If the GT500KR Isn't Enough: Shelby Builds the 'Super Snake' (725 BHP!)

[YSSMAN]

ford can ditch the rear axle. The frame is loosely based on the licoln ls, so if they wanted to, they could. Ford had IRS in the cheaper, last gen cobra 99-2003, and guess what? Owners and potential owners ASKED for a live rear axle in new one, cause the IRS wasnt as good as putting power down on the drag strip. Mustang customers, for the most part, are NOT concerned with corners. Acceleration, durabilty, weasy of modification, thats it. Go to a mustang board and you will find forums for how to do the IRS to live axle swap.

Spot-on there. And it isn't as though the Mustang doesn't handle well, it just isn't quite as responsive as some of the other cars. But a good driver, with a heavy foot, and the knowledge that you have to be slow-in and fast-out, chances are that the Mustang would hold its own against the competition. Case in point, the most-recent C/D test of the Shelby GT against the TT 2.0t, 350Z, and RX-8...

Spring Mountain: Radical Loop

- Nissan 350Z: 1.29:30
- Audi TT 2.0t: 1.29:85
- Mustang Shelby GT: 1.30:75
- Mazda RX-8: 1.32:20

Not bad for a car with a LRA and a weight disadvantage, plus the lack of a 'fancy' suspension (alike the TT), etc...

 

[McLaren]

Nissan 350Z - 306Bhp (According to Nissan USA)
Audi TT 2.0 - 200Bhp (According to Audi USA)
Ford Mustang Shelby GT - 319Hp on Premium
Mazda RX-8 - 232Bhp (according to SAE Standard Rates)

Is this a trend? Mustangs getting beat on the track by cars with 100less Hp?
Oh wait, the Mustang is built for drag racing, no matter the spec.

Not bad for a car with a LRA and a weight disadvantage, plus the lack of a 'fancy' suspension (alike the TT), etc...

No, that IS bad. These are the things Ford needs to be implicating to make the Mustang much more competitive, in any form of racing. That 'fancy' suspension once again, shows that America's goal is "More Power" rather than "Better Suspension!" of the Germans. The Germans just seem to be good at making our cars look like Muscle Cars of the 60's.

YSSMAN, care to also share what place that Mustang finished in the overall status?

 

[YSSMAN]

I could really care less if it finished last. Personally speaking, I'd rather have the Mustang than the other cars in the test... But simply put, thats because I'm an ass-backwards American who has no idea what a good performance car is, watches NASCAR, and drinks beer. God forbid we build a $27,000 car that can hold its own, but can't quite match the other cars that are THOUSANDS MORE.

Jesus f'ing Christ man, you guys need to lossen up about stuff like this. You can't go out and actually expect a Mustang, a blue-collar 'sports car' to go and outdo cars that have stupid amounts of money invested in God-only-knows technology to make it just a bit faster than the competition. So what if Ford cut a few corners, made the Mustang cheaper, and made it handle a bit worse than the competition.

Get over yourself. Get over the fact that the Germans and the Japanese are better. I just don't care anymore. You've completely written off what the Mustang was all about, and completely missed the target.

Considering that the $27K Mustang (yes, I know that the Shelby is priced at $36K... performance differences are minimal, mods can be done by ones self for $3K) can match the cars that are generally more expensive (350Z, $28-30K, RX-8 $28-30K, TT says $35K here), thats a damn-good-job in my opinion.

...Stop complaining. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy a Mustang instead of your beloved Lamborghini...

 

[Joey D]

If you are looking for a cheap American sports car why not just get a Solstice? I think the GXP is up there with the price of the V8 Mustang and that thing is both straight line and cornering fast. I can't wait to drive one because they are such awesome cars.

 

[McLaren]

I could really care less if it finished last. Personally speaking, I'd rather have the Mustang than the other cars in the test... But simply put, thats because I'm an ass-backwards American who has no idea what a good performance car is, watches NASCAR, and drinks beer. God forbid we build a $27,000 car that can hold its own, but can't quite match the other cars that are THOUSANDS MORE.

