Defying Dyno Expectations In The 2010 Shelby GT500

I'll pass on the Hen. Camaro.

i would love to buy this, an American car with the engines daddy name on it/.. i can;t afford a Bentley or AMG, this is the next best thing,

I'll take mine in black please

too bad a gtr is still quicker...

SOBELLA, apples vs oranges.

Also the gtr is nearly twice the price.

Well said brn. At less than $50k the GT500 is a pretty good value. While the GTR gets out of the hole quicker, once the GT500 hooks up the acceleration is very comparable. Sure, you get more handling for your additional $30k+ that you pay for the GTR, but if you can't swing it, the GT500 is no slouch.

And for all the talk about the potential of the GTR for more power, Ford's mod-motor supercharged V8s are well proven in the aftermarket. There's an easy 650-700 whp on the stock blower with just intake, exhaust, pulley and tuning (say, $2500 or less). And if you want to upgrade the blower and injectors, 1000+ hp is not unreasonable.

For some reason, I can't get over the live-rear axle. :(

People you have to know that you can't compare gtr with this car,2 different worlds. Never the less , I like this car very much.

Now we just need to send this over to the boys at Roush and get that rear-suspension fixed!!

M Michael
http://ezyclicks.blogspot.com/

587 HP at the Crank!! And haven't even started with the smaller pulley and full intake and exhaust.

Sobella, I agree with you, comparing the Shelby with the GT-R is like comparing Godzilla vs. Superman.

What a great car they’ve put together! If having fun with a car is what you want, this is a car that can’t be ignored, if you want to race for real, you know this is not it (but it’s not the GT-R either).

I find the GTR vs (whatever happens to be on the testing block) comments to be silly.

This car has serious power - man it'd be fun to pull off of the line and just keep pullin'. As for the rear axle, is it just legacy or possibly a drag reason they keep it? Perhaps b/c its way fun to toss around? I wonder how much more corning performance could be extracted from this car with an independent rear setup...

Kevin

No the GT-R comparisons have an interesting point. Not for the fan boy my car vs your car arguments, but as a techincal question.

Edmunds dyno tested their own GT-R, though admittedly on a different Dyno, and it put down 400ish hp.

Now this GT500 puts down over 100hp more.

Edmunds has also repeatedly tested their GT-R to trap over 118mph in the 1/4 mile.

The last test of the GT500 Edmunds got a 114.7 trap speed. Now yes they did face a headwind, but it is consistant with with other magazines have been getting. Car and Driver for example only traped 113mph with their GT500.

The GT-R and GT500 are of similar weight. The GT500 appears to make alot more power. Yet the GT-R will beat it in trap speed (so launch isn't as much of an issue).

Is this all down to the dual clutch transmission and better gearing? If Edmunds still has access to this GT500, it would be interesting to do some head to head acceleration runs against their own GT-R. Maybe this GT500 actually makes alot more power than the last GT500 they tested.

In the end 511 rwhp, similar weight to a GT-R, and 114.7 mph traps just don't add up right.

You pretty much answered your own question there. No human being with a manual will be able to outshift a dual clutch automatic.

The GT-R's speeds were probably fabricated too, to save face. Edmunds was the first magazine to test the GT-R in Japan where they got blazing numbers, and to keep it that way, they probably simply kept lying about the GT-R's numbers. Remember when they took a GT-R on a road trip across America? They took it to a track and could not break 12 seconds. Car and Driver also could not break 12 seconds with one of their GT-Rs.

Also two quick notes: The ZR-1 only dynoed at 505rwhp. And 511rwhp = 601hp at the crank assuming 15% drivetrain loss, not 587 as someone else stated.

I want this car.

Then why are GT500's so slow??? The highest trap speeds I have ever seen was a 117MPH, with most of them in the 112-114MPH range. The Nissan GT-R is consistently around 120MPH, with traps as high as 125MPH! The fastest times I have seen on a GT-R was in Road & Track magazine. They got 3.1sec to 60 and a quarter mile of 11.4@122MPH. I don't think the dual clutch can account for all of this. Still, even E92 V8 M3's with only 414HP run 113-115MPH in the quarter mile??

lt1boy, you caught us--everything that we have reported on the GT-R has been a complete fabrication.

