelby 13.8@102.5

HP/Torque on Dynp
Roush 261/286
Saleen 277/292
Shelby 273/304

Figure 8
Roush 25.5 Secs
Saleen 25.6 Secs
Shelby 24.9 Secs

True the magazine gave it to Shelby, but they also tested a stock mustang GT. MotorTrend pg. 64 said, "...the GT was also the slowest, but not by much-0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.9 at 101.7 mph-trailing the quickest of the tuners by only .02 second. It trailed in handling, too, but again not by leeps or bounds...And if it were our money? We'd take the GT and pocket the change."
I totally agree with this last statement. While I like certain after market parts offered by the above companies, I would rather buy the suspension from them instead of paying at least $11,000 more for cosmetic appearances. Added to the fact $4,000 will start you in the right direction of boosted applications. I do like the look of the Shelby just not the price tag. And this is only my opinion.

o0Dan0o · Mar 4, 2008

Stangshark said:
Straight from MotorTrend:
0-100mph
Roush 13.4 Secs

1/4 mile
Roush 13.8@100.9

So according to them the Roush basically dies at 100 mph, since it took .4 seconds to get from 100 to 100.9...
Dan

anticubicle · Mar 4, 2008

Honestly, I wouldn't waste my $$$ on any of the tuner cars if they're all-motor.

walter · Mar 4, 2008

anticubicle said:
Honestly, I wouldn't waste my $$$ on any of the tuner cars if they're all-motor.

+1 I thought we were talking about supercharged cars but then I saw that. Still I wonder how the Bullitt would fare mixed in with that bunch?

I prefer putting money in a GT and building it piece by piece instead of buying an overpriced package which might not have what you want in it.

1965coupe · Mar 4, 2008

Here we go again.

opcorn:

LV51FER · Mar 5, 2008

romancer said:
Link?

http://www.evo.co.uk/search/?words=Shelby&submit_dn=SEARCH

THe initial GT500 review was favourable but a fuller test (no link here) was a little less flattering (I believe they tested it against the Monaro VXR500 which is the blown HSV version of your GTO).

We have two main motoring programmes here, the more reporting based show being Fifth Gear:
Here's the review: http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=d01&featureid=571
Here's the video: http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=900&vseek=mustang&go.x=12&go.y=10

The other is Top Gear which is purely for entertainment purposes and cheap laughs. Facts don't really bother them if they get in the way of a cheap laugh and so far as serious testing is concerned, can be relied upon about as much as Abbott and Costello. Despite their jibes at the Mustang, it has still come out of it well, a GT being pitted against a supercharged Exige and doing surprisingly well.

They didn't much like the GT500, it has to be said but then they didn't like the Corvette C6 or Z06 either (whereas Fifth Gear did especially the Z06 which they made their Performance Car Of the Year).

The best use of Top Gear is their track and the GT500 was 2 seconds slower than the Roush supercharged Mustang despite the Roush being down 65hp. They haven't done the Shelby GT.

www.bbc.co.uk/topgear

226embarcadero · Mar 5, 2008

Stangshark said:
True the magazine gave it to Shelby, but they also tested a stock mustang GT. MotorTrend pg. 64 said, "...the GT was also the slowest, but not by much-0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.9 at 101.7 mph-trailing the quickest of the tuners by only .02 second. It trailed in handling, too, but again not by leeps or bounds...And if it were our money? We'd take the GT and pocket the change.

Yes I also read that little sidebar... and was quite surprised to find the GT so quick to the stock "higher end" models.

If you're looking for performance, it definitely makes sense to go with the GT and avoid paying all the extra cash.

Shelby, Saleen and Roush (minus the extravagant performance enhancements) are largely for status.

Shelby tops Roush and Saleen

226embarcadero

New Member

LV51FER

New Member

Power4

Member

ufnavy06

Member

romancer

New Member

cowtown

226embarcadero

New Member

Stangshark

Member

o0Dan0o

anticubicle

New Member

walter

1965coupe

Member

LV51FER

New Member

226embarcadero

New Member

Similar threads

Shelby tops Roush and Saleen

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency