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

[PP0001]

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

I don't think the Motor Trend car was a ringer as Road & Track back in May 2011 came up with pretty much the same times.

Road & Track figures:

0 to 60 - 4.1 seconds
1/4 mile - 12.3 seconds
1/4 mile MPH - 117.2

One of the keys to the quick acceleration times on the 2012 Boss 302 for R&T was that they used a Laguna Seca model which has very sticky Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires and of course that helped the launch times tremendously.

The treadwear rating on the Pirelli Corsa tires are a rating of 60 with the treadwear rating on the new Shelby having a rating of 500 on the regular GT350 and a rating of 180 on the R model.

Obviously the Michelin tires are a harder compound tire than the Pirelli's therefore the Michelin's don't launch as good as the Corsa's.

I have driven both the GT350R model and driven many Laguna Seca's and can tell you that the Corsa tires are a much stickier than the harder compound Michelin's.

Lastly, I would suggest that the 444 HP rating for the Boss cars is underrated and as much as 25 to 30 HP. Combine that with some stickier Pirelli tires and you come up with some very good 0 to 60 times and 1/4 mile times.

I also have driven the new 2015 Mustang GT with the advertised 435 HP and no one can tell me there is only 9 HP difference between the new Mustang GT and the Boss cars. It's not even close.
:cheers:

Sponsored

 

[ArtRios87]

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.

I fully loaded GT is not that far apart, I think its like 45k. Either way at 47k the GT350 is a steal when it comes to value for your money. A GT will be half its initial price in 3 or 4 years while the GT350 will most likely keep most of its value. The hard part is finding a GT350 as MSRP. Either way you can't go wrong with a neither.

 

[Bossing]

I compiled this before from various car rags.... 2012 Boss 302:

 

[ArtRios87]

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

From experience I own a 2011 GT Brembo Pack and completely stock it run a 12.7 at 111 MPH. With a tune and 305 tires it run a 12.3 at 116. I once try my tuned GT against a Boss 302 and both cars were dead even up to 120. So I am sure it too could run a 12.3 completely stock.

 

[ArtRios87]

I don't think the Motor Trend car was a ringer as Road & Track back in May 2011 came up with pretty much the same times.

Road & Track figures:

0 to 60 - 4.1 seconds
1/4 mile - 12.3 seconds
1/4 mile MPH - 117.2

One of the keys to the quick acceleration times on the 2012 Boss 302 for R&T was that they used a Laguna Seca model which has very sticky Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires and of course that helped the launch times tremendously.

The treadwear rating on the Pirelli Corsa tires are a rating of 60 with the treadwear rating on the new Shelby having a rating of 500 on the regular GT350 and a rating of 180 on the R model.

Obviously the Michelin tires are a harder compound tire than the Pirelli's therefore the Michelin's don't launch as good as the Corsa's.

I have driven both the GT350R model and driven many Laguna Seca's and can tell you that the Corsa tires are a much stickier than the harder compound Michelin's.

Lastly, I would suggest that the 444 HP rating for the Boss cars is underrated and as much as 25 to 30 HP. Combine that with some sticker Pirelli tires and you come up with some very good 0 to 60 times and 1/4 mile times.

I also have driven the new 2015 Mustang GT with the advertised 435 HP and no one can tell me there is only 9 HP difference between the new Mustang GT and the Boss cars. It's not even close.
:cheers:

The 2015 GT lost against a stock 2013 Mustang GT in a recent American Muscle video. I think its on youtube. The weight clearly slowed down the 2015 no doubt.

 

[mustang_guy]

The 2015 GT lost against a stock 2013 Mustang GT in a recent American Muscle video. I think its on youtube. The weight clearly slowed down the 2015 no doubt.

Most people aren't good with launching IRS and it barely lost in that shoot out. People have been running 12.5s in these new gt's. They most definitely are not "slower" The majority of people are used to solid axle.

 

[PP0001]

I compiled this before from various car rags.... 2012 Boss 302:

Nice job of compiling the various acceleration times for 4 of the top automobiles magazines.

Again, R&T used the LS model which has much stickier tires than the base Boss 302 and not sure what all of the other magazines used?

 

[Myshelby3425]

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

That's a manual.. Dcts run 3.8 0-60 and 12.0-12.1 @ 118mph.

Looks like the m4 will be giving the TP the walk..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kbreese]

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

You completely missed the point. You can't fairly compare the price of competing vehicles when one is a top-trim fully loaded model and the other is a lower-trim, low-option model. Additionally you are likely including rebates/discounts, whereas they are just listing the MSRP. Same trim and similar options, the prices aren't that far apart.

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.

Good thing you didn't get the Recaro's

 

[Myshelby3425]

These numbers and mph traps are garbage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stanglife]

ET calculators put a 3900lb car that makes 475 to the wheels at about 11.80.

 

[mustang_guy]

ET calculators put a 3900lb car that makes 475 to the wheels at about 11.80.

this car also isn't 3900lbs and 475 goes faster then 11.80 :lol:

 

[02gtnh]

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.

The Motortrend car is more in line for what you have. That was $38000

 

[stanglife]

this car also isn't 3900lbs at 475 goes faster then 11.80 :lol:

...and who is going to drive it to that 11.80? Bet you feel funny for the emoticon now, eh?

 

[mustang_guy]

...and who is going to drive it to that 11.80? Bet you feel funny for the emoticon now, eh?

You never mentioned your weight calculation was WITH driver. I put face value in your post and didn't assume anything. try clarifying next time. It makes you look uninformed. Even 3900lbs with 475whp goes faster then 11.80. So no I don't regret the face. You drag racing noob.

Sponsored