Even the 11.8 @ 118.5 mph dragstrip run during the road trip was fudged. We stealthily reprogrammed the timing lights in the starter stand so that the GT-R would appear fast.

It's all been a vast conspiracy.

The live axle is present to reduce cost and overall weight.

A car to dream for. I can't figure out why people want to compare the GT500 with a vette or a
gt-r. One has no back seat and the other is double the price of the GT500. They are not in the same classification of cars. Compare the GT500 with the Hennessey Camaro. Now thats a comparison. I'm not a gm guy, but I respect the new camaro. Hope gm can build the Z/28 and dodge can up th hp on the challenger, so we can get some real comparisons before the lights go dim.

awd and a lightning gearbox, that's why the GT-R wins

Silly people comparing the GT-R to the GT500... Why bother creating an argument where it clearly doesn't apply?!? Is it because they have the same two letters in their names?

Plus, I don't have many good words for people who prefer flappy-paddle automatic transmissions and AWD over a manual transmission and RWD.

This GT500 is awesome out of the box, but I'm sure Roush will produce a better HiPo 2010 Mustang than Ford, just like the last one.

I'm sure aerodynamics has some play in that little girly-transmissioned GT-R. And PLEASE stop with the comparisons of 2 totally different cars.......it gets old.

if i had to buy a new car, the mustang would be at the top of the list...

One of the best looking cars on the market. I saw one of these at the Washington Auto Show in Feb and it looked like a total BEAST! Give it better suspension if you go to the track from time to time but why would you? Its not a track car but a car you can live with, and power that will cheer you up when your having a bad day.

This must be the slowest 500+ sports car in the world. Only a die hard Mustang fan could justify its purchase price. Why is it compared to the Vette? Because it is the same price, its a sports car, and is its closest competition for the money.

4.6 seconds from 0-60mph is a joke. A Vette with only 430hp kicks its butt. Hell, a four door Mercedes sedan woops its butt. Just about any 500hp car sold today smokes the Mustang and then some, like the Vette, with even less horsepower. A car with this much HP should be well under 4 seconds to 60mph. A Nismo 370Z can do 4.6 seconds. I could go on and on.

Somebody needs to go back to the drawing board.

The reason trap speeds vary so much is torque. The Mustang has a lot of it, so it can launch quite well. But it loses ground in the top end, or aerodynamics hinder it at high speeds.

I run a 12.1 quarter with a trap speed of 127mph. That's the result of poor initial power but excellent top end and good aerodynamics.

lt1boy, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember they had a GTR with a higher octane gas in Japan when they tested.

Bravo Ford!
This car reveals the Hennessy Camaro to be the joke that it is.
The Ford makes basically the same power, but runs on regular 91 octane gas, has full mfg warranty, has proper throttle response, has wheels that do not rub the bodywork, has suspension that works, and is about $15,000 cheaper!

"And for all the talk about the potential of the GTR for more power, Ford's mod-motor supercharged V8s are well proven in the aftermarket. There's an easy 650-700 whp on the stock blower with just intake, exhaust, pulley and tuning (say, $2500 or less). And if you want to upgrade the blower and injectors, 1000+ hp is not unreasonable."

Church, I remember watching a build up of a twin turbo Ford GT (not the Mustang GT) on YouTube a few years ago. Of course the supercharger was removed and a custom twin turbo setup was implemented. With tuning and a few other required parts, the car put down over a reliable and consistent 1000+hp to the wheels while retaining the stock fuel system. Simply unbelieveable by any standard.

did anyone see the top gear review of the GT500? They claimed it was grossly underrated. That show has a sickening bias

"I run a 12.1 quarter with a trap speed of 127mph. That's the result of poor initial power but excellent top end and good aerodynamics."

One hell of a trap Estreka. Id seriously love a GT35R turbo (Inline Pro) for my AP1 S2000. However Id like to trap in the 130-135 range, just to be on the safe side. =) The F Series Honda engines have proven to be very boost friendly and reliable to boot. Of course tuning is the key.