Ford Mustang Shelby GT - $27,000 (Premium GT Base; Shelby GT built upon this.)
Nissan 350Z - $27,900
Audi TT 2.0 - $34,800
Mazda RX-8 - $27,030.

Thousands more? Where the hell do you get your figures from. We're not building $27,000 cars that can hold their own. We're building $27,000 cars that are getting tail whooped by less powered vehicles. And maybe, if Ford get its head straight, that if we actually put enough work to make the Ford a $34,080 base car, it would actually kick some ass.

Jesus f'ing Christ man, you guys need to lossen up about stuff like this. You can't go out and actually expect a Mustang, a blue-collar 'sports car' to go and outdo cars that have stupid amounts of money invested in God-only-knows technology to make it just a bit faster than the competition. So what if Ford cut a few corners, made the Mustang cheaper, and made it handle a bit worse than the competition.

Excuse me. What about GM sitting in Detroit bragging about, how they will have Carrera GT performance. What about Ford sitting their letting FR500GT buyers know magazines called it, "The Killer Mustang!"?

We don't expect it too. We know it won't. But it's the companies themselves, Ford and Chevrolet who let this bag of air out.

A Nissan does not have stupid amounts of money invested in it. It's the SAME F'ING price as the Shelby. Hello! Want to explain that game?

Get over yourself. Get over the fact that the Germans and the Japanese are better. I just don't care anymore. You've completely written off what the Mustang was all about, and completely missed the target.

No. You get over the fact that the image of gorgeous 60's Mustangs is being thrown to crap bin with all these new, and over-made models.
Ford is obviously relying on Mustang and F150 sells to stay alive. And what better way to rely on the Mustang than to make 50,000 models who all STILL can barely get within the performance of competitors, and must have money invested in aftermarket companies to finally become a TRUE Mustang.

Considering that the $27K Mustang (yes, I know that the Shelby is priced at $36K... performance differences are minimal, mods can be done by ones self for $3K) can match the cars that are generally more expensive (350Z, $28-30K, RX-8 $28-30K, TT says $35K here), thats a damn-good-job in my opinion.

But when you equal 1 mod, you must make the comp. fair by equalling the other guy with 1 mod. That's not a damn-good job. How the hell does a car of the same price, with a lot more horsepower, and better drag time, fall behind a car with less power, and just as good interior (Audi excluded)?

...Stop complaining. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy a Mustang instead of your beloved Lamborghini...

At least I know at the end of the day, my car won't be having its ass nearly haned to it on a silver platter by a 315Bhp Carrera S unlike the Z06.

1-3 second time differential on 5 out of 8 tracks. That's just f'ing sad even with the Porsche $12,000 more.

 

[Joey D]

What on earth does a Carrera vs. a Z06 have to do with whether or not the Mustang to a decent sports car?

 

[McLaren]

What on earth does a Carrera vs. a Z06 have to do with whether or not the Mustang to a decent sports car?

He attacked me with my liking of Lamborghini. So, I attacked him with his love for General Motors.

All's Fair in Love And War.

 

[JCE]

I could really care less if it finished last. Personally speaking, I'd rather have the Mustang than the other cars in the test... But simply put, thats because I'm an ass-backwards American who has no idea what a good performance car is, watches NASCAR, and drinks beer. God forbid we build a $27,000 car that can hold its own, but can't quite match the other cars that are THOUSANDS MORE.

Jesus f'ing Christ man, you guys need to lossen up about stuff like this. You can't go out and actually expect a Mustang, a blue-collar 'sports car' to go and outdo cars that have stupid amounts of money invested in God-only-knows technology to make it just a bit faster than the competition. So what if Ford cut a few corners, made the Mustang cheaper, and made it handle a bit worse than the competition.

Get over yourself. Get over the fact that the Germans and the Japanese are better. I just don't care anymore. You've completely written off what the Mustang was all about, and completely missed the target.

Considering that the $27K Mustang (yes, I know that the Shelby is priced at $36K... performance differences are minimal, mods can be done by ones self for $3K) can match the cars that are generally more expensive (350Z, $28-30K, RX-8 $28-30K, TT says $35K here), thats a damn-good-job in my opinion.

