Another road test, another result.

[Deathclown66]

Yep, I'm back, with another MT road test, this time, it's pitting the big 3 sub-100K Americans against each other.
Viper - Vette - GT500
All three are claimed to have no less than 500HP, although, the Vette and Viper are SAE certified, whereas Ford, for whatever reason, has not gotten the "500HP" "Stang certified yet.

They not only did the normal road tests, but also ran 'round Willow Springs Roadway, for added flavor.

Screw the babble, straight to the testing

2006 Corvette Z06
0-30: 1.7
0-40: 2.3
0-50: 2.9
0-60: 3.8
0-70: 4.5
0-80: 5.4
0-90: 6.6
0-100: 7.8
1/4: 11.7 @ 125.2mph
100-0: 320ft
60-0: 108ft
Skidpad: .97 g average
MT Figure Eight: 24.8 @ .80 g average

2006 Viper SRT-10 Coupe
0-30: 1.7
0-40: 2.4
0-50: 3.0
0-60: 3.9
0-70: 4.8
0-80: 5.8
0-90: 7.1
0-100: 8.4
1/4: 12.1 @ 120.9mph
100-0: 288ft
60-0: 104ft
Skidpad: 1.02 g average
MT Figure Eight: 24.4 @ .68 average

2006 Mustang GT500
0-30: 1.9
0-40: 2.5
0-50: 3.5
0-60: 4.4
0-70: 5.4
0-80: 6.7
0-90: 8.1
0-100: 9.7
1/4: 12.7 @ 114.2mph
100-0: 321ft
60-0: 112ft
Skidpad: .90 g average
MT Figure Eight: 25.8 @ .72 g average

And the Willow Springs lap times are.........
Not yet, first, the peak speeds, and low speeds, and all forms G related.

Acceleration:
Vette: .50 G's - 100.4mph
Viper: .41 G's - 97.5mph
GT500: .31 G's - 90.5mph
(speed is max on straight)

Right-Hand Cornering:
Viper: 1.20 G's - 38.1mph
Vette: 1.19 G's - 37.3mph
GT500: 1.07 G's - 35.0mph
(speeds are lowest in corner)

Left-Hand Cornering:
Viper: 1.22 G's - 46.1mph
Vette: 1.11 G's - 44.3mph
GT500: 1.06 G's - 43.5mph
(speeds are lowest in corner)

Braking:
Vette: 1.00 - 81.0mph - 54.1mph
Viper: .96 - 81.9mph - 54.2mph
GT500: .89 - 77.4mph - 48.5mph
(speeds before and after braking)

Viper: 1:01.151
Vette: 1:01.165
GT500: 1:04.954

And as for subjective ratings
They hated driving the Viper, except for when beating the crap out of it. They minimize it's on-track sucess, and raise every complaint there is to make about a car. Nothing positive is said.
They love the GT500, and go so far as to call it a supercar, all the while claiming we probabley won't miss the near 4 second track margin. Nothing negative is said.
And the Z06 is their baby, and they love it the best, apparently in every way, shape, and form. Nothing negative is said. Nothing.

If it sounds like I don't approve of their subjective opinions, it's because I don't.
Anytime you praise a Mustang, and Corvette about their ability to putter around the city without having any powerband problems, and fail to at least say the same of a Viper, you're simply looking for negative, that's my take.

 

[Dave A]

To be honest Fifth gear was exactley the same on the Viper when they reviewed it over here on TV, both Jason Plato and Tiff Needel agreed that the Viper was just a horrible car all round. It was fast, sure, but it was a horrible car. Jeremy Clarkson on TopGear drove the Viper and he gave it a kicking for many of the faults other people gave it a kicking for, but at the end of the test he said he loved it, he loved it's outragousness. And I think with the Viper that is the key, it's not sophisticated, it doesn't eek finess and it's not built with quality materials. It's just one big over the top lump of power and it's not ashamed of it. Some people just get it, others don't.

 

[Deathclown66]

Well said, I love 'em for the very same reasons you said.
I also love them for the handling they're capable off too though.

 

[skip0110]

I think it's weird that C&D (Dec 05, link) found the Viper to be easiest and most progressive on the track while they thought the Vette gave little feedback but had extremely high limits--they said it took a lot of confidence to drive it fast.

