GT500 dyno test on TG

Ventura6

Active Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
332
Location
San Antonio, TX
Yep, because a radio DJ from the UK is more knowledgeable about cars than the largest automotive regulatory body in the world...
I didn't say that he was. But if you think that no one took what he said seriously because he used to be a radio DJ, you couldn't be more incorrect. And while you're focused on the SAE being the largest automotive regulatory body in the world, don't forget the fact that Top Gear is the largest and most watched automotive program in the world, and as such, they should not be deceptive about the cars they review.
 

stinger

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
131
Location
New Jersey
Car(s)
2006 Nissan Altima 3.5SE, 2009 Mazda RX-8
The dynos that they use are only measured to 450 bhp...i think, the call in the same guys whenever they r doing dyno tests, so i dont think that the measurment of the GT500's horsepower was accurate enough to be conclusive
 

Mercury

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
2,443
Location
Jerusalem, Israel
Car(s)
VW Golf GTI MKV
The dynos that they use are only measured to 450 bhp...i think, the call in the same guys whenever they r doing dyno tests, so i dont think that the measurment of the GT500's horsepower was accurate enough to be conclusive
Just cause they used a 450HP dyno in the supercar for mondeo money segment doesn't mean they got the same one for a 500HP Mustang...they're not that dumb :/
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
You sure about that? TopGear doesn't really concern itself with being factually correct.
 

Steve Levin

Master of Disaster
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,482
Location
Sunnyvale, California
Car(s)
Spec Racer Ford!
I believe the rear-wheel numbers TG got were correct based on what I've seen. Yes, they made themselves look a bit silly since virtually every car would have the same issue if tested (i.e., I can't think of manufacturers that publish whp and not bhp).

As far as the live axle, it's sad, but a well managed one isn't the end of the world on most roads. I had a Saleen back in 2001 that was quite well mannered 90% of the time. I haven't driven the GT500 but I'm sure it's quite optimized for the people who buy it -- that is, for driving it on a day to day basis.

My experience with Stage III Roushes in the previous generation of Mustangs was that they were total rubbish on the street -- so stiff they'd just bounce and skitter on anything not billiard smooth, and too little ground clearance to clear even benign speed humps and driveways.

Steve
 

thedguy

rides with Rebecca Black.. in the back
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
9,006
Location
Orange California
Car(s)
(OO=[][]=OO)
I'll fan the flames here...

Car and Driver Magazine took a bunch of cars to Virgina International Raceways (link) Grand East/Grand course (4.2 mile)

From the Article said:
The Grand Course is the longest layout available at VIR and possesses a testing combination of elevation changes, long straightaways, and a scintillating mixture of high-, medium-, and low-speed corners. It?s not a track that can be mastered in a few laps.

LL1: Under $30,000
Pontiac Solstice GXP - 3:15.7
Mazdaspeed 3 - 3:16.0
Mini Cooper S - 3:22.9

LL2: $30-60,000
Chevrolet Corvette (Z51) - 3:03.6
Ford Shelby GT500 - 3:05.9 weighs 3900lbs.
BMW 335i coupe - 3:10.5
BMW Z4 M coupe - 3:11.7

LL3: $60-120,000
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - 2:58.2 (Overall Winner)
Porsche 911 GT3 - 3:01.8
Lotus Exige S - 3:04.5
Audi R8 - 3:04.6 - it's 3500lbs
Audi RS4 - 3:11.2 weighs in at 3967 lbs in US trim.

LL4: $120-240,000
Porsche 911 Turbo - 3:05.8 (997 - 3515lbs)
For those in the US, this is the latest Car and Driver magazine says "Lightning lap" on the cover and has a shot of all these cars on the track.

Edit: these cars were all driven by the same driver(s), under the same conditions. The best time is the one that was published.
 
Last edited:

Hercules286

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,663
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
I'll fan the flames here...

Car and Driver Magazine took a bunch of cars to Virgina International Raceways (link) Grand East/Grand course (4.2 mile)



For those in the US, this is the latest Car and Driver magazine says "Lightning lap" on the cover and has a shot of all these cars on the track.

Edit: these cars were all driven by the same driver(s), under the same conditions. The best time is the one that was published.
Faster than the RS4, they say? Why am I slightly sceptical about it?
 

D-Fence

Mrs. IceBone
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,662
Location
Minga oida!
Car(s)
John Pooper Works
but the rs4 is AWD, so you can?t compare the straight line speed, because cornering is what matters.....
 

thedguy

rides with Rebecca Black.. in the back
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
9,006
Location
Orange California
Car(s)
(OO=[][]=OO)
0-60:
unrestricted top speed:
Aren't Audi's restricted to 155? And lets not go into "well you can get it de-restricted" because magazines don't.

BTW, nice rounding up you did there. In a 0-60 competition every 10th is everything so if you round it all up to 5 (which is proper), you take out the fact that the Audi (US model) does the run in 4.8, where the mustang does it in 4.5.

Also the Mustang is going to pull harder from higher speeds thanks to both it's superior torque and hp and lack of a restrictor. VIR has some healthy straights that prevent to much of an advantage going to the cars that survive on handling.

