Camaro ZL1... something wicked this way comes.

[Byteme]

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.

I guess from the below post.  Why would one bring up 1/4 miles times vs. speed if one wan't trying to establish some criteria for winning?  In fact this whole thread is predicated on there being a winner and loser. 

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.

[SVT666]

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.

That's true.  That is why I said if Ferrari had Barichello out there in the 599, he would probably shave 20 seconds off that time.  A perfect example of this is when MT pitted the Mustang GT against the M3 Competition.  The magazine driver (who is good) was almost 4 seconds slower per lap than the pro driver.

[Raza]

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.

I didn't realize there were still any Chevy diehards left.  All their cars suck except for one. 

[Byteme]

I didn't realize there were still any Chevy diehards left.  All their cars suck except for one. 

Boys and girls, take note.  Read the above post.  That's how you troll.   

[sportyaccordy]

Rustang traps lower cause its a brick. Cd is damn near .40, I'm pretty sure the CTS & Camaro are significantly slipperier which helps on the Ring's fast bits. Its actually a pretty high speed track, at least from my GT4 experiences.

[68_427]

We're still here Raza.  I would be completely surprised if this GT500 even matches the "ring" time, not that I care anyways.  However it'll be interesting to see how it puts down that 650hp, my hopes aren't high but I won't be disappointed if I'm proven wrong.

[SVT32V]

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.

Drag radials do not stand a chance against high powered cars, any car with over 400 hp can toast DRs without a problem. Having stiffer gears allows more control over wheelspin.

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.

Heat soak is always a problem and this blower isn't particularly that efficient, as such there are quite a few aftermarket ICs and cooling fans to fix the problem.
http://www.shelbystore.com/Shelby-High-Performance-Heat-Exchanger-p/z12-s5m-6k775-u.htm

You say it is not a problem but Ford spent significant resources on upgrading the cooler on the 2013. Yes there is a power increase but the blower is a much more efficient.

The TVS 2300 blower is a 2.3L displacement unit. Ford also spent some time on the cooling system of the new GT500 to be sure the car can run longer without heat soak. The cooling fan has grown larger and has high-speed pressure relief doors. The charge cooler is more efficient, the intercooler is larger by 36%, and the intercooler pump is high flow

36% bigger, wanna bet there was no heat soak problem with earlier cars including the 2011?

http://www.stangtv.com/features/car-features/2013-shelby-gt500-debuts-650hp-and-5-8-liters-most-powerful-oem-v8/

[GoCougs]

Oh, good heavens has this thread ever gotten away from the 'SPIN in fine fashion Here, let me be fatherly GoCougs in normalizing and otherwise reorienting things back to reality:

First, the Mustang GT is not a better performer at the track. The scant few comparisons such as this test tight track test by R&T (1:37.7 vs. 1:37.6) and the longer road course test such as C&D's VIR lightening lap (3:08.6 vs.  3:09.5) prove it so.

Second, the Mustang GT is not the quicker car. More than a dozen comparison tests show the Camaro SS actually on average to be the slightly quicker car. I'll spare the forum of posting all these tests but I will post a sampling specifically detailing 1/4-mile performance; Road & Track (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s), Car and Driver (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s), and Edmunds Insideline (13.0 s vs. 13.3 s).

Third, Mustang trolls predicated their happiness if not their lives on screaming from the mountain tops the for-certain sales failure of the Camaro. This has been one of the most epic fanboy troll fails in automotive enthusiast history. The crow that had and has to be eaten has forced more than a few Mustang trolls to as a coping mechanism to deny the stark reality of points 1 & 2.

Fourth, using tuner cars as proxies is fail to prove what the '13 GT500 will or won't do is not proper. Tuner cars ALWAYS under perform simply because they are built, not engineered. It takes a lot more than just slapping on parts to make a high performance car perform better, and tuners are almost all universally horrifically inefficient at it. A 650 hp factor car will perform better in acceleration than a 650 hp tuner car. Always.

Fifth, the point about ETs and elapsed times for 1/4 mile performance was to educate on the nature of traction, and what each number individually says on the subject. The subject of steeper gearing only applies if the traction can be had; Ford has explicitly said it can't be, ergo, even taller gears.

Sixth, the discussion of acceleration at higher speeds is mostly moot. With modern aero techniques designers purposefully limit top speed with down force. 200 mph does little good if there's little if any down force. Better to have a car that does 170 mph that has tons of down force. F1 cars would be capable of top speeds of 250+ mph if not for the mega down force needed to keep the cars planted when in traffic on a road course.