By all appearances, the Viper is not a welcoming, coddling machine and looks far more menacing than the Corvette. So when we did the odd gymnastics exercise required—slide your legs under the dash without touching the hot sill—to begin the timed lapping session, we were nervous. We had just come from an unnerving experience with the skittish Z06 Corvette—we'll get to that in a minute—which had not boosted our confidence to handle these beastly machines.

Once on the track, though, we found the Viper to be as friendly as a yellow Lab—obedient, eager to please—and it would do what you told it to, without fail. "Surprisingly easy to drive around the track and very forgivable as the rear end rotates," flip-flopped the guy who had said the Viper made him nervous.

The GT500 is as far as I understand a nose-heavy, understeering pig and really a step back from the excellent 390 horse SVT Cobras.

 

[Tornado]

I'm completely befuddled by the rave reviews the GT500 has been getting since its inception. It costs $50,000; get's it's ass handed to it by base C6 Corvette's that cost $5,000 less; and for some odd reason isn't significantly faster than the 2 year old, down by 110 BHP SVT Cobra or the 4 year-old, down by 180 BHP Chevrolet Camaro SS and actually has a lower top speed than both. And those three can actually handle and they all cost less when new (about 20k less for the two pony cars!).
What is it about this car that makes journalists swoon over the fact that they are essentially paying for 500 BHP that feels like 400? Why is it that very few of them actually stand up and say what a understeering, overrated and priced pig it actually is? Is it the tacky body kit and/or stripes? The cheap interior? The "retro" look? It certainly isn't its amazing performance value, as it isn't really that good at doing anything other than going straight.
Quite a shame, too, as the old SVT would almost definitely smoke it at any track, post-2002 or not, what with it's proper rear suspension and something at least resembling weight balance.

 

[skip0110]

I agree totally with Toronado on that.

Another weird thing is that when Fifth Gear tested the GT500, they were rather kind, which is sort of strange considering that the british motoring shows normally view anything American as cart-horse technology, often backing up the biased opinions with blatant lies.

So, when they finally get an American car that actually matches all the stereotypes (heavy, solid rear, doesn't turn), why don't they tear it a new one?

 

[JCE]

]I'm completely befuddled by the rave reviews the GT500 has been getting since its inception. It costs $50,000; get's it's ass handed to it by base C6 Corvette's that cost $5,000 less; and for some odd reason isn't significantly faster than the 2 year old, down by 110 BHP SVT Cobra or the 4 year-old, down by 180 BHP Chevrolet Camaro SS and actually has a lower top speed than both. And those three can actually handle and they all cost less when new (about 20k less for the two pony cars!).
What is it about this car that makes journalists swoon over the fact that they are essentially paying for 500 BHP that feels like 400? Why is it that very few of them actually stand up and say what a understeering, overrated and priced pig it actually is? Is it the tacky body kit and/or stripes? The cheap interior? The "retro" look? It certainly isn't its amazing performance value, as it isn't really that good at doing anything other than going straight.
Quite a shame, too, as the old SVT would almost definitely smoke it at any track, post-2002 or not, what with it's proper rear suspension and something at least resembling weight balance.

The GT500 looks so fantastic it is in a league of its own, the C6 just doesn't look anywhere as good in my opinion. And the Viper just isn't worth the sheetmetal that it is made with. And I drove a new one recently (the SRT-10), I disliked everything about it EXCEPT the transmission and noise. And the GT500 doesn't feel like it has 400bhp, if anyone says that they are just crazy. But the GT500 and the Vette/Viper are in a different catagory anyway, so why compare them. It is a classic American muscle car formula (the GT500), and lets not forget the classic muscle cars of America aren't exactly fast or light on their feet either.

And let me finalize my rant/post with this.

ZO6: $65k (IF you can get it for the MSRP)
Viper: $90
GT500: $50k

See a problem here? You people and the idiotic magazines are trying to compare a much cheaper car vs two more expensive cars that aren't even in the same catagory!

 

[dubbed]

The GT500 looks so fantastic it is in a league of its own, the C6 just doesn't look anywhere as good in my opinion. And the Viper just isn't worth the sheetmetal that it is made with. And I drove a new one recently (the SRT-10), I disliked everything about it EXCEPT the transmission and noise. And the GT500 doesn't feel like it has 400bhp, if anyone says that they are just crazy. But the GT500 and the Vette/Viper are in a different catagory anyway, so why compare them. It is a classic American muscle car formula (the GT500), and lets not forget the classic muscle cars of America aren't exactly fast or light on their feet either.

