Shelby GT 500

86LX5liter · 02-25-2001, 04:20 AM

I was just curious if any of you guys know what the performance numbers of these beautiful machines are. Arguing with friends over Gone is 60 Seconds, and we are curious about the actual performance the car was capable of. I read on a website a few numbers, but I am not sure I trust them.

------------------
12.54 @ 110.90
1.62 60'
best with old car, will let you know once i finish the transfer to the new to me car

I have pictures now, and here are the specs

Fostang · 02-25-2001, 04:23 AM

they were hogs running in the high 14's it was good for the time though.

Tony Frank · 02-26-2001, 11:10 AM

To tell you the truth in the movie they didnt use real gt 500's they were just regular mustangs with body kits....obviously but i have no clue on what the numbers are sorry

------------------
1985 Mustang GT 15,000 original miles, cam, intake, headers, carb, windage tray, you know the goodies

Jaydee · 02-26-2001, 11:19 AM

In an old test from Car Life magazine in 1969 the GT 500 ran a 13.93 @ 103 mph. Most of the other tests I have seen were low to mid 14's, but traction on those old bias plys was always an issue

------------------
1965 K code coupe - numbers matching - restoration ongoing. 1987 LX notch, stock heads and intake, 3.55's and typical bolt on's 13.89@100.25

BowTie Eater 5 Liter · 02-27-2001, 11:29 PM

the gt500 was rated around 350hp by ford, but was under rated. It had a 428 big block engine. the 68 GT500KR (King of the Road) was the best mustang of all time to me (Other than my car), it had a beefier engine (360 hp) than the gt500. My Dads old high school buddy had a GT500KR & it was my dads fav mustang also.

------------------
1988 Mustang GT, T-5
No Smog Pump (Shorty Belt), Dumps At The End Of Stock H-Pipe (Sounds Mean), K&N Air Filter (Stock Air Box, Removed air silendcer), 198.9 rwhp @4200 (235 Motor!!), 285 lbs-ft @2900 (336 Motor!!!).
My Stang This Is What Dynomax Ultra-Flo's Do (Soon To Be On My Stang!)
Future Plans Call For A 351 Windsor

COBRA66 · 02-28-2001, 02:40 AM

You have to remember that the gt500 which is essentially a 67-68 fastback with a bigger engine, weighs a ton. These are big cars, made for straight line perfomance. Just like the Mach ones which came later. As for the movie, no classic mustangs is going to out run a helicopter. And just think, what kind of idiot would do that to a GT500, i mean nos a body kit, and cutting a whole in the car for a different filler location. I think that is something a chevy owner would do, kinda like taking 33' 3 windows and droping 350 and lt1's in them. just my 2 cents.

j's69stang · 02-28-2001, 09:00 AM

well that idiot who did all those things to that 67 was pretty good and creating one of the baddest 67 mustangs around. that car doesnt have a body kit on it, its just side exhaust off of a 94-98 mustang. Most of the parts were made for a 67-68 mustang. and 67 fastbacks are heavy, with a 289 they weigh right at 2800 lbs, perfect to do all the things that they did to that car and the nitrous, how much better can you get. So far thats the best looking 67 i have ever seen in my opinion, I will build one of those one day.

COBRA66 · 02-28-2001, 03:06 PM

j's you misunderstood me. I am not saying that the car wasn't bad *** . But you do not do those kind of things to a shelby car, it's sacralige. And the car had a little more than just side exhaust(it wasn't even functional) check out Mustang Monthly Nov 2000 they have a whole article dedicated to that car.

Tom351 · 02-28-2001, 03:31 PM

I agree cobra66, that hood and other fiberglass body pieces were lame. I would have much rather seen a real GT500, or better yet a 65 GT350 R-model

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Carter 750 CFM, Comp. Cam 477/510 219/233@.050, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback

j's69stang · 02-28-2001, 05:23 PM

that 67 was better than any real gt500 i have ever seen. It still didnt have a body kit on it though. The molded closed hood scoupe, the custom billet grills, the racing arpon, and yes the side exhaust looks better than any real gt500. i agree if it was a real one then yes they screwed it up bad, but for it to of came from a 67 fastback and make it look like that, unbelieveable. go to totalcontrolproducts.com and they have everything you need to know about that car.

69fastback · 03-02-2001, 06:53 AM

most of the 67 was what they really look like except for the side exhaust.