[565]

I guess from the below post.  Why would one bring up 1/4 miles times vs. speed if one wan't trying to establish some criteria for winning?  In fact this whole thread is predicated on there being a winner and loser.  

I think you are a little lost:

Here are the cliff notes to the thread so far.

SVT666:  "I bet the GT500 knocks at least 10 seconds off that time"  "With an additional 100 hp though, the GT500 should easily beat this time."
Translation:  ZOMG 650hp = super fast acceleration = 7:30ish ring time.

Me:  No GT500's usually don't have the acceleration as suggested by their power to weight ratios, using the CTS-V as an example.

You:  "Who wins the race, the guy with the lowest ET or the guy who was going the fastest when they crossed the finish line. "

Translation:





You see how your contribution doesn't fit here?

[GoCougs]

The contribution is proper, if you hate the Camaro.

[Byteme]

I think you are a little lost:

Here are the cliff notes to the thread so far.

SVT666:  "I bet the GT500 knocks at least 10 seconds off that time"  "With an additional 100 hp though, the GT500 should easily beat this time."
Translation:  ZOMG 650hp = super fast acceleration = 7:30ish ring time.

Me:  No GT500's usually don't have the acceleration as suggested by their power to weight ratios, using the CTS-V as an example.

You:  "Who wins the race, the guy with the lowest ET or the guy who was going the fastest when they crossed the finish line. "

Translation:





You see how your contribution doesn't fit here?

So your words, you  typed, about 1/4 mile and trap times don't exist?    Right...........Feel free to cherry pick. 

[SVT666]

Oh, good heavens has this thread ever gotten away from the 'SPIN in fine fashion Here, let me be fatherly GoCougs in normalizing and otherwise reorienting things back to reality:

First, the Mustang GT is not a better performer at the track. The scant few comparisons such as this test tight track test by R&T (1:37.7 vs. 1:37.6) and the longer road course test such as C&D's VIR lightening lap (3:08.6 vs.  3:09.5) prove it so.

Well, the Lightning Lap proves the Mustang is faster, but more importantly not just faster, but the better handler.

Second, the Mustang GT is not the quicker car. More than a dozen comparison tests show the Camaro SS actually on average to be the slightly quicker car. I'll spare the forum of posting all these tests but I will post a sampling specifically detailing 1/4-mile performance; Road & Track (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s), Car and Driver (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s), and Edmunds Insideline (13.0 s vs. 13.3 s).

More than a dozen?  Really?  I would love to see these tests.  I can provide more links than you that prove the Mustang is the faster accelerating car.  

Third, Mustang trolls predicated their happiness if not their lives on screaming from the mountain tops the for-certain sales failure of the Camaro. This has been one of the most epic fanboy troll fails in automotive enthusiast history. The crow that had and has to be eaten has forced more than a few Mustang trolls to as a coping mechanism to deny the stark reality of points 1 & 2.

I have admitted to being wrong about my sales predictions.  I don't see your point here.  Mustang is better, Camaro sells better.  The opposite of what happened in the 90s.  

Fourth, using tuner cars as proxies is fail to prove what the '13 GT500 will or won't do is not proper. Tuner cars ALWAYS under perform simply because they are built, not engineered. It takes a lot more than just slapping on parts to make a high performance car perform better, and tuners are almost all universally horrifically inefficient at it. A 650 hp factor car will perform better in acceleration than a 650 hp tuner car. Always.

Agreed.  It was the Camaro fanbois that brought the tuner cars into the mix.

Sixth, the discussion of acceleration at higher speeds is mostly moot. With modern aero techniques designers purposefully limit top speed with down force. 200 mph does little good if there's little if any down force. Better to have a car that does 170 mph that has tons of down force. F1 cars would be capable of top speeds of 250+ mph if not for the mega down force needed to keep the cars planted when in traffic on a road course.

You were on the SVT engineering team?  That would be the only way you would know the GT500 has no downforce.

[565]

Drag radials do not stand a chance against high powered cars, any car with over 400 hp can toast DRs without a problem. Having stiffer gears allows more control over wheelspin.

