Camaro ZL1... something wicked this way comes.

[Onslaught]

The cup holders are too small and the steering wheel is ugly.

Well, the steering wheel is ugly as shit.

[GoCougs]

Well, the steering wheel is ugly as shit.

[SVT666]

It really is and it's not the best shape either.  The new wheel is definitely better than the first one they put in it.

[Soup DeVille]

It really is and it's not the best shape either.  The new wheel is definitely better than the first one they put in it.

And the dashboard really does feel cheap and plasticky.

[SVT666]

And the dashboard really does feel cheap and plasticky.

It does, but I'm not much of a dash stroker.  I don't care how it feels if it doesn't look cheap.  The Camaro's interior is definitely a step down from the Mustang's but it's not...bad.  I just don't like the styling of the interior.  The speedo is far and away the most difficult speedo I have ever had to read.  There is a lot wrong with the Camaro's packaging and styling induced poor sightlines, but it is a beast and I had fun driving it.

[Onslaught]

And the dashboard really does feel cheap and plasticky.

Yea, it's bad. Both Chevy and Dodge are behind in this area to Ford.

[Payman]

Having sat in all three, I like the Challenger interior best. Simple and inoffensive.

[Schadenfreude]

Of course.  I'm a hater, but this time is astonishing.  With an additional 100 hp though, the GT500 should easily beat this time.  I find it funny that Cougs hasn't chimed in with Sporty though since he has in the past when it is a car he doesn't like.

Not necessarily. Aero, weight, tires, suspension tuning and the overall set up, spring rates, as well as the driver factor in. That being said..the Camaro's suspension is a little less forgiving than the CTS-V is, and it is harder to drive to an extent as well. Sad part is, there's more that could be done to the suspension that might knock a little bit more off that time (but probably won't be done, because we still want our customers to have their kidneys after driving the car).

[GoCougs]

Not necessarily. Aero, weight, tires, suspension tuning and the overall set up, spring rates, as well as the driver factor in. That being said..the Camaro's suspension is a little less forgiving than the CTS-V is, and it is harder to drive to an extent as well. Sad part is, there's more that could be done to the suspension that might knock a little bit more off that time (but probably won't be done, because we still want our customers to have their kidneys after driving the car).

Hey, didn't you hear? All that matters on the track is horsepower and Camaro haterism, anti-Camaro trollism, and failed Camaro predictionism.

[565]

Nope.  It's fucking impressive...but I bet the GT500 knocks at least 10 seconds off that time.

LMAO.

The cold hard truth is that the GT500 performs like ABSOLUTE crap given its HP rating and especially its power to weight ratio.

Either Ford is lying competely about the horsepower the blown GT500 puts out, or the Mustang Chassis just sucks at handling over 500hp.

The proof?

The current 550hp, 3801 pound GT500 with a power to weight ratio of 6.91 runs 12.4 quarter miles at between 115.8-117mph. 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1104_2011_chevrolet_corvette_2011_ford_shelby_gt500_2012_nissan_gtr_comparison/viewall.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-road-test

That's fraud investigation worthy when you consider my 3181 pound 405hp Z06 ran nearly identical times with a power to weight ratio of 7.85

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2002-chevrolet-corvette-z06-short-take-road-test

And for the sake of comparing the upcoming ZL1, lets take a look at the current CTS-V Wagon.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-cadillac-cts-v-wagon-long-term-test-review-car-and-driver

4393 lbs, 556hp, power to weight of 7.91.  1/4 mile in 12.3 seconds at 119 mph.

So the CTS-V has a much worse power to weight ratio, and yet runs the 1/4 mile 2-3 mph FASTER than the GT500.

If we give the CTS-V at 4393 pounds the same power to weight ratio as the GT500 at 6.91, the CTS-V would need to be making 635hp to simply match the GT500, and yet it's actually a few mph faster through the 1/4 mile.  It looks like 556 GM beasty stallions is worth about 650ish Ford gimpy ponys already.

