2008 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs. 2008 Shelby Mustang GT500KR

[a_Username]

According to this video, the 2008 GT500KR costs $82,000. It took 4.9 seconds to get to 60, and 12.8 second 1/4 mile. $82,000?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? That is ridiculous!

[vdevine]

I thought everyone knew that was the price. I saw a yellow one today in the Pentagon parking lot as I rolled by.

[walmartworker]

thats a great video now what do mustangs drivers have to say? was it just luck? anyway both cars looked great

[a_Username]

Any mustang owners know what the best stock GT500KR time is?

[meanmike]

While I know that the mustang would'nt beat the Z06, if it did'nt have those small ass tire's you would be able to get more of that power to the ground and it would be a better race. I will never understand why they did'nt go with a wider tire. But that price is rediculous to say the least, I could see 55k top's but not no friggin 80k.

[a_Username]

I honestly laughed when I saw those 0-60 times. 4.9 seconds? That thing better at least be breaking 3's if I'm paying $82,000 for one.

[MuscleCarz]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Any mustang owners know what the best stock GT500KR time is?

I don't own a Mustang, but Evan Smith ran the KR to 11.8x in the 1/4.

Why is this in the "Camaro vs." section?

[meanmike]

It can be done, there just so hard to launch with those skinny ass tire's.

[fdjizm]

Why is it that some people find a horrible run for a car and then say from then on that is what the car runs and that's it.. this goes for any car.

why is that?

[ironpeddler]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

Why is it that some people find a horrible run for a car and then say from then on that is what the car runs and that's it.. this goes for any car.

why is that?

The OP just hates mustangs, that's all. The KR was way overpriced though.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by ironpeddler

The OP just hates mustangs, that's all. The KR was way overpriced though.

yea it is but then again it's a collector thing. i doubt many even get driven hard lol.. i just hate when people find the worst possible run for any car and then say "oh that car only does 16.0's in the 1/4" some moron said the camaro ss runs 13.5 and that is it... just doesn't make sense to state that "12.8 for 82,000?" when you know for a fact it can do more. if you know anythin about cars you wouldn't use the lowest times as staples to the cars performance.. i have seen a camaro ss run 14's, i am not dumb enough to say "oh see they only run 14's"

[DGthe3]

Thread moved out of the Camaro vs ... section, since well ... its not a Camaro vs ... thread.

Originally Posted by fdjizm

yea it is but then again it's a collector thing. i doubt many even get driven hard lol.. i just hate when people find the worst possible run for any car and then say "oh that car only does 16.0's in the 1/4" some moron said the camaro ss runs 13.5 and that is it... just doesn't make sense to state that "12.8 for 82,000?" when you know for a fact it can do more. if you know anythin about cars you wouldn't use the lowest times as staples to the cars performance.. i have seen a camaro ss run 14's, i am not dumb enough to say "oh see they only run 14's"

I hate it to. If you're presenting as a horrible example, saying the driver didn't know what hes doing, etc thats one thing. But to present it as if it might be some sort of typical example of what a 540 hp mustang can do ... no. Those cars will perform roughly the same as what the 2010 GT500's can do. Which also makes me think that a bunch of people may be disappointed in the value of their investment 30 years down the road.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

Why is it that some people find a horrible run for a car and then say from then on that is what the car runs and that's it.. this goes for any car.

why is that?

I did not say that it was all that it could run. I knew better than that, but these people got a good time out of the Z06 as well. I just thought it was odd that it got SUCH a bad time, which is why I asked what the best stock GT500KR time was. But that car is WAY overpriced as well... $82,000 for that is just nonsense.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I did not say that it was all that it could run. I knew better than that, but these people got a good time out of the Z06 as well. I just thought it was odd that it got SUCH a bad time, which is why I asked what the best stock GT500KR time was. But that car is WAY overpriced as well... $82,000 for that is just nonsense.

You also didn't say that it 'needs a driver mod' or some such thing. You mentioned the car, the price, and the performance and emphasized that $82000 is too much. The implication of that is the car should do more at that price, as evident by your other posts like this one:

Originally Posted by a_Username

I honestly laughed when I saw those 0-60 times. 4.9 seconds? That thing better at least be breaking 3's if I'm paying $82,000 for one.

Never did I see where you rightfully acknowledged that was an atypical time for that car. All your posts indicate that you felt the car was underperforming when its really the driver. And that is what both myself and fdjizm take issue with.

Is it overpriced? I think so. Spending an extra ~$35000 over a regular GT500 for a minor performance increase (vs a 2008 GT500) and exclusivity? No thanks. Super Snakes are a different story, but the KR? I would have taken a regular GT500, Z06, or Viper over it, if I had that sort of money to spend on a car.