I love this beast,
i think it looks better thn previous GT500 (but come'n in diferent color !!! the best is not "gay-blue" !!! - i really can't understand Ford's strategy (all their marketing guys are gay ?!! or what,
and that hood....yak..that 2 plastic holes - put a decent hood there - GT KR has a great hood , though :)

..and this car is so much powerfull than preivous gen. model - real brgain, real..proper MUSCLE car !

and to the people who want to comprae yhis to Godzilaa..

come on , anybody asks Aston Martin or Bentley if it's quicker to 60 than strict racing car Ferrari?
it's just diferent expierience and target,
GT500 is a Muscle car it dont has to be super-car-quick, and it want be,
it dont has to be ,.. it has to be mean ! a bandit car !
(although with so much horsepower it could be quicker a little bit :)

this thing is quite havy, but muscle car should be ...
but stil that GTR is impresive is almost as heavy, but it's a huracane fast! impressive

0-60 times are traction issues, not HP.

It is a little slow for that much power. Still a good bargain.

I really like this new Ford Mustang Shelby GT500.

My only gripe is the live rear axle. However, I'm willing to spend another 10k on upgrading the rear suspension to multilink.

If I had the money these are the top 3 US cars I'd have in my garage today:

2010 Shelby GT500
2010 Camaro SS
2009 Dodge Charger R/T

The Corvette ZR1 & Z06 are also great, but I'm bored with the current design and would like to see something new. Still one of the greatest sports cars made in the world though.

Funny that the Mustang has a live rear axle while the Explorer and Expedition have IRS. I'm a Mustang fan though and these dyno numbers look great.

I have a question for everyone. Is it fair to compare a performance car such as a Corvette to a muscle car such as a Mustang. I told my friend you can not under any circumstances, compare these two vehicles. He doesnt seem to think so. I would say its more fair to compare the Ford GT to a Corvette, but because it would kick the Corvette's butt, he won't believe me. This new Shelby is a beautiful car by the way, I really want one! Thanks!!

Indeed hondaacura4. We did some work on a twin turbo'd Ford GT a couple years ago. Two T4 turbos and 27 psi of boost still using the original factory supercharger intercooler core. Put down 1400 hp at the wheels. Would have made more, but that's all my dyno would handle...The mod motors are no joke, especially in 5.4 liter form.

Sorry for the misinformation earlier. I only had about five minutes to post before I had to leave for work, so I could not double check everything before I posted.

Yes, the GT-R ran an 11.8 during Edmund's road trip with it. It was Car and Driver who could only muster a 12.6 with the GT-R during their testing. For some reason I thought Edmund's only ran low 12's with it.

There are a lot of factors explaining why the GT-R is quicker, such as: AWD, dual-clutch tranny, shorter gear ratios, and better aerodynamics - all of which have been stated above.

Other publishers have "recorded" higher trap speeds with the GT500. Motor Trend recorded a 118mph trap speed, but for some reason could only achieve a 12.7 second run. Car and Driver could only record a 12.9 second run with a 113mph trap.

And seeing as how the numbers between these two cars vary so much - the GT-R running anywhere between 11.6 to 12.6, and the GT500 running from 12.4 to 12.9 - you have to wonder which publisher is telling the absolute truth. When the GT500 was first tested by both Edmund's and Motor Trend, they were tested at the same place with the same conditions (Infineon Raceway with a headwind) and yet both publishers recorded completely different numbers - Edmund's with the faster time, and MT with the higher trap speed.

That's some seriously impressive power.

How are the GTR and GT500 not comparable? Both are sports cars right? the extra 30k buys you technology, refinement, and prescence. Also a 370Z is quicker and has better handling than a Mustang GT. I feel that Ford still has a long ways to go...And don't forget that that rental car image that the mustang carries.