The new ZL1 will be making 580 horses with 4120 pounds, for a power to weight ratio of 7.1. 

Power to weight mag racing not your thing?  Then lets forget about hypothetical power to weight ratios for an upcoming car for a minute.  We don't have to fantasize about what a 650hp Mustang will do.  We already know how a 750hp Mustang will do, one that puts down 635hp to the rear wheels on the Dyno.

http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/coupes/112_0912_nissan_gt_r_shelby_gt500_race_video/

It gets pulled on by a previous version 480hp GT-R.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0908_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_super_snake_test/viewall.html

And the trap speed is only 120.1 mph.  That is just complete shame.  The GT500 chassis just can't hook up.  Unless Ford is forgetting to include AWD, or a radically revised weight distribution in the press release, it's going to continue not to hook up.

My predictions are that the ZL1 and new GT500 will trap within a few mph of each other (2-3mph difference most likely), both trapping somewhere between 120-125 mph

Also the prediction that a GT500 will run the Ring at anywhere near 7:30 (around what that GT-R that beat the 750hp Super Snake in the video ran) is complete moonshine considering the GT500 won't even out accelerate the old GT-R in the straights, let alone run with it in the corners.

[sportyaccordy]

1/4 mile times don't mean much from a roll... like on an 8 minute long road course. Not being able to hook up at the launch != not having lateral traction

This whole thing is stupid

[565]

1/4 mile times don't mean much from a roll... like on an 8 minute long road course. Not being able to hook up at the launch != not having lateral traction

This whole thing is stupid

It's not the ET's for the GT500 that are bad, it's the trap speeds.  I never talked much about the ET's at all.

You are making a classic mistake when looking at 1/4 times and trap speed.  Each piece of data tells you something different.   I'm not looking at the ET, which is a function of off the line traction,  I'm looking at trap speeds which is usually a function of power to weight and a good indication of how fast you will be going at the end of a straight.

This holds perfectly true for my GT500 vs CTS-V tests from C&D.  Both cars have a similar 1/4 mile ET, but the CTS-V is going 2-3mph faster at the traps.  Since the ET is similar but the trap speed is slightly higher, you can wager that both cars get off the line similarly and the CTS-V then pulls away from a roll.  Which is exactly what it does if you look at the 0-60 and 0-150 break downs provided by C&D.

Look again at the GT500 vs CTS-V times.

The 0-60 times for the two cars are identical at 4.1 seconds.  So both cars have a similarly bad time getting off the line, as predicted by looking at the 1/4 ET.

But to 150 mph, the CTS-V does it in 21.3 seconds, while the GT500 does it from 23.6.  That is all distance pulled by the CTS-V from a roll.  The CTS-V has a better top end, as predicted by the trap speed.

There was no mention of lateral traction at all in the discussion, so I don't know where you are going with that.  Maybe you misunderstood the point. Not being able to hook up is a problem around a track if you cannot hook up at track speeds.  The Super Snake can't put down power in 3rd gear.  That is definitely a problem at any track short of a NASCAR oval. The GT-R does what it does on a track by explosive corner exits.  If the GT500 cannot exit corners and achieve the same speeds down the straights, it's not going to catch a GT-R plain and simple.

[SVT32V]

I don't think anyone believes a GT500 is going to hang with the computer awd GT-R, that is silly to even contemplate.

I would guess the difference in trap speed is due to the caddy having better gearing and launch control. The numbers I have seen show the CTS-V much quicker to 60.

Unless they are done on the same day and conditions, I would not put too much emphasis on a few mph. Especially in a blown car.

[SVT666]

The GT500 gets launch control, revised suspension tuning, and completely revised gearing for 2013 and much more cooling to combat the heat soak the old car suffered from.  I think  7:32 is possible considering the horsepower advantage over the ZL1 and the handling advantage the GT has over the more powerful SS.  The GT500 has never been well executed, but that appears to have changed.