...Stop complaining. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy a Mustang instead of your beloved Lamborghini...

I've give you like +15 rep if I could. Thank you for being one of the only few people here who gets it. Thank god, someone close this topic--its going no where.

If you are looking for a cheap American sports car why not just get a Solstice? I think the GXP is up there with the price of the V8 Mustang and that thing is both straight line and cornering fast. I can't wait to drive one because they are such awesome cars.

Wrong. The Solstice GXP cannot match the 0-60 time of the Mustang GT auto or 5spd. Period. The GT's 5spd 0-60 is right at or one "0.1" tick less than 5.0 seconds. Thats damn mother ****ing good value for $27k. And the 27k you speak of for the 350Z is for the BASE model, not even the enthusiast. There are several models of the 350Z, with the track being the best one for a track--and it doesn't cost anywhere NEAR $27k The RX-8 is apples and oranges, doesn't even belong in this comparo. Just like the TT, it is a niche vehicle. The major competition with the Mustang is infact the 350Z now that the F-body is gone.

I'm so ****ing sick of this subject that I'm not even going to post in another Mustang topic ever again. Nothing but close-minded haters in here. I'm out.

 

[TopHat]

Hmmm.... How is the new Mustang making the older ones look bad? If anything, it makes them all the cooler. Because you can have the new GT, and go buy a 67 GT.

 

[Joey D]

I didn't say the GXP was faster, I just said if you are looking for a cheap-ish American sports car the Solstice is probably a better buy.

Not everyone is going to like the Mustang, I don't think it's a good car because it has rear suspension technology that hasn't changed much since the 60's. When I look at a sports car I want something that goes around a corner and is decently quick in a straight line.

Mustangs are probably one of the worst auto cross cars I've seen, at last weekends event every Mustang that went out was awful...this is why I think they are crappy sports cars.

 

[McLaren]

Hmmm.... How is the new Mustang making the older ones look bad? If anything, it makes them all the cooler. Because you can have the new GT, and go buy a 67 GT.

To have the chance to re-live old dreams is great. But performance wise, not really doing the older ones good.

What I mean by this is way back then, you had your Shelbys and you had your 'Vettes. Back then, both cars were very equal and could easily get the jump on the other.

But today, it's not that anymore. GM is flying ahead of Ford now. You could re-live the old comparison by putting the GT500KR against the Z06. Thing is, the Z06 probably wouldn't even break a sweat. They just don't do the older generations any good. They don't look as good, they don't sound as good, and just don't compete as good.

 

[Tornado]

But simply put, thats because I'm an ass-backwards American who has no idea what a good performance car is, watches NASCAR, and drinks beer.

Ha ha. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Those three cars proved that Ford could do it. All of the current Shelbys do not.

You can't go out and actually expect a Mustang, a blue-collar 'sports car' to go and outdo cars that have stupid amounts of money invested in God-only-knows technology to make it just a bit faster than the competition.

As covered by McLaren, I really doubt Nissan had stupid amounts of money to even run the company, considering they were still on the brink of bankruptcy at the time.
And do you really think Ford would allow Mazda to use more money on the RX-8 than they did on the Mustang?
And the TT's likely higer investment costs are balanced out when you figure the fact that it is a FWD car with 200BHP built on the Rabbit platform.

So what if Ford cut a few corners, made the Mustang cheaper, and made it handle a bit worse than the competition.

Because Ford has already proven that "making the Mustang cheap" and "making the Mustang handle well" don't have to cancel each other out.

Get over yourself. Get over the fact that the Germans and the Japanese are better. I just don't care anymore. You've completely written off what the Mustang was all about, and completely missed the target.

No. The Mustang was originally designed as a cheap sporty car. The problem is, the definition of "sporty" in this country has changed drastically since 1964.
I also fail to see why what it was originally about has any connotations in this argument. The Corvette was originally designed as a luxury convertible with a hint of sport, of sorts. Now, the only trace of luxury in the Corvette is the 325 series tires on the back of the Z06.

