[BForbes]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...and_specs.html


A lot of people were wrong. This badboy can HOOK!

[ragingclue]

People in the existing Shelby camp weren't wrong. A big reason for that is knowing all it takes to eliminate wheel hop (usually) is a pair of LCAs which cost a couple hundred bucks. Still got wheel hop? Get some UCAs for a few hundred bucks more. It's no secret that Ford was only a few relatively cheap parts away from putting that power to the ground. I'm sure the LC helps too though, quite a bit.

Ford seems to have gone all in on this car, the "swan song" of the LRA Mustang. I was worried they'd pull some punches, but damn.... Looks like SVT got their groove back.

Also, inb4 "it's still a Mustang". I'd rather drive that "just a Mustang" than anything BMW has to offer.

[BForbes]

I love that "its still a Mustang" talk too. Trust me, thats OKAY. Thats the whole point. Even Insideline was shocked at how durable their whored out car was.

"One thing's for sure, it is durable. Proof? Within about a two-and-a-half-hour window, five Shelby GT500s made 152 quarter-mile passes without a single failure. No overheating, no fried clutches, no broken driveshafts."

They still clocked 3.8 to 60mph after the car had 20 passes on it. The icing on the cake for me is it being a 6MT. I wasn't expecting it to be faster than the new "underrated" M5 below 100mph though. It most certainly is. Traditionally, Europeans have a special way of making use of less hp than the Americans.

[ragingclue]

I know one thing people ragged on the previous Shelby for was the rear brake size. Well, with the new brakes, I wonder how big of a wheel you're going to have to get to clear those things. It was nice being able to throw some 15" MTs on the rear end. Not sure those are going to fit anymore.

Also, you have got to love the fact that Ford made this car efficient enough to avoid the gas guzzler tax. That's impressive even if you hate the blue oval.

[NYC6]

Well done Ford.
I came close to buying the GT500 when it was reintroduced a couple years ago. If it wasnt for a 'bidding war' on the car I likely would have owned it. Went with a new C6 Corvette instead. Glad I did.
This new Shelby is a bunch quicker than the earlier ones.
What an engine. With slicks, mods and power shifting(MT does bone stock) this car is going to be a killer!

[Silver-Bolt]

Very impressive numbers all around.

[ragingclue]

I think what sticks out most to me is how they've seemed to make it behave better at the limit.

Faster and more confidence-inspiring than the last GT500? I can't wait to see this thing chew up and spit out some pretty prestigious cars' hero laps.

[Genericuser1]

Faster, more durable, cheaper to repair and better fuel economy...what a bargin.

[RnmEvo9]

Pretty impressive results. I wonder how many 2012 GT500 owners are regretting their purchases now lol.

[ragingclue]

Apparently, this is a "normal" stock number, people who have seen multiple cars on dynos say it's about the norm, maybe even low. I know it's only a Dynojet but still....

Also, here is another review, but from Autoblog.

[RnmEvo9]

Would have loved to see the graph..

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by RnmEvo9

Would have loved to see the graph..

Yeah I know, me too. Curious about the torque #s as well.

No worries though; the info embargo is lifted, so we'll be seeing plenty of substance here soon.

[swanson]

[ben14142001]

Want.

[Epacy2]

Sic car, but that interior is dreadful.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by Epacy2

Sic car, but that interior is dreadful.

What's wrong with the interior? Looks like it has leather seats and navigation.

What I love about the new Shelby is it has a build in 0-60,1/4 mile, and skid pad data recorder built into the clusters. Very convenient for people that always drag their cars.

[ragingclue]

I can see how people would hate the interior if the retro stuff wasn't their thing. Not my thing either, but it's tolerable. For 662HP @ $55k, I will tolerate a lot worse than that.

Also, some only see pics of the non-nav cars, which looks a lot worse than the column with nav. This is much like the E9X and its difference between IDrive and non-IDrive.

However, I do consider the seats as an important part of the interior. And those Recaros beat the snot out of any seat BMW has ever been able to put in the car for me.

[Garduna]

I'd rock this car instead of the best bmw ride thats out today.

[MediaArtist]

I don't understand all these comments about interiors. Supposedly the E90s/E92s have such great interiors that rival every other car out there, that I apparently never got in my 335i. People are claiming its better than what's in a CTS-V. Are we looking at the same cars?

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

I don't understand all these comments about interiors. Supposedly the E90s/E92s have such great interiors that rival every other car out there, that I apparently never got in my 335i. People are claiming its better than what's in a CTS-V. Are we looking at the same cars?

It's the last resort mentality. Emergency fall-back.

Nobody likes being less reliable, slower, and have lower resale value. So they harp on interiors. Can't get a roundel on a Ford! HA!

But I do understand the hate on the Mustang's interior. Seats excluded, it's one I can understand people hating. While nowhere near as over the top as the Camaro, it's definitely not conservative and understated. I can see why people (especially from the BMW camp) wouldn't like it. I can't see how it's bad enough that someone would turn down a '13 Shelby at $55k for reasons of hating the interior alone, no matter how much you hate retro gauges!

The CTS-V hate I do not understand. Like I said in the other thread, I wish it wasn't as glossy/blingy, and I hate pop-up screens. However, it still seems to me like a much more posh interior than the E9X.

[Silver-Bolt]

I see those that cry "bad interior" as the posers that would not be able to extact the capabilities of the car. They are more worried about what it looks like. Performance is not their concern. Can't roll up to the country club in a Ford. Heaven forbid. lol.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

It's the last resort mentality. Emergency fall-back.

Nobody likes being less reliable, slower, and have lower resale value. So they harp on interiors. Can't get a roundel on a Ford! HA!

But I do understand the hate on the Mustang's interior. Seats excluded, it's one I can understand people hating. While nowhere near as over the top as the Camaro, it's definitely not conservative and understated. I can see why people (especially from the BMW camp) wouldn't like it. I can't see how it's bad enough that someone would turn down a '13 Shelby at $55k for reasons of hating the interior alone, no matter how much you hate retro gauges!

The CTS-V hate I do not understand. Like I said in the other thread, I wish it wasn't as glossy/blingy, and I hate pop-up screens. However, it still seems to me like a much more posh interior than the E9X.

People gotta remember, its essentially the same interior as the V6. Same goes for the 3 series. Do you think that everyone that pays $70K-$80K for an M3 is happy to have the same interior as the $35K 328? I dont think so. thats a compromise you gotta make. Besides, are people REALLY not gonna buy the GT500, CTS-V, M3, Z06/ZR1 because the interior is not that special? I vote performance/looks first.