What I find interesting is you focus on the just as heavy, but lower power Audi. You realized the Porsche Turbo I put in bold is 400lbs lighter than either car and makes 480hp. Thats officially 20hp down from the Mustang, but if you believe top gear it's 30hp up.
 
Last edited:

Hercules286

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,663
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
Aren't Audi's restricted to 155?
So are Mustangs. They probably didn't hit the top speed limiter on the track, anyway. I was using that as a comparison between power and aerodynamics.

BTW, nice rounding up you did there. In a 0-60 competition every 10th is everything so if you round it all up to 5 (which is proper), you take out the fact that the Audi (US model) does the run in 4.8, where the mustang does it in 4.5.
Yes, but a 6 second quicker lap time does sound fishy.

Also the Mustang is going to pull harder from higher speeds thanks to both it's superior torque and hp.
Up to about 120, probably, after that - I don't think so.

What I find interesting is you focus on the just as heavy, but lower power Audi. You realized the Porsche Turbo I put in bold is 400lbs lighter than either car and makes 480hp. Thats officially 20hp down from the Mustang, but if you believe top gear it's 30hp up.
That does not compute, either.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
I'm not a big fan of Fords or these brick shaped Mustangs. I wouldn't hesitate to take a Audi RS4 over a GT500. But still.

So are Mustangs. They probably didn't hit the top speed limiter on the track, anyway. I was using that as a comparison between power and aerodynamics.
Weight also plays a part. The RS4 is a sedan and is heavier. I'm sure the GT500 was able to hit a higher top speed on the straights then the RS4.

Yes, but a 6 second quicker lap time does sound fishy.
Bu they are 3+ minute lap times though. I mean, the NRing is around 8 minutes for performance cars, but most people would consider a 6 second difference next to nothing on that track. If the GT500 is truly faster around a track, then managing a couple seconds lead for every minute racing is plausible.

Up to about 120, probably, after that - I don't think so.
Why not? More power is more power. And less weight is less weight. The GT500 has a flat power-band, 120 mph isn't anything to that car. It's running almost the same engine found in the 200mph Ford GT supercar.

That does not compute, either.
400lbs lighter is a lot. And Porsche is known for making the 911 overcome it's flaws and be a real killer on the track.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,556
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
Yes, but a 6 second quicker lap time does sound fishy.

Up to about 120, probably, after that - I don't think so.
If a car has more power and less weight, it's probably going to be faster, regardless of what kind of axle is hanging out back. How hard is that to understand?

I mean, really. You don't seem to have much experience outside of magazine racing.
 

thedguy

rides with Rebecca Black.. in the back
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
9,006
Location
Orange California
Car(s)
(OO=[][]=OO)
400lbs lighter is a lot. And Porsche is known for making the 911 overcome it's flaws and be a real killer on the track.
The thing is, it didn't. It had the advantage and pissed it down the drain. Reading some of the reviews on Car and Drivers website reveals a possible answer though...

Drivers didn't feel secure with the handling. Even with every bit of stability control/tracton/abs etc turned on, it still gave the driver a looming fear that the ass end would go into the corner before the front.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
The thing is, it didn't. It had the advantage and pissed it down the drain. Reading some of the reviews on Car and Drivers website reveals a possible answer though...

Drivers didn't feel secure with the handling. Even with every bit of stability control/tracton/abs etc turned on, it still gave the driver a looming fear that the ass end would go into the corner before the front.
Oh, I didn't realize it was that close. The 911 T was only faster by a tenth. You're right.
Did they test the triptronic or the 6 speed? Also, was the Turbo running comp-R or runflat tires?
 

thedguy

rides with Rebecca Black.. in the back
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
9,006
Location
Orange California
Car(s)
(OO=[][]=OO)
Oh, I didn't realize it was that close. The 911 T was only faster by a tenth. You're right.
Did they test the triptronic or the 6 speed? Also, was the Turbo running comp-R or runflat tires?
I do know it was the manual, I have no idea on the tires. Probably whatever option Porsche might have thought was better to give to them for this competition.

I don't actually have a copy of the issue (pulled the data from another forum), but it's worth the read.
 

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,270
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
I do remember reading that the Turbo was way slower than the GT3, though, and that the general consensus was that it felt heavy, and wobbly, comparitively. I'm too lazy to check back a page, if that wasn't already pointed out...
 

Necx0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
2,242
Location
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Car(s)
R31 Skyline, Charade rally car
Wow that was a lot to read. I will add my 2c now because I am bored haha

I am more inclined to believe that the 447hp that came up is an engine number rather than a wheel number. If it was a wheel number that would give the GT500 almost 550hp (going by the 20% loss figure which is pretty reasonable) which is one hell of a fit Mustang.

Why would it be so low?? Any number of reasons, production tolerances are still quite large these days so it could have been a lesser example. The car might not have been fully run in yet and was still yet to reach full power. Also depends what system they used for calculating horsepower. If Ford used ECE (which they do in Australia) while TG used DIN then that accounts for another whack of grunt.

Claimed bhp 500
less lesser example 20
less not run in 10
less DIN/ECE diff. 10
final bhp 460

Add to that the inaccuracy of measuring BHP from the wheels and I can see why they only got 447BHP.
 
Top