You can pretty much roast any tire if you want to (high RPM dump), it is what allows you to do a burn out before the run to get heat into them.  You can do it with full drag slicks if you want.  That doesn't mean they don't have more traction and it still means most of those guys running shorter gears and actuall getting better times are using drag radials or something else better than stock.  The idea of having shorter gears giving more control over wheelspin is complete moonshine.  I have no idea where you got that ridiculous idea from.  I mean why would companies be putting very tall first gears into high powered vehicles (AKA ZR1) all this time?  It's got nothing to do with fuel economy.  You can bet that overall, the first gear of the 650hp GT500 will be TALLER than the current GT500, which flies in the face of your laughable shorter gears gives more control over wheelspin theory.

Heat soak is always a problem and this blower isn't particularly that efficient, as such there are quite a few aftermarket ICs and cooling fans to fix the problem.

You say it is not a problem but Ford spent significant resources on upgrading the cooler on the 2013. Yes there is a power increase but the blower is a much more efficient.

The TVS 2300 blower is a 2.3L displacement unit. Ford also spent some time on the cooling system of the new GT500 to be sure the car can run longer without heat soak. The cooling fan has grown larger and has high-speed pressure relief doors. The charge cooler is more efficient, the intercooler is larger by 36%, and the intercooler pump is high flow

36% bigger, wanna bet there was no heat soak problem with earlier cars including the 2011?

It's got more cooling because it needs more cooling.  The Eaton M112 supercharger has a 1.8L displacement, the new one has a 2.3L.  Again blaming poor acceleration times on heat soaking is ridiculous when no magazine's ever run into the problem during testing.  If they did, they would note that subsequent measured acceleration runs were slower due to heat soak (as they did with previous generations).   Having aftermarket support for better heat control doesn't mean the GT500 heat soaks when just sitting there prior to a acceleration run.  You can find aftermarket everything out there.  For example few aftermarket exhausts actually flow better than the stock Z06 titanium exhaust, but it doesn't stop there being a billion aftermarket Z06 exhausts out there.

Seriously when the best excuses people can make for slower than expected acceleration numbers are supposed horrid gearing (which are suspiciously similar to other cars of the class, using a similar gearbox) and a heatsoak problem that doesn't raise its ugly head in short burst acceleration runs, we know they are running out of excuses.

[565]

So your words, you  typed, about 1/4 mile and trap times don't exist?    Right...........Feel free to cherry pick. 

1/4 mile trap speed is a measures of acceleration, which is the entire thrust of SVT666's argument of why a 650hp GT500 should be 10 seconds faster around the ring.

You are the one cherry picking here.  Clearly you have nothing of value or fact to offer this debate.  Please go back to watching F&F.

[Payman]

How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.

[Byteme]

1/4 mile trap speed is a measures of acceleration, which is the entire thrust of SVT666's argument of why a 650hp GT500 should be 10 seconds faster around the ring.

You are the one cherry picking here.  Clearly you have nothing of value or fact to offer this debate.  Please go back to watching F&F.

[SVT666]

How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.

Fuck that.  This argument is fun.

[565]

More than a dozen?  Really?  I would love to see these tests.  I can provide more links than you that prove the Mustang is the faster accelerating car. 

Wow prove?

Strong words, I'm going to take you up on that.

Since you insist on "prove" lets do links to direct, head to head, same day comparisions between the Mustang GT and the Camaro SS. 

Here is my count, which is the same as Cougs cout.  I want to see your links that prove me wrong.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/viewall.html

This is the only direct, head to head test I could find that had the Mustang faster.
Mustang: 12.7 @ 111.3 mph
Camaro: 13.1 @ 110.8 mph

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2011-ford-mustang-v6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-rspony-car-twin-bill.pdf
Mustang: 13.2 @ 109 mph
Camaro:  13.0 @ 111 mph


http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezflow_site/storage_RT_NEW/storage/original/application/1647c073376579613ef347acc2eca750.pdf
Mustang: 13.2 @ 109.3
Camaro: 13.0 @ 110.7

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/comparison-test-2011-ford-mustang-gt-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss.html
Mustang:  13.3 @ 107
Camaro:  13.1 @ 110.4



Okay your turn.

[565]

How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.

Actually I wager that we will never find out about a ring time for the GT500.  I don't recall Ford releasing ring times in the past for the Mustangs.

[SVT666]

Wow prove?

Strong words, I'm going to take you up on that.

Since you insist on "prove" lets do links to direct, head to head, same day comparisions between the Mustang GT and the Camaro SS. 

