[BoneDoc]

I am really enjoying my SS but one thing that frustrates me is the traction issue.

I hate to beat a dead horse. Sure we can never have enough traction... but what was the logic behind taking a stock GT500 with 285/40/18 rears... adding 225HP at the crank and decreasing the tire size to 275/35/20?? Am I missing something?

Now everyone that ponied up the (big) cash for the SS has to spend more now to widen rims, cut axels, modify fenderwell, modify bumpstops, etc to get any reasonable level of traction.

see the you-tube video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UskMEV0Z4Ys

This is an aftermarket "supercar" competition SS vs camaro vs srt-8 comparison. in every category the SS is a superior car except that it can't deliver HP to the ground.... not on the dragstrip or on the road course. So camaro wins and SRT-8 comes in close 3rd despite being an inferior car in most all aspects. normally I would say that motor trend if full of $hit but in this case they are right on.

Question to anyone listening at SAI is: why? was this issue never brought up at the design stage?? How can you justify smaller tires on a car with an added 225HP at the crank? was it a cost issue? or was it just never considered?

I love my SS but someone dropped the ball on this issue with due respect.... and it continues into the 2010 SS apparently.

Ron

[Robert M]

BoneDoc, on Nov 1 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

I am really enjoying my SS but one thing that frustrates me is the traction issue.

I hate to beat a dead horse. Sure we can never have enough traction... but what was the logic behind taking a stock GT500 with 285/40/18 rears... adding 225HP at the crank and decreasing the tire size to 275/35/20?? Am I missing something?

Now everyone that ponied up the (big) cash for the SS has to spend more now to widen rims, cut axels, modify fenderwell, modify bumpstops, etc to get any reasonable level of traction.

see the you-tube video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UskMEV0Z4Ys

This is an aftermarket "supercar" competition SS vs camaro vs srt-8 comparison. in every category the SS is a superior car except that it can't deliver HP to the ground.... not on the dragstrip or on the road course. So camaro wins and SRT-8 comes in close 3rd despite being an inferior car in most all aspects. normally I would say that motor trend if full of $hit but in this case they are right on.

Question to anyone listening at SAI is: why? was this issue never brought up at the design stage?? How can you justify smaller tires on a car with an added 225HP at the crank? was it a cost issue? or was it just never considered?

I love my SS but someone dropped the ball on this issue with due respect.... and it continues into the 2010 SS apparently.

Ron

I wasn't going to bring up the Motor Trend magazine test(s) unless someone else did, and you did, so I will add one of my observations..............

The top power optioned 2007-2009 Super Snake is rated at 725h.p. and the 2010 is rated at 750h.p. At first there was some mention of a mis-print or something for the 750 quote, but it seems to be appearing more often now. My question is...........where did that extra 25 horsepower disappear between the flywheel and rear wheels in this 2010 750h.p. chassis dyno test? We know for a fact that the 725's, that have been dyno'ed over the past year+ have posted 634-638, maybe 640 at the rear wheels repeatedly, this car, a 2010 750 horse is posting the same numbers?? What's up with that??



R

This post has been edited by Robert M: 01 November 2009 - 06:13 PM

[Lee N.]

BoneDoc, on Nov 1 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

I am really enjoying my SS but one thing that frustrates me is the traction issue.

I hate to beat a dead horse. Sure we can never have enough traction... but what was the logic behind taking a stock GT500 with 285/40/18 rears... adding 225HP at the crank and decreasing the tire size to 275/35/20?? Am I missing something?

Now everyone that ponied up the (big) cash for the SS has to spend more now to widen rims, cut axels, modify fenderwell, modify bumpstops, etc to get any reasonable level of traction.

see the you-tube video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UskMEV0Z4Ys

This is an aftermarket "supercar" competition SS vs camaro vs srt-8 comparison. in every category the SS is a superior car except that it can't deliver HP to the ground.... not on the dragstrip or on the road course. So camaro wins and SRT-8 comes in close 3rd despite being an inferior car in most all aspects. normally I would say that motor trend if full of $hit but in this case they are right on.

Question to anyone listening at SAI is: why? was this issue never brought up at the design stage?? How can you justify smaller tires on a car with an added 225HP at the crank? was it a cost issue? or was it just never considered?

I love my SS but someone dropped the ball on this issue with due respect.... and it continues into the 2010 SS apparently.