Considering that the $27K Mustang (yes, I know that the Shelby is priced at $36K... performance differences are minimal, mods can be done by ones self for $3K) can match the cars that are generally more expensive (350Z, $28-30K, RX-8 $28-30K, TT says $35K here), thats a damn-good-job in my opinion.

Performance differences are minimal? The Audi TT is essentially a smoothed out Rabbit. It is still a front wheel drive, understeery at the limit A platform car. That still outruns a hotted up version of the Mustang on a track. Regardless of how much more it costs, it is essentially a hot hatch, outrunning a pure sports car. The RX-8? It is light, yes. It also has 70 less BHP and less than half as much torque. And the best part? Take the 3 grand it cost to build the Shelby GT yourself on a normal Mustang GT. Then buy an Evolution IX RS. Be amazed as it destroys the Mustang.

...Stop complaining. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy a Mustang instead of your beloved Lamborghini...

Ah, so why are you getting personal? You are above this YSSMAN, and I am rather surprised at you.

The RX-8 is apples and oranges, doesn't even belong in this comparo.

Why? It is RWD, lightweight and cheap. How many sold has nothing to do with whether or not it should be compared to the Mustang.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ah, so why are you getting personal? You are above this YSSMAN, and I am rather surprised at you.

Generally speaking, I'm absolutely sick and tired of people beating up on American cars simply because they are American. We already know that BMW and Honda will build us a better car, we've heard it hundreds, no, thousands of times. People continue to complain over the Mustang again and again and again, and it is the same topic every time. We know, we don't care.

...Quite frankly, even I'm surprised I'm as upset about this as I am. Generally speaking, I detest Ford and nearly everything they do, but I feel like the Mustang is just as much mine as another other American car guy. Taking pot-shots at a Mustang just isn't worth it anymore, we already know how 'bad' of a car it is. Quite frankly, it just doesn't matter anymore...

I'm not here to change anyone's minds, all I ask is that they understand what the Mustang (and the rest of the lot) are about. Its about straight line performance, with a bit of fun in the twisties, packaged with a decent amount of power, wrapped in a good-looking package, sold at a decent price.

Yes, an underpowered TT or 328 or 350Z (actually not that much of a difference with the stock GT these days...) will beat it, but who cares? Certainly the Mustang is the last of it's breed, but the Camaro and Challenger are coming back (both obviously better cars), and the Mustang should be revamped for 2009 (probably with the 'hurricane' and an IRS).

Its no big deal, but I just get sick of the stupid generalizations about the Mustang...

 

[McLaren]

Uh, excuse me? I'm not beating up on an American car just because it's American.
I only want to know why a car with so much power isn't performing higher than it should. If I really wanted to bash on it for being America, I wouldn't be defending a 400Bhp Corvette after it beat a GT500 in a track test, and finding it worth buying more than the GT500.

 

[TopHat]

Will you knock this off? Someones gonna get banned and I don't want to see YSSMAN, Toronado, or Mclaren to go.

 

[YSSMAN]

Uh, excuse me? I'm not beating up on an American car just because it's American.
I only want to know why a car with so much power isn't performing higher than it should.

So please tell us how it should be performing then. Its not that different than the 350Z, by which has the same 300 BHP window, however moves about with a better suspension and a 200 lb weight advantage...

I'm just interested more or less in what these mystical standards are, because I don't see them. We can quote stuff left and right, but we've done battle like this before, and neither of us changed our minds then either.

If its an equation of money and performance, at least in my opinion, the Americans are doing fine. If it is a matter of benchmark vehicles (with more or less power), it likely depends on what models you're talking about.

Its a difference of what you like, and how you drive it, and quite frankly, I like the way the Mustang works. I may be an old-fashioned idiot, but its cool to me...

 

[McLaren]

So please tell us how it should be performing then. Its not that different than the 350Z, by which has the same 300 BHP window, however moves about with a better suspension and a 200 lb weight advantage...

How about the fact that it shouldn't be coming 2nd to a base model TT with 116 more horses? That's inexcusable. The TT has the better interior, but that's obvious with the higher price tag. Even with the superior suspension, I was highly expecting the GT to come ahead. The suspension of the TT isn't like it alone can makeup for that 100 less power. But either it does, or the GT's suspension is that bad.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its better to see a bit of an understanding there, but I think the TT is a bit like comparing a Fuji Apple to a Washington Apple. Sure, they're both 'sports cars,' but they go about reaching the goal in a very different way. Flipping through the data, one outstanding difference I can see is the use of M+S tires on the Mustang compared with the dedicated performance tires on the TT. Craptastic brakes on the Mustang didn't help either, but that is an easy modification that can fix that problem. But yes, the Mustang did fail at life when it came to the slalom test... But even then, the Honda Fit will outdo the Z06...

Was I mad about the TT beating the Mustang? No not really. Car and Driver summed up the Mustang when they said it was "Still unsophisticated - and proud of it," and I certainly agree. At least in my book, that is about 75% of what makes the Mustang "fun."

---

Not that this really means anything: But I'm looking forward to racing with ya'all with my 'backwards' Mustangs and Camaros on Forza 2...

 

[JCE]

Well, its better to see a bit of an understanding there, but I think the TT is a bit like comparing a Fuji Apple to a Washington Apple. Sure, they're both 'sports cars,' but they go about reaching the goal in a very different way. Flipping through the data, one outstanding difference I can see is the use of M+S tires on the Mustang compared with the dedicated performance tires on the TT. Craptastic brakes on the Mustang didn't help either, but that is an easy modification that can fix that problem. But yes, the Mustang did fail at life when it came to the slalom test... But even then, the Honda Fit will outdo the Z06...

Was I mad about the TT beating the Mustang? No not really. Car and Driver summed up the Mustang when they said it was "Still unsophisticated - and proud of it," and I certainly agree. At least in my book, that is about 75% of what makes the Mustang "fun."

---

Not that this really means anything: But I'm looking forward to racing with ya'all with my 'backwards' Mustangs and Camaros on Forza 2...

Ever get the feeling that you and I are alone in some of these topics? And I'll be right there with you on the Forza thing too. As long as the game makers do these American cars justice with the tuning. Forza 1 was pathetic in terms of the parts for the GTO and Mustang GT. Last time I checked you COULD add forced induction to these cars. That's my major problem with JAPANESE racing games--the lack of equally available performance parts for all regions. The Gran Turismo series is much much worse versus FM and the worst I've ever seen...in the lopsided car and performance tuning list.

 

[super cirrus]

Uh, excuse me? I'm not beating up on an American car just because it's American.
I only want to know why a car with so much power isn't performing higher than it should. If I really wanted to bash on it for being America, I wouldn't be defending a 400Bhp Corvette after it beat a GT500 in a track test, and finding it worth buying more than the GT500.

because you keep testing it out of its element. It wouldn't make sense if I compared the 4 cars at a drag strip then said "why are these new, high tech cars so slow with all their valve timing, dsg" etc"

 

[super cirrus]

Ha ha. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Those three cars proved that Ford could do it. All of the current Shelbys do not.

i agree with you ford could do it if it wanted to. How ever a company doesnt do what it wants, it does what its customers want. And when the mustang loyal ask ford to keep a live axel in the car, thats what they did.

a couple of mustang owner quotes whened they learned of a petition for irs in the mustang.

"I like the idea of making it optional, but standard? Hell no."

"Personally I don't think they should ditch the live axle at all. If anything, make the IRS an option, not standard equipment."

"Yes thats something I definately won't sign. If anything, make the IRS an option, not standard equipment"

Though personally i wish ford should make a more track tuned version, most of the people who buy them aren't concerned with it.

No. The Mustang was originally designed as a cheap sporty car. The problem is, the definition of "sporty" in this country has changed drastically since 1964.

dont know about that. im willing to bet the mustang sells more than any of those three cars.

That still outruns a hotted up version of the Mustang on a track. Regardless of how much more it costs, it is essentially a hot hatch, outrunning a pure sports car.

Pure sports car? hardly. Nothing with more than 2 seats is a pure sports car. The GT on the other hand...

Take the 3 grand it cost to build the Shelby GT yourself on a normal Mustang GT. Then buy an Evolution IX RS. Be amazed as it destroys the Mustang.

true, but it destroys the others in the comparo as well. Depending on the track, i seen'em beat M5's. You gonna chalk that up to the M5's "faulty suspension", despite a 200 hp advantage?

 

[YSSMAN]

Pure sports car? hardly. Nothing with more than 2 seats is a pure sports car. The GT on the other hand...

Certainly so. The Mustang is a 'sports car' in the sense that it is actually fun to drive, handels pretty well, and has a 300 BHP V8... But it certainly isn't a dedicated 'sports car' in the vein of the 350Z. I would suppose that 'muscle car' and 'sports car' have crossed paths recently, but you still cannot count on the Mustang to be the best at everything... I'm happy with it being decently good at most things...

true, but it destroys the others in the comparo as well. Depending on the track, i seen'em beat M5's. You gonna chalk that up to the M5's "faulty suspension", despite a 200 hp advantage?

ZING! +Eleventy-Billion!

 

[JCE]

Between the three of us maybe we can hold the fort.

 

[TopHat]

Nice cirrus, +1.

Also, how do we know the BOSS wont be an IRS? Thats what they are for anyway.

 

[McLaren]

dont know about that. im willing to bet the mustang sells more than any of those three cars.

Well, that's not exactly hard when the base model is $20,000, now is it?

true, but it destroys the others in the comparo as well. Depending on the track, i seen'em beat M5's. You gonna chalk that up to the M5's "faulty suspension", despite a 200 hp advantage?

No. I'm going to ask you give that M5 the same modification, too. Giving 1 opponent a modification without giving the other that same mod, only shows that to actually be a competitor, you need to go out and buy a performance upgrade.
Be fair, and give it to the BMW.

And I'd like to see these Mustangs that can beat M5s. I wouldn't doubt they've got quite a few thousand dollars invested. Bet you if that was equally distributed the M5, the M5 would be dealing with much higher cars.

because you keep testing it out of its element. It wouldn't make sense if I compared the 4 cars at a drag strip then said "why are these new, high tech cars so slow with all their valve timing, dsg" etc"

What does it matter?

I wouldn't be surprised if the 350Z beat in a QTR mile time, too. What is it with Mustang defenders always saying, "Put it in a drag race! Race tracks aren't where it belongs." That excuse is as stupid and old as the GT500 Vs. C6 comparison. I remember all the Mustang owners saying you can't compare them. It wasn't fair. Cry, cry, cry. Then came the QTR mile tests, where the GT500 prevailed, and they bashed the Corvette then and there. Hypocritical, whiney babies is all they were.

All I see when you say stuff like that, is you admitting that on a race track, the Mustang can't do very well at anything.

 

[super cirrus]

Well, that's not exactly hard when the base model is $20,000, now is it?

i'm willing to bet even if you just count GT level and up, it still outsells them

No. I'm going to ask you give that M5 the same modification, too. Giving 1 opponent a modification without giving the other that same mod, only shows that to actually be a competitor, you need to go out and buy a performance upgrade.
Be fair, and give it to the BMW.

what mods? Im talking stock vs stock

And I'd like to see these Mustangs that can beat M5s. I wouldn't doubt they've got quite a few thousand dollars invested. Bet you if that was equally distributed the M5, the M5 would be dealing with much higher cars.

I was refering to the evo toronado brought up. But the "put them same amount into them" argumet is lame when the M5 cost $55,000 more anyway.

What does it matter?

I wouldn't be surprised if the 350Z beat in a QTR mile time, too. What is it with Mustang defenders always saying, "Put it in a drag race! Race tracks aren't where it belongs." That excuse is as stupid and old as the GT500 Vs. C6 comparison. I remember all the Mustang owners saying you can't compare them. It wasn't fair. Cry, cry, cry. Then came the QTR mile tests, where the GT500 prevailed, and they bashed the Corvette then and there. Hypocritical, whiney babies is all they were.

