The new Camaro ZL1 just did something very interesting at the Nurburgring, posting a blistering 7:41.27 lap. :confused:
To put that in perspective, the fastest lap by an Audi R8 V10 is 7:44, a Ferrari 599's is 7:47, and a Caterham 500 Superlight is 7:55.
No Mustang has broken the 8 second barrier to date, and the previous Camaro best was 8:20 for an SS model back in 2008.
Wow.
That is pretty incredible, that's like a Mercury Marauder lapping in under 8 mins
Cheesus Rice...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 14, 2011, 08:49:32 PM
That is pretty incredible, that's like a Mercury Marauder lapping in under 8 mins
No.
The closest car I can think of to the ZL1 is the CTS-V, and that car posted a 7:59.
Fuck me that's fast.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 14, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
No.
Oh cmon now. That is a really good time for an armored truck. Esp one w/o AWD like the GT-R. Its impressive, in a "who thought that was a good idea" way.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 14, 2011, 09:20:23 PM
Oh cmon now. That is a really good time for an armored truck. Esp one w/o AWD like the GT-R. Its impressive, in a "who thought that was a good idea" way.
For a non-AWD, 4120 lb car, it's mindblowing.
Gm is really kicking ass with it's high performance vehicles...........
Queue the Japanese and European apologists...
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 14, 2011, 10:51:02 PM
Gm is really kicking ass with it's high performance vehicles...........
The adaptive magnetic shocks is where it's at; something I don't think anyone else has.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 12:56:45 AM
The adaptive magnetic shocks is where it's at; something I don't think anyone else has.
I believe Ferrari has it, but it might be licensed from GM.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 15, 2011, 03:36:33 AM
I believe Ferrari has it, but it might be licensed from GM.
They buy it from GM.
It was made by Delphi in conjunction with GM. Got an offer from the company that used tl be part of Delphi that developed it. Ferrari and Audi buys it from GM. BMW made their own version. Doesn't quite explain how the car lapped faster than a 599 though :confused:
Quote from: MrH on November 15, 2011, 03:31:59 PM
Doesn't quite explain how the car lapped faster than a 599 though :confused:
Really good driver and some aero w/ slicks?
It's using the stock tires and aero.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 04:53:11 PM
Driver? :huh?
You don't think Ferrari was using a really good driver?
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 04:55:07 PM
You don't think Ferrari was using a really good driver?
Even better one? Weather conditions? There's various things that can effect lap time.
The 599 GTB is a GT not a track star.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 04:59:55 PM
Even better one?
Sure. Ferrari has access to the best drivers in the world.
QuoteWeather conditions? There's various things that can effect lap time.
Absolutely. That's why a few seconds on a lap this long and done on different days should be viewed as pretty much a tie. If it's like 20 seconds, that's one thing, but 2 or 3 seconds? No.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 05:03:02 PM
The 599 GTB is a GT not a track star.
The GTB is still a track star. Motor Trend even said it was the most track focused car and the closest thing to a race car in a comparison test with the ZR1, GT-R, and 911 GT2.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 04:55:07 PM
You don't think Ferrari was using a really good driver?
The time for the 599 was from when Sport Auto (German magazine) tested it, it was driven by one of their editors.
Quote from: El Barto on November 15, 2011, 05:18:17 PM
The time for the 599 was from when Sport Auto (German magazine) tested it, it was driven by one of their editors.
There you go.. but why are we comparing track times for different cars at different times by different drivers? That's the worse type of magazing racing you can do.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 05:20:47 PM
There you go.. but why are we comparing track times for different cars at different times by different drivers? That's the worse type of magazing racing you can do.
It's a pretty good indicator as to how your car stacks up give or take a few seconds.
Quote from: El Barto on November 15, 2011, 05:18:17 PM
The time for the 599 was from when Sport Auto (German magazine) tested it, it was driven by one of their editors.
Oh okay. Well you could probably shave about 20 seconds off that time with a professional driver.
None of this lessens the impressivness of the time laid down by a 4120 lb muscle car.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 05:33:41 PM
It's a pretty good indicator as to how your car stacks up give or take a few seconds.
