C8 just got crushed and humiliated by the GT500

[Boss2013]

This, this, this....100 x this! I've been saying this on both forums.

@jimmartin

Let's clarify some things about your statements regarding the "Shelby" Mustangs and how they were created to compete with the Corvette.

Yes, it is true that Shelby American, under contract to Ford, was tasked with building a car that could compete/win class B Production in the Sports Car Club of America's production category racing in the early-to-mid 1960's. Included in the SCCA's class BP at the time were such cars as the pre-Sting Ray 283-cu-in. Corvette, the 3.8 or 4.2 XK-E Jaguar, the 260-cu-in. Ford-powered Sunbeam Tiger and miscellaneous others in the somewhat unreal world of production category racing. As such, it is clear the GT350 was built to compete in a class, not a specific make/model. But these were production cars modified by Shelby American, not cars produced on the Ford assembly lines, although street versions were sold through Ford dealerships.

It is disingenuous to claim that any Mustang carrying the name "Shelby" on it built after 1965 was ever intended to be a competitor to the Corvette in any racing series, let alone the street-legal versions. Through the years, Ford has produced/outsourced production of cars that ended up competing with Corvettes on the race track, but I cannot recall any time that Ford considered producing a direct competitor to the Corvette in terms of a production car available to the masses in significant quantities with a competitive pricing structure.

Modern Ford Mustangs with the "Shelby" name attached are a nod to their history in creating high-performing cars together. Just because at one time Shelby Mustangs competed directly with the Corvette in a racing series does not mean that the GT350, let alone the GT500, were ever created as Ford's "answer" to the Corvette. Yes, you can declare the Mustang Ford's "halo" production passenger vehicle, but to say it is Ford's "Corvette" is again, disingenuous.

You stated: "My point is Shelbys and Corvettes have also always competed when there were Shelbys. The REALLY hot stuff had to be done offline (Shelby American), even with the SVT badging. But during that time, the really hot "Shelby" stuff was Shelby American's own portfolio of tuned cars. That lasted right up until the 2014 GT500 dropped in with 662 hp."

That is simply not true. Yes, early in their relationship, Shelby American produced high-performance Mustangs for Ford. But again, that performance relationship ended in the late-60's even though Ford continued using the Shelby name into the early '70's. There was never any Mustang produced by Shelby American that had SVT badging. Never. SVT, which was conceived n 1991 and officially launched in 1992, came about decades after Ford's association with Shelby American, and was entirely in-house for Ford.

Sponsored

 

[martinjlm]

@jimmartin

Let's clarify some things about your statements regarding the "Shelby" Mustangs and how they were created to compete with the Corvette.

Yes, it is true that Shelby American, under contract to Ford, was tasked with building a car that could compete/win class B Production in the Sports Car Club of America's production category racing in the early-to-mid 1960's. Included in the SCCA's class BP at the time were such cars as the pre-Sting Ray 283-cu-in. Corvette, the 3.8 or 4.2 XK-E Jaguar, the 260-cu-in. Ford-powered Sunbeam Tiger and miscellaneous others in the somewhat unreal world of production category racing. As such, it is clear the GT350 was built to compete in a class, not a specific make/model. But these were production cars modified by Shelby American, not cars produced on the Ford assembly lines, although street versions were sold through Ford dealerships.

It is disingenuous to claim that any Mustang carrying the name "Shelby" on it built after 1965 was ever intended to be a competitor to the Corvette in any racing series, let alone the street-legal versions. Through the years, Ford has produced/outsourced production of cars that ended up competing with Corvettes on the race track, but I cannot recall any time that Ford considered producing a direct competitor to the Corvette in terms of a production car available to the masses in significant quantities with a competitive pricing structure.