Ron

Could not agree more! Its kind of imbarassing. People read the bottom line and think an SS is just barly above a SRT8 Challenger! The fact that you pay over $33,000 to modify your GT500 and it turns out to be slower on the time tickets than when it was stock. Just silly. You can slap a set of 305's on a set of stock GT500 wheels, but the SS comes with 275's and that about it for the SS wheel. The Camaro has those on the front!! The Mustang has the bigger inner fenders than any cars out there. With 5 minutes and a grinding wheel you have enough room for a 335 tire! Shelby needs to fix this, because that motor trend article sent 1/2 of the 2010 SS buyers to Hennessey and imbarassed all the current owners!

This post has been edited by Lee Novikoff: 02 November 2009 - 05:54 AM

[samg]

BoneDoc, on Nov 1 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

I am really enjoying my SS but one thing that frustrates me is the traction issue.

I hate to beat a dead horse. Sure we can never have enough traction... but what was the logic behind taking a stock GT500 with 285/40/18 rears... adding 225HP at the crank and decreasing the tire size to 275/35/20?? Am I missing something?

Now everyone that ponied up the (big) cash for the SS has to spend more now to widen rims, cut axels, modify fenderwell, modify bumpstops, etc to get any reasonable level of traction.

see the you-tube video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UskMEV0Z4Ys

This is an aftermarket "supercar" competition SS vs camaro vs srt-8 comparison. in every category the SS is a superior car except that it can't deliver HP to the ground.... not on the dragstrip or on the road course. So camaro wins and SRT-8 comes in close 3rd despite being an inferior car in most all aspects. normally I would say that motor trend if full of $hit but in this case they are right on.

Question to anyone listening at SAI is: why? was this issue never brought up at the design stage?? How can you justify smaller tires on a car with an added 225HP at the crank? was it a cost issue? or was it just never considered?

I love my SS but someone dropped the ball on this issue with due respect.... and it continues into the 2010 SS apparently.

Ron

My 2-cents below from another thread (http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49753) on the subject. Also see this thread as Amy responded. Decided against SSing my 2010 because of the skinny tire issue.

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.

That is what kills me. The GT500, Super Snake, or just a modified GT500 could in my opinion be unequaled in almost all aspects of performance were in not for skinny tires. These cars are that close to fulfilling their potential for exceeding I think anything anywhere near their price range.

[BoneDoc]

samg, on Nov 2 2009, 06:33 AM, said:

My 2-cents below from another thread (http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49753) on the subject. Also see this thread as Amy responded. Decided against SSing my 2010 because of the skinny tire issue.

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.

That is what kills me. The GT500, Super Snake, or just a modified GT500 could in my opinion be unequaled in almost all aspects of performance were in not for skinny tires. These cars are that close to fulfilling their potential for exceeding I think anything anywhere near their price range.

I agree. Amy responded that it was a different tire compound, I think? but the compound is not the ony issue... you need the right compound and more road contact surface area. you cannot substitute for rubber on the road. This should have been more carefully considered in the design phase and implemented when the cars were SS'd to begin with... especially for the money we spent!

My opinion is that SAI should make an "official" recommendation as to how the rears should be modified to get adequate traction.... change the design going forward... and maybe even offer retro-mods on the cars already sold.

Can someone from SAI reading this please respond and let us know what the thought process was behind adding 225 HP and reducing the size of the rear tires from a stock GT500? and what their recommendation is for this very real issue going forward to SS owners?

This post has been edited by BoneDoc: 02 November 2009 - 08:58 AM

[knownukes]

BoneDoc, on Nov 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

I agree. Amy responded that it was a different tire compound, I think? but the compound is not the ony issue... you need the right compound and more road contact surface area. you cannot substitute for rubber on the road. This should have been more carefully considered in the design phase and implemented when the cars were SS'd to begin with... especially for the money we spent!

My opinion is that SAI should make an "official" recommendation as to how the rears should be modified to get adequate traction.... change the design going forward... and maybe even offer retro-mods on the cars already sold.

Can someone from SAI reading this please respond and let us know what the thought process was behind adding 225 HP and reducing the size of the rear tires from a stock GT500? and what their recommendation is for this very real issue going forward to SS owners?

+1000 The article is EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING to all SS owners. What's even worse is that Motor Trend is right and totally exsposed the SS's key weakness(which has been known and complained about from the start and is easy to fix) to the world! All I can say to SAI is was it worth it to ignore all the complaints and request for more tire???? Now the world gets to hear that our $30k mod is not worth it. You think it will get fixed now? What a shame.