[GoCougs]

Meh, I thought most every one agreed, even the most ardent of Camaro haters/Mustang trolls, that the GT500 never performed acceleration-wise as well as its numbers dictated. The best spin is Ford under tire'd the car from factory but the objective of us know it's the inherent limitation of an older chassis in combination with no-one-does-it-anymore-for-a-reason live axle.

The CTS-V vs. GT500 comparison has been brought up many times; part of the GT500's deficit is that the blown 5.4L is not as good a motor as the LS9 (not as wide a power band, amongst other things). I can't find much about this 5.8L; some say it's a reworked 5.4L some say it's all new. If it's a reworked 5.4L, I don't think that bodes well.

[GoCougs]

I don't think anyone believes a GT500 is going to hang with the computer awd GT-R, that is silly to even contemplate.

I would guess the difference in trap speed is due to the caddy having better gearing and launch control. The numbers I have seen show the CTS-V much quicker to 60.

Unless they are done on the same day and conditions, I would not put too much emphasis on a few mph. Especially in a blown car.

565's point is SVT666 asserted from the emotional mountain tops the GT500 will better the 7:41 ZL1 around the 'Ring by 10 seconds. Guess which car laps at 7:29? A first gen GT-R R35 (2009 MY). Guess which other cars are at about the 7:30 +/- mark; F458, Carrera GT, and 911 GT2 and GT3.

The problem with hate and emotion when it comes to objective discussion is that it sets a person up for a huge fall (not saying this is you) by making wild assertions, with the inevitable crow that is bound to be eaten.

[SVT666]

If I'm wrong I'm wrong Cougs, but the GT500 was developed at the Ring this time so I have high hopes for it.

[Byteme]

Well, compare the ZL1 time to it's competition. The only thing remotely close is the CTS-V at 7:59. What this tells me, if I were in the market for a $50,000 muscle car, is that the ZL1 is quite the handler, beating much more expensive pure sportscars and exotics in a (grantedly) rough comparison of their abilities. This is valuable info for me, and perhaps enough to justify buying one over anything else in its market and price range. "This thing did 7:41 around the 'Ring" is a pretty good pride of ownership statement.

And the average Camaro owner, while heading out the door to drive his V6 automatic model to Walmart, will look at you and say "Ring, what's that?" as he downs the last of his bud and tosses the empty can in the trash pile next to his trailer house.   

[Byteme]

It's not the ET's for the GT500 that are bad, it's the trap speeds.  I never talked much about the ET's at all.

I haven't been to a drag race in years.  Refresh my memory.  Who wins the race, the guy with the lowest ET or the guy who was going the fastest when they crossed the finish line.  

Unless I missed something you didn't mention gearing being a factor.  You talked about hooking up and chassis design.  Gearing is very much a factor in determining aceleration rates.

[565]

Is the GT500 a dual clutch automatic without a clutch pedal?  No?

Then launch control doesn't matter for magazine times (I'm sure it does wonders when joe schmoe drives the car)

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/computers-v-humans-launch-control-tested-feature-car-and-driver-we-drop-the-hammer-page-2

Launch control only gives big gains when you don't have a clutch pedal, and you cannot dump the clutch and the only alternative to launch control is to simply mash the gas, like in a GT-R, Porsche PDK, VW DSG, etc. 

In a car with a clutch that you control, launch control provides pretty much no benefit to a good magazine tester, especially someone from C&D who consistently get top results.

As for gearing, we don't know much except that they are revised (except 4th gear) and the final drive is taller.  Overall I would agree with Coug's assessment that they probably put in tall gears to make the car drivable like Chevy did for the ZR1.  Extremely short gearing in a car with an abundance of traction and ultra fast, seemless gear shifts like the GT-R gives great benefit to acceleration. In a car already with traction problems, and standard manual shifts, super short gearing will hurt you more than it helps.  I'm sure the ratios are now all reoptimized for the power curve of the new GT500 engine, and it makes for a nice blurb on the press release, but there's only so much fiddling around with ratios can do. 

Heat soak explains more the troubles older iron block GT500's had during prolonged track sessions than single best magazine times from the newer aluminum block GT500s.