Modern Ford Mustangs with the "Shelby" name attached are a nod to their history in creating high-performing cars together. Just because at one time Shelby Mustangs competed directly with the Corvette in a racing series does not mean that the GT350, let alone the GT500, were ever created as Ford's "answer" to the Corvette. Yes, you can declare the Mustang Ford's "halo" production passenger vehicle, but to say it is Ford's "Corvette" is again, disingenuous.

You stated: "My point is Shelbys and Corvettes have also always competed when there were Shelbys. The REALLY hot stuff had to be done offline (Shelby American), even with the SVT badging. But during that time, the really hot "Shelby" stuff was Shelby American's own portfolio of tuned cars. That lasted right up until the 2014 GT500 dropped in with 662 hp."

That is simply not true. Yes, early in their relationship, Shelby American produced high-performance Mustangs for Ford. But again, that performance relationship ended in the late-60's even though Ford continued using the Shelby name into the early '70's. There was never any Mustang produced by Shelby American that had SVT badging. Never. SVT, which was conceived n 1991 and officially launched in 1992, came about decades after Ford's association with Shelby American, and was entirely in-house for Ford.

I really wish now that I had held on to all the press material I collected from Shelby American from NAIAS and LA Shows in the 2010 - 2012 timeframe. They went into detail on what Ford provided thm and what the various options were for the cars that SA produced to position above the SVT Mustangs and to compete with Corvette and Porsche in the super sports car classes. Had price lists too. Maybe if I dig hard enough I can find some photos, but I know I ditched all the press material stuff when I exited GM.

 

[martinjlm]

@Boss2013,

Here's something I posted earlier today on some other newsgroup in a similar discussion on a similar topic. The person I was responding to was also pointing out that during the "SVT years" Ford did not position the SVT Mustangs to compete against Corvette. No disagreement there. But at the same time Shelby American was producing product with the Shelby name and marketing them against Corvette. No doubt, Shelby American is not FoMoCo. But the Shelby vs Corvette theme was kept alive thru SA. I should note that where I said C5 to C6 upgrade, I meant Camaro, not Corvette. Should wrote Cam5 to Cam6.

Sxxxxe, you understand more than you let on. A lot of good stuff in that post. The shift from SVT to Ford Performance timed with the intro of the M6 Shelbys is (in my opinion) not a coincidence. Toss in the timing of the C5 to C6 upgrade and the horsepower wars we are seeing right in the midst of a universal demand for better emissions and fuel economy.

This is my opinion of what is going on. Based more on connecting dots than on any date - place - time provable evidence.


A lot of Tier 1 suppliers in the powertrain space have had to develop product that deliver improved performance and meet known (and some unknown) fuel economy and performance targets. Several have gotten really good at it. Borg Warner, Bosch, Continental, Denso, Eaton, Magna, Tremec, ZF just to name a few. This has given the OEMs (Ford, GM, FCA) the ability to free up development resources to focus on the base powertrain development and focus on integrating the technologies of the Tier 1s into the development cycle. OEMs develop the basic structure of the powerplants and also "twist the knobs" of the tools provided by the Tier 1s. I'm over-simplifying big time, but bear with me.

As a result the OEMs have vastly improved in their ability to calibrate chassis and powertrain to develop a portfolio ranging from people mover to track monster (CTS --> ZL1, Fiesta --> FiST, and EB --> GT500) with the same basic hardware sets plus integrated hardware and software from Tier 1s. No more dropping in a somewhat hotter engine and stiffer springs, slapping a few decals on and calling it a day like in the post-Shelby SVT days. Those SVT products never claimed to compete with Corvette and rightly so. As has been stated Mustangs and Camaros have always competed. My point is Shelbys and Corvettes have also always competed when there were Shelbys. The REALLY hot stuff had to be done offline (Shelby American), even with the SVT badging. But during that time, the really hot "Shelby" stuff was Shelby American's own portfolio of tuned cars. That lasted right up until the 2014 GT500 dropped in with 662 hp.