02-25-2001, 04:20 AM	#1
86LX5liter Registered Member Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: NY Posts: 524	Shelby GT 500 I was just curious if any of you guys know what the performance numbers of these beautiful machines are. Arguing with friends over Gone is 60 Seconds, and we are curious about the actual performance the car was capable of. I read on a website a few numbers, but I am not sure I trust them. ------------------ 12.54 @ 110.90 1.62 60' best with old car, will let you know once i finish the transfer to the new to me car I have pictures now, and here are the specs

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
V6, GT, Cobra, Cobra R, Shelby, Saleen.. What??	XDude	Blue Oval Lounge	10	04-30-2002 06:05 PM
1996 Cobra vs 2000 Mustang GT	Milktasd	Stang Stories	2	04-05-2002 03:11 AM
RESULTS - Grand Prix GT vs. Celica GTS	302 LX Eric	Stang Stories	7	09-25-2001 06:46 PM
ran a '01 GT	EZRIDN	Stang Stories	3	08-29-2001 08:17 PM
Whooped an '85 GT with my Wife's Volvo	NO SLO PK	Stang Stories	8	07-20-2001 12:46 PM

02-25-2001, 04:23 AM	#2
Fostang Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Stockton, Ca Posts: 599	they were hogs running in the high 14's it was good for the time though.

02-26-2001, 11:10 AM	#3
Tony Frank Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Brooklyn originally, but Grand Rapids now Posts: 309	To tell you the truth in the movie they didnt use real gt 500's they were just regular mustangs with body kits....obviously but i have no clue on what the numbers are sorry ------------------ 1985 Mustang GT 15,000 original miles, cam, intake, headers, carb, windage tray, you know the goodies

02-26-2001, 11:19 AM	#4
Jaydee Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Conn. Posts: 220	In an old test from Car Life magazine in 1969 the GT 500 ran a 13.93 @ 103 mph. Most of the other tests I have seen were low to mid 14's, but traction on those old bias plys was always an issue ------------------ 1965 K code coupe - numbers matching - restoration ongoing. 1987 LX notch, stock heads and intake, 3.55's and typical bolt on's 13.89@100.25

02-27-2001, 11:29 PM	#5
BowTie Eater 5 Liter Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Maple Ridge B.C. Canada, The Best Place In The World Posts: 871	the gt500 was rated around 350hp by ford, but was under rated. It had a 428 big block engine. the 68 GT500KR (King of the Road) was the best mustang of all time to me (Other than my car), it had a beefier engine (360 hp) than the gt500. My Dads old high school buddy had a GT500KR & it was my dads fav mustang also. ------------------ 1988 Mustang GT, T-5 No Smog Pump (Shorty Belt), Dumps At The End Of Stock H-Pipe (Sounds Mean), K&N Air Filter (Stock Air Box, Removed air silendcer), 198.9 rwhp @4200 (235 Motor!!), 285 lbs-ft @2900 (336 Motor!!!). My Stang This Is What Dynomax Ultra-Flo's Do (Soon To Be On My Stang!) Future Plans Call For A 351 Windsor

02-28-2001, 02:40 AM	#6
COBRA66 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Central Valley, Ca Posts: 58	You have to remember that the gt500 which is essentially a 67-68 fastback with a bigger engine, weighs a ton. These are big cars, made for straight line perfomance. Just like the Mach ones which came later. As for the movie, no classic mustangs is going to out run a helicopter. And just think, what kind of idiot would do that to a GT500, i mean nos a body kit, and cutting a whole in the car for a different filler location. I think that is something a chevy owner would do, kinda like taking 33' 3 windows and droping 350 and lt1's in them. just my 2 cents.

02-28-2001, 09:00 AM	#7
j's69stang Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 102	well that idiot who did all those things to that 67 was pretty good and creating one of the baddest 67 mustangs around. that car doesnt have a body kit on it, its just side exhaust off of a 94-98 mustang. Most of the parts were made for a 67-68 mustang. and 67 fastbacks are heavy, with a 289 they weigh right at 2800 lbs, perfect to do all the things that they did to that car and the nitrous, how much better can you get. So far thats the best looking 67 i have ever seen in my opinion, I will build one of those one day.

02-28-2001, 03:06 PM	#8
COBRA66 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Central Valley, Ca Posts: 58	j's you misunderstood me. I am not saying that the car wasn't bad *** . But you do not do those kind of things to a shelby car, it's sacralige. And the car had a little more than just side exhaust(it wasn't even functional) check out Mustang Monthly Nov 2000 they have a whole article dedicated to that car.

02-28-2001, 03:31 PM	#9
Tom351 Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Atlanta,GA,USA Posts: 278	I agree cobra66, that hood and other fiberglass body pieces were lame. I would have much rather seen a real GT500, or better yet a 65 GT350 R-model ------------------ 67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint 351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Carter 750 CFM, Comp. Cam 477/510 219/233@.050, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars. My 351W Fastback

02-28-2001, 05:23 PM	#10
j's69stang Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 102	that 67 was better than any real gt500 i have ever seen. It still didnt have a body kit on it though. The molded closed hood scoupe, the custom billet grills, the racing arpon, and yes the side exhaust looks better than any real gt500. i agree if it was a real one then yes they screwed it up bad, but for it to of came from a 67 fastback and make it look like that, unbelieveable. go to totalcontrolproducts.com and they have everything you need to know about that car.

03-02-2001, 06:53 AM	#11
69fastback IRAQ VET Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: high desert California Posts: 1,480	most of the 67 was what they really look like except for the side exhaust.