2013 Shelby GT500 Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter boomee
  • 546 comments
  • 55,726 views
That's odd. Seems like a slow 0-60 and a slow quarter mile. But he achieved over 200mph? :confused:
 
That's odd. Seems like a slow 0-60 and a slow quarter mile. But he achieved over 200mph? :confused:

200mph just requires a heavy foot.
 
Looking at the article

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-06-09/finance/32125969_1_gt500-ford-mustang-mustang-bullitt


He only references the 200mph top speed as he would a spec sheet. It seems that he didn't actually test the top speed.

To help the GT500 achieve its marquee top-speed number of 202 mph, the SVT team chose to use a relatively leggy 3.31 rear-axle ratio.

Obviously, for a $60,000 Ford Mustang with a factory warranty, 202 mph is a dumbfounding number. The cars in which I’ve gone over 200 mph include a Ruf Porsche 911, two Bugatti Veyrons and a jet-powered dragster. So, respect. And yet I am not eager to verify the top-speed claims for the GT500, which, with its nearly decade-old exterior design/aerodynamics, is probably quite spooky at civil-aviation speeds.


The quarter-mile times are from his experiences at a drag strip. I can't see anything about a 4.2 second 0-60 time.

my best elapsed time was 12.334 seconds with a trap speed of 119.12 mph. My worst was 12.4 seconds, when I bobbled the third-gear upshift. OK, I am officially no longer bored.
Zero to 60 mph in 4 seconds is enormously quick, to be sure, and not having to shift from first to second gear saves at least two-tenths.

Also, I have no idea why it says "bullitt" in the URL.
 
The 0-60 was 4.1 sec in the spec box. In the actual Wall Steer paper it was in the same 'specs' area as the 202mph top speed, which is confusing because that 0-60 should be quicker because that's the car specs, not his actual 0-60 time.

Blackbird.
That's odd. Seems like a slow 0-60 and a slow quarter mile. But he achieved over 200mph? :confused:

The 0-60 and top speed were just the cars specs (which 4.1 sec seems way slow). And the slowish 1/4 mile time was due to bad track prep I think.
 
Last edited:
And balls.

Maybe. 160mph doesn't seem all that fast to me when I'm a car. My uncle has a 2010 Challenger R/T with a few mods and we had it up to 160. Didn't feel fast at all. I'll be honest.
 
160mph doesn't seem fast to you? I think you need to re-check your perception of speed again....
 
160mph doesn't seem fast to you? I think you need to re-check your perception of speed again....

Maybe. I'm being completely serious though. Now, don't get me wrong. I know it's fast as hell and really dangerous and I know better than to drive at such speeds. HOWEVER. When doing this and sitting inside it just didn't feel fast at all, to me it felt like traveling at about 100.
 
No guys, it's totally like 8 inches!

:sly:
 
No guys, it's totally like 8 inches!

:sly:


:lol:


I think it was just cause I felt safe in it for some reason, all the bulkiness of the car. Ah well.
 
Maybe. I'm being completely serious though. Now, don't get me wrong. I know it's fast as hell and really dangerous and I know better than to drive at such speeds. HOWEVER. When doing this and sitting inside it just didn't feel fast at all, to me it felt like traveling at about 100.

I did 145 in my 3000GT VR4 and it was bloodying ****ing fast. Even 120 in the wife's RX8 felt fast.
 
140 in my Mustang felt pretty damn fast too. I agree, your perception of speed is jacked up at a dangerous level. :p
 
I can't seem to understand why it would be though
 
Well I've driven a Challenger R/T and they're big but not big enough to distort the perception of speed to that extent.
 
Well I've driven a Challenger R/T and they're big but not big enough to distort the perception of speed to that extent.

Like I said, I'm aware of the dangers etc but I can't seem o bring together why it felt the way it did. I've been that fast in other cars and it felt fast but in that car it didn't feel fast at all. They are limited to 140 but like I said a few mods change it all.

Come to think about it, in my truck I feel the same way. With the lift and big tires 90 feels like 55.
 
Last edited:
Now I'm completely convinced your perception of speed is skewed. The only way you couldn't possibly understand how fast a 160mph is that you did it at night with nothing around.

As BB said, a Challenger isn't the kind of car that can make a 160mph feel slower & I know for a fact your truck will not make 90mph feel like 55mph. We're not talking about a BMW or a Mercedes that manages to cruise quietly at over 120mph & gives the perception that you may actually be doing 80mph. Even my TL at 100mph feels more like 70mph, but once you pass someone at over a 100mph in any car, you should be fully aware of just how fast you're traveling.
 
