New performance stats from Motor Trend

[Dave07997S]

If I had the money and the choice, I'd take the M6 over the GT500. Didn't it run 120 in the 1/4 mile? Nice car.....for $90K or so

Car and Driver ran 12.4@118mph and a 0-60 of 4.1...I agree I'd take a M6 over a GT500 as well if money was no issue.

Dave

 

[Fourcam330]

No doubt it's the better/nicer car in all aspects, however, it's twice the price and the Shelby has way more straight line potential--if you care about that kind of thing

 

[Dave07997S]

No doubt it's the better/nicer car in all aspects, however, it's twice the price and the Shelby has way more straight line potential--if you care about that kind of thing

Oh yea... no doubt. The M5/6 actually has some parts coming out such as full length headers ($5k yikes) and 100 cpi race cats ($4k!!!!) but according to SuperSprint it was worth 50rwhp on the car. These M5's do have further potential, it just cost an arm and a leg to do it.

I am definitely interested in the GT500, but I will wait and see what the market does.

Dave

 

[Fourcam330]

Oh yea... no doubt. The M5/6 actually has some parts coming out such as full length headers ($5k yikes) and 100 cpi race cats ($4k!!!!) but according to SuperSprint it was worth 50rwhp on the car. These M5's do have further potential, it just cost an arm and a leg to do it.

I am definitely interested in the GT500, but I will wait and see what the market does.

Dave

50rw from just headers and cats? Impressive, though somewhat hard to believe. LOL, definitely not cheap. I think the real limiting factor in any of the M motors is the fact that they're already turning huge rpm; not only does this increase wear throughout, but at some point the gearbox has to be an issue.

 

[ac427cobra]

Car and Driver ran 12.4@118mph and a 0-60 of 4.1...I agree I'd take a M6 over a GT500 as well if money was no issue.

Dave

Kinda like a comparison of apples to Kangaroo's. :lol:

If money were no object, I'd take an Enzo over an M6

 

[TORQUERULES]

Okay so we are seeing anywhere from a 12.25 at 117mph to 12.7 at 116mph, the Shelby has 500hp (most say between 440-460rwhp), has 3.31 gears, a solid axle, weighs 4,100lbs with driver, and costs around $41K out the door MSRP.

Well, lets compare that to a similar '04 Terminator: (Taken from the April 2004 issue of MM&FF)

SVT Cobra Convertible

Base Price: $38,950
Options: Chrome wheels= $695
+ Destination and Delivery ($625)= $40,270

Horsepower and Torque: 390@6,000 and 390@3,500 (this particular Cobra was dyno tested at D&D and put down 386/387)

Tranny: 6 speed

Final Drive Ratio: 3.55:1

Tires: 275/40/17

Weight with driver: 3,930lbs

1/4 mile: 12.778@111 (best)


Now in price the advantage goes to the Cobra but that was almost 3 years ago (of course it was a convertible), in acceleration I believe it is a toss-up and I also believe that has to do mostly with the driver and gear ratio as the Shelby has the advantage of a solid axle and more HP, in chassis the Shelby is clearly better I don't care what you say, tires would be a Cobra advantage as I believe those 17s would hook a lot better than the Shelby's 18s, weight is another Cobra advantage though.

All in all, I beleive that the Shelby is a natural progression from the Cobra. Sure it is not perfect, but it was of course made that way on purpose; Ford likes those aftermarket sales. If you compare it to cars that are its DIRECT competition, it has the advantage, plus the Mustang is making a name for itself in racing that others can't match.