The mustang is faster, but the 300hp Z is quicker than i thought ( i found 13.5 for the stantard gt and 13.7. And you can't really compare the gt500 and the vette, they are in different classes. Those who "bashed the vette" after it lost to the GT500 on a drag strip aren't any better than those who bash the GT500 after it loses to sportscars on a track.

All I see when you say stuff like that, is you admitting that on a race track, the Mustang can't do very well at anything.

Wrong, the mustang does everything on a track well, but that was its goal. To do well on the track, and excel at he strip, where almost 1/3 of owners take their cars. I'm not surprised it lost to a "track edition" Z car (i wonder what its purpose is?), or the overpriced golf (its targets are the cayman and z4, remember? so its gonna be more track biased). Hell, Im surprised it beat the "handling is all i got" RX-8, since top gear said it ran a similar time (the exact same time actually) to the 350Z and the M3 on their track.

 

[YSSMAN]

On a few of the points:

- Sales: I believe the GT will probably outsell each of those models by a fairly large margin usually without much trouble. Keep in mind that they actually had to turn buyers away in 2005, and sold every-single-one in 2006... The GT that is, as nobody cares about the crap-tastic V6 models...

- The M5 Example (In relation to a cheaper, faster car): I'm confused by the modification question. If you look at the Shelby GT, you really aren't getting that much in the form of high-performance modifications. This $3,000 worth of bolt-ons basically consists of a cold air intake, a special exhaust kit with new mufflers, a short-throw shifter, and a slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) tuned suspension.

...So using the same model that the Mustang should be able to beat the lower-powered TT, why is it any different of a question when we ask why the M5 can't beat the Evolution MR? Is it not the same kind of comparison benchmarking?

- Quarter-Mile Performance: The Mustang and the 350Z are in a dead-heat when it comes to acceleration performance. The recent C/D test gave the Mustang the narrowest of edges in straight-line performance, so it would be safe to assume that the 'stock' GT would be identical to the Z. Either way, given that the Mustang is dealing with an extra 200 lbs, the same power-output as the Z, and does it all with one fewer cog in the box, its a damn-good-job on the behalf of the Ford.

- Benchmarking the TT versus the GT: I had forgotten about the fact that the TT was designed to run up the Cayman's skirt, which quite frankly, its about three leagues ahead of the GT in terms of performance and price as well. Sure, they're both 'sports cars,' but people aren't likely to actually consider a TT or a GT, because they are completely different approaches to the idea of a sports car.

---

Just for fun I went over to check the Top Gear boards, and much to my surprise, it does without a Mustang GT time. Anyway, the TT MK2 is sitting at 1.31:4, which is a strikingly good lap for a front-driver with DSG and the magnaride suspension. However, if we look down the charts just a bit, we see the Z and the RX-8 tied at 1.31:8. Now, comparing lap times to other tests and other performance benchmarks, I'd venture a guess and say that the Mustang GT (Shelby or not) would be right around that 1.31:8-1.32 spot based on the strong pull of the V8 on the straights, and the willing ability of the suspension through the corners and the like.

However, it has been mentioned numerous times between McLaren and I that it would likely depend on the track as to what the numbers would look like. Get really technical, and the RX-8 without a doubt will come out on top. Allow for a decent build-up of speed and a none-too-challenging collection of corners and such, and you'll likely see the Z or the GT pull ahead.

Either way, the Mustang isn't trying to win anyone's hearts over here. They know they cater to a very specific crowd, and you're either in it, or your not. Most Mustang owners could care less what you think of their car by comparison to a Cayman-wanabe TT, because its not what the car is meant to do.

...Maybe I've been too radicalized by my time over at GMI, but lets be honest, the Mustang deserves a break. Its a nice looking car with a decent amount of performance at a cheap price. What more could you ask for?

 

[Joey D]

Why would you compare an M5 with a Mustang? The M5 is a heavy sports sedan with computers and other things...the Mustang is the opposite of that.

 

[Sakiale]

No, but Car&Driver compared the Mustang GT to the GTO to the Charger SRT-8, which I would compare with the 300C SRT-8, which I would compare to the M5.

 

[TopHat]

Which when compared to Kevin Bacon, it's awesome.