2013 Shelby GT500 Revealed

[JCE]

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.

McLaren hit the nail on the head here. My Mountaineer has excellent sound deadening materials, very good tires, very good touring suspension, with a lovely torque-filled Ford Modular V8. So that being said at 100mph on a deserted road it feels like 70mph. Even though I hate my wife's RX-8 with a passion it has a very good balance of speed sense and actual speed. Go 100 and you feel like you're going 100. Go 70 and you feel like you're going 70.

But, once you start passing vehicles and or road signs on the motorway at 100+ mph that alone should give you the sensation of speed day or night--and at 140mph+ it would be ludicrous.

For grins, going 100 in my SVT Focus felt like I was going 160--that had a brutal sense of speed--albeit a bit skewed. I miss the days when everything worked and it wasn't in the shop. I almost feel like I was an Alfa owner with that car.

 

[McLaren]

It isn't.

It is, regardless of however many times you've probably sprayed your GTO at those speeds. As said, pass one car doing even 70mph at 140Mph+ & it is fast.

 

[Roush_fan_99]

I know this isn't really the same, but have any of you guys done the Richard Petty Driving Experience? I only had time to do the right-side ride-along where they limit the car to 165 (I was at Las Vegas Motor Speedway) and a Professional gives you 3 laps. I'm used to short track racing, 1/4th or 3/8ths mile ovals that take 15-16 seconds to do a lap. Then you do a 35 second lap (I can't remember the exact number) at LVMS, and the only thing that told me that I was going fast was the G-forces in the corner. I felt like I could eat my dinner on the backstretch and I could see the corner all the way out there down that backstretch.
However that's a big oval where all you see is the blur of the grandstands. My point is that doing 160 (or 202 )on the street ought to definitely feel fast because there are signs, poles, cars, etc. where there is an absence of those things on the track when you look at a blank white wall. Nevertheless, it was fun

 

[Blackbird.]

I know this isn't really the same, but have any of you guys done the Richard Petty Driving Experience? I only had time to do the right-side ride-along where they limit the car to 165 (I was at Las Vegas Motor Speedway) and a Professional gives you 3 laps. I'm used to short track racing, 1/4th or 3/8ths mile ovals that take 15-16 seconds to do a lap. Then you do a 35 second lap (I can't remember the exact number) at LVMS, and the only thing that told me that I was going fast was the G-forces in the corner. I felt like I could eat my dinner on the backstretch and I could see the corner all the way out there down that backstretch.
However that's a big oval where all you see is the blur of the grandstands. My point is that doing 160 (or 202 )on the street ought to definitely feel fast because there are signs, poles, cars, etc. where there is an absence of those things on the track when you look at a blank white wall. Nevertheless, it was fun

And also the roughness of a public road becomes very apparent. 👎

 

[Ls2BluGoat]

It is, regardless of however many times you've probably sprayed your GTO at those speeds. As said, pass one car doing even 70mph at 140Mph+ & it is fast.

Out of all the cars in my sig, you picked out the GTO, funny considering all 3 of them are more than able to reach 160. But no, I haven’t sprayed to 160, yet, and it is very well capable of achieving that speed without any of the mods I have in my sig. Definitely comparable to a 3-series bimmer or e46/e92 M3. It’s surprisingly very stable at those speeds, and I think Organ-Donor said it best. Sure it’s not a GTR, however his description of how your face nearly melts away is pretty fitting (especially from a standstill). In my Mustang? Feels like it’s about to come apart at those speeds, the Infiniti was the more or less the same. Everything’s fine until around 140+ where things start to get “floaty,” with LOTS of wind noise.

I can somewhat agree with your sentiment, but I very rarely go those speeds in the daytime where there’s other cars around, maybe if there’s a stretch of road where there’s no cars around I may do a quick pull to 100. But it’s mostly done at night and on the freeway when it’s empty. I guess it’s the speed junky in me coming out again. Titian Motorsports is just a stone throws away from me, and I get invited to their events every now and then. Riding in their twin turbo Supra and Gallardo make my cars feel like child's play in comparison.

 

[Kitten]

My Question is Whats the real HP??