And let me finalize my rant/post with this.

ZO6: $65k (IF you can get it for the MSRP)
Viper: $90
GT500: $50k

See a problem here? You people and the idiotic magazines are trying to compare a much cheaper car vs two more expensive cars that aren't even in the same catagory!

Agree whole heartedly and the actually coupe tops out at 43,760....

110 BHP SVT Cobra or the 4 year-old, down by 180 BHP Chevrolet Camaro SS and actually has a lower top speed than both. And those three can actually handle and they all cost less when new (about 20k less for the two pony cars!).

Its called an electronic limiter....wihout the GT500 is estimated and at around 180mph...

Quite a shame, too, as the old SVT would almost definitely smoke it at any track, post-2002 or not, what with it's proper rear suspension and something at least resembling weight balance.

Now lets let logic prevail....The 2004 SVT cobra was not as fast as a C5 vette. The C6 is slightly faster than a C5 Z06. The GT500 is slightly slower than a C6. Therefore the GT500 is faster than the 2004 SVT Cobra...

Also the GT500 has a better weight distribution than an EVO MR or an STi.

 

[iceburns288]

I believe the new C6 has been ruled to be about halfway between the C5 and the C5 Z06. Just a random comment I can make while watching Top Gear (it's hard to make coherent thought when listening to Jezza)

 

[dubbed]

I believe the new C6 has been ruled to be about halfway between the C5 and the C5 Z06. Just a random comment I can make while watching Top Gear (it's hard to make coherent thought when listening to Jezza)

From Car and Driver:

C6
Zero to 30 mph: 1.8
40 mph: 2.5
50 mph: 3.3
60 mph: 4.3
70 mph: 5.4
80 mph: 6.8
90 mph: 8.2
100 mph: 9.9
110 mph: 12.0
120 mph: 14.0
130 mph: 16.9
140 mph: 20.1
150 mph: 26.3
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.2
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 9.8
50-70 mph: 9.0
Standing 1/4-mile: 12.7 sec @ 113 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 186 mph
BRAKING
70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 166 ft

HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g
Understeer: minimal moderate excessive

C5 Z06
ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.8
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.6
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.8
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.2
100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.0
110 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.0
120 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.3
130 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.2
140 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.2
150 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28.0
160 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37.7
Street start, 5-60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.9

Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.0
50-70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.6

Standing 1 /4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 sec @ 113 mph
Top speed (drag limited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 mph

BRAKING
70-0 mph @ impending lockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 ft

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.98 g

 

[skip0110]

Now lets let logic prevail....The 2004 SVT cobra was not as fast as a C5 vette. The C6 is slightly faster than a C5 Z06. The GT500 is slightly slower than a C6. Therefore the GT500 is faster than the 2004 SVT Cobra...

The SVT Cobra ran 0-60 in 4.5 sec (source), the GT500 runs 0-60 in 4.6 sec (source).

The SVT Cobra had 56/43 weight distribution, the GT500 has 57/42.

They both pull the same time in the quarter mile.

They both pull 0.90 g on the skidpad.

The SVT Cobra has a IRS, the GT500 has a live axle.

The SVT Cobra cost under $35,000, the GT500 costs over $40,000.

Car and Driver described the SVT Cobra like this:

At Firebird, we found we could brake late into corners, trailing off as we turned in, and the amount of rotation was controllable and confidence inspiring.

Even when drifting with all four wheels in a slide, the Cobra was receptive to messages from the brakes, throttle pedal, and wheel. In fact, the overly quick off-center steering response we recall from previous Cobras has been transformed to properly linear steering gain as you add pressure to the thick, leather-wrapped rim.

Car and Driver described the GT500 like this:

Despite the Ford’s disappointing straight-line acceleration, the GT500 happily bounded around Grattan for several laps. Thanks to its reassuring understeer, the GT500 was rock solid at high speed, confidently carving through the faster white-knuckle parts of the track, with the back end always staying in line. The brakes were also strong, showing hardly any fade, even when slowing from about 130 mph into Turn One. In the slower corners, however, the nose tended to plow too much, making it difficult to apply the power early for a strong exit.

