Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
C&D GT500 vs. Z51 C6
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BetterthanU" data-source="post: 3695260" data-attributes="member: 43126"><p>Welp, hope the pro-GT500 and repost Nazis don't come after me, but just a few comments on the latest issue of Car And Driver....with a GT500 vs. Z51 C6 comparison. (now remember that C&D is usually very consistant and spot-on with their performance #s they get out of cars)</p><p></p><p>-C6 was marginally faster </p><p></p><p>-I don't like the revised hood vents, or the "SHELBY" being placed on the upper left decklid, AMG style.</p><p></p><p>A couple other things I sadly noticed about the GT500:</p><p>Weight Distribution: <strong>57/43</strong> ....holy fin' crap that's horrible. Testers mentioned bad nose dive upon hard braking....I know how 03/04 cobras can dive with 54/46 distribution, so I can only imagine.</p><p></p><p>Weight: ~<strong>3900</strong></p><p></p><p>0-60: <strong>4.6</strong>..... :sleeping: (C&D remarked that the car was very easy to launch, dropping the clutch at 3200 rpm....apaprently no big traction issues.....front tires 255/18 back 285/18)</p><p></p><p>70-0 Braking I believe was around <strong>170 ft</strong> (vette was in the low 160s)....testers said the Brembo 14 inch brakes performed excellently :rockon: .....#s are about as good as you can expect for the weight of the car</p><p></p><p>1/4 Mile: <strong>12.9 @113</strong> I was disappointed and shocked <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /> </p><p>The writers/testers even remarked that "the old cobra model achieved the exact same #'s, for $35k"</p><p></p><p>Skidpad: <strong>.9g</strong>.....slight improvement, but about as good as you can expect with that weight and distribution, and no IRS.</p><p></p><p>So all together, comparing to previous Cobra model's performance aspects; the engine is bigger and more powerful, the car's performance #s are exactly the same, maybe slightly better, weight is even worse, as is the distribution of it, brakes are bigger, rear tires are just slightly bigger and fronts are smaller, no IRS.....and it's 10k+ more expensive.</p><p></p><p></p><p>(Side Note)....the BMW M6's performance #'s in this issue absolutely amazed me! 0-60 3.8, 1/4 mile high 11s @ 121!!!! Price: $106k, .87g skidpad (eh...ok)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BetterthanU, post: 3695260, member: 43126"] Welp, hope the pro-GT500 and repost Nazis don't come after me, but just a few comments on the latest issue of Car And Driver....with a GT500 vs. Z51 C6 comparison. (now remember that C&D is usually very consistant and spot-on with their performance #s they get out of cars) -C6 was marginally faster -I don't like the revised hood vents, or the "SHELBY" being placed on the upper left decklid, AMG style. A couple other things I sadly noticed about the GT500: Weight Distribution: [B]57/43[/B] ....holy fin' crap that's horrible. Testers mentioned bad nose dive upon hard braking....I know how 03/04 cobras can dive with 54/46 distribution, so I can only imagine. Weight: ~[B]3900[/B] 0-60: [B]4.6[/B]..... :sleeping: (C&D remarked that the car was very easy to launch, dropping the clutch at 3200 rpm....apaprently no big traction issues.....front tires 255/18 back 285/18) 70-0 Braking I believe was around [B]170 ft[/B] (vette was in the low 160s)....testers said the Brembo 14 inch brakes performed excellently :rockon: .....#s are about as good as you can expect for the weight of the car 1/4 Mile: [B]12.9 @113[/B] I was disappointed and shocked :eek: The writers/testers even remarked that "the old cobra model achieved the exact same #'s, for $35k" Skidpad: [B].9g[/B].....slight improvement, but about as good as you can expect with that weight and distribution, and no IRS. So all together, comparing to previous Cobra model's performance aspects; the engine is bigger and more powerful, the car's performance #s are exactly the same, maybe slightly better, weight is even worse, as is the distribution of it, brakes are bigger, rear tires are just slightly bigger and fronts are smaller, no IRS.....and it's 10k+ more expensive. (Side Note)....the BMW M6's performance #'s in this issue absolutely amazed me! 0-60 3.8, 1/4 mile high 11s @ 121!!!! Price: $106k, .87g skidpad (eh...ok) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
C&D GT500 vs. Z51 C6
Top