Here is my count, which is the same as Cougs cout.  I want to see your links that prove me wrong.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/viewall.html

This is the only direct, head to head test I could find that had the Mustang faster.
Mustang: 12.7 @ 111.3 mph
Camaro: 13.1 @ 110.8 mph

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2011-ford-mustang-v6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-rspony-car-twin-bill.pdf
Mustang: 13.2 @ 109 mph
Camaro:  13.0 @ 111 mph


http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezflow_site/storage_RT_NEW/storage/original/application/1647c073376579613ef347acc2eca750.pdf
Mustang: 13.2 @ 109.3
Camaro: 13.0 @ 110.7

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/comparison-test-2011-ford-mustang-gt-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss.html
Mustang:  13.3 @ 107
Camaro:  13.1 @ 110.4



Okay your turn.

I still only count three...not the dozen that Cougs claims.  Most tests (comparos or not) have the Mustang blowing through the 1/4 mile in 12.7-12.8 including the M3 vs. Mustang GT comparison.  Motor Trend, Road & Track, Car & Driver, Automobile, etc. have all verified those numbers in individual tests.  Those are times the Camaro SS has never accomplished anywhere in any test.

[SVT666]

Actually I wager that we will never find out about a ring time for the GT500.  I don't recall Ford releasing ring times in the past for the Mustangs.

The only way this is going to be settled is when magazines put these cars head to head. 

[Raza]

How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.

LOL no.  SPIN's new thing is making wild decisions for or against cars long before they come out. 

[565]

I still only count three...not the dozen that Cougs claims.  Most tests (comparos or not) have the Mustang blowing through the 1/4 mile in 12.7-12.8 including the M3 vs. Mustang GT comparison.  Motor Trend, Road & Track, Car & Driver, Automobile, etc. have all verified those numbers in individual tests.  Those are times the Camaro SS has never accomplished anywhere in any test.

Really?  Not just MT, but Road and Track, Car and Driver, AND Automobile have run sub 13 second times?

We all know about the trio of fast MT tests (single test, pony car comparo, M3 comparo), but these other 12 second tests from the other magazines are news to me.

I'm ever so interested in seeing these tests.  Please, stop milking the suspense by talking about these tests and post up the links to C&D, R&T, and Automobile.

[Payman]

LOL no.  SPIN's new thing is making wild decisions for or against cars long before they come out. 

New?

[Payman]

Actually I wager that we will never find out about a ring time for the GT500.  I don't recall Ford releasing ring times in the past for the Mustangs.

The only Ford I saw on the chart was the GT, and it beat the ZL1 by a mere second.

[SVT666]

The only Ford I saw on the chart was the GT, and it beat the ZL1 by a mere second.

I don't believe that was driven by a Ford test driver though.

[hotrodalex]

I want a '69 Olds Vista Cruiser with the CTS-V engine and suspension in it.   

Better swap in a tube frame as well.

[hotrodalex]

Oh, and pushrods > OHC

[SVT666]

Oh, and pushrods > OHC

Cue Cougs in...3...2..1...

[SVT32V]

You can pretty much roast any tire if you want to (high RPM dump), it is what allows you to do a burn out before the run to get heat into them.  You can do it with full drag slicks if you want.  That doesn't mean they don't have more traction and it still means most of those guys running shorter gears and actuall getting better times are using drag radials or something else better than stock.  The idea of having shorter gears giving more control over wheelspin is complete moonshine.  I have no idea where you got that ridiculous idea from.  I mean why would companies be putting very tall first gears into high powered vehicles (AKA ZR1) all this time?  It's got nothing to do with fuel economy.  You can bet that overall, the first gear of the 650hp GT500 will be TALLER than the current GT500, which flies in the face of your laughable shorter gears gives more control over wheelspin theory

Your douchiness aside companies put tall gears for a variety of reasons, big powerful engines can be faster without a shift to 60, it gets better fuel economy in tests to name a few.

Stiffer gears give more control over wheelspin, at first glance it is counterintuitive, more torque, easier to break lose. The fact is that the stiffer gears produce lower wheel velocity and lower momentum in the drivetrain at any given speed so that traction can be regained easier once slipping is detected.

In effect it allows more gradation in the gas pedal for you to feather back any slippage.




Quote from vetteforum:
a practical example: take your 10-speed bicycle on an ice skating ring. now try to get around in 1st gear and then in 10th gear and tell me which produces the least amount of wheel spin. while the 10th(tallest) gear is hardest to get going in, once you do go, you will see how uncontrolable the wheel spin is because 10th produces too much wheel velocity with not so much input.
anyways, its a fact thats not always very easy to grasp but i hope i explained it well enough