[ingram4868]

This is not good. Especially at that price range.

[GT500Bookends'68'07]

knownukes, on Nov 3 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

+1000 The article is EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING to all SS owners. What's even worse is that Motor Trend is right and totally exsposed the SS's key weakness(which has been known and complained about from the start and is easy to fix) to the world! All I can say to SAI is was it worth it to ignore all the complaints and request for more tire???? Now the world gets to hear that our $30k mod is not worth it. You think it will get fixed now? What a shame.

Sorry guys but this has been hashed out on this site for years. Many guys have figured out how to get the HP to the road. The design intent of the car is to go to the drag strip on Saturday and the track on Sunday. The SS does neither best. Decide what you want to do with the car and then tweek it accordingly. It is no big deal. For me...give me the Horse Power and I will figure out the rest.

The driver admitted he didn't have the testicular fortitude to drive the car as he should...we all read that...It does not embarrass me at all. I chuckled when I read that since it reminded me how my butt puckered the first time I took the SS out. Since then I learned how to drive the car...I have never been embarrassed.

[SicShelby]

Nah just replace the rear tires with 255's and fly paper and we're good.

[BoneDoc]

GT500Bookends, on Nov 4 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

Sorry guys but this has been hashed out on this site for years. Many guys have figured out how to get the HP to the road. The design intent of the car is to go to the drag strip on Saturday and the track on Sunday. The SS does neither best. Decide what you want to do with the car and then tweek it accordingly. It is no big deal. For me...give me the Horse Power and I will figure out the rest.

The driver admitted he didn't have the testicular fortitude to drive the car as he should...we all read that...It does not embarrass me at all. I chuckled when I read that since it reminded me how my butt puckered the first time I took the SS out. Since then I learned how to drive the car...I have never been embarrassed.

I agree it has been hashed out for years on this site because it is a real issue. 275's are not big enough rubber for this car on the track or on the strip. look at comparable viper, corvette, etc cars with LESS horsepower and about 30% wider rear tires. despite being hashed out for the last couple of years SAI has not made any attempt to correct the issue.

I agree we can all afford to modify the car to stick to the ground (if we can afford SS package, we can afford to modify and add rubber) but question is why should that be the case if we are paying $30-$40K for this upgrade? For that cost shouldn't there have been some forethought and design consideration for delivering this power to ground? whether you use this car on the track or the strip (as evidenced by our experience and the motor trend independent test) there is not adequate rubber under these cars. plain and simple. you can talk about rubber compound until you are blue in the face.

I still have not heard anyone at SAI come up with a rationale behind adding 225 horsepower to a car while simultaneously decreasing the rear tire size? I guess at some point we will get a response? there has to be some rational explanation? Please someone at SAI step up.

Ron

This post has been edited by BoneDoc: 04 November 2009 - 07:26 PM

[yenrod]

I have to be honest - this has been and will probably continue to be the one thing that keeps me on the fence from SS-ing. I have been lying in wait over a resolution - don't know if it will ever happen though. I am not crazy about Hennessey or the interior of the camaros - but that thing hauls butt; that tweaked corvette (MT mag) ain't too shabby either? I still love my GT500, Fords' in general - especially mustangs, but I want the baddest and best bang for my buck!

[Lee N.]

yenrod, on Nov 4 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I have to be honest - this has been and will probably continue to be the one thing that keeps me on the fence from SS-ing. I have been lying in wait over a resolution - don't know if it will ever happen though. I am not crazy about Hennessey or the interior of the camaros - but that thing hauls butt; that tweaked corvette (MT mag) ain't too shabby either? I still love my GT500, Fords' in general - especially mustangs, but I want the baddest and best bang for my buck!

I do think Hennessey might have been fudging just a bit. A good friend of mine has a 550 Hennessey Camaro. It put down 480hp at the tires and it came with 285 tires in the rear. The only difference in the 650 is they change the cam, heads and install headers which (reportedly) puts it to 562 at the tires. How did this one end up with 630hp and 305's? Sounds like they did some tweeking for the article to me. But they are a custom shop thats not limited like Shelby so more power to them! Giving the Camaro some credit my buddy did swap to a smaller pulley and get it custom tuned and his 550 put down 530 to the tires. But thats not how it rolled out. An SS is a different car with real tires (which is the way it should come from Shelby). The stang also has more room in the fenderwells than any of the other cars. Too bad its not used.

Give me a set of 11" rims, a set of 315's and 5 minutes with a grinder and run that test again. Would love to see that one!