Bottom line, Ford's capability improved to the point that they no longer need Shelby American to "finish" their performance cars for them. Out with SVT, in with Ford Performance. The change coincided with the sea change in capability of just making Mustangs faster to doing world class chassis and powertrain tuning. This happened probably one product cycle behind GM deciding that Camaro had to transcend the historic pony car envelope to include world class handling and road manners.

 

[Boss2013]

So, what you are saying in effect is that Chevrolet needed/needs Lingenfelter and Hennessy to finish their performance cars for them? That is until the C8 came along and GM no longer needed them to compete with other super/hyper cars?

 

[martinjlm]

So, what you are saying in effect is that Chevrolet needed/needs Lingenfelter and Hennessy to finish their performance cars for them? That is until the C8 came along and GM no longer needed them to compete with other super/hyper cars?

Not saying that at all.

 

[Boss2013]

Not saying that at all.

In effect, you did.

The REALLY hot stuff had to be done offline (Shelby American), even with the SVT badging. But during that time, the really hot "Shelby" stuff was Shelby American's own portfolio of tuned cars. That lasted right up until the 2014 GT500 dropped in with 662 hp.

As I noted earlier, Shelby American had zero production activity on the SVT-produced vehicles. SVT vehicles were built entirely in-house and on the same assembly lines as any other Mustang variants.

To clarify, the "really hot Shelby stuff", as you refer to it, was just what you said, its own portfolio of modified/tuned cars based on the Mustang. Those cars are/were no different than Lingenfelter or Hennessey built/tuned Camaros/Corvettes that they turned/turn out to this day. Shelby American still turns out their own tuned versions of Mustangs completely independent of what Ford Motor Company produces. They did not stop doing it with the introduction by Ford of the 662hp GT500 in 2014, as you indicated.

 

[Balr14]

A 992 turbo is projected to run 0- 60 in 2.1 seconds. Does that mean it crushes and humiliates the GT500 and C8?

 

[9secondko]

A 992 turbo is projected to run 0- 60 in 2.1 seconds. Does that mean it crushes and humiliates the GT500 and C8?

0-60 is simply a traction metric at this point.
Midengine=traction.

that’s a nice number, but not really relevant.

if it can humble the 500 in the quarter and out handle it, then it deserves the praise.

but then again, aren’t the expensive exotics (nearly 200k) supposed to do that?

the whole thing about the 500 is that it’s the underdog scoring KO victories against cars above its class. That’s amazing.

if a 992 turbo can’t beat it in the quarter or the track, that’s an embarrassment for the Porsche IMHO.

 

[DekiDoo]

0-60 is simply a traction metric at this point.
Midengine=traction.

that’s a nice number, but not really relevant.

if it can humble the 500 in the quarter and out handle it, then it deserves the praise.

but then again, aren’t the expensive exotics (nearly 200k) supposed to do that?

the whole thing about the 500 is that it’s the underdog scoring KO victories against cars above its class. That’s amazing.

if a 992 turbo can’t beat it in the quarter or the track, that’s an embarrassment for the Porsche IMHO.

What do you define as class? To me, cars fall into a performance and price category. I am blown away, that even at its entry level, the base gt500 put up a faster time around VIR than the z51. I know it's a high horsepower track, but it's still impressive to me.

 

[Hack]

What do you define as class? To me, cars fall into a performance and price category. I am blown away, that even at its entry level, the base gt500 put up a faster time around VIR than the z51. I know it's a high horsepower track, but it's still impressive to me.

I agree that people mostly cross shop performance cars by price and performance. The 911 is expensive, but the GT500 track pack is close to an entry, base level, no option 911 in price. The C8 is a little different than the GT500 and 911, because it's a 2 seater and the cabin is a lot smaller. Even though price and performance are the more important categories for many buyers, tall people might not consider a Corvette because it's too small inside. The small Corvette cabin is one of the main reasons I might sell my Z06.

