Shelby GT350 Mustang Dynoed (UPDATE: 467 RWHP / 374 LB-FT)

[mustang_guy]

Motortrend recorded a 2012 Boss 302 12.3 at 115.8 MPH. The GT350 is trapping a higher number yet its runing a slower time. Something is off here.

I already said that something is off.

Sponsored

 

[cosmo]

Motortrend recorded a 2012 Boss 302 12.3 at 115.8 MPH. The GT350 is trapping a higher number yet its runing a slower time. Something is off here.

I already said that something is off.

It's in the launch, but I'm curious as to how it's that bad. They cut around 4s on their 0-60, which is about what I was thinking (3.7-3.8 was my prediction, but 4.0 should do well enough). How could that happen, and yet they have such a horrid quarter mile?

 

[Hack]

http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review
Car and driver tested the automatic SS... 0-60 in 3.9 secs / 1/4 in 12.3 secs

Other reviews:
https://news.google.com/news/story?...ved=0CCEQqgIwAGoVChMIrKiylqDHyAIVR6QeCh08cwaR

Tested model was over $47 grand! Wow that's a lot. Over $14,000 more than what I paid for my 2015 GT. It should be interesting to drive one and see what it's like.

I see they liked the seats. IMO the seats are the worst part of the current Mustang.

 

[Kbreese]

Motortrend recorded a 2012 Boss 302 12.3 at 115.8 MPH. The GT350 is trapping a higher number yet its runing a slower time. Something is off here.

That seems really quick for just a Boss 302. Maybe they got a "ringer"

 

[Trackaholic]

We should all know by now that the launch significantly affects the ET, but less so the trap speed.

As mustang_guy noted, the trap speeds indicate a better time than has been achieved, which means that the launches were not very good.

This can be due to several reasons, ranging from surface prep, to launch technique, to engine characteristics. Keep in mind that MT is using a VBOX for their measurements, which implies they aren't at a prepped track with timing equipment. Also keep in mind that the Voodoo engine has low torque up until ~3800 RPM, at which point the torque jumps significantly. Therefore it may just be that on the surface they are running, with the tires that come with the car, if you launch at greater than 3800 RPM you get a bunch of wheel spin, while launching below 3800 causes the car to bog. A prepped track might alleviate much of this because it would allow launches in the high torque zone without tons of spin.

Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.

I think the traps speeds tell enough of a story that no one should be worried about performance. With time, some hero runs will be done that will be very good.

-T

 

[Kbreese]

Tested model was over $47 grand! Wow that's a lot. Over $14,000 more than what I paid for my 2015 GT.

That's mostly irrelevant. Testers almost always get the top trim level with all the options.

I see they liked the seats. IMO the seats are the worst part of the current Mustang.

Really? Other then the fact that the backs of the seats aren't cooled, I've heard nothing but good things about the seats in the current Mustang.

 

[cosmo]

We should all know by now that the launch significantly affects the ET, but less so the trap speed.

As mustang_guy noted, the trap speeds indicate a better time than has been achieved, which means that the launches were not very good.

This can be due to several reasons, ranging from surface prep, to launch technique, to engine characteristics. Keep in mind that MT is using a VBOX for their measurements, which implies they aren't at a prepped track with timing equipment. Also keep in mind that the Voodoo engine has low torque up until ~3800 RPM, at which point the torque jumps significantly. Therefore it may just be that on the surface they are running, with the tires that come with the car, if you launch at greater than 3800 RPM you get a bunch of wheel spin, while launching below 3800 causes the car to bog. A prepped track might alleviate much of this because it would allow launches in the high torque zone without tons of spin.

Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.

I think the traps speeds tell enough of a story that no one should be worried about performance. With time, some hero runs will be done that will be very good.

-T

The 0-60 was decent enough though. Granted, they probably weren't measured at the same time, but they showed they could do a decent 0-60.

Also, trap speed isn't everything either. DSMs have done 10s sub 100mph runs.

 

[arsenalrocks]

manual vs. manual the number matches m4 to the dot
m4 manual curb weight 3556lb about 200lbs lighter
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.4 sec @ 117 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-bmw-m4-manual-tested-review
as far as I know no one calls the new turbo m4 a slow car

 

[ArtRios87]

That seems really quick for just a Boss 302. Maybe they got a "ringer"

At the time those were pretty consisted times from other magazines as well.although I also read some 12.7s so I guess it all depends really. The 2011 Mustang GT also run a 12.7 so that doesn't meant the GT is faster. There are too many variables that affect quarter mile times. The only way to tell which car is faster is to test both at the same time like they did with the GT350 and the R which to my surprise was a .3 seconds of a difference all attributed to the weight of the wheels I suppose. That's going to help the R a lot at the track no doubt.

