2013 Shelby GT500 Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter boomee
  • 546 comments
  • 54,512 views
Keef
The 2013 car has many other improvements that will help it all-round, including better tires and better launch control and all that jazz. Should perform noticeable better than the current car, even in short acceleration sprints.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it should. Just like the 2007+ GT500 should have been a much, much better car all around than the 2003-2004 Cobras. The only thing that definitely improved was the interior, only cause it couldn't get any worse than the mustangs from those times.
Cobra weighed less but ford pretty much had 4-5 years between the cars and they barely improved.
I just don't have much faith. They did great with the BOSS but this will be same as the previous gt500, me thinks.
 
Zeneth why...compared Sport Sedans with a two door, super car. That's why GM built the CTS-V. The RS4, RS5, BMW M3 or M5 and C63 AMG are not in the same class as the GT500. Now the Challenger 392 and ZL1 Camaro are the closest thing to the GT500 and we know how that test is going to go, so MT, C&D and Automobile aren't going to waste the time and money for something so highly predictable.

Z06 is a reasonable test to the GT500 price wise and power wise. ZR1, GT-R and even the new Viper are hypercars at a entry level price with a dynamic punch to the more expensive counter parts from europe...oh and that one japanese car that runs six figures.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Zeneth why...compared Sport Sedans with a two door, super car. That's why GM built the CTS-V. The RS4, RS5, BMW M3 or M5 and C63 AMG are not in the same class as the GT500. Now the Challenger 392 and ZL1 Camaro are the closest thing to the GT500 and we know how that test is going to go, so MT, C&D and Automobile aren't going to waste the time and money for something so highly predictable.

Z06 is a reasonable test to the GT500 price wise and power wise. ZR1, GT-R and even the new Viper are hypercars at a entry level price with a dynamic punch to the more expensive counter parts from europe...oh and that one japanese car that runs six figures.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the RS4, CTS-V, M3, M5, or C63 AMG were comparable to the GT500. At least I think that's what you're saying. I'm a bit confused by the paragraph...

I understand why MT, C&D, and Automobile would test the GT500 against a Z06. That's not my point. I was responding to Organ-Donor who said...

Organ-Donor
Except I bet the Shelby won't put up great performance numbers considering it's high HP, which will have more horses than a lot of supercars .
Click to expand...

This is what I disagree with.

What cars we should test the GT500 against is another matter.
 
Zenith013
I didn't say that the RS4, CTS-V, M3, M5, or C63 AMG were comparable to the GT500. At least I think that's what you're saying. I'm a bit confused by the paragraph...

I understand why MT, C&D, and Automobile would test the GT500 against a Z06. That's not my point. I was responding to Organ-Donor who said...



This is what I disagree with.

What cars we should test the GT500 against is another matter.
Click to expand...

Zenith013
You're comparing a low slung, two seat sports car to a Mustang? :odd:

A GTR, M3, or C63 AMG would be a more apt comparison, but the buyer demographics could hardly be any more different.
Click to expand...

This ^ why I made the comment I did. It came off as if the mustang should be compared to those. GTR maybe but the other two hardly. Yet it seems that may have not been what you were trying to say.
 
Zenith013
I understand why MT, C&D, and Automobile would test the GT500 against a Z06. That's not my point. I was responding to Organ-Donor who said...

This is what I disagree with.
Click to expand...

History doesn't lie. I will bet you for having 662hp, the big horsepower figure will be its only bragging right, besides the projected 200mph mark. I may be proven wrong, I guess time will tell.

And you did make it sound like it was weird to test the Z06 vs GT500, saying "you're comparing a low slung two seat sports car to a mustang? :odd:"

Zenith013
I didn't say that the RS4, CTS-V, M3, M5, or C63 AMG were comparable to the GT500. At least I think that's what you're saying. I'm a bit confused by the paragraph...
Click to expand...
Yes you did, you said an M3 or c63AMG would be a more apt comparison than a Z06:
Zenith013
You're comparing a low slung, two seat sports car to a Mustang? :odd:

A GTR, M3, or C63 AMG would be a more apt comparison, but the buyer demographics could hardly be any more different.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Organ-Donor
History doesn't lie. I will bet you for having 662hp, the big horsepower figure will be its only bragging right, besides the projected 200mph mark. I may be proven wrong, I guess time will tell.

And you did make it sound like it was weird to test the Z06 vs GT500, saying "you're comparing a low slung two seat sports car to a mustang? :odd:"
Click to expand...

See even organ finds what you say now and you typed then a bit wierd, not to be rude Zenith I'm just trying to understand you at this point.

Also when Ford get rid of the solid rear axel maybe try linked rear instead of leaf springs (I think that's what I saw could be very wrong). Then we can sit and talk but until then, they're the best rocket for the money it seems. Yet there are plenty of cars on the market that play th role of rocket and race car so why just go with one.

I love the mustang look wise and sound.
 
Organ-Donor
And you did make it sound like it was weird to test the Z06 vs GT500, saying "you're comparing a low slung two seat sports car to a mustang? :odd:
Click to expand...
"I can understand why" ≠ "I agree with why."