Not always, especially if different drivers. I've seen one driver in a completely stock N/A Elise, run just as fast as someone else in a S/C Exige S in the W2W LCS races. Both experience driver, the Elise driver is just that much better.
So YMMV.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 05:37:53 PM
Not always, especially if different drivers. I've seen one driver in a completely stock N/A Elise, run just as fast as someone else in a S/C Exige S in the W2W LCS races. Both experience driver, the Elise driver is just that much better.
So YMMV.
I agree that driver, weather, temp and all kinds of shit can make a big difference. That said, this is a fast fucking lap.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 05:20:47 PM
There you go.. but why are we comparing track times for different cars at different times by different drivers? That's the worse type of magazing racing you can do.
Every 'Ring time is like that, and people love to use those as standards.
I really wonder for whom these lap times make a difference, as far as actually pushing the button
Quote from: Onslaught on November 15, 2011, 05:40:18 PM
I agree that driver, weather, temp and all kinds of shit can make a big difference. That said, this is a fast fucking lap.
Agreed. I honestly doubt anybody is trying to decide on whether to buy a Camaro or a 599 based on this, but for the Camaro to even be listed in the same vicinity is bragging rights enough.
So many variables. Who's to say the Audi R8 was run by Walter Rorhl, in perfect conditions, while the Camaro was run by a mullet wearing Jim Bob in damp conditions... it can work both ways. Also remember, the times I listed from the chart are the fastest laps ever done by these cars. The fastest time laid down by a Ford GT was exactly one second faster than the Camaro (7:40).
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 05:49:22 PM
Every 'Ring time is like that, and people love to use those as standards.
I really wonder for whom these lap times make a difference, as far as actually pushing the button
Also, isn't there a lot of different configurations for the ring?
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
Also, isn't there a lot of different configurations for the ring?
Yes, but for comparison purposes, and using Stefan Bellof's 1983 record of 6:11 as a baseline, the 12.7 mile Nordshleife is used, very close to what it was then except for a few minor changes (dangerous bumps removed, a few corners adjusted for safety). There are separate records for the Sudshleife (abandoned), the F1 track built in 1994, and the entire 17+ miles.
Quote from: NomisR on November 15, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
Also, isn't there a lot of different configurations for the ring?
Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
The concept of bragging about what your car *could* do is asinine anyway. "This thing clears the 'Ring faster than a GT-R". Right, in capable hands. Most people can't drive worth a damn, and most people will never set foot on a road course. So all that potential is wasted. And within the realm of the street, aside from illegal hoonery, its prob not far off from a stock armored truck Z28. So IDK
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 06:34:35 PM
Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
The concept of bragging about what your car *could* do is asinine anyway. "This thing clears the 'Ring faster than a GT-R". Right, in capable hands. Most people can't drive worth a damn, and most people will never set foot on a road course. So all that potential is wasted. And within the realm of the street, aside from illegal hoonery, its prob not far off from a stock armored truck Z28. So IDK
By that measure, most people aren't skilled enough to reach max slalom speed or even match 0-60 times, so we shouldn't compare those either. :huh:
Quote from: thecarnut on November 15, 2011, 06:35:55 PM
By that measure, most people aren't skilled enough to reach max slalom speed or even match 0-60 times, so we shouldn't compare those either. :huh:
Well I mean, those at least tell you some aspect of a car's performance. But you're right in that specs don't really tell much about a car's character. I mean a Megane Trophy, NSX-R and M6 all lap in the 8:09 range... but would you call the cars competitors? Similar in character? Is there anything revealed about how the cars drive from that time? It's a lil silly to me, as far as the importance put on it. I mean I'm curious to see how the new Rustang does, but I have no desire or use for either car
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 06:34:35 PM
Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
The concept of bragging about what your car *could* do is asinine anyway. "This thing clears the 'Ring faster than a GT-R". Right, in capable hands. Most people can't drive worth a damn, and most people will never set foot on a road course. So all that potential is wasted. And within the realm of the street, aside from illegal hoonery, its prob not far off from a stock armored truck
Z28. So IDK
So, there's no point in testing and comparing cars?
Look, yes there are many variables that affect lap times. But consider this: take the qualifying times for a particular F1 track, over the last 10 years so 10 different temperatures and weather conditions (except for wet tracks) can be analyzed. Throw in all the different F1 cars in that time, with all the different drivers. You probably won't find more than 5 seconds difference between the slowest and fastest times.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 06:44:41 PM
Well I mean, those at least tell you some aspect of a car's performance. But you're right in that specs don't really tell much about a car's character. I mean a Megane Trophy, NSX-R and M6 all lap in the 8:09 range... but would you call the cars competitors? Similar in character? Is there anything revealed about how the cars drive from that time? It's a lil silly to me.
Of course not, and no they aren't competitors. But it's a pretty good thing for Chevy to be able to brag that its redneck muscle car beat a $400,000 Ferrari around the world's most famous racetrack.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 15, 2011, 06:44:56 PM
So, there's no point in testing and comparing cars?
Look, yes there are many variables that affect lap times. But consider this: take the qualifying times for a particular F1 track, over the last 10 years so 10 different temperatures and weather conditions (except for wet tracks) can be analyzed. Throw in all the different F1 cars in that time, with all the different drivers. You probably won't find more than 5 seconds difference between the slowest and fastest times.
Right, but that's
F1 racing. The whole point of it is to do a lap in the fastest time within the allowed rules. To me personally that is not the point or source of enjoyment of a street car.
You're right in that it's a good achievement for the
company, but it doesn't necessarily mean this thing will be a great car for the
consumer.Quote from: Rockraven on November 15, 2011, 06:47:39 PM
Of course not, and no they aren't competitors. But it's a pretty good thing for Chevy to be able to brag that its redneck muscle car beat a $400,000 Ferrari around the world's most famous racetrack.
Well I don't think it really puts a dent in Ferrari's armor.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 15, 2011, 05:36:13 PM
None of this lessens the impressivness of the time laid down by a 4120 lb muscle car.
It does, if you hate the Camaro with every ounce of your being.
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.
Id much rather the CTS... just an all around better car
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 07:31:25 PM
Id much rather the CTS... just an all around better car
I like the V as well, but it's too early to say that. GM obviously did something magical with the ZL1, and until I read a proper road test, I won't pass judgement yet.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 15, 2011, 07:31:25 PM
Id much rather the CTS... just an all around better car
More luxurious? Yes. More practical? Yes (but only the sedan). Better performer? No. Better chassis? No. Better drive train? No.
But I too would probably opt for the CTS-V sedan over the ZL1, but only because it's a four-door.
CTS-V wagon for me.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 07:15:22 PM
It does, if you hate the Camaro with every ounce of your being.
Nope. It's fucking impressive...but I bet the GT500 knocks at least 10 seconds off that time.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 15, 2011, 07:48:39 PM
CTS-V wagon for me.
If I could have any wagon on the market it would be the Caddy.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 15, 2011, 07:48:39 PM
CTS-V wagon for me.
The wagon is too short to be a proper wagon.
I'd take the coupe.
I want a '69 Olds Vista Cruiser with the CTS-V engine and suspension in it. :wub:
If it was a M3, GT-R or Cayman that put up this time it would be a circle fuck of praise! But since it's "just" a rednack Chevy all the haters wanna cry about differant drivers and track condition. The fact is the fucking car goes like crack through an inner city ghetto and haters will find any lil reason (thank God it doesn't have the seats outta the Corvette) to talk negative.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 15, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
If it was a M3, GT-R or Cayman that put up this time it would be a circle fuck of praise! But since it's "just" a rednack Chevy all the haters wanna cry about differant drivers and track condition. The fact is the fucking car goes like crack through an inner city ghetto and haters will find any lil reason (thank God it doesn't have the seats outta the Corvette) to talk negative.
It weighs too much and i don't like the texture of the plastic used on the dashboard.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 15, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
If it was a M3, GT-R or Cayman that put up this time it would be a circle fuck of praise! But since it's "just" a rednack Chevy all the haters wanna cry about differant drivers and track condition. The fact is the fucking car goes like crack through an inner city ghetto and haters will find any lil reason (thank God it doesn't have the seats outta the Corvette) to talk negative.
:hesaid:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 15, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
If it was a M3, GT-R or Cayman that put up this time it would be a circle fuck of praise! But since it's "just" a rednack Chevy all the haters wanna cry about differant drivers and track condition. The fact is the fucking car goes like crack through an inner city ghetto and haters will find any lil reason (thank God it doesn't have the seats outta the Corvette) to talk negative.
Yup.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 15, 2011, 08:16:11 PM
It weighs too much and i don't like the texture of the plastic used on the dashboard.
This is either an extremely craft post, or not.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 08:18:59 PM
This is either an extremely craft post, or not.
The hood/fender body gaps are too wide and make it look like a kit car.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 15, 2011, 08:20:47 PM
The hood/fender body gaps are too wide and make it look like a kit car.
The cup holders are too small and the steering wheel is ugly.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 08:30:20 PM
The cup holders are too small and the steering wheel is ugly.
The horn sounds like a gay flatulent moose.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 15, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
If it was a M3, GT-R or Cayman that put up this time it would be a circle fuck of praise! But since it's "just" a rednack Chevy all the haters wanna cry about differant drivers and track condition. The fact is the fucking car goes like crack through an inner city ghetto and haters will find any lil reason (thank God it doesn't have the seats outta the Corvette) to talk negative.
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 15, 2011, 08:30:57 PM
The horn sounds like a gay flatulent moose.
The shifter feels lousy and IRS is bad for drag racing.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 15, 2011, 08:30:20 PM
The cup holders are too small and the steering wheel is ugly.
Well, the steering wheel is ugly as shit.
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 11:34:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 15, 2011, 11:35:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 15, 2011, 11:35:59 PM
And the dashboard really does feel cheap and plasticky.
Yea, it's bad. Both Chevy and Dodge are behind in this area to Ford.
Having sat in all three, I like the Challenger interior best. Simple and inoffensive.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 08:57:33 PM
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).
Quote from: Schadenfreude on November 16, 2011, 06:27:24 AM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2011, 07:49:05 PM
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.
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
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 16, 2011, 08:22:16 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 08:49:15 AM
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) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times). 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.
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 15, 2011, 07:18:54 PM
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. :devil:
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 08:36:32 AM
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. :devil:
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.
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 08:36:32 AM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 09:41:06 AM
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).
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 16, 2011, 09:37:17 AM
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. :devil:
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 16, 2011, 09:37:17 AM
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
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2011, 09:54:18 AM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 16, 2011, 10:22:27 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 10:24:48 AM
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.
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 10:24:48 AM
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.
Quote from: r0tor on November 16, 2011, 10:33:32 AM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 10:30:09 AM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 10:49:20 AM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 10:02:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=26091.msg1615121#msg1615121 date=1321466228
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. :lol: :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 10:43:19 AM
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 (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/ (http://www.stangtv.com/features/car-features/2013-shelby-gt500-debuts-650hp-and-5-8-liters-most-powerful-oem-v8/)
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) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparison/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs.-2011-ford-mustang-gt) and the longer road course test such as C&D's VIR lightening lap (3:08.6 vs. 3:09.5) (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) 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) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/download/78823/1980178/version/5/file/CT_2010-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-Coupe-vs-2011-Ford-Mustang-GT-Premium_data.pdf), Car and Driver (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s) (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2011-ford-mustang-v6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-rspony-car-twin-bill.pdf), and Edmunds Insideline (13.0 s vs. 13.3 s) (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/automotive-news-media-press/1273028-edmunds-comparo-ls3-camaro-ss-vs-5-0-mustang-gt.html).
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 16, 2011, 10:55:40 AM
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:
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/575remyline/1568961921_d9eb5930b51.jpg)
You see how your contribution doesn't fit here?
The contribution is proper, if you hate the Camaro.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 01:57:09 PM
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:
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/575remyline/1568961921_d9eb5930b51.jpg)
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2011, 01:34:52 PM
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) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparison/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs.-2011-ford-mustang-gt) and the longer road course test such as C&D's VIR lightening lap (3:08.6 vs. 3:09.5) (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) prove it so.
Well, the Lightning Lap proves the Mustang is faster, but more importantly not just faster, but the better handler. :rolleyes:
QuoteSecond, 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) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/download/78823/1980178/version/5/file/CT_2010-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-Coupe-vs-2011-Ford-Mustang-GT-Premium_data.pdf), Car and Driver (13.0 s vs. 13.2 s) (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2011-ford-mustang-v6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-rspony-car-twin-bill.pdf), and Edmunds Insideline (13.0 s vs. 13.3 s) (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/automotive-news-media-press/1273028-edmunds-comparo-ls3-camaro-ss-vs-5-0-mustang-gt.html).
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. :rolleyes:
QuoteThird, 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. :rolleyes:
QuoteFourth, 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.
QuoteSixth, 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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 12:47:25 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 12:47:25 PM
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 16, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
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.
How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
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.
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: Rockraven on November 16, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2011, 02:02:52 PM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 16, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:34:42 PM
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.
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:39:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 16, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2011, 02:53:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on November 16, 2011, 03:08:56 PM
LOL no. SPIN's new thing is making wild decisions for or against cars long before they come out.
New?
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:39:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 16, 2011, 03:21:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 15, 2011, 08:07:19 PM
I want a '69 Olds Vista Cruiser with the CTS-V engine and suspension in it. :wub:
Better swap in a tube frame as well.
Oh, and pushrods > OHC
Quote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:15:45 PM
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 theoryQuote from: 565 on November 16, 2011, 02:15:45 PM
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
565 and Cougs you guys have covered all the bases! :Drops the mic and walks off the stage:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on November 16, 2011, 05:08:37 PM
565 and Cougs you guys have covered all the bases! :Drops the mic and walks off the stage:
This rampant Mustang insecurity is :facepalm: for sure. Trolling every mention and post concerning the Camaro is laughable, and telling.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 16, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
How 'bout we wait and see if the 'Stang puts down a lap on the 'Ring. Otherwise this argument is silly.
Because then we cant argue about it don't you see??????????????
Nobody cares about the cars. Everyone just cares about being right.
Look at Cougs' trolling for the Camaro. Dude drives an Accord for Christ's sake, what does he REALLY care about the Camaro, beyond another angle to practice his internetry????
Why can't SVT666 just appreciate the Rustang for what it is and not walk into Cougs' Wily E. Coyote argument traps? Cause he has always been hoping to "pwn" him. But you can't outtroll a troll
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Both cars full potential is well beyond the realm of the street. Both cars are ungodly heavy + large. Both cars' capabilities are well beyond ANYONE'S driving capabilities on the board... IOW... people talk about Ring times... nobody here would be able to drive these cars around the ring in under 10 minutes and they'd be shitting their pants the whole time. So really who gives a fuck. You guys arguing look like assholes
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 07:15:35 AM
Because then we cant argue about it don't you see??????????????
Nobody cares about the cars. Everyone just cares about being right.
Look at Cougs' trolling for the Camaro. Dude drives an Accord for Christ's sake, what does he REALLY care about the Camaro, beyond another angle to practice his internetry????
Why can't SVT666 just appreciate the Rustang for what it is and not walk into Cougs' Wily E. Coyote argument traps? Cause he has always been hoping to "pwn" him. But you can't outtroll a troll
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Both cars full potential is well beyond the realm of the street. Both cars are ungodly heavy + large. Both cars' capabilities are well beyond ANYONE'S driving capabilities on the board... IOW... people talk about Ring times... nobody here would be able to drive these cars around the ring in under 10 minutes and they'd be shitting their pants the whole time. So really who gives a fuck. You guys arguing look like assholes
If you don't like these cars, these people, or Mustang fanboys crapping on anything to do with the Camaro, maybe think about staying out of threads like this; and by your measure (Accord owner has no standing in anything concerning the Camaro = you don't even have a car
at all so have no standing in anything concerning
any car) you implicitly are arguing you should. :huh: Next time think about the logic of your Internetry before posting.
Yeah, what you drive should have no bearing on the weight of your opinion. By that logic only owners of the fastest cars in production should be allowed to voice their views on the matter. And other than a Corvette here and an Evo there, nobody here really owns anything all that special. Maybe we should all pack it in and give up on discussing cars?
Quote from: R-inge on November 17, 2011, 11:53:34 AM
Yeah, what you drive should have no bearing on the weight of your opinion. By that logic only owners of the fastest cars in production should be allowed to voice their views on the matter. And other than a Corvette here and an Evo there, nobody here really owns anything all that special. Maybe we should all pack it in and give up on discussing cars?
I think we all pretty much have, in a meaningful way anyway.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 17, 2011, 12:45:58 PM
I think we all pretty much have, in a meaningful way anyway.
Exactly.
I mean people are arguing over tenths of a quarter mile run. When is the last time anyone here has been to a drag strip or road course? Why are such miniscule details so gravely important? The back and forths completely drained whatever hope there was of this being an even mildly entertaining thread.
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 17, 2011, 12:45:58 PM
I think we all pretty much have, in a meaningful way anyway.
Not really; the 'SPIN is still lacking in technical knowledge as all automotive enthusiast groups do - for example look at 565's lesson for you in the nuances of 1/4 performance statistics.
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
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
Hmmm, looks like a certain someone knows a bit about control system theory. I like it.
Yes, "stiffer" gears in automotive parlance is a higher bandwidth system; it is easier to control output (wheel speed/slippage) based on a given input (engine torque). FWIW, this is a common discussion for industrial control systems actually (i.e., gearing/mechanical advantage to increase accuracy and throughput).
However, in practical contextual terms, the bandwidth of the wet wear (driver) simply can't modulate (change/adjust) the input (engine torque) to effectively control the output (wheel speed/slippage). The feedback loop (human senses and reactions) is simply far too slow.
Ultimately, the band aid for traction limited vehicles + the wet wear is "weaker" gears; less engine torque = less thrust force = less propensity for wheel spin. This is precisely what Ford meant when it said it had to use "weaker" gears in the press release.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 12:58:26 PM
Exactly.
I mean people are arguing over tenths of a quarter mile run. When is the last time anyone here has been to a drag strip or road course? Why are such miniscule details so gravely important? The back and forths completely drained whatever hope there was of this being an even mildly entertaining thread.
Because people who can't think outside the box look at numbers and decide which is the better car based on it doing something a fraction of a second quicker than the other car. Drivability, comfort, nothing else matters; only the numbers are important.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 17, 2011, 01:02:37 PM
Not really; the 'SPIN is still lacking in technical knowledge as all automotive enthusiast groups do - for example look at 565's lesson for you in the nuances of 1/4 performance statistics.
Right. You learned all that by taking your honda to the dragstrip I assume? :rolleyes:
Complaining about people arguing is more annoying, IMO. :ohyeah:
Quote from: MiataJohn on November 17, 2011, 01:16:30 PM
Right. You learned all that by taking your honda to the dragstrip I assume? :rolleyes:
No. I learned about this by reading in general and listening to people like 565 in specific.
The whiners here (I'm looking at you, Sporty), need to sit back and watch the ensuing shitshow take place. It's pretty entertaining to see which side "wins" for the time being.
That said, 565 made the GT500 look like a rolling POS. :mask: :lol:
Quote from: SVT32V on November 16, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
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
Douchebaggery is how it's done on Camaro vs Mustang epic pissing matches. If you want civil discussion, take it over to the Insight vs Prius debates.
The bike speed example is flawed, no surprise considering it's a 6th grader explanation that uses a metaphor instead of any actual reasoning or explaining.
The reason why it is flawed is because in a bike, you directly control the actual distance displaced by the pedals, and thus through gearing, directly cause the displacement of the wheel. His reasoning is that you need to move the pedals more to effect the same rotation of the wheel with a shorter gear, basically a lever arm argument.
That's fine and all for bikes, but we have a totally different set up here. Because in a car you don't move the pistons yourself. You cannot control both the torque and velocity of the crank as you can in a bike. Indeed there is no way you can say how fast the crank is moving at 20% throttle, without knowing the load that the crank is working against. Instead you control the percentage of maximum torque the engine is capable of producing at that RPM.
Given the example of a car with relatively linear pedal progression, say you have a delicate enough right foot to divide your throttle inputs into 10 sections of 10% each. In a shorter geared car, you are putting more torque to the ground at WOT, and each of those 10% sections represent a greater difference in torque to the wheels. In a taller geared car, you are putting less torque at WOT to the wheels, and each of this 10% sections represent a finer difference in torque levels. It is easy to see you have more control in the car that puts less torque down at any given time for each bit of pedal travel. Plus shorter gearing causes you to have a higher crank speed and piston speed at any given road speed, and thus more angular momentum in the system, actually making it harder to modulate.
Now in a car with poor horsepower, that doesn't make enough torque to overwhelm tire traction, putting in longer gears means you'll reduce torque to the rear wheels, and acceleration will suffer. However if you have a 600hp RWD monster already, even with longer gears, you can still put enough torque to the ground to overwhelm the gears. The difference is that in a 600hp RWD monster with short gears you'll overwhelm the tires at 50% throttle or less, giving you only half the pedal real estate to work with, while with longer gears you might be able to hold 80% pedal travel without traction loss, giving you more travel to modulate with.
And this concept is put into practice ALL the time. Many automatic transmissions start off in 2nd gear in snow mode or low traction mode for this EXACT reason. In a snowy situation, even lesser powered cars will overwhelm the wheels, and gearing has to be made taller to adjust
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/18/nissan-celebrates-racing-tradition-with-special-overseas-370z-gt/
" and a new snow mode on the optional seven-speed automatic that starts the car in second gear to minimize the potential for wheelspin"
Maybe you should send an email to Nissan Corporate to suggest they fire all their engineers and hire the guy from the vetteforum instead.
Mustang and Camaro owner hating/rivalry has existed as long there has been Mustang's and Camaros, and it's never been pretty.
While it seems silly to argue about 10ths of a second here and there, it's that sort of competition that's probably kept these two alive and well in a market that is gearing towards efficiency and emissions, and it fues the sort of one-up manship that is making it possible for a 580hp Camaro and a 650hp Mustang to exist
These two are some of the oldest nameplates in American cars (except for that break in Camaro existence timeline), and some of the most decent cars put out by both companies currently, and I think it's at least somewhat due to the ...ahem... passion exhibited by their owners and fans.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 12:58:26 PM
Exactly.
I mean people are arguing over tenths of a quarter mile run. When is the last time anyone here has been to a drag strip or road course? Why are such miniscule details so gravely important? The back and forths completely drained whatever hope there was of this being an even mildly entertaining thread.
Dude! This thread is no differant than any of the hundreds of threads I've seen with fan bois debating about 911 TT Vs. GT-R or 458 vs. Gallardo or any of the 50 "Miata is the greatest car ever" threads! If you don't like These "over weight" pony cars just skip over the thread all together! :huh:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 07:15:35 AM
Because then we cant argue about it don't you see??????????????
Nobody cares about the cars. Everyone just cares about being right.
Look at Cougs' trolling for the Camaro. Dude drives an Accord for Christ's sake, what does he REALLY care about the Camaro, beyond another angle to practice his internetry????
Why can't SVT666 just appreciate the Rustang for what it is and not walk into Cougs' Wily E. Coyote argument traps? Cause he has always been hoping to "pwn" him. But you can't outtroll a troll
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Both cars full potential is well beyond the realm of the street. Both cars are ungodly heavy + large. Both cars' capabilities are well beyond ANYONