Comments on: Performance numbers for Ford’s GT 500 Mustang http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html Car news, reviews, and specs for the auto-industry Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eric http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-176777 Eric Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:55:14 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-176777 C/D test numbers are garbage...the guys at MM&FF got it right...if you can't run a 12.2 in the new GT 500 than your not a real driver... C/D test numbers are garbage…the guys at MM&FF got it right…if you can’t run a 12.2 in the new GT 500 than your not a real driver…

]]> By: Rich http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-176552 Rich Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:17:56 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-176552 MM&FF also got a flaming bucket of cow poop with a blue oval on it to trap at 115 one time. MM&FF also got a flaming bucket of cow poop with a blue oval on it to trap at 115 one time.

]]> By: Orion http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-172951 Orion Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:05:07 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-172951 Muscle Mustang and Fast Ford ran there's at 12.257@117.18 with a 2.11 60' time. Evidently according to the article the car is impossilbe so launch with out blowin the tires off the rim. Muscle Mustang and Fast Ford ran there’s at 12.257@117.18 with a 2.11 60′ time. Evidently according to the article the car is impossilbe so launch with out blowin the tires off the rim.

]]> By: wayne http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-107905 wayne Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:35:21 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-107905 I have a signed contract at MSRP for a Shelby - if anyone can believe that! (dealer in Delaware) But, after seeing the performance numbers and the C/D article, I am very disappointed. It looks like my current 03 Cobra is just as fast - and it's paid for! Looks like the only reason now to put out $45000 for the Shelby is because it's really worth much more. Can anyone point me to some original test results in 2003-2004 for the 03 Cobra. I've been looking every place for old articles. After all the hype, this is really depressing! I have a signed contract at MSRP for a Shelby – if anyone can believe that! (dealer in Delaware) But, after seeing the performance numbers and the C/D article, I am very disappointed. It looks like my current 03 Cobra is just as fast – and it’s paid for! Looks like the only reason now to put out $45000 for the Shelby is because it’s really worth much more. Can anyone point me to some original test results in 2003-2004 for the 03 Cobra. I’ve been looking every place for old articles. After all the hype, this is really depressing!

]]> By: Casey http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-90356 Casey Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:06:51 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-90356 Kinda bummed out by the performance figures of this, thought it was gunna be a reall supercar killler. O welll I'm looking forward to seeing one of the new 911 turbos. :) Kinda bummed out by the performance figures of this, thought it was gunna be a reall supercar killler. O welll I’m looking forward to seeing one of the new 911 turbos. :)

]]> By: Alex http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-84266 Alex Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:12:26 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-84266 this is a great muscle car, though i hope it will not be fited with those cheap plastics that Americans usually put in their cars... that would suck but overhaul prolly gonna be the best muscle car for quiet some time... anything that really may come close is the Vauxhall Manaro but that been said its out of production and it is not even available in Canada, i think this will be astonishing, hopefully handles well also. this is a great muscle car, though i hope it will not be fited with those cheap plastics that Americans usually put in their cars… that would suck but overhaul prolly gonna be the best muscle car for quiet some time… anything that really may come close is the Vauxhall Manaro but that been said its out of production and it is not even available in Canada, i think this will be astonishing, hopefully handles well also.

]]> By: Alex http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-83758 Alex Sat, 03 Jun 2006 21:02:27 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-83758 Those numbers arent much better, if at all, then the last generation mustang cobra are they? Those numbers arent much better, if at all, then the last generation mustang cobra are they?

]]> By: Josh http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-83499 Josh Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:30:11 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-83499 The engineers at ford dont know the difference between a "Tree & a Phone pole"...(rolls eyes) The engineers at ford dont know the difference between a “Tree & a Phone pole”…(rolls eyes)

]]> By: Josh http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-83498 Josh Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:29:52 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-83498 The engineers at ford dont know the difference between a "Tree & a Phone pole" The engineers at ford dont know the difference between a “Tree & a Phone pole”

]]> By: Richard K. http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-83487 Richard K. Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:26:54 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-83487 WoW i was not impressed with those numbers on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs I have seen 2005-2006 Stock Automatic Pontiac GTOs run anywhere from 13.2-13.06 with Zero mods. Hell, my all stock 2004 GTO can run 13.75-13.90 with the 4L60-E tranny. For that price Ford can keep the Shelby GT500. Can we say Over-Priced. Obviously when you go to Buy a Shelby GT500 you are buying the Name, that's about it and that is why the Price is soo High. WoW i was not impressed with those numbers on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs I have seen 2005-2006 Stock Automatic Pontiac GTOs run anywhere from 13.2-13.06 with Zero mods. Hell, my all stock 2004 GTO can run 13.75-13.90 with the 4L60-E tranny. For that price Ford can keep the Shelby GT500. Can we say Over-Priced. Obviously when you go to Buy a Shelby GT500 you are buying the Name, that’s about it and that is why the Price is soo High.

]]> By: Josh http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-83485 Josh Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:26:31 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-83485 Fella's,...It got beat by a STOCK C6(C&D july06)!!,..Total weak sauce! Fella’s,…It got beat by a STOCK C6(C&D july06)!!,..Total weak sauce!

]]> By: Redwood http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-75910 Redwood Wed, 31 May 2006 15:35:54 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-75910 I would think C&D isn't too far off as the article mentions Ford only manages .1-.2 seconds faster in the quarter mile and 115. You know Ford has PLENTY of practice in the car, unlike a car magazine. R&T ran 13.1@112. What was interesting is the 21 pound heavier 500hp M6 they test in the same issue ran 12.4@121. Not that they are remotely in the same price range, but was interesting due to the power and weight similarities. I think I'd rather have the C6 Car and Driver compared it to or the BMW 550i that out-braked the GT500, matched its slalom speed, and ran a 13.5@105. Now THAT is a daily driver. With the GT500 markups it's probably the same price too! I would think C&D isn’t too far off as the article mentions Ford only manages .1-.2 seconds faster in the quarter mile and 115. You know Ford has PLENTY of practice in the car, unlike a car magazine. R&T ran 13.1@112. What was interesting is the 21 pound heavier 500hp M6 they test in the same issue ran 12.4@121. Not that they are remotely in the same price range, but was interesting due to the power and weight similarities. I think I’d rather have the C6 Car and Driver compared it to or the BMW 550i that out-braked the GT500, matched its slalom speed, and ran a 13.5@105. Now THAT is a daily driver. With the GT500 markups it’s probably the same price too!

]]> By: Phil McCrackin http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-65722 Phil McCrackin Tue, 30 May 2006 17:46:13 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-65722 Like all Mustangs, a second or so will easliy come off that time with just a few mods and slicks. Isn't that part of the appeal of any Mustang, that being aftermarket hop-ups? But for the price...I agree with whoever said they'd build-up a regular GT for far less dough. At least, for the drag guys, this one already has a somewhat bulletproof rear-end (read, not IRS). But yeah, that thing is a proker all right. Luckily, a lot of that weight is easily removable, as shown by the regular Mustang GT. From an MPG standpoint, sounds funny to say that the Vette wins hands-down, as posted above. Like all Mustangs, a second or so will easliy come off that time with just a few mods and slicks. Isn’t that part of the appeal of any Mustang, that being aftermarket hop-ups? But for the price…I agree with whoever said they’d build-up a regular GT for far less dough.

At least, for the drag guys, this one already has a somewhat bulletproof rear-end (read, not IRS).

But yeah, that thing is a proker all right. Luckily, a lot of that weight is easily removable, as shown by the regular Mustang GT.

From an MPG standpoint, sounds funny to say that the Vette wins hands-down, as posted above.

]]> By: Tony Brown http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-63836 Tony Brown Tue, 30 May 2006 13:56:37 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-63836 #6 is right, trapping 112, it should run at least low 12's (My daily driver runs 11.8x @110 ) sounds like they need pony up some money and hire a real driver. I would like to see what the 60ft time is, I bet it isn't under 2 sec. #6 is right, trapping 112, it should run at least low 12′s (My daily driver runs 11.8x @110 ) sounds like they need pony up some money and hire a real driver. I would like to see what the 60ft time is, I bet it isn’t under 2 sec.

]]> By: Ed http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-63780 Ed Tue, 30 May 2006 12:50:28 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-63780 Weight, weight, weight. Anyone who pays a dime over $45K for this will be getting ripped off. The reality is that the majority will be bought by attention whores who just want to own anything with the Shelby name on it. The standard C6 Corvette is a lot more car for the same amount of money. Hell, in the bang for the buck category the standard Mustang GT is an infinitely better buy, unfortunately it won't have the most whored out name in the automotive business: Shelby. That name used to stand for performance and a no-BS attitude. In the past 15 years it has stood for making money any which way possible. This bloated pig is a perfect example. Weight, weight, weight. Anyone who pays a dime over $45K for this will be getting ripped off. The reality is that the majority will be bought by attention whores who just want to own anything with the Shelby name on it. The standard C6 Corvette is a lot more car for the same amount of money. Hell, in the bang for the buck category the standard Mustang GT is an infinitely better buy, unfortunately it won’t have the most whored out name in the automotive business: Shelby. That name used to stand for performance and a no-BS attitude. In the past 15 years it has stood for making money any which way possible. This bloated pig is a perfect example.

]]> By: Adam http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-62863 Adam Tue, 30 May 2006 06:24:35 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-62863 Yeah I mean... they could made the floor out of balsa wood and added 20k on to the price. Yeah I mean… they could made the floor out of balsa wood and added 20k on to the price.