And somehow the GT500 is better?

 

[Tornado]

The GT500 looks so fantastic it is in a league of its own, the C6 just doesn't look anywhere as good in my opinion.

Which is exactly that. An opinion. The current Mustang is the biggest piece of ass Ford has come up with since the oval Tuarus, in my opinion, and while I hate the C6 as well, at least an effort was made towards styling it.

And the GT500 doesn't feel like it has 400bhp, if anyone says that they are just crazy.

Which is why the base C6 Corvette (400BHP), Corvette Z06 C5 (405 BHP) and SVT Cobra Mustang (390 BHP) whip it's ass, with the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6 very close behind (320BHP), not to mention its older brother the '92 SLP Firehawk that outran the GT500 with 150 less BHP (350BHP).

ZO6: $65k (IF you can get it for the MSRP)
Viper: $90
GT500: $50k

Chevrolet Corvette C6 $45k 0-60 4.3 seconds
Ford Shellby GT500 $50k 0-60 4.7 seconds
Ford SVT Cobra '04 $33k 0-60 4.6 seconds
Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6 $32k 0-60 4.9 seconds
And, for fun:
Pontiac Firebird Firehawk 1992 $40k 0-60 4.6 seconds

Also the GT500 has a better weight distribution than an EVO MR or an STi.

And your point? The Evo also has a front differential. Can't imagine that helping weight disrtibution very much, but it also means that the Evo still handles better than the GT500 regardless. And the Impreza has a much lower center of gravity the the GT500, in addition to having a front differential.

 

[Deathclown66]

The GT500 looks so fantastic it is in a league of its own, the C6 just doesn't look anywhere as good in my opinion. And the Viper just isn't worth the sheetmetal that it is made with. And I drove a new one recently (the SRT-10), I disliked everything about it EXCEPT the transmission and noise. And the GT500 doesn't feel like it has 400bhp, if anyone says that they are just crazy. But the GT500 and the Vette/Viper are in a different catagory anyway, so why compare them. It is a classic American muscle car formula (the GT500), and lets not forget the classic muscle cars of America aren't exactly fast or light on their feet either.

A. Most people don't like the trans in the Viper so much.
B. They don't sound so good.

The GT500 might feel like 500HP, if you just got out of a 150hp Focus, sure.

ZO6: $65k (IF you can get it for the MSRP)
Viper: $90
GT500: $50k

Are you that blind or biased that you don't realize that every dealer in America is selling GT500's for 60k?
So why say you probly can't get the Vette for MSRP, when you KNOW you can't get the 'Stang for MSRP?
(20 Bucks says you don't answer that)

Chevrolet Corvette C6 $45k 0-60 4.3 seconds
Ford Shellby GT500 $50k 0-60 4.7 seconds
Ford SVT Cobra '04 $33k 0-60 4.6 seconds
Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6 $32k 0-60 4.9 seconds
And, for fun:
Pontiac Firebird Firehawk 1992 $40k 0-60 4.6 seconds

Don't forget the Elise, with 190hp, turning a 4.8 second 0-60.

And just so everybody knows, Motor Trend, (the source of this thread's article), clocked a C5 Z06 running a 12.4 @ 116mph.
That's blasting the GT500.

Another mag, (forget the name), claims to have ran a stock C5 ZO6 to an 11.97 @ 118, at Englishtown Raceway, in New Jersey, But I won't source them, due to possibilitys of intake/exhaust modifications. (the mag said stock, and mentioned no mods, but are notorious for claiming cars with intake/exhaust mods as stock.)


Food for GT500 dislikers, posion for fans:
Remember that the GT500, has NOT been SAE certified, for no known reason.

 

[TopHat]

Hello, I'm a Shelby GT500, my job is not to be a sports car, it is to make you feel like you are driving a MUSCLE CAR. Not a superlight, overly engineered, poor livability F1 machine. My job is to be livable, comfy and connect to middle aged men. Not to beat a Corvette, but to beat a Charger, Camaro, Challenger, or GTO. I am a high performance Mustang. Not a GT.

Hello, I'm a Dodge Viper, I'm here to make you feel like a race driver. I have an incredibly large engine producing huge amounts of tourque. My side sills will scorch your skin. I can't be driven for more than that of 4 hours before I overpower my airconditioning.

