BlackIce, I'm glad you posted this and here's why. I don't mean to start a fistfight about car mag reviews, but one thing that gets under my skin is the relatively biased reporting against a given car or brand by some auto publications. I am referring specifically to a number of tests/reviews of the GT by Road & Track, some of which have been pointed out here before. If memory serves, the official R&T guide times of the GT are still among the slowest tested by any review even thought the GT has tested better in other editions of R&T (against an F430 no less. A Heritage car ran consistent 11.7s against the 430, yet the test #s of an earlier car still show up in the guide).
What really bugs me, and I'm no stat nut, is that 5 years later, most of the high $$ and high horsepower cars are no faster than the various GTs tested in '04 and '05. This begs the question: were most of the GTs tested in '04 (the C&D car that ran numerous 11.5-6-057s and eventually 11.3 @ nearly 130) or the Motor Trend car from the article above (for all I know the same car) ringer cars? Were these times not to be realized by any other drivers?
Here's what I'm asking forum members. Do you think a STOCK GT could actually run the times that the aforementioned publications provided, and if so, how would the car stack up against the newer and higher hp rated ZR1, Viper, and F 599?
Again, I'm no stat fanatic. It's just that 5+ years later, I don't see what's such a big deal that a $460,000 12 cyl Lambo breaks 11.2 or a $240,000 10 cyl Lambo does 11.4s when a 5 year old Ford did damn near that while bone ass stock for a lot less bread. Furthermore, as happy as I am that GM makes the ZR1, with nearly 90 hp more than our beloved GT, it is barely breaking 200 mph in all the various mags.
Just asking...