[calgaryshelby]

http://www.motortren...ison/index.html

Motor Trend rates the cars:

1. Hennessey Camaro HPE650
2. Shelby GT500 Super Snake
3. SpeedFactory Challenger SRT8,

then goes on to praise the stock gt500 again at the end.

[07SGT4578]

once again MT has proven they are idiots, biased, and cant drive.

Chris

[mustang let back]

07SGT4578, on Oct 26 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

once again MT has proven they are idiots, biased, and cant drive.

Chris

motor trend is a complete disgrace from top to bottom.now muscle mustangs & fast fords october 09 got 11.9@120 on stock tires from the GT500!!thats from the 540hp motor.how in the hell could motor trend only get 12 seconds from 750hp???again for what ever reason the industry hates FORD,and they show it all of the time.they just hate the fact that the mustang is really faster than the CRAPMARO!!

[JeffIsHereToo]

Guys, it sounds like the tires where just wrong here...as for bias, the article ends with "we'd rather have the keys to the Shelby GT500. Why? Because it's the most complete package: the right look inside and out, paired with a surprisingly refined combination of street performance and daily driveability the other two simply cannot match. St. Antoine put it best, "For the best blend of looks, performance, and driving enjoyment the GT500 is tops in its league" which to me sounds like then all things are equal, (i.e. the tires are right for the HP as they are in stock configuration) they rate the GT500 ahead of the other two.

Why not debate the tires and not the findings or the magazine?

This post has been edited by JeffIsHereToo: 26 October 2009 - 05:24 AM

[mustang let back]

i forgot to add,after looking at hennessey performance.the numbers are as follows.
the SHELBY with its 5.4 with 750hp,690 torque 0-60 3.4,1/4mile 11.2@131!!
the hpe700,with its 6.2 705hp,717 torque 0-60 3.7,1/4mile 11.3@125!!
the challenger with its 426 sroker motor,725hp,750 torque,0-60 3.5,1/4mile 11.3@126!!

this clearly shows why motor trend sucks.they need to let other people test the cars to get the REAL NUMBERS!!the SUPERSNAKE wins!!

[DubbsFaris]

COMPLETELY agree with Jeff here....when you read the WHOLE article, you see that they give Shelby the nod for producing the most "complete" package, and the GT500 is by far the best turnkey factory vehicle ever produced in a muscle car....I dont see this as a slight to us in any way.

The problem is what kind of performance tire are you REALLY gonna get on a 20" rim? It looks great, but when it comes to performance, the stock 18" tires are better than the SS, (if you keep the comparison of each cars own power v. its tires grip). When you add that kind of power, if you dont put better rubber on it, the whole effort is shot.

Plus, there is a launch program built into the stock tune of the GT500...I wonder if the SS tune has it also? If not, it could help explain the slow launch.

Is there a question of whether or not these guys know not to get into WOT on a super snake on launch? I doubt it. Surely the testers are seasoned drivers, and not the gumshoe internet dorks that showed up at Terlingua last year.....I hope anyway...

[SGT/SC#0471]

DubbsFaris, on Oct 26 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

COMPLETELY agree with Jeff here....when you read the WHOLE article, you see that they give Shelby the nod for producing the most "complete" package, and the GT500 is by far the best turnkey factory vehicle ever produced in a muscle car....I dont see this as a slight to us in any way.

The problem is what kind of performance tire are you REALLY gonna get on a 20" rim? It looks great, but when it comes to performance, the stock 18" tires are better than the SS, (if you keep the comparison of each cars own power v. its tires grip). When you add that kind of power, if you dont put better rubber on it, the whole effort is shot.

Plus, there is a launch program built into the stock tune of the GT500...I wonder if the SS tune has it also? If not, it could help explain the slow launch.

Is there a question of whether or not these guys know not to get into WOT on a super snake on launch? I doubt it. Surely the testers are seasoned drivers, and not the gumshoe internet dorks that showed up at Terlingua last year.....I hope anyway...

+1

[bpmurr]

DubbsFaris, on Oct 26 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

COMPLETELY agree with Jeff here....when you read the WHOLE article, you see that they give Shelby the nod for producing the most "complete" package, and the GT500 is by far the best turnkey factory vehicle ever produced in a muscle car....I dont see this as a slight to us in any way.

The problem is what kind of performance tire are you REALLY gonna get on a 20" rim? It looks great, but when it comes to performance, the stock 18" tires are better than the SS, (if you keep the comparison of each cars own power v. its tires grip). When you add that kind of power, if you dont put better rubber on it, the whole effort is shot.

Plus, there is a launch program built into the stock tune of the GT500...I wonder if the SS tune has it also? If not, it could help explain the slow launch.

Is there a question of whether or not these guys know not to get into WOT on a super snake on launch? I doubt it. Surely the testers are seasoned drivers, and not the gumshoe internet dorks that showed up at Terlingua last year.....I hope anyway...

Launch program? That's news to me.

[BDrool]

launch program??? We have TC and ESC, but...

[DubbsFaris]

bpmurr, on Oct 26 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

Launch program? That's news to me.

