New Shelby GT500 goes to the dyno

[overst33r]

Five, six runs in and the power was still climbing.

Finally, upon the seventh run, the output of our color-coordinating GT500 stabilized. And we saw that it was good.

This new Shelby appears to have the thermal capacity of an industrial meat locker.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/strai....il.home.photopanel..1.*

Dyno Sheet

I wonder if the redline were to be extended if it would make more power. It would certainly improve acceleration either way.

 

[thegimp03]

I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

It does seem a little slow (not that 4.6 is a slow time, just a slow time for a car with that kind of HP). Obviously, despite the live rear axle, the chassis can't easily put down that much power. I'm sure the car is still blisteringly fast once it's off the line.

 

[JDub02]

i may be in love. i could never justify the price, but that's fun to dream about.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

my guess is that it has an extremely hard time putting that power to the road. a wide set of slicks would shave a bunch off of that.

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

my guess is that it has an extremely hard time putting that power to the road. a wide set of slicks would shave a bunch off of that.

Yea, plus Edmond sucks at 0-60 times if thats were you got the time from

 

[ayabe]

Well C&D only pulled a 12.7 I think in the car, has nothing to do with edmunds.

According to them, the Ford guy thought it was about .5 too slow and after a few tries - they even put their own driver in it and he couldn't do any better.

Edit - In the article they mentioned "less than ideal conditions" but didn't elaborate.

Pretty nice alternative to a Vette I guess, looks nice and should be easy to make more power(thought I doubt that's the issue).

 

[exdeath]

GT500 is a heavy pig at 4,000 lbs even though it's the lightest of all the current generation muscle cars (Charger, Challenger, Camaro, etc). A stock '03-04 at 3,665 lbs does 12.6s 1/4 and 0-60 in 4.6 with around 400 HP and a half assed IRS. Not that 3,600 lbs is light either, but still.

The redline on the 5.4 cannot be increased. The 5.4 is an undersquare engine (stroke greater than bore) so you have issues with piston velocity and piston rocking and side loading in the bores and potential skirt-bore issues at BDC.

 

[lsd]

That has got to be the slowest 500whp car ever. 0-60 isn't as telling as 1/4 mile trap speed and it seems it's only hitting mid to low teens where it should be hitting almost 120 with it's weight and WHP.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: lsd
That has got to be the slowest 500whp car ever. 0-60 isn't as telling as 1/4 mile trap speed and it seems it's only hitting mid to low teens where it should be hitting almost 120 with it's weight and WHP.

Drag? You can just look at the front profile of a S197 vs SN95-2 and see an immediate difference.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

my guess is that it has an extremely hard time putting that power to the road. a wide set of slicks would shave a bunch off of that.

Yea, plus Edmond sucks at 0-60 times if thats were you got the time from

It seems to be Ford's listing, because R&T reported that time as well. It could be Ford is being like BMW and listing conservative 0-60 times to stave off insurance and so forth.

 

[lsd]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: lsd
That has got to be the slowest 500whp car ever. 0-60 isn't as telling as 1/4 mile trap speed and it seems it's only hitting mid to low teens where it should be hitting almost 120 with it's weight and WHP.

Drag? You can just look at the front profile of a S197 vs SN95-2 and see an immediate difference.

The 2010 Camaro SS has similar weight and drag cd but about 150 less whp but in a recent rag it trapped 110mph. In another rag a gt500 trapped 113mph, I think something is amiss somewhere.

 

[exar333]

That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

 

[Zenmervolt]

Gearing, gearing, and gearing. It's not huge differences, but the GT500 is geared taller than the Camaro with the exception of 6th gear, and you're not in 6th at the end of a 1/4 mile track.

GT500 Overall Ratios:
1st: 9.83:1
2nd: 5.89:1
3rd: 4.30:1
4th: 3.31:1
5th: 2.65:1
6th: 2.09:1

Camaro SS Overall Ratios
1st: 10.39:1
2nd: 7.14:1
3rd: 4.93:1
4th: 3.45:1
5th: 2.90:1
6th: 1.97:1

ZV

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
I'm not against Ford or anything, I currently drive one...but 500+ hp and a 0-60 time of 4.6 seconds doesn't really add up to me.

Why? Doesn't it weigh almost 4000lbs?

edit: saw someone already mentioned the weight.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: lsd

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: lsd
That has got to be the slowest 500whp car ever. 0-60 isn't as telling as 1/4 mile trap speed and it seems it's only hitting mid to low teens where it should be hitting almost 120 with it's weight and WHP.

Drag? You can just look at the front profile of a S197 vs SN95-2 and see an immediate difference.

The 2010 Camaro SS has similar weight and drag cd but about 150 less whp but in a recent rag it trapped 110mph. In another rag a gt500 trapped 113mph, I think something is amiss somewhere.

At 113mph, the times are about accurate on street tires. Fully hooked up and geared for acceleration, that mph indicates around an 11.6 ET. I'd guess it's spinning pretty badly.

If they gave us the 60-foot times, we'd know.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: lsd

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: lsd
That has got to be the slowest 500whp car ever. 0-60 isn't as telling as 1/4 mile trap speed and it seems it's only hitting mid to low teens where it should be hitting almost 120 with it's weight and WHP.

Drag? You can just look at the front profile of a S197 vs SN95-2 and see an immediate difference.

The 2010 Camaro SS has similar weight and drag cd but about 150 less whp but in a recent rag it trapped 110mph. In another rag a gt500 trapped 113mph, I think something is amiss somewhere.

see my post.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

Trap speed shows how fast a car really is, not the time. A 350Z doesn't trap anywhere near what a a GT500 does.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

Trap speed shows how fast a car really is, not the time. A 350Z doesn't trap anywhere near what a a GT500 does.

He drives a 370Z 🙂

But I wouldn't know if that's a huge difference

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

Trap speed shows how fast a car really is, not the time. A 350Z doesn't trap anywhere near what a a GT500 does.

He drives a 370Z 🙂

But I wouldn't know if that's a huge difference

Ok but a 370 still doesn't trap close to that either.

 

[ponyo]

That's such a pretty power curve. >400 lb-ft tq @ 2k rpm. That's slam you back in the seat type of torque which can be fun or scary. I bet it's a blast to drive around the city with that much low end torque.

 

[DVad3r]

Sexy car, I love that baby blue color. Perhaps I should sell my car/bike and get one! On second thought, maybe not 😉

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
That's almost 200hp more than my Z, and it's only .1 faster at the 0-60 and .5 faster on the 1/4. ????

.5 in the 1/4 is a pretty big difference.

 

[DVad3r]

Your Z is just another bag of wheels on the road. The GT-500 is a legacy. If I wanted practical performance I would buy a Corvette.