Is this a big joke?
Muscletang
06-09-2006, 10:09 PM
A 5.4 supercharged Mustang with 500 horsepower...
can't put up better numbers than the last generation Cobra :disappoin
I just saw the latest Car & Driver and was so damn pissed off.
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11151/2007-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500.html)
Under full human control, we shaved 0.1 second from the 60-mph sprint, lowering it to 4.5 seconds. The quarter-mile required only 12.9 seconds at 112 mph, 150 mph came in 30.3 seconds, and an electronic tether limited top speed to 155 mph.
Sure it weighs a lot, but the last SVT Mustang Cobra we tested [“Rotary Revival,” C/D, April 2003] posted the same quarter-mile time and speed despite a 20-percent-worse power-to-weight ratio (110 fewer horses, 216 fewer pounds).
What happened to the "mid-11s and 0-60 under 4 seconds" from a couple of months ago? What in the hell is this? It has 500 horsepower and can barely make a 12.9!?!?!
This is probably the biggest let down of all time. After all the hype and stuff that surrounded this car, it barely beats the last Cobra.
can't put up better numbers than the last generation Cobra :disappoin
I just saw the latest Car & Driver and was so damn pissed off.
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11151/2007-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500.html)
Under full human control, we shaved 0.1 second from the 60-mph sprint, lowering it to 4.5 seconds. The quarter-mile required only 12.9 seconds at 112 mph, 150 mph came in 30.3 seconds, and an electronic tether limited top speed to 155 mph.
Sure it weighs a lot, but the last SVT Mustang Cobra we tested [“Rotary Revival,” C/D, April 2003] posted the same quarter-mile time and speed despite a 20-percent-worse power-to-weight ratio (110 fewer horses, 216 fewer pounds).
What happened to the "mid-11s and 0-60 under 4 seconds" from a couple of months ago? What in the hell is this? It has 500 horsepower and can barely make a 12.9!?!?!
This is probably the biggest let down of all time. After all the hype and stuff that surrounded this car, it barely beats the last Cobra.
TheStang00
06-09-2006, 10:24 PM
I to thought 12.9 was a little slow, i mean they have the vette only runnin a 12.8 too. i think they just suck at driving. but you are right really, it should definatly be faster. i cant possibly understand how they would allow it to be so heavy.
Muscletang
06-09-2006, 10:42 PM
3400/500 = 6.8 lb per hp Viper/GT-40 (with only 500)
4000/500 = 8 lb per hp GT-500
I still think this thing should be deep into the 12s, not making them by the skin of its teeth.
4000/500 = 8 lb per hp GT-500
I still think this thing should be deep into the 12s, not making them by the skin of its teeth.
6speed
06-09-2006, 10:56 PM
i beat their magazine times by a half second in my bone stock 96 cobra . they cant drive
TheStang00
06-09-2006, 10:59 PM
i beat their magazine times by a half second in my bone stock 96 cobra . they cant drive
:eek7:
stock dont they have 305hp? 12.4 seems a little quick for 305hp, were you running slicks or something?
i agree thiugh, they probably cant drive
:eek7:
stock dont they have 305hp? 12.4 seems a little quick for 305hp, were you running slicks or something?
i agree thiugh, they probably cant drive
neatofrito1618
06-10-2006, 10:49 PM
:eek7:
stock dont they have 305hp? 12.4 seems a little quick for 305hp, were you running slicks or something?
i agree thiugh, they probably cant drive I think he was trying to say there times were .5 slower then he ran in his Cobra...
stock dont they have 305hp? 12.4 seems a little quick for 305hp, were you running slicks or something?
i agree thiugh, they probably cant drive I think he was trying to say there times were .5 slower then he ran in his Cobra...
TheStang00
06-10-2006, 11:44 PM
I think he was trying to say there times were .5 slower then he ran in his Cobra...
ooooohhh.... now that you say that it makes a lot more sense lol.
ooooohhh.... now that you say that it makes a lot more sense lol.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026