[Robert M]

I think this was the answer..............

http://www.teamshelb...er+snake+wheels

but for some reason it fell apart. I would buy a pair of 11's if they were to become reality, but there was also some talk that they would not say "Super Snake". I really don't want to modify/widen my original 10" Super Snake wheels, they are too hard to come by. I really don't want to buy a second pair of Alcoa's for $1000 and get them widened, they do not say "Super Snake" and will not match the front., plus that alone would be a $1500+ adventure. For $1500 I could add $600+, buy a shortened axle with a True-Trac, press-on wheel bearings (instead of the bearings that ride on the axle as an inner race) and studded and nutted carrier main caps, just under $2200 to my door and the internals of this axle alone would be a considerable upgrade from the original GT500 assy.

Bud - Has there been any reconsideration about making some 11's?

R

[Lee N.]

Robert M, on Nov 4 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I think this was the answer..............

http://www.teamshelb...er+snake+wheels

but for some reason it fell apart. I would buy a pair of 11's if they were to become reality, but there was also some talk that they would not say "Super Snake". I really don't want to modify/widen my original 10" Super Snake wheels, they are too hard to come by. I really don't want to buy a second pair of Alcoa's for $1000 and get them widened, they do not say "Super Snake" and will not match the front., plus that alone would be a $1500+ adventure. For $1500 I could add $600+, buy a shortened axle with a True-Trac, press-on wheel bearings (instead of the bearings that ride on the axle as an inner race) and studded and nutted carrier main caps, just under $2200 to my door and the internals of this axle alone would be a considerable upgrade from the original GT500 assy.

Bud - Has there been any reconsideration about making some 11's?

R

I was on the fense about widening my SS wheels too, but after I did my power upgrades and the tires were coming loose past 100mph with the TC on I bit the bullet. Got down to a saftey issue at that point.

[Robert M]

Lee Novikoff, on Nov 4 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

I was on the fense about widening my SS wheels too, but after I did my power upgrades and the tires were coming loose past 100mph with the TC on I bit the bullet. Got down to a saftey issue at that point.

Yes Lee, I like the idea of more rubber, but those original Super Snake rims are "one time" unless you damage one, and then are able to return it to SAI for a replacement (at a cost). If I were to buy a pair of non-Super Snake logo'ed Alcoa's and have them widened, I would not be happy if the front wheels said Super Snake, and the rears did not. So in reality it would be a $2000 outlay for new Alcoa's, plus shipping, and then the widening of one pair plus that shipping, and then I would still have to decide, do I really like the tires all the way out at the edge of the rear fenderwell on each side? or would I rather that they were tucked a little bit?

Which ever direction is chosen (besides widening the original 10" SS wheels) is going to be costly, and we have not even added the cost of wider rubber yet. I have already purchased a pair of new 305 Pirelli P Zero's which match what is on the car. I bought them 3-4 months ago, but I have been on the fence as to which direction to spend the $$$. I also have the rear brake upgrade kit here in boxes waiting for my decision. It would be nice to assemble the new brakes on the shortened axle assy. and bolt all of it in at once and leave the original Super Snake axle in-tact stored in the garage, brake ducts and all.

R

This post has been edited by Robert M: 04 November 2009 - 02:49 PM

[BoneDoc]

OK class, here is a quiz:

which one does not belong?

2008 Corvette ZR1 rear tire (600 HP): 335/25/20
2008 Viper SRT 10 rear tire (450HP): 335/30/18
2005 Ford GT rear tire (550HP): 315/40/19
2007-2010 Shelby GT500 Supersnake (725 HP): 275/35/20

This post has been edited by BoneDoc: 05 November 2009 - 05:49 AM

[SicShelby]

BoneDoc, on Nov 4 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

a quiz:

which one does not belong?

2008 Corvette ZR1 rear tire (600 HP): 335/25/20
2008 Viper SRT 10 rear tire (450HP): 335/30/18
2005 Ford GT rear tire (550HP): 315/40/19
2007-2010 Shelby GT500 Supersnake (725 HP): 275/35/20

The... Viper! Hey, it has a bigger tire sure but... the "tire isn't as sticky."

[Lee N.]