The 2011 Mustang GT will have the Coyote 5.0 liter engine with 400 HP; so for now, enjoy the 370Z being quicker as it will soon be much, much slower and will remain so for the forseeable future. As for the GT500, after checking the quarter mile times at this link, see if you can find GT-R times that equal let alone better them: http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/shelby-gt500-150/331973-fastest-shelby-1-4-mile-list.html

beermagazine,

Poor zero to sixty times can be attributed to several bad design practices. Poor traction due to poor suspension design. Poor quickness due to poor gearing selection, design, and quantity. And, to some degree, poor aerodynamics. I can name a list of cars that have the same size tires or smaller that still beat the 0-60mph times posted for the Mustang 500. And, to me, these are the numbers that matter most when on the street and running up against someone at a stoplight. Far more common occurance than quarter mile performance. A car with this much HP should be far quicker.

paulvincent1,

These times mean nothing since these cars are not being compared apples to apples. These are not stock times.

A better tool for comparing times would be
http://www.dragtimes.com/

Stock times only means something if a vehicle cannot be modded, and in this world only a fool races stock and loses contented in knowing that, "Well, I was stock and my opponent wasn't, so I really can't count that as a loss because...,". Look at the Suzuki Hayabusa: Its stock performance isn't anymore (nowadays) than its competitors, but modded yet still street legal, it is far superior (standing mile). The gift Ford provides to the GT500 owner is an engine which can be (relatively) affordably modded for extraordinary performance gains. And please don't tell me that the 370Z or GT-R driver who loses (to whatever vehicle) doesn't wish he had had enough power to win.

Ouch, the GT500 is an animal, and with forged internals the sky is the limit on Horsepower upgrades. What GTR?

GT500 ftw! Smiles per dollar, bang for buck however you want to put it. GTR= $$$$. Hennessey=Fraud. Challenger r/t = impotent. Regular Camaro in 2SS trim ...I'll let you know.

I'm a huge Modualr Ford Power fan. I have seen 03 Cobra's and Ford GT's(AKA GT 40) break a 1000whp on the stock long blocks when turboed. Same thing for the GT500's. I have a lowly 2000 4.6 sohc Mustang GT. I had it forged and CAMed and with 12.5psi through a inefficeint SC put dowm 515whp and trapped 130.69 on a very cold day. I have since ported the heads and installed an aftermarket intake manifold and made 665whp on 20 psi. Not bad for 20 psi and pick up truck/Taxi cab motor.

Anyone comparing the Nissan 370Z to the Mustang GT 500 should have there head examined. No one in there right mind would even consider a Nippon over a tried and true REAL car, the Mustang. Nissan's are a rolling bilboard for over rated Asian Junk. The only reason they get good write ups are because they wine and dine the journalist at fancy hotels. Ask Dutch Mandle from Autoweek. He told me that to my face.

ya cuz we all know that those 370z's don't exist lol. And he said the mustang gt not gt500. also the first z came out in 1969 the fairlady z is tried and true not to mention the 370z was better in all performance test in comparison to the new mustang gt, so before you diss something i suggest you know something about it. And this car is cool if it had an irs i would buy it over a vette and those acceleration times suck for that power but it doesnt really matter much considering its price.

You guys comparing the Mustang to the 370 Z or the GTR are wrong. The Mustang is a muscle car, not a sports car or an exotic. It's only compition is the Camero and Challenger. There is now some compitition from Kia, but still down on power and cylinders.

There is a reason the Mustang has a solid axle instead of IRS. Firts of all, it is cheaper to build, which keeps the cost of the car down. Second of all, if you want to get serious about the 1/4 mile, the solid axle is superior. The 03/04 Cobra guys are constantly changing out the IRS for a solid axle. Third of all, in the new 2010 models, the Mustang w/the track pack pulls more G-force than both the Camero SS and the Challenger RT. Motor Trend and Car and Driver both have articles on this.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/coupes/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t_comparison_test

http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/112_0903_camaro_mustang_challenger_comparison_video/index.html

I can't believe that there is a modern sports car being built today that uses a live axle. A live axle might be great for 1/4 mile times, but in "real" driving they are terrible. My 2000 GT mustang would get huge wheel hop any time there was a pot hole in the road. I got rid of that car because the rear suspension just ruined an otherwise good car. I'll take a less horse power car with an IRS over a more powerful car with a live axle any day of the week. An IRS is far superior at "real" road driving.

Of course a GTR with a dual clutch tranny and AWD is going to have an advantage over a more powerful RWD car.