 

[ALUSA]

I don't know if anyone actually analyze the results like this. The Figure 8 and Lateral G's are in the favor of the C8 which defines how good the car handles. Acceleration up to 90 mph is in the favor of the C8. Looking at the straights in the VIR the question comes out as if the that track was chosen on purpose? Why the GT 500's have roll cages and their track setup is not mentioned? The actual MSRP prices are fixed in the images and for $66, 890 a 1lt Z51 C8 with Magnetic Ride still has better interior than the GT 500 premium minus back seats. So C8 is not humiliated in fact I do worry about the GT 500 with a head 2 head against a ZLE.

 

[shogun32]

I don't know if anyone actually analyze the results like this.

this is a forum. we type first, think never when a narrative must be defended at all costs.

 

[DekiDoo]

I agree that people mostly cross shop performance cars by price and performance. The 911 is expensive, but the GT500 track pack is close to an entry, base level, no option 911 in price. The C8 is a little different than the GT500 and 911, because it's a 2 seater and the cabin is a lot smaller. Even though price and performance are the more important categories for many buyers, tall people might not consider a Corvette because it's too small inside. The small Corvette cabin is one of the main reasons I might sell my Z06.

Im 6 foot 2, 235 pounds, and never found the interior on the C5, c6, or c7 to be small. The seats in the 911 are useless. My Mustang has a hard time accommodating a rear facing car seat, and one is back there, no front seat passenger can sit up front.

 

[DekiDoo]

I don't know if anyone actually analyze the results like this. The Figure 8 and Lateral G's are in the favor of the C8 which defines how good the car handles. Acceleration up to 90 mph is in the favor of the C8. Looking at the straights in the VIR the question comes out as if the that track was chosen on purpose? Why the GT 500's have roll cages and their track setup is not mentioned? The actual MSRP prices are fixed in the images and for $66, 890 a 1lt Z51 C8 with Magnetic Ride still has better interior than the GT 500 premium minus back seats. So C8 is not humiliated in fact I do worry about the GT 500 with a head 2 head against a ZLE

I'm waiting for that as well. And I'm curious how it will do on big willow vs the c8 as well.

 

[Hack]

Im 6 foot 2, 235 pounds, and never found the interior on the C5, c6, or c7 to be small. The seats in the 911 are useless. My Mustang has a hard time accommodating a rear facing car seat, and one is back there, no front seat passenger can sit up front.

We are close to the same height and size. I'm about 6'4" 240. My problems in my C5 are head room and leg room. The most head room in the C5 is too far forward, so if I move the seat that far forward my legs are really curled up. The best compromise I've found is the seat just far enough forward to keep my head off the "roll bar" in the cabin. The way I have it, I can fit one finger between my head and the bar. My legs are still a little curled up but not bad. My biggest problem is when I put a helmet on for a track day I have to move the seat farther forward and slouch down to fit. The C7 has even less head room than my C5. I've driven a couple of them and ruled them out as a possibility. Too uncomfortable.

I'm surprised you can get use out of the Mustang rear seats. I only use them as a shelf for storing things. No one ever sits in them for more than a very brief time. In my normal seating position in a 2015+ Mustang, the driver seat back is touching the front of the rear seat (zero leg room behind the driver).

I completely disagree with your characterization of the 911 rear seats. The rear seats provide room to tilt the front seats back farther. Basically the same function (at least for me) as Mustang rear seats. The 911 has LOTs of front seat head room and leg room due to having those rear seats. The Corvette has a wall behind the driver, preventing the front seat from being reclined and not allowing the front seat to go back as far. I don't really fit in the Cayman either - because the design is similar to a Corvette with a wall right behind the seats to accommodate the mid engine.

I guess you must be enough smaller than me or different proportions that somehow neither head room or leg room is a problem for you in the Corvette, because both are somewhat of an issue for me. The 911 is positively roomy by comparison. It feels great - somewhat like my 944 - which is an absolutely tiny car but has loads more head and leg room than the Corvette.

Sponsored