I don't know if you saw it....

[Silverado]

.....but there was an article in Car and Driver latest issue that was humorous. Normally, I don't really like to rag on the Mustangs because as others have mentioned on this forum, at least they are still American Muscle. Also, at least they are still around, while all the other American Muscle has disappeared and having to make comebacks.

This particluar article decided to pick out 4 coupes that could be had for around 35K. They compared the Audi TT, the Mazda RX-8, the Nissan 350Z, and the Ford Shelby GT. I didn't really think the comparison was fair...I mean, the 350Z has often been criticized as underpowered, underperforming. The Audi TT and the RX-8 are way overrated. And, the Shelby is a different kind of car with far more HP and torque than any of the others.

Anyway, found a couple things amusing here....

First....the Shelby finished 4th in their ratings.
Second....with 330HP/319lb-ft the Shelby only managed to win the 0-60mph by .1 seconds over the 350Z with 306HP/268lb-ft (5.1 seconds vs 5.2 seconds)
Third....the Shelby lost its .1 second advantage in the 1/4-mile over the Nissan when they tied at 13.7 seconds at 104mph.
Fourth....and probably the most humorous part...C&D says of the Shelby that the "live axle, on the other hand, is responsible for the worst handling of the group. In truth, the blame isn’t all located at the rear. The front suspension is lousy enough that one tester compared the whole package to a 20-year-old pickup truck. On a particularly rough stretch of road, the vibrations were severe enough that the hood clips worked themselves loose."

Sure, they ratings are somewhat subjective, so the rating doesn't really mean anything, I just found it funny that the Shelby was picked last out of this particular grouping.

The performance numbers seem uninspiring and they show that on the street, the average Shelby driver could get beat by the underperforming Nissan (and certainly by the upcoming Challenger and Camaro models).

But, what can't be totally subjective and what can't be "covered up" by a good driver is that "20 year-old pickup truck" suspension. And that an additional $12,500 gives you an appearance package and very little performance upgrades over a stock Mustang GT

Sure it's still American, but if it can't perform better than that, it's going to start giving American Muscle a bad name.....Okay, I'm done picking on the Mustang...

Here's the article if you want to read it...

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...di-tt-20t.html

[acscamarochick06]

Great find... I know it's American and everything... But that doesn't make me like them any more.

[stevenm357]

I looked at a Saleen Mustang they had in a raffle for a fire department in Zelienople, PA this weekend.... 47,000 for a 330 HP car your frikin kidding right? so many better things for that price ( at $5 i didn't even buy a ticket)

I test drove a stock mustang. worst nose diving i've had under breaking in years!

[Rock36]

Doesn't everyone know that magazine results are just magazine results?

How about this comparison from Motor Trend magazine?

It has the stock Mustang GT (better than the Shelby results too)

0-60 in 5.1 seconds
1/4 mile in 13.5 @103.6 mph

Nissan 350Z

0-60 in 5.5 seconds
1/4 mile in 13.9 @102.2 mph

Here are the links:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ang_specs.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...50z_specs.html

Or how about this one for a little closer to home to the die hard GM people out there?

LS2 Pontiac GTO

0-60 in 5.2 seconds
1/4 mile in 13.7 @103.9 mph

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=2

Wait that looks like 13.7 @ 104 mph for all three vehicles!!!!! Given those results, am I to believe that a 400 hp GTO and a 303 hp 350Z are really running neck and neck in the quarter mile? HELL NO!!!! So why assume the Mustang Shelby GT isn't representing American muscle just because of one magazine article? Moral of the story is that magazines always have a wide variety of results.....

Think about it, and lets quit bench racing.

Take it to the track!

[CamaroSpike23]

looks like they need a driver mod

[Silverado]

Rock, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you....magazines get a wide variety of results....even within their own articles...they often comment how these results are different from one they tested a few months ago and then explain weather conditions, track conditions, etc....I completely agree with what you stated.

I actually thought it was unfair before reading the article that those other cars would be expected to compete with the Mustang. I thought for sure that the 'Stang would blow them away. Obviously not. Even with differences that the magazines get, you can't argue that the Audi, Nissan, and Mazda aren't close to the Ford in performance and that just shouldn't be.

I will say that out of these four, I would take the Shelby over those other ones based on looks and attitude, but when you throw price into the mix, suddenly the Shelby is looking a little less attractive. Now toss in the performance numbers....makes it hard to want to buy a Mustang.

Of course, I'm not really a fan of any of them. Audi has a couple in their lineup I'd consider, but I can't really say the same thing about Nissan, Mazda, or Ford (maybe the GT if money were no object).

[acscamarochick06]

I agree... I would choose Audi hands down...

[MerF]

Originally Posted by acscamarochick06

I agree... I would choose Audi hands down...

Same.

[AFSNightrod]

+2 on the Audi. One thing about new car magazines is that when they test these cars, they baby them down the 1/4 mile. If you want to really find out how the American muscle cars really perform, check out the late model performance mags. The GT500 ran a 12.9 in the quarter according to C&D. How a 500HP car goes that slow is beyond me, but look in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, and you'll see that the GT500 ran a 12.25. New car magazines do not focus on wringing every last bit of performance out of their test cars. They are more focused on driving the car in general. Most people who care about 1/4 mile times aren't concerned how many inches of headroom the car has. These articles are written to showcase the car overall, without a focus on any one subject. If you are seriously in the market, then do what I plan on doing once all the new muscle is out. Test drive them yourself. Tell the dealer that if you can't, then you are going to go buy one of the other cars you were looking at. They'll let you do what you want to an extent.

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by AFSNightrod

+2 on the Audi. One thing about new car magazines is that when they test these cars, they baby them down the 1/4 mile. If you want to really find out how the American muscle cars really perform, check out the late model performance mags. The GT500 ran a 12.9 in the quarter according to C&D. How a 500HP car goes that slow is beyond me, but look in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, and you'll see that the GT500 ran a 12.25. New car magazines do not focus on wringing every last bit of performance out of their test cars. They are more focused on driving the car in general. Most people who care about 1/4 mile times aren't concerned how many inches of headroom the car has. These articles are written to showcase the car overall, without a focus on any one subject. If you are seriously in the market, then do what I plan on doing once all the new muscle is out. Test drive them yourself. Tell the dealer that if you can't, then you are going to go buy one of the other cars you were looking at. They'll let you do what you want to an extent.

Well said. I reread my post and I sound a little more worked up than I intended to. I just have a general dislike for the big three car mags out there (yet I still read them LOL).

Also, I don't really like the Shelby GT either, because you can essentially take a stock Mustang GT add the same handling and performance modifications, and throw in some 4.10s for good measure and keep it all under $2000. The Shelby GT is just a designer Mustang and you are just paying for the name.