Now I'm completely convinced your perception of speed is skewed. The only way you couldn't possibly understand how fast a 160mph is that you did it at night with nothing around.

As BB said, a Challenger isn't the kind of car that can make a 160mph feel slower & I know for a fact your truck will not make 90mph feel like 55mph. We're not talking about a BMW or a Mercedes that manages to cruise quietly at over 120mph & gives the perception that you may actually be doing 80mph. Even my TL at 100mph feels more like 70mph, but once you pass someone at over a 100mph in any car, you should be fully aware of just how fast you're traveling.

I really think it is too. I cannot begin to explain it, it's just messed up. I was on an open back road where there was literally nothing but flat, straight road and a field on either side as a precaution. We took it out and opened her up to see what she could do. I'm willing to bet with more road it'll do faster.

Being up in the air with the big tires on it feels slow as all hell, I'll be straight up with you. Like I said, I am fully aware of the speed the whole time it just feels slower than it really is.
 
Don't make sense to me.
Generally big trucks on big tires going fast tend to feel like they are going faster than they are simply because the speed has an exaggerated affect on the vehicle due to the counter-productive nature of big truck features (when trying to go fast).
Frankly, I have my doubts. :rolleyes:

That said, I've never done 160mph (just close and in a few different cars).
 
Don't make sense to me.
Generally big trucks on big tires going fast tend to feel like they are going faster than they are simply because the speed has an exaggerated affect on the vehicle due to the counter-productive nature of big truck features (when trying to go fast).
Frankly, I have my doubts. :rolleyes:

That said, I've never done 160mph (just close and in a few different cars).


When I was younger, what you described is exactly how I felt. I'm now 17 and it's exactly the opposite.
 
That Camaro just got raped...
 
That Camaro just got raped...

Are we reading the same comparison? :odd:

Seems like the testing area was low on grip, that explains the high 0-60 times for both cars.

I'm not understanding why Edmund's is trumpeting the gearshift of the Camaro as a marquee of superior practicality when the visibility and gas mileage are both horrid.

Also this:
This gearing is purely a marketing tool designed to achieve stunning 0-60 numbers and a headline-worthy top speed.

... In regards to the GT500 hitting 60 in first gear.

I believe that there are dozens of cars on the market that do this including the Corvette and Viper. It's a common practice for performance cars with a traditional stick-shift

I'll defer to Edmund's experience as far as handling goes, but I'm going to withhold judgment until we get a real track test. Skidpad numbers have always been fairly meaningless.

At least one thing is clear, the Shelby needs better rubber. It weighs 250lbs less but only manages to stop 1 foot shorter? For shame.
 
Did you read the article?

Er, did you read the entire article or is your Ford bias REALLY that st-upid-rong?

Are we reading the same comparison? :odd:

Seems like the testing area was low on grip, that explains the high 0-60 times for both cars.

I'm not understanding why Edmund's is trumpeting the gearshift of the Camaro as a marquee of superior practicality when the visibility and gas mileage are both horrid.

Also this:


... In regards to the GT500 hitting 60 in first gear.

I believe that there are dozens of cars on the market that do this including the Corvette and Viper. It's a common practice for performance cars with a traditional stick-shift

I'll defer to Edmund's experience as far as handling goes, but I'm going to withhold judgment until we get a real track test. Skidpad numbers have always been fairly meaningless.

At least one thing is clear, the Shelby needs better rubber. It weighs 250lbs less but only manages to stop 1 foot shorter? For shame.




:lol: :lol: :lol:


Guys COME ON! I know I'm Ford biased but man I'm joking (I know you think I'm serious sometimes) Haha.

:lol:

I read it. Even though it has more power overall they seem almost equal. Provided the Camaro actually handles better.
 
The only GM product I would ever own is a Corvette,to me Camaro's are just ehh...
 
Ls2BluGoat
It isn't.

160 mph isn't fast? You're kidding right. Compared to race cars no but compared to the average car and driver it very much is.
 
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks its not.
 
160 mph in my GTR felt very fast, but 120 in my Z06 felt faster because how smooth the GTR is, and how much more it weighs. Cruising at 100 in the GTR feels like 60, but 100 in the Z06 feels like 100.

When taking off in the GTR its so quick with milisecond gearshifs makes it hard to comprehend when you look at the spedo reading 80mph. Just so smooth and deceptive. The Z06 *feels* much faster due to the gear shifts throwing you back into your seat. The GTR puts you back in your seat, but you just stay there, planted, with your face sliding off.

And that was an interesting read on the Shelby GT500 vs Camaro
 
Last edited:
Back