We'll see if the suspension tuning is more geared towards cornering or rear end traction.

The point is that those that think 650hp makes the GT500 invincible better think again.  GT500s have consistently under delievered since the very first one rolled off the line.  It's gonna take more than another fancy press release to convince me otherwise for this new one.   

[SVT666]

It's not the ET's for the GT500 that are bad, it's the trap speeds.  I never talked much about the ET's at all.

You are making a classic mistake when looking at 1/4 times and trap speed.  Each piece of data tells you something different.   I'm not looking at the ET, which is a function of off the line traction,  I'm looking at trap speeds which is usually a function of power to weight and a good indication of how fast you will be going at the end of a straight.

This holds perfectly true for my GT500 vs CTS-V tests from C&D.  Both cars have a similar 1/4 mile ET, but the CTS-V is going 2-3mph faster at the traps.  Since the ET is similar but the trap speed is slightly higher, you can wager that both cars get off the line similarly and the CTS-V then pulls away from a roll.  Which is exactly what it does if you look at the 0-60 and 0-150 break downs provided by C&D.

Look again at the GT500 vs CTS-V times.

The 0-60 times for the two cars are identical at 4.1 seconds.  So both cars have a similarly bad time getting off the line, as predicted by looking at the 1/4 ET.

But to 150 mph, the CTS-V does it in 21.3 seconds, while the GT500 does it from 23.6.  That is all distance pulled by the CTS-V from a roll.  The CTS-V has a better top end, as predicted by the trap speed.

There was no mention of lateral traction at all in the discussion, so I don't know where you are going with that.  Maybe you misunderstood the point. Not being able to hook up is a problem around a track if you cannot hook up at track speeds.  The Super Snake can't put down power in 3rd gear.  That is definitely a problem at any track short of a NASCAR oval. The GT-R does what it does on a track by explosive corner exits.  If the GT500 cannot exit corners and achieve the same speeds down the straights, it's not going to catch a GT-R plain and simple.

The Super Snake is a tuner car and a very poorly developed tuner car at that. 

[SVT666]

Is the GT500 a dual clutch automatic without a clutch pedal?  No?

Then launch control doesn't matter for magazine times (I'm sure it does wonders when joe schmoe drives the car)

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/computers-v-humans-launch-control-tested-feature-car-and-driver-we-drop-the-hammer-page-2

Launch control only gives big gains when you don't have a clutch pedal, and you cannot dump the clutch and the only alternative to launch control is to simply mash the gas, like in a GT-R, Porsche PDK, VW DSG, etc.  

In a car with a clutch that you control, launch control provides pretty much no benefit to a good magazine tester, especially someone from C&D who consistently get top results.

As for gearing, we don't know much except that they are revised (except 4th gear) and the final drive is taller.  Overall I would agree with Coug's assessment that they probably put in tall gears to make the car drivable like Chevy did for the ZR1.  Extremely short gearing in a car with an abundance of traction and ultra fast, seemless gear shifts like the GT-R gives great benefit to acceleration. In a car already with traction problems, and standard manual shifts, super short gearing will hurt you more than it helps.  I'm sure the ratios are now all reoptimized for the power curve of the new GT500 engine, and it makes for a nice blurb on the press release, but there's only so much fiddling around with ratios can do.  

Heat soak explains more the troubles older iron block GT500's had during prolonged track sessions than single best magazine times from the newer aluminum block GT500s.

We'll see if the suspension tuning is more geared towards cornering or rear end traction.

The point is that those that think 650hp makes the GT500 invincible better think again.  GT500s have consistently under delievered since the very first one rolled off the line.  It's gonna take more than another fancy press release to convince me otherwise for this new one.  