Hello, I'm a Chevrolet Corvette Z06. I'm here to take the best of American engineering for a bargian price, while making sure you feel good. I have practical hatchback, and I am easy to repair at dealerships, much more so than a Viper. I compete with cars just like me. Not 2+2 Muscle cars, but Supercars, like Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and many more. I give American automakers a reason to make big engines and fast cars.


There, I hope you are happy.

 

[Tornado]

Hello, I'm a Shelby GT500, my job is not to be a sports car, it is to make you feel like you are driving a MUSCLE CAR. Not a superlight, overly engineered, poor livability F1 machine. My job is to be livable, comfy and connect to middle aged men. Not to beat a Corvette, but to beat a Charger, Camaro, Challenger, or GTO. I am a high performance Mustang. Not a GT.

Which is a problem, because it fails at both. And it's older brother of only 2 years prior beats it as well at being a muscle car, yet it could also be made into a pretty competent handling machine because it was one stock. Not helping the matters is that Ford put together the GT500 to so obviously compete with the 'Vette.

Are you that blind or biased that you don't realize that every dealer in America is selling GT500's for 60k?
So why say you probly can't get the Vette for MSRP, when you KNOW you can't get the 'Stang for MSRP?
(20 Bucks says you don't answer that)

Which is especially bad, because the GT500 really only costs around $43-45k, and the $50,000 rounding was the "nice" estimate of price. Not helping is that base Corvette's usually don't go that high over list.

Remember that the GT500, has NOT been SAE certified, for no known reason.

That could truthfully go either way. The '99 SVT Cobra, for example, was rated at 320 when owners began to find it only had around 290BHP. The '03 SVT Cobra was rated at 390 when owners began to discover it actually had over 430 BHP.

 

[Deathclown66]

Hello, I'm a Shelby GT500, my job is not to be a sports car, it is to make you feel like you are driving a MUSCLE CAR. Not a superlight, overly engineered, poor livability F1 machine. My job is to be livable, comfy and connect to middle aged men. Not to beat a Corvette, but to beat a Charger, Camaro, Challenger, or GTO. I am a high performance Mustang. Not a GT.

A GT is a Grand Tourer
And you forgot the most important part of being a Muscle Car: Have the Muscle to back yourself up.
So, were Mustangs competing against Vette's in the 60's?
Were Mustang's ever faster than GTO's, Challenger's, Charger's, and Camaro's? Were they ever the fastest 4-seat *Muscle car*?

Hello, I'm a Dodge Viper, I'm here to make you feel like a race driver. I have an incredibly large engine producing huge amounts of tourque. My side sills will scorch your skin. I can't be driven for more than that of 4 hours before I overpower my airconditioning.

It takes 4 hours? I doubt it.
Clearly you don't get the Viper.
And they could make it cooler inside, but then it would weigh the beastly 3800lbs of the GT500, be slower, more lathargic, and handling would go down the crapper. It does have a 505 inside. Did I mention a perfect 50-50 weight balance with a driver inside? (49-51 without driver) Which is great, because you'll never drive one without being inside!

Hello, I'm a Chevrolet Corvette Z06. I'm here to take the best of American engineering for a bargian price, while making sure you feel good. I have practical hatchback, and I am easy to repair at dealerships, much more so than a Viper. I compete with cars just like me. Not 2+2 Muscle cars, but Supercars, like Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and many more. I give American automakers a reason to make big engines and fast cars.

Your a Corvette, then you compete with anything that challenges you, be it a Mustang with a claimed 500hp, a Mercedes AMG with 500hp, or a Viper, you do not care, you are here to own everything possible.

That could truthfully go either way. The '99 SVT Cobra, for example, was rated at 320 when owners began to find it only had around 290BHP. The '03 SVT Cobra was rated at 390 when owners began to discover it actually had over 430 BHP.

But the new standard wasn't here for either of those cars, far as I know.
I do know it is here now, and most every manufacture uses it, probabley even Ford, hence the 152(or 4) hp rating on the Focus ST.

 

[skip0110]

But the new standard wasn't here for either of those cars, far as I know.
I do know it is here now, and most every manufacture uses it, probabley even Ford, hence the 152(or 4) hp rating on the Focus ST.