Organ-Donor
Yes you did, you said an M3 or c63AMG would be a more apt comparison than a Z06:
Click to expand...
Which... isn't the same thing as saying they are directly comparable. It's saying that it is easier to compare them, and he accounts for how different they still are by explicitly pointing out why their differences still make direct comparisons difficult (in this case, that they are so different in demographics that a test would be useless).
 
Last edited:
Can you make an argument without completely missing the point you are responding to or did I catch you on an off day?


I happen to agree with what he (and, earlier, Eunos_Cosmo) is saying, so I'm so sorry that I'm trying to defend his point when you keep arguing things he never said.
 
Organ-Donor
History doesn't lie. I will bet you for having 662hp, the big horsepower figure will be its only bragging right, besides the projected 200mph mark. I may be proven wrong, I guess time will tell.
Click to expand...

This is a different issue. If you want to say that the GT500 won't put up great performance numbers, that's fine. Only tests will show.

But when you say that the GT500 won't put out great performance numbers because you're comparing a Mustang to a Corvette, that's where I believe you're making an error.

And you did make it sound like it was weird to test the Z06 vs GT500, saying "you're comparing a low slung two seat sports car to a mustang? :odd:"
Click to expand...

Toronado
"I can understand why" ≠ "I agree with why."
Click to expand...

^That. Here's the post I was quoting and responding to with "I understand why."
Now the Challenger 392 and ZL1 Camaro are the closest thing to the GT500 and we know how that test is going to go, so MT, C&D and Automobile aren't going to waste the time and money for something so highly predictable.
Click to expand...

Moving on...

Yes you did, you said an M3 or c63AMG would be a more apt comparison than a Z06:
Click to expand...

An M3 would make a more apt comparison, but still not a good one. What Toronado said in the second part of his post. Sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting that we should test a GT500 against an M3. I wasn't.

LMSCorvetteGT2
Also when Ford get rid of the solid rear axel maybe try linked rear instead of leaf springs (I think that's what I saw could be very wrong). Then we can sit and talk but until then, they're the best rocket for the money it seems. Yet there are plenty of cars on the market that play th role of rocket and race car so why just go with one.
Click to expand...

See top.
 
Last edited:
Zenith013
This is a different issue. If you want to say that the GT500 won't put up great performance numbers, that's fine. Only tests will show.

But when you say that the GT500 won't put out great performance numbers because you're comparing a Mustang to a Corvette, that's where I believe you're making an error.





^That. Here's the post I was quoting and responding to with "I understand why."


Moving on...



An M3 would make a more apt comparison, but still not a good one. What Toronado said in the second part of his post. Sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting that we should test a GT500 against an M3. I wasn't.



See top.
Click to expand...

Okay, it's fine I was just confused a bit but I understand. I wasn't trying to criticize just make sense of it. Thanks. To be honest I think Ford is trying to challenge the supercar pack (which is massive in this day and age), rather than the entry level sport car pack. I believe the Boss 302 will take car of everything else for ford.
 
boomee
Challanger 392 is not in the same league as the zl1 or gt500
Click to expand...

We've already established that, but as far a high end new age muscle cars go. All three are in that same formula, thus they would be paired together. Performance wise, no they're not the same, package wise and price they are almost on parallel ground.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Performance wise, no they're not the same, package wise and price they are almost on parallel ground.
Click to expand...

[Offtopic]Which makes the Challenger the big loser. :yuck: Before I got my mustang I was looking at Camaros and Challengers as well. The Challenger is not worth the money they're asking compared to the mustang and the camaro.[/off topic]
 
Mustang and camaro are and always have been pony cars. Challenger has always been a big and heavy muscle car.
Only comparison between the cars is the retro styling, even that is questionable in 2 of the 3 cars.
 
eSZee
Mustang and camaro are and always have been pony cars. Challenger has always been a big and heavy muscle car.
Only comparison between the cars is the retro styling, even that is questionable in 2 of the 3 cars.
Click to expand...

The Challenger/'Cuda was Chrysler's anwer to the Mustang/Camaro.
 
eSZee
Mustang and camaro are and always have been pony cars. Challenger has always been a big and heavy muscle car.
Only comparison between the cars is the retro styling, even that is questionable in 2 of the 3 cars.
Click to expand...

Not true. The Challenger/Cuda were pony cars as well.
 
Well, the Challenger always was larger and heavier than the Camaro and Mustang, designed to compete with them or not, so I guess that has carried over.
 
eSZee
Mustang and camaro are and always have been pony cars. Challenger has always been a big and heavy muscle car.
Only comparison between the cars is the retro styling, even that is questionable in 2 of the 3 cars.
Click to expand...

Not true, and the two users below show why.
 


Edit: One of the comments on YouTube says that someone on GM Inside News website is claiming the car ran the track in 7:35. (Unofficial of course)
 
Last edited:
lol 7:35 my ass... Nuburgring after a rain shower with a time of 7:32??. That ass was going everwhere while in 1st into 2nd
 
eSZee
Yeah. Me replying after them kind of implied I had read their replies.
Click to expand...

oh really:dopey:

R1600Turbo
Did you even watch the whole video? :odd:

It was making hot laps in dry conditions after the 1:00 mark....
Click to expand...

Think you answered your own question R1600, but I still think that was a great run by the Mustang. Maybe this GT500 will take more ques from the Boss.
 

Latest Posts

Back