Robert M, on Nov 4 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Yes Lee, I like the idea of more rubber, but those original Super Snake rims are "one time" unless you damage one, and then are able to return it to SAI for a replacement (at a cost). If I were to buy a pair of non-Super Snake logo'ed Alcoa's and have them widened, I would not be happy if the front wheels said Super Snake, and the rears did not. So in reality it would be a $2000 outlay for new Alcoa's, plus shipping, and then the widening of one pair plus that shipping, and then I would still have to decide, do I really like the tires all the way out at the edge of the rear fenderwell on each side? or would I rather that they were tucked a little bit?

Which ever direction is chosen (besides widening the original 10" SS wheels) is going to be costly, and we have not even added the cost of wider rubber yet. I have already purchased a pair of new 305 Pirelli P Zero's which match what is on the car. I bought them 3-4 months ago, but I have been on the fence as to which direction to spend the $$$. I also have the rear brake upgrade kit here in boxes waiting for my decision. It would be nice to assemble the new brakes on the shortened axle assy. and bolt all of it in at once and leave the original Super Snake axle in-tact stored in the garage, brake ducts and all.

R

Its a Mustang! Make it work and drive the piss out of it! I think its crazy to worry about what the difference "might" be in apreciated value (that might never happen) 20 years from now because you widened a rear wheels by an inch (or two). I agree they should come that way, but they don't. Its rediculous that a stock GT500 can pull me from stoplight to stop light. Sorry, that bugs me. Especially when its such an easy fix.

In the future once I have long passed away and my grandson goes to sell my SuperSnake for millions and finds out its worthless because I widened the rear rims I hope he is smart enough to know all he has to do it cut them back down to 10" and all is good.

[BoneDoc]

SicShelby, on Nov 5 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

The... Viper! Hey, it has a bigger tire sure but... the "tire isn't as sticky."

go to your room young man!

Now where are those bicicyle tires and superglue I was looking for?............

[GT500Bookends'68'07]

BoneDoc, on Nov 4 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

I agree it has been hashed out for years on this site because it is a real issue. 275's are not big enough rubber for this car on the track or on the strip. look at comparable viper, corvette, etc cars with LESS horsepower and about 30% wider rear tires. despite being hashed out for the last couple of years SAI has not made any attempt to correct the issue.

I agree we can all afford to modify the car to stick to the ground (if we can afford SS package, we can afford to modify and add rubber) but question is why should that be the case if we are paying $30-$40K for this upgrade? For that cost shouldn't there have been some forethought and design consideration for delivering this power to ground? whether you use this car on the track or the strip (as evidenced by our experience and the motor trend independent test) there is not adequate rubber under these cars. plain and simple. you can talk about rubber compound until you are blue in the face.

I still have not heard anyone at SAI come up with a rationale behind adding 225 horsepower to a car while simultaneously decreasing the rear tire size? I guess at some point we will get a response? there has to be some rational explanation? Please someone at SAI step up.

Ron

This is MY opinion...it did not come from SAI. It comes from thirty years business experience dealing with product liability claims. I cannot think of any other rationale for putting 275's on the SS.

Everyone knows when you add horsepower and you race cars, things break. When you put 725hp in inexperienced hands with the proper grip the guy is going to break things. These guys will fill this forum with complaints and probably sue SAI. Sometimes real idiots will buy a 725hp SS. The first 725 SS on Long Island was owned by a guy who ordered a 2 1/2" pulley from KB because he wanted to race a Z06. He slapped on the pulley, did not use C16 and blew his motor on the first run. KB has all kinds of warnings on the installation instructions.

I believe if proper grip was sold with the SS package more people would kill themselves. There is nothing that gives a person more respect for the HP than the first time they hit the throttle when the front tires are not straight. Having the car come around on you that quickly makes you understand you own a very serious machine. I know I am not supposed to say this but I have raced cars in the street for forty years. When I picked up my SS I was on an entrance ramp to a highway when the SS was suddenly sideways. You can believe me when I say I sat up in my seat and paid attention to what I was doing. I pay special attention every time I take the car out and I have a deep respect for that kind of HP.

Get the SS and then decide what you want to do with it. Some guys say that you need the sidewall to get grip at the drag strip so they go back to the 18" rims. Spend a few bucks more to shorten the axel or widen the rims. Some guys are running 335s. Now you modified your car to get the proper grip and SAI is off the hook liability wise.

Hey, we see all the stupid warning labels, warning us of the obvious, because there are a lot of really stupid people out there. We all pay for frivolous liability claims in the products we buy. I think this is one way SAI mitigates their risk of someone taking them down in a nonsense lawsuit. If we want SAI to be around for a long time I think we will need to put up with skinny tires out of the gate.