Owner dyno runs (where that statistic came from, I am assuming a driveline loss corrected RWHP figure) are never SAE corrected so the comparison is a moot point anyways.

But when a car dynos out at the wheels at/near the rated SAE crank hp (as the SVT Cobra often did), you know it is underrated...

 

[TopHat]

And you forgot the most important part of being a Muscle Car: Have the Muscle to back yourself up.
So, were Mustangs competing against Vette's in the 60's?
Were Mustang's ever faster than GTO's, Challenger's, Charger's, and Camaro's? Were they ever the fastest 4-seat *Muscle car*?

.

Ahem.

Boss.

Shelby GT350

Shelby GT500

429 Super Cobra Jet Equipped.

Mustangs been faster than the Challenger since 84, the Camaro since 2002, and the GTO from 1979 to to 2005 and from 07 to 09.

Boo Ya.

 

[Tornado]

Ahem.

Boss.

Shelby GT350

Shelby GT500

429 Super Cobra Jet Equipped.

That is correct. Except the Boss Mustangs and GT350's were track machines. Homologation specials. The GT500 and 429 were straight line warriors. The current GT500 can't do either.

Mustangs been faster than the Challenger since 84, the Camaro since 2002, and the GTO from 1979 to to 2005 and from 07 to 09.

Clever. But technically untrue.

 

[dubbed]

And your point? The Evo also has a front differential. Can't imagine that helping weight disrtibution very much, but it also means that the Evo still handles better than the GT500 regardless. And the Impreza has a much lower center of gravity the the GT500, in addition to having a front differential.

Actually the Sti doesn't handle as good as a GT500, in Car and Driver it still outpaced the EVO around the racetrack and by the numbers it does as well:

The GT500

0-60 4.5sec

1/4 mile 12.7 @116 mph

passing 45-65 1.9 secs

600ft slalom: 69.7 mph

lateral accleration .92g

Mt figure eight: 24.5secs @ .77g

Weight distribution: 57/ 43


The WRX STi


0-60: 4.5 secs


Passing 45-65 mph: 2.5 sec

Quarter Mile: 13.0 sec @ 103.5 mph

600-Ft Slalom: 68.8 mph avg

Lateral Acceleration: 0.91 g avg

Weight distribution: 58/ 42

EVO IX MR

0-60 4.5

Quarter Mile 13.3 sec @ 103.4 mph

Passing 45-65 mph 2.5 sec

Braking, 60-0 mph 107 ft

600-Ft Slalom 69.8 mph avg

MT Figure Eight 25.4 sec @ 0.72 g avg

Lateral Acceleration 0.92 g avg

That could truthfully go either way. The '99 SVT Cobra, for example, was rated at 320 when owners began to find it only had around 290BHP. The '03 SVT Cobra was rated at 390 when owners began to discover it actually had over 430 BHP.

Very true indeed though being underrated(with execption of the '99 cobra which was a header problem and was fixed so it made the actual amount, which is why there are no 00 cobras) from the factory is not only Cobras but all other SVT vehicles, for example my lightning when I did a baseline dyno put out 354rwhp and 426rwtrq from the factory. The truck was rated @ 380hp and 450 trq. Even when Motortrend dynoed a stock GT it made closer to 600hp. The GT500 is SAE certified , their site is currently down so I cant get the info from SAE.org but Ford's press release will suffice until I can:

The 500 hp rating was obtained using the Society of Automotive Engineer's latest standard and was witnessed by an objective third party. The Shelby GT500's 5.4-liter supercharged V-8 will be built at Ford's Romeo Engine Plant in Romeo, Mich. Pricing will be announced closer to launch.

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=23017

 

[Deathclown66]

Ahem.

Boss.

Shelby GT350

Shelby GT500

429 Super Cobra Jet Equipped.

Mustangs been faster than the Challenger since 84, the Camaro since 2002, and the GTO from 1979 to to 2005 and from 07 to 09.

Boo Ya.

Dodge Neon.

Chevrolet Impala.

Trans-Am.

See how meaningless this is?


Ahem.

What.

Do.

They.

Run.

???

Are any of them faster than the Yenko's? I have no clue what they ran, but judging from your post, neither do you.

It is clever that you mention they've been faster since the other cars stopped being made.
Sad that that's the only years you could list where they were the fastest.