 

[licktensteins]

We should all know by now that the launch significantly affects the ET, but less so the trap speed.

As mustang_guy noted, the trap speeds indicate a better time than has been achieved, which means that the launches were not very good.

This can be due to several reasons, ranging from surface prep, to launch technique, to engine characteristics. Keep in mind that MT is using a VBOX for their measurements, which implies they aren't at a prepped track with timing equipment. Also keep in mind that the Voodoo engine has low torque up until ~3800 RPM, at which point the torque jumps significantly. Therefore it may just be that on the surface they are running, with the tires that come with the car, if you launch at greater than 3800 RPM you get a bunch of wheel spin, while launching below 3800 causes the car to bog. A prepped track might alleviate much of this because it would allow launches in the high torque zone without tons of spin.

Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.

I think the traps speeds tell enough of a story that no one should be worried about performance. With time, some hero runs will be done that will be very good.

-T

Videos of the MT 1/4 tests were up on Instagram a couple weeks ago. They tested at the strip alongside the railroad tracks, same as where they do all of their cars. It's definitely not a prepped surface. But all of the cars are tested there so they all deal with the same conditions, at least from a surface perspective.

 

[krt22]

The 0-60 was decent enough though. Granted, they probably weren't measured at the same time, but they showed they could do a decent 0-60.

Also, trap speed isn't everything either. DSMs have done 10s sub 100mph runs.

No point comparing awd turbo cars, everyone knows they can get wicked low ETs with lower traps

 

[rrhobo]

different source/conditions ...different results

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2016/2226965/shelby_mustang_gt350.html

 

[mustang_guy]

It's in the launch, but I'm curious as to how it's that bad. They cut around 4s on their 0-60, which is about what I was thinking (3.7-3.8 was my prediction, but 4.0 should do well enough). How could that happen, and yet they have such a horrid quarter mile?

You can still get a 4.0 0-60 and still a horrible 60ft. The car is fast enough to do that without a good launch. 2.0 anything even on UNPREPPED is horrible. 1.9s is completely do able. I don't think his shifter skills are up par either.

We should all know by now that the launch significantly affects the ET, but less so the trap speed.

As mustang_guy noted, the trap speeds indicate a better time than has been achieved, which means that the launches were not very good.

This can be due to several reasons, ranging from surface prep, to launch technique, to engine characteristics. Keep in mind that MT is using a VBOX for their measurements, which implies they aren't at a prepped track with timing equipment. Also keep in mind that the Voodoo engine has low torque up until ~3800 RPM, at which point the torque jumps significantly. Therefore it may just be that on the surface they are running, with the tires that come with the car, if you launch at greater than 3800 RPM you get a bunch of wheel spin, while launching below 3800 causes the car to bog. A prepped track might alleviate much of this because it would allow launches in the high torque zone without tons of spin.

Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.
.
I think the traps speeds tell enough of a story that no one should be worried about performance. With time, some hero runs will be done that will be very good.

-T

launch most definitely affects trap speed more then you think

 

[Kbreese]

At the time those were pretty consisted times from other magazines as well.although I also read some 12.7s so I guess it all depends really. The 2011 Mustang GT also run a 12.7 so that doesn't meant the GT is faster. There are too many variables that affect quarter mile times. The only way to tell which car is faster is to test both at the same time like they did with the GT350 and the R which to my surprise was a .3 seconds of a difference all attributed to the weight of the wheels I suppose. That's going to help the R a lot at the track no doubt.

I've always considered the 2011-2014 GT to be a 13.0 second car, and 12.5 tuned, generally speaking. Just didn't see the Boss as being a 12.2 car though as its not much more power. But I guess it's lighter too...ahh, whetever, pulling hairs here

 

[Hack]

That's mostly irrelevant. Testers almost always get the top trim level with all the options. .

Please give me $14,000 (I will round down) and I will agree with you that price is irrelevant.

Really? Other then the fact that the backs of the seats aren't cooled, I've heard nothing but good things about the seats in the current Mustang.

I am too big for the seats. I liked the 2011 Mustang seats a lot, but the 2015 got narrower and they don't fit me at all any more. Smaller people like them fine.

Sponsored