When I read your post I hear your voice just seething with hate for this car.  I think you hate Mustang much more than I hate Camaro.  I at least give the Camaro props for what it does do well.  Don't forget, when Ford gets their backs against a wall they come out swinging and swinging hard.  Mustang V6 absolutely destroys the Camaro V6 in every way, the Mustang GT is better in every measurable and subjective way than the SS (so much so that the GT has been pitted against the M3 Competition and came essentially tied), and the Boss 302 is a track monster that embarrasses cars that are 2 and 3 times more expensive.  Now Chevy comes out with a monster of a performer in the ZL1 and Ford was at the Ring developing the GT500 right around the same time GM was there with the ZL1 and it is a 200 mph 650 hp beast.  Ford won't let GM beat them.  It's gonna be very good.

But if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I will admit it, unlike Cougs and yourself.  I'm just pretty confident I won't be wrong because Ford has already proven the car can perform when properly setup (Boss 302).

[565]

I haven't been to a drag race in years.  Refresh my memory.  Who wins the race, the guy with the lowest ET or the guy who was going the fastest when they crossed the finish line. 

Wow you really haven't been to the drags in years...

The correct answer is neither.

The person who crosses the line first wins (duh). 

ET's calculated from drag strips slips do not include your reaction times.  If you fall asleep at the lights with a Veyron, and a Ford Focus beats you across the line, your ET and trap will still be awesome.  You still would have lost the race.

Unless I missed something you didn't mention gearing being a factor.  You talked about hooking up and chassis design.  Gearing is very much a factor in determining aceleration rates.

Yeah and since changing around gear ratios is pretty much a low cost solution that's existed since the dawn of cars, people expecting some huge magical gains in the gearing are deluding themselves.  Both these cars have a simple gearing setup (even from the same maker I believe) that I've pretty familiar with (since I drive that setup every day),  5 performance gears, 1 crusing gear to avoid gas guzzler tax, 1-4 skip shift to avoid gas guzzler tax.  4th gear is usually compromised slightly so you don't lug the engine when using 1-4 skip shift.  Predictably 4th gear is unchanged on the new GT500 (it was also the only unchanged gear in the C5 Z06 M12 tranmission).  Like I said in the previous post, beyond optimizing each gear for the power curve of the engine, there's not many other tricks to play.  If it was as easy as changing some gears for basically no cost, then they would have done it 3 GT500's ago.  I mean do people expect the previous GT500 gears to be set by retards who thought it was going into a Taurus?  Those gears were set by the same guys that are setting these gears.

Short of a car like the GT-R or Porsche PDK where shifting is nearly instant and traction is abundant, super short gearing isn't going to give big gains, or everyone would have done it by now, including all the other makers that use the same transmission,  Viper, Vette, Etc

[565]

When I read your post I hear your voice just seething with hate for this car.  I think you hate Mustang much more than I hate Camaro.  I at least give the Camaro props for what it does do well.  Don't forget, when Ford gets their backs against a wall they come out swinging and swinging hard.  Mustang V6 absolutely destroys the Camaro V6 in every way, the Mustang GT is better in every measurable and subjective way than the SS (so much so that the GT has been pitted against the M3 Competition and came essentially tied), and the Boss 302 is a track monster that embarrasses cars that are 2 and 3 times more expensive.  Now Chevy comes out with a monster of a performer in the ZL1 and Ford was at the Ring developing the GT500 right around the same time GM was there with the ZL1 and it is a 200 mph 650 hp beast.  Ford won't let GM beat them.  It's gonna be very good.

But if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and I will admit it, unlike Cougs and yourself.  I'm just pretty confident I won't be wrong because Ford has already proven the car can perform when properly setup (Boss 302).

Nah, I'm pretty much trolling when I make my occasional anti mustang posts.

This forum is a sad disgrace for Chevy Diehards in keeping the Blue Oval vs Bowtie rivalry alive.   Anywhere else you get heated Mustang Vs Camaro debates with supporters from both sides.  Those tend to be the best threads.

Here we get Cougs vs everyone else pretty much, and Cougs drives an Accord and hates pushrods, leaf springs, and doesn't make sense some of the time.  

The rest of the Chevy guys (Lebowski, Gotta-Qik-C6, 68_427) are being too civil and reasonable for their own good (where's the backup, comrades?)  