Boo-ya.

 

[Tornado]

Actually the Sti doesn't handle as good as a GT500, in Car and Driver it still outpaced the EVO around the racetrack and by the numbers it does as well:

The GT500

0-60 4.5sec

1/4 mile 12.7 @116 mph

passing 45-65 1.9 secs

600ft slalom: 69.7 mph

lateral accleration .92g

Mt figure eight: 24.5secs @ .77g

Weight distribution: 57/ 43


The WRX STi


0-60: 4.5 secs


Passing 45-65 mph: 2.5 sec

Quarter Mile: 13.0 sec @ 103.5 mph

600-Ft Slalom: 68.8 mph avg

Lateral Acceleration: 0.91 g avg

Weight distribution: 58/ 42

EVO IX MR

0-60 4.5

Quarter Mile 13.3 sec @ 103.4 mph

Passing 45-65 mph 2.5 sec

Braking, 60-0 mph 107 ft

600-Ft Slalom 69.8 mph avg

MT Figure Eight 25.4 sec @ 0.72 g avg

Lateral Acceleration 0.92 g avg

Those figure bolded is the only ones that can be used, as they are the only ones that
A: Are represented by all three cars and,
B: Have anything to do with handling.
And the slalom speed is not the best representation of a cars handling ability, as cars unwilling to oversteer (GT500) can be equated to point and shoot in slaloms.

 

[Deathclown66]

The GT500
0-60 4.5sec
1/4 mile 12.7 @116 mph
passing 45-65 1.9 secs
600ft slalom: 69.7 mph
lateral accleration .92g
Mt figure eight: 24.5secs @ .77g
Weight distribution: 57/ 43

2007 Mustang GT500
0-60: 4.4
1/4: 12.7 @ 114.2mph
Skidpad: .90 g average
MT Figure Eight: 25.8 @ .72 g average

.....
Congratulations, you just made up some statistics.
And no, I don't think anyone will believe that the GT500 out-handled the Z06 through MT Figure-Eight.
there's no room for this kind of stunt in here.

 

[skip0110]

Also, isn't it interesting that the WRX STi has 11.2 lb/hp, the Evo has 11.2 lbs/hp, while the GT500 has 7.8 lbs/hp.

Yet they all run similar 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Hmmm....

 

[Deathclown66]

Also, isn't it interesting that the WRX STi has 11.2 lb/hp, the Evo has 11.2 lbs/hp, while the GT500 has 7.8 lbs/hp.

Yet they all run similar 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Hmmm....

I can answer that. AWD.
Notice the Mustang is barreling down the finish at 10mph faster (approx) then the EVO's and STI's.

In reality, the EVO's and STI's, once in second gear, are basically in a dead heat with 287hp 350Z's, from everything I've seen.
(but yes, I think they'll blast a GT500 through racetrack corners)

 

[TopHat]

Dodge Neon.

Chevrolet Impala.

Trans-Am.

See how meaningless this is?


Ahem.

What.

Do.

They.

Run.

???

Are any of them faster than the Yenko's? I have no clue what they ran, but judging from your post, neither do you.

It is clever that you mention they've been faster since the other cars stopped being made.
Sad that that's the only years you could list where they were the fastest.

Boo-ya.

All right, you win. Just let me back into my hole.

Ford is having a good time reaping their pasts, why ruin it?

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, this has been fun to read. Who knew that it would all get heated so fast? Oh yeah, that one thread about the Mustang from before...

Generally speaking, I don't trust Motor Trend for much anymore beyond pretty pictures and articles that make me feel like I'm six. Sure, they are an interesting read now and again, and they often do great stories about the various American cars, but I have to question their opinions over the automobiles time and time again.

...In this contest, I can't fault them much. The Viper is what it is, a true model of brute strength, and in no-way should be handled by those faint of heart. I have yet to drive a new SRT-10, but if the old GTS was any sign of what this model is like, hell-on-wheels is a good description. More power equals more fun in this situation, and like it or hate it, it is still one of the best sports cars sold anywhere in the world.