The Last time on top gear was like 450 Lol

 

[Ls2BluGoat]

My Question is Whats the real HP??

The Last time on top gear was like 450 Lol

For the 2013 GT500? It’s a SAE certified 662 hp. / 631 ft-lb. torque compared to the 650 hp. / 600 ft-lb. of torque Ford offically released. So it seems like they underrated their car again.

 

[Kitten]

For the 2013 GT500? It’s a SAE certified 662 hp. / 631 ft-lb. torque compared to the 650 hp. / 600 ft-lb. of torque Ford offically released. So it seems like they underrated their car again.

 

[Slash]

For the 2013 GT500? It’s a SAE certified 662 hp. / 631 ft-lb. torque compared to the 650 hp. / 600 ft-lb. of torque Ford offically released. So it seems like they underrated their car again.

Ford has a bad habit of doing that.

 

[Zenith]

My Question is Whats the real HP??

The Last time on top gear was like 450 Lol

Oh dear, someone mistook Top Gear for real information.

Horsepower figures from manufacturers are rated at the flywheel (read: Engine). A dyno test measures horsepower at the actual wheels.

What the engine is always greater than what is actually put down on the road. It takes power to accelerate the transmission, driveshaft, differential, wheels, and all other rotating mass. It is physically impossible for a car to put down as much as its engine makes. For instance, a 1000hp Bugatti Veyron actually puts down closer to 800bhp to the wheels due to drivetrain loss.

Top Gear dynoed a 2007 GT500 at 447bhp. With a FR layout car, you can expect around a 15% loss of power to the drivetrain.

The GT500 is rated from the factory at 500hp (not bhp, hp). This means Ford says the engine is producing 500hp. To find the expected power the wheels actually put down we can use simple math.

500hp*.15=75

500hp-75= 425bhp

To find the drivetrain loss evident from the Top Gear test.

447/500 * 100 = 89.4%

100-89.4= 10.6% drivetrain loss

This means that in reality either the GT500 only lost about 10.5% of its power to the drivetrain or Ford actually underrated the GT500.

Top Gear attempted to make the GT500 look like an overrated car, so that's why they decided to leave the little (absolutely crucial) detail about drivetrain loss out of their test. In other words, Top Gear bends the truth.

The 2013 GT500 has dynoed at 600bhp. This is on the money for the 662hp claimed by Ford.

Research before you believe a single word that Top Gear says. 👍

 

[Cale]

My Question is Whats the real HP??

The Last time on top gear was like 450 Lol

They were also reading RWHP


Meh didn't read every post, feel no shame

 

[Kitten]

Oh dear, someone mistook Top Gear for real information.

Horsepower figures from manufacturers are rated at the flywheel (read: Engine). A dyno test measures horsepower at the actual wheels.

What the engine is always greater than what is actually put down on the road. It takes power to accelerate the transmission, driveshaft, differential, wheels, and all other rotating mass. It is physically impossible for a car to put down as much as its engine makes. For instance, a 1000hp Bugatti Veyron actually puts down closer to 800bhp to the wheels due to drivetrain loss.

Top Gear dynoed a 2007 GT500 at 447bhp. With a FR layout car, you can expect around a 15% loss of power to the drivetrain.

The GT500 is rated from the factory at 500hp (not bhp, hp). This means Ford says the engine is producing 500hp. To find the expected power the wheels actually put down we can use simple math.

500hp*.15=75

500hp-75= 425bhp

To find the drivetrain loss evident from the Top Gear test.

447/500 * 100 = 89.4%

100-89.4= 10.6% drivetrain loss

This means that in reality either the GT500 only lost about 10.5% of its power to the drivetrain or Ford actually underrated the GT500.

Top Gear attempted to make the GT500 look like an overrated car, so that's why they decided to leave the little (absolutely crucial) detail about drivetrain loss out of their test. In other words, Top Gear bends the truth.

The 2013 GT500 has dynoed at 600bhp. This is on the money for the 662hp claimed by Ford.

Research before you believe a single word that Top Gear says. 👍

Now i learned something new

 

[Cale]

delete please.

 

[Ddrizle]

Into the 9's

 

[Blackbird.]