Apparently, that is what I heard from several guys out at Terlingua a few weeks ago, and they got that info from SVT...but I dont normally run my car at the drag strip, so my experience was I never just go WOT, or I would just sit n spin...when I tried it out there, I did find a significant difference in launch, but whether that is just the sweet spot for launching or actually a program I have no way of verifying that. Specifically Speedracer told me that. You could question him on the actual source of that.

The program is set for, at a stop, rev your engine to 2200-2500 RPMs and dump your clutch....Your computer should minimize your tires spin and maximize your torque...

Find a place to play with it in a large abandoned parking lot or somewhere you can tweak your launches...some cars do better at the low range and vice versa depending on what tires you have gone to and some small mods...once you have gone to a new tune though, Im not sure if that program is retained or not.

This post has been edited by DubbsFaris: 26 October 2009 - 08:46 AM

[SicShelby]

Tires, man, TIRES. The writer was right - it doesn't matter if you have 75hp, or 725hp, you have to have the rubber to make it grip, and honestly that's where the Camaro won the battle. Seriously! That's it!

They didn't bag the Shelby SS. Imho, they stated a fair comparison.

Now.... put some different rubber on the Super Snake and let's get back to the track

[bigZ]

SicShelby, on Oct 26 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Tires, man, TIRES. The writer was right - it doesn't matter if you have 75hp, or 725hp, you have to have the rubber to make it grip, and honestly that's where the Camaro won the battle. Seriously! That's it!

They didn't bag the Shelby SS. Imho, they stated a fair comparison.

Now.... put some different rubber on the Super Snake and let's get back to the track

completely agree, alcoa rims looks nice with those tires, but with all that hp, you need some thick sticky tires!

[twicebitten]

i think 18s and some real good rubber would work .too bad they should have let the kr in that battle too just to see where it would have rated

[Baby Gorilla]

The only problem I have comes at 6:54 in the video when they state that the Camaro "absolutely destroys the others in the quarter mile, too."

Their Camaro ran 11.9 sec @ 121.3 mph
Their SS ran 12.0 sec @ 120.1 mph

So, a difference of 0.1 sec and 1.2 mph is "absolutely destroys" ?!?

This post has been edited by Baby Gorilla: 26 October 2009 - 07:47 PM

[EL SHELBY]

You have to admit, they took some awesome shots of all three cars....

Attached File(s)

•  hennessey_camaro_shelby_GT500_super_snake_speedfactory_challenger_front_three_quarters_view.jpg (60.67K)
  Number of downloads: 81

[Tob]

Shelby wins the pimp contest but loses the race. Feels like 1967 all over again.

Hopefully, they'll fit a real wheel and tire combination on this chassis before they are no more. All Alcoa needs is the blueprint and the green light to make a better rim...

[2sharpie]

Ah Nuts, on Oct 27 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

You have to admit, they took some awesome shots of all three cars....

I agree.........nice shot..........but damn does that Shelby look 10x's better than the others!

[Sudguy4]

Baby Gorilla, on Oct 26 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

The only problem I have comes at 6:54 in the video when they state that the Camaro "absolutely destroys the others in the quarter mile, too."

Their Camaro ran 11.9 sec @ 121.3 mph
Their SS ran 12.0 sec @ 120.1 mph

So, a difference of 0.1 sec and 1.2 mph is "absolutely destroys" ?!?

I noticed that comment too...apparently, Hennessey had bought the voice-over editor breakfast....I noticed several "little"comments that were more opinion than actual fact in the description of the performance of the Camaro....if you watch the video over, you'll see that a little more time was given to describe little things on the Camaro over the other two....clearly MT was trying to give some good press to Hennessey who hasn't always had great PR in regards to how they treat their customers.

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of everything wearing black wheels? They all simply look dirty to me!

Sudguy4

[samg]

SicShelby, on Oct 26 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Tires, man, TIRES. The writer was right - it doesn't matter if you have 75hp, or 725hp, you have to have the rubber to make it grip, and honestly that's where the Camaro won the battle. Seriously! That's it!

They didn't bag the Shelby SS. Imho, they stated a fair comparison.

Now.... put some different rubber on the Super Snake and let's get back to the track

Have a 2010 GT500 so I am a Shelby guy. But examined the article carefully and don't think it is too off base. In particular, their problem with the skinny SS tires is right on -- the SS is an unbalanced car with respect to power and rubber size (it is not just the rubber compound that is the issue). I've had a SS owner tell me he had trouble getting out of the 12s in the 1/4 mile without drag slicks. In addition, remember that there are SS posts on this site that also state the brakes did not hold up to even moderate track use. I decided against the SS option for me until the tire size situation is resolved. This is even an issue with the GT500.

In the end will probably opt for mods including a Griggs option that allows up to 315s in the rear. I know one can create a much higher performing car than the SS for much less cost. Granted it might not have the same bling as a SS but to each his own. Hope Ford fixes the skinny tire issue with future GT500s. If there is wind of that it might be better to trade my '10 in for an '11 or '12 instead of modifying it.

[amyb]

The article is a good article, we had the wrong tires, they gave us a list of approved tires, not the ones we sell with the package, and we picked the wrong ones for our car.

Overall, they liked our car and our issue is quite fixable, in fact the tires we have on the car already are much better then what we used for the testing. Their driver would not drive the SS the way it should have been driven he was afraid that it would lose control. We know the SS would have one, next time we will make sure


Amy