As for the Corvette, well, I can't fault it with anything other than the slightly cheap interior, and the few compromises for "comfort" that GM took when designing the car. I think last years "glove box" re-design may have included a few fixes for other things, hence the shrinking of complaints, particularly the hairy suspension, etc. Big power, good reflexes, and a cheap price adds up to arguably one of the best sports cars sold anywhere in the world, and that is indeed a hard fact to dispute, given the "Best Car" voting from the summer.

As for the Mustang, Motor Trend has jumped so far up that car's ass since its debut, they aren't going to fault it for anything. It was if the car was crafted by God himself, and no matter what may be "wrong" about it, it isn't there. It would appear that the aforementioned "fixes" that Ford has supplied to the car shortly after production began have quelled some of the problems, as even Car and Driver noted them too in their preliminary VIR testing this past month. But that doesn't always make up for the iron lump sitting on-top of the front axle, the LRA out back, and the otherwise "classic" design pieces that make up the car. Of course, that is part of the reason why so many people, including myself, love the car.

...It is '60s Americana re-invented for the 21st century...

But a $50K price-tag, a minimally upgraded interior, and performance that is anything but special. Sure, shes quick... But for the price and what it was "supposed to" tackle, it just doesn't cut it as a reasonable option to the other choices. Sure, I'd consider buying one, but I'd be hard-pressed to ignore the value of the Corvette, the overall performance of the Cayman S, or if I want to head down the same route as the "Grand Touring" GT500, buy a slightly-used XKR.

 

[JCE]

A. Most people don't like the trans in the Viper so much.
B. They don't sound so good.

Go drive a previous generation Viper and then the new one and tell me the transmission isn't much better. And the noise from the SRT-10 is good, I can't think of any V10 that sounds bad...can you?

The GT500 might feel like 500HP, if you just got out of a 150hp Focus, sure.

The base V6 2005-2007 Mustang feels like 500bhp when you just get out of a Focus. So what's the point?

Are you that blind or biased that you don't realize that every dealer in America is selling GT500's for 60k?
So why say you probly can't get the Vette for MSRP, when you KNOW you can't get the 'Stang for MSRP?
(20 Bucks says you don't answer that)

Ok so let's get this straight on the MSRP. How much are ZO6's selling for in real life versus GT500's? I still work at a Ford dealer part time so I can tell you that GT500's are selling for $50k-65k. Just try and get a brand new C6 ZO6 for less than $72k...I dare you. And the STARTING price of the Viper aleady puts it out of the arguement doesn't it? I don't see anyone complaining about how the Viper IS A BIG WASTE OF MONEY. If you people wants to complain about how you think the GT500 is a waste of money where's your arguement about the Viper? Hypocrites.

Don't forget the Elise, with 190hp, turning a 4.8 second 0-60.

Oh oh, let's throw in a non relevant car that isn't even on the same planet as the afromentioned cars! And let's make it as far away from an American sports car as possible!

Food for GT500 dislikers, posion for fans:
Remember that the GT500, has NOT been SAE certified, for no known reason.

Wrong. Click here: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=23017

And I quote:

Horsepower

500 hp @ 6,000 rpm (SAE Certified)

Torque

480 lb.-ft. @ 4,500 rpm (SAE Certified)

If this is a lie then I'm suing Ford Motor Co. for millions of dollars for false advertising.

 

[skip0110]

Ok so let's get this straight on the MSRP. How much are ZO6's selling for in real life versus GT500's? I still work at a Ford dealer part time so I can tell you that GT500's are selling for $50k-65k. Just try and get a brand new C6 ZO6 for less than $72k...I dare you. And the STARTING price of the Viper aleady puts it out of the arguement doesn't it? I don't see anyone complaining about how the Viper IS A BIG WASTE OF MONEY. If you people wants to complain about how you think the GT500 is a waste of money where's your arguement about the Viper? Hypocrites.

With the Z06 and Viper you are paying for exclusivity. The GT500 has the same body and interior as a $20,000 V6 Mustang. So it had better be fast, right?

No, the fact still stands that the GT500 is no faster and probably less fun than a $35,000 Mustang Ford built 3 years ago.

 

[super cirrus]

Are any of them faster than the Yenko's? I have no clue what they ran, but judging from your post, neither do you.

It is clever that you mention they've been faster since the other cars stopped being made.
Sad that that's the only years you could list where they were the fastest.

Boo-ya.

yenkos were a dealership special, not a production model. You cant really use that as comparison.