Yeah that's Evolution Performance's GT500.

 

[Cano]

Research before you Don't ever believe a single word that Top Gear says. 👍

Fixed.

 

[YSSMAN]

First Comparison Test: Inside Line​

Well, we've had our first published comparison test and as it turns out, I was exactly right. The Mustang is a hell of a car in a straight-line, but the ZL1 takes it in the corners.

1st Place: 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
An unrivaled combination of precise control, ample power and a strikingly refined — and multitalented — chassis.

2nd Place: 2013 Ford Shelby GT500
More brawn than brains, which isn't a bad thing. Unless there's a ZL1 nearby.

There's a lot going on in the article, definitely worth a read. I was fully-expecting the opposite. I think most of us were.

 

[CodeRedR51]

^^^ Was posted on last previous page.

Edit: @ video.

 

[Organ-Donor]

Yeah that's Evolution Performance's GT500.

I love that, the look, the sound, . What kind of power was it putting on the dyno?

 

[Cano]

I was looking at some pictures of the thing... coolest tail-lights in Mustang history? I freaking LOVE how they look.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They are very menacing indeed.

 

[Slash]

Nah 1970 still wins that. 1967/68 then this.

 

[Organ-Donor]

I was looking at some pictures of the thing... coolest tail-lights in Mustang history? I freaking LOVE how they look.

Agreed, even better at night. To be honest I think this is one of the best looking Mustangs of the last 25 years, if not the best ever.

 

[Cano]

I don't like the front at all. The rear iss spectacular.

 

[jergto]

I love the front, and the back looks way better than any '05+ Stang.

This is a beast car for sure, I can't wait till they bring out some track data, that insideline "track" test is bs. That test shouldn't be the complete answer to which will be better on track.

I remember reading about the v6 Mustang and how it was faster than 370z, STi, Evo (all of which have better skidpad #s than the mustang).

Poor insideline, when magazines do a REAL track comparison they are going to eat their own words!

 

[Slash]

I don't like the front at all. The rear iss spectacular.

The front looks like 1970.

 

[Blackbird.]

I was looking at some pictures of the thing... coolest tail-lights in Mustang history? I freaking LOVE how they look.

I agree.

Dat Ass.

 

[Cano]

The front looks like 1970.

All the car looks like 1970. The front just doesn't do it for me. Never has since we got the new aesthetics, not even in Shelby trim, altough it does look better than the regular GT. The new rear is amazing, even though I agree with you that 1969-70 is also one of the best rears.

 

[Slash]

I agree, the only huge differnce is that fastback doesn't go to the taillights. 2005-2009 look like a reworked 1964-1968.


EDIT:

Comparison

1964-1966 Mustang Coupe + Fastback

1967-1968 Mustang Coupe + Fastback

2005 Mustang Coupe

The window in the fastback resembles 1966

1970 Mustang Coupe + Fastback as Compared to 2010-Present

2010 - Present

You can't tell me at all that 2013 doesn't look like 1970 at all....


For the sake of looking it up, my opinion on the best Tailights throughout the years are in this order:

1970 (OMG):

1967-68 Normal

1967-70 Shelby

2010-2013 Mustang

1969 Mustang

1964-1966 Mustang

1994-1997 Mustang

1994-1997 Cobra

1998-2004 Mustang

1971-1973 Mustang

2005-2009 Mustang

1974-1978 Mustang

1979-1993 Mustang w/ Cheesegrater

1979-1993 Mustang Normal

That's how I'd rank them over the years anyway.

 

[Ddrizle]

Autocar First drive review: Ford Shelby GT500 Convertible

Back "in the day", straight-line acceleration might have been all you’d ask for from a pony car. Not today. One expects to be able to give good chase to a BMW M even when you’re on the back roads. And that’s where Ford has pulled off a second technological coup. The new Bilstein adjustable shocks are operated by a push of the dash-mounted button and can be instantly switched from “Normal” mode to “Sport,” which speeds up response time, while reducing both body roll and pitch under braking. And braking is markedly enhanced over a more mainstream Mustang thanks to the Shelby GT500’s big Brembos.

Credit: Paul A. Eisenstein