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

[Byteme]

Wow you really haven't been to the drags in years...

The correct answer is neither.

The person who crosses the line first wins (duh).  

ET's calculated from drag strips slips do not include your reaction times.  If you fall asleep at the lights with a Veyron, and a Ford Focus beats you across the line, your ET and trap will still be awesome.  You still would have lost the race.

You are splitting hairs, you know what I meant.   All the talk about sopeed across the traps is meaningless.  In a drag race what matters is who got there first.

[SVT32V]

Its not true that stiffer gearing makes the problem worse with high hp, any drag strip will be filled with 4;56 geared cars.

The hate on the GT500 is not unearned in many ways, but it is also the cheapest 500 hp plus car so not having the same performance as the much more expensive caddy is not such a bad thing. It would be great if it was better perfroming but the truth of the matter is a good bit more engineering and tuning went into the cts-v for its performance, chassis, suspension, gearing and drivetrain management.

If it didn't perform better than the GT500 it would be a travesty.
I like the cts-v and the new ZL-1 is awesome, if there was no camaro and its various versions the mustang would still have the weak 3V 4.6 and the GT500 would have probably been discontinued.

Heat soak is a problem in the current GT500 regardless of the block material, the blower is not that efficient and the cooling needed to be upgraded.

[565]

You are splitting hairs, you know what I meant.   All the talk about sopeed across the traps is meaningless.  In a drag race what matters is who got there first.

Yeah and no where in my posts did winning drag races ever come up (anyway the CTS-V "won" the race).  The entire discussion is about whether the GT500 will do 7:30ish around the Ring.  In order for the car to accomplish the feat, it needs to accelerate, corner, and brake with the best of them.  My point is that even in the category where the GT500 should do the best (acceleration) it's probably going to fall short.

[r0tor]

It's piss poor to compare ring times from a manufacturer vs a magazine test.  When the OEMs are doing the testing, they hire pro drivers, they used nice stick shaved rubber, run as little fuel as possible, run lightweight racing fluids, optimize camber/caster/toe suspension settings, usually have a roll cage which strengthens the chassis... Ect ect

The magazine tests are using decent drivers on a bone stock production cars they are given with the prep time the OEMs are putting in.

[565]

Its not true that stiffer gearing makes the problem worse with high, any drag strip will be filled with 4;56 geared cars.

Along with drag radials.  It's the same principle with the GT-R, or 911 turbo.  If you got the traction to handle all the torque multiplication, then it's great.  Putting 4:56 gears on when you are already roasting the tires with the stock final drive, you aren't going to be getting much gains.

Heat soak is a problem in the current GT500 regardless of the block material, the blower is not that efficient and the cooling needed to be upgraded.

It's not the block material, it's the fact the aluminum block GT500 has an upgraded intercooler that makes a big difference already, as outlined by C&D.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver/features/10best-2011-10best-cars-feature-car-and-driver/features/lightning-lap-2007/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver-lightning-lap-2011-ll2-class-page-3#Ford%20Mustang%20Shelby%20GT500

Heat soak might explain power loss on track lapping or subsequent runs, but we are talking about best run times.  When heat soak was a problem on the older GT500s, everyone mentioned it.  Now I can't find magazines complaining about the current car.

[565]

It's piss poor to compare ring times from a manufacturer vs a magazine test.  When the OEMs are doing the testing, they hire pro drivers, they used nice stick shaved rubber, run as little fuel as possible, run lightweight racing fluids, optimize camber/caster/toe suspension settings, usually have a roll cage which strengthens the chassis... Ect ect

The magazine tests are using decent drivers on a bone stock production cars they are given with the prep time the OEMs are putting in.

This is definitely true.  Never underestimate the power of motivation.  The GT-R test driver says he goes about 98% when pushing the GT-R to those amazing times.  He's pretty much risking his life out there, and the videos of his runs show his dedication.  No sane magazine driver is doing to do the same.