]]> By: Mlevit http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61807 Mlevit Tue, 30 May 2006 01:17:45 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61807 GT500 would no way come close to the GT44 (known just as Ford GT). Although those numbers are bloody brilliant if i may so so myself. The quarter mile may not be the best, but 0 - 60 is great. The car has the torque, horsepower and look of the old Shelby, thats all they were going for. Its a nice car, too bad i cant get one :( P.S. Dave: if you're talking about the Corvette C6-Z06S then, yeah its a nice car, but the price starts at around 65K so its a bit more expensive. Plus as you mentioned the Shelby is 4,000 pounds so those times for a weight like that is pretty good. Lower the weight and the Corvette will be left in the dust. GT500 would no way come close to the GT44 (known just as Ford GT). Although those numbers are bloody brilliant if i may so so myself.

The quarter mile may not be the best, but 0 – 60 is great. The car has the torque, horsepower and look of the old Shelby, thats all they were going for.

Its a nice car, too bad i cant get one :(

P.S. Dave: if you’re talking about the Corvette C6-Z06S then, yeah its a nice car, but the price starts at around 65K so its a bit more expensive. Plus as you mentioned the Shelby is 4,000 pounds so those times for a weight like that is pretty good. Lower the weight and the Corvette will be left in the dust.

]]> By: RJo http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61763 RJo Tue, 30 May 2006 01:12:32 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61763 A vortec supercharged Mustang GT does 0-60 in 4.6 and you will save at least 10-15 grand. I rather have a cheaper Gt. A vortec supercharged Mustang GT does 0-60 in 4.6 and you will save at least 10-15 grand. I rather have a cheaper Gt.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61578 Anonymous Mon, 29 May 2006 23:54:30 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61578 115mph at that weight shows that it's pushing well over 400 horsepower at the rear wheels. In the hands of a competent driver I predict low 12's may high 11's. 115mph at that weight shows that it’s pushing well over 400 horsepower at the rear wheels. In the hands of a competent driver I predict low 12′s may high 11′s.

]]> By: Dave http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61575 Dave Mon, 29 May 2006 23:52:48 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61575 Maybe they should mention it weighs 4,000 pounds! Or that it includes a gas guzzler tax because it can only muster 13/20 EPA with a cruise range of a little over 200 miles on one tank. GM may do a lot of dumb things, but for someone to choose one of these over a C6 which gets way better gas mleage, and performance would need to have their head checked. No matter how cool or retro this looks. Maybe they should mention it weighs 4,000 pounds! Or that it includes a gas guzzler tax because it can only muster 13/20 EPA with a cruise range of a little over 200 miles on one tank. GM may do a lot of dumb things, but for someone to choose one of these over a C6 which gets way better gas mleage, and performance would need to have their head checked. No matter how cool or retro this looks.

]]> By: Adam http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61411 Adam Mon, 29 May 2006 23:30:44 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61411 lol Smoke the Ford GT? It has a smaller version of the GT's engine and more weight. Anyways, good to hear some stats finally. lol Smoke the Ford GT? It has a smaller version of the GT’s engine and more weight.

Anyways, good to hear some stats finally.

]]> By: Tibble http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-61338 Tibble Mon, 29 May 2006 22:57:38 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-61338 HAHA my buddy thought this think would SMOKE the Ford GT. When I show him this, I get $50 haha. But those numbers are close if not better then the vintage numbers of Shelby. Still looks pretty good though. Wouldnt argue if it was in my driveway HAHA my buddy thought this think would SMOKE the Ford GT. When I show him this, I get $50 haha. But those numbers are close if not better then the vintage numbers of Shelby. Still looks pretty good though. Wouldnt argue if it was in my driveway

]]> By: Steve http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-60806 Steve Mon, 29 May 2006 21:40:13 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-60806 it's also probably one of the most unaerodynamic cars on the road. I still want one though. it’s also probably one of the most unaerodynamic cars on the road. I still want one though.

]]> By: Jason http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-60803 Jason Mon, 29 May 2006 21:38:10 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-60803 My guess is it's really heavy. Can't be anything else, since 500HP should produce a better ¼-mile and trap than that. My guess is it’s really heavy. Can’t be anything else, since 500HP should produce a better ¼-mile and trap than that.

]]> By: R.C. COLLINS http://www.leftlanenews.com/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang.html#comment-60453 R.C. COLLINS Mon, 29 May 2006 21:00:47 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/29/performance-numbers-for-fords-gt-500-mustang/#comment-60453 I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO COMPETE WITH THE VETTE. Actually I knew it wouldn't and these performance numbers don't surprise me. I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO COMPETE WITH THE VETTE. Actually I knew it wouldn’t and these performance numbers don’t surprise me.

]]>