Road & Track Tests the Shelby Super Snake
Road & Track has given the Shelby Super Snake its very first thrashing, and the first impression is good. For $28,000 over the price of a GT500 KR (R&T's as-tested price was $70,670), you get 50 more horses, two tenths taken off the 0-60, three tenths off the quarter and half a G more on the skidpad. You also get a lot of Shelby parts, Shelby build quality, Baer 6-piston stoppers, some carbon fiber body panels, and a juggernaut of a car that's still under the manufacturer warranty.
How's it drive? The Pirellis on the car apparently can't handle the power as well as RT would have liked, but what tire could? And Shelby is working on a stickier tire anyway. Outside of that, the verdict is yes. The car rips, roars, and snorts with all appropriate aplomb and vitesse. Speaking of roaring, RT does mention that conversations at speed can be challenging because of gear whine that causes 80 dBA of cacophony at 70 MPH. But the car does come with a 500-watt sound system, which should make enough noise to cancel that out. As if you'd really want to. Click the link to get the rest of the story.
[Source: Road & Track]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tyler S. 4:10PM (10/30/2007)
"Half a G more on the skidpad"
I highly doubt that. I don't know the skidpad numbers on the base car off the top of my head but I'd guess it's on the order of 0.9G's... So you saying this car does 1.4G's on the skidpad? BS!
Reply
Harrity 4:18PM (10/30/2007)
I noticed this, too. I'm assuming it was half a tenth of 1 g (e.g. going from 0.90 to 0.95)...
Tyler S. 4:23PM (10/30/2007)
Well I went and read the R&T article and it states the stock GT-500 does 0.87G while the super snake does 0.93G. That's 6 hundredths of a G... not only does the author need some reading lessons, but some basic arithmetic couldn't hurt either.
John P. 4:20PM (10/30/2007)
The article has the slalom and skidpad numbers correct Tyler. It sounds like they've improved on some of the things the standard GT500 had problems in. The slalom, skidpad numbers, and braking are all very good. The real problem looks like it's getting all that power to the pavement. If you can call that a problem, sounds like fun to me.
Reply
Ben 4:24PM (10/30/2007)
Actually if anyone went to R&T and read the article, they'd find that the Shelby could only pull .93g on the pad and 68.4 mph on the slalom. If those are impressive, the standard must have dropped while I wasn't looking.
Reply
C.D. Ward 4:55PM (10/30/2007)
12.5@119 is about the slowest time I've seen for a 600hp car. Granted it weighs 2 tons but come one. Try decreasing weight to improve everything, acceleration, handling, braking. Why does everything have to be more more more.
Reply
Christian 6:42PM (10/30/2007)
In case you didn't already know, RT sucks at the 1/4 mile. Have a look at CD or MT, they are sometimes almost a 1/2 second faster. This is EASILY an 11s car.
Jay 4:55PM (10/30/2007)
it staggers me how much better looking this car is than the standard GT500. Funny the differences a few tiny details can make
Reply
Jon F 5:06PM (10/30/2007)
Shelby build quality .... what a joke! Where did that come from? When was the last time they built anything
Reply
rar 5:10PM (10/30/2007)
It looks cool, but for $70,000, I would take a ZO6 vette. Under 12 in the 1/4 mile.
Reply
henrykrinkle 5:35PM (10/30/2007)
Maybe so, but all eyes would be on the Shelby off your back quarter and that's the point of a car like this.
Aaron B Brown 5:29PM (10/30/2007)
There's a reason why these new Mustangs never live up to their potential, and no, it's not just because it's a Ford. It comes down to one crucially important factor, poor design. When you began with a poor design, no matter how much horsepower you stuff under hood, or how much you upgrade the suspension and powertrain, you're always left with that poor initial design holding you back. It's sad really because it's a pretty attractive car aesthetically.
It almost looks like the engineers just pulled out the schematics for 1968 Mustangs, now that was a pretty good design for its time. But instead of just taking inspiration from those designs, what they've created is a vehicle that has about the same performance potential as a 68 Mustang, and in some ways perhaps even less. Unfortunately that doesn't quite make the grade here in the 21st-century. In the final analysis all they've given us is a vehicle that epitomizes the phrase...
"all show and no go."
It saddens me to know that a manufacturer like Ford, who apparently puts more money into R&D than any other automaker, produces a vehicle like this when they could be producing a vehicle that is much more comparable to the Nissan GT-R, a genuine performance machine. This is also the primary reason why American automobile Manufacturers are once again finding themselves in deep deep financial trouble. They'd rather play foolish marketing games, instead of giving us quality design which can be capitalized upon.
The sooner this car is redesigned, the better it will be for Mustang enthusiasts, because even Carroll Shelby is having difficulty making this pig fly.
Reply
Brill 6:20PM (10/30/2007)
"same performance potential as a 68 Mustang"
are you serious? The base mustang GT could probably take on a 68 GT500KR or whatever high end mustang from the late 60's in every way, MAYBE not a drag race, but stopping, turning everything, the newer mustang isn't the same as a 68.
besides, its a mustang GT at its base, its not an all out sports car like a Z06, S2000, GT-R and the sorts, it was never meant to be...granted why would spend that much on a mustang GT if your trying to go out and track it like a Z06 or GT-R? dont know...why do people do half the things they do to cars?
Mike 7:29PM (10/30/2007)
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, there's nothing wrong with the Mustang's suspension.
It was designed to be as good as a live rear axle can be (which is every bit as capable as IRS on track). It was designed the way it was because drag racers (the predominant Mustang enthusiast) asked for it.
Go to the Grand Am Cup (Koni Challenge) series and see Mustang GT's put the ass whoopin' on Porsche 997s, BMW M3s, Pontiac GTOs, Nissan 350Zs, and a few others that show occasionally. If you saw the buildup of the Mustangs for that series you'll see that the suspension was tuned but not revised other than coilovers on the rear. You can also go to any NASA club racing event around the country and see Mustangs (both new and older) set some of the fastest times by amatuers.
The reason the GT500s and their variants are so heavy is because they used a cast iron block for the engine- again so that the thing could stand up to abuse (note the aluminum block in the Ford GT was the same design and they could already cast them that way if they wanted) as such is the reason you can get yourself a 700+ HP version if you want.
So before you go on saying the Mustang wasn't engineered very well, do some research. I guarantee that there will be more Mustangs that see track duty than your beloved GT-R.
sk13 10:50PM (10/30/2007)
Ford did build a Dedicated Sports Car Bud, it was called the GT.
You're missing the point with the Mustang, it's not a flatout Sports Car but more of a Muscle Car or Pony Car. For an Auto starting at $25,800, it's an incredible Buy. The S197 is a great platform, it won the 1st Race it participated in in Europe this Year and Everybody should know of its success in the Grand Am Series here in the States. You don't know much about the Mustang Platform, maybe you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
Aaron B Brown 12:24AM (10/31/2007)
Do I smell a threat behind that last response?
It's nice to know that the Ford Motor Company is paying thugs to monitor this site, perhaps they'll send some of their tough guys over at my house to teach me to keep my mouth shut, when it comes to exposing their incompetence and pathetic business ethic.
The Ford execs just better hope that their torpedoes are better built and quicker than their cars, or they won't have a chance. :-)
Jeff Turner 2:39AM (10/31/2007)
you obviously don't understand the mustang at all. It's never claimed to be the epitome of performance design, or anywhere near it. Yes of course they could've done a better job in terms of aerodynamics, F/R weight balance, rear suspension, but these are not high priorities for a pony car. This car was designed for classic muscular looks, designed to go fast in a straight line and make a big show about it, and all of that at a very reasonable price.
Besides, you can't claim this generation of mustang hasn't been a success either. I guarantee you that if they had sacrificed good looks, classic proportions for a optimized sport car performance, this thing might have done a better job of pleasing sports car enthusiasts, but it wouldn't have sold anywhere near as many copies. I even see a number of them here in Europe.
This $70K variant looks amazing, i agree it looks better than the standard GT500, thanks a lot to the hood, in my opinion. This takes it to the extreme in terms of power, although I'm looking forward to an SE from Ford that does make more of attempt towards turning this car into a real race car.... reduced weight, modest power increase (modest relative to THIS specimen), tuned suspension, plus some classic style, maybe a Boss 302, we'll see.
TriShield 5:30PM (10/30/2007)
It's really a gorgeous muscle car, there's no two ways about it. And when Shelby buys the farm you can bet the value will skyrocket no matter how much you guys nitpick it.
Would I buy one? Well, no.
I would actually buy Saleen's Parnelli Jones edition Mustang. Probably the most comprehensive and cohesively engineered variant of the car put into production.
Reply
Random Task 5:40PM (10/30/2007)
I bet this thing still gets owned on a racetrack by a 3 year old base Porsche 911.
Reply
Christian 9:35PM (11/14/2007)
Wrrrrong. Its exactly as fast round a road course as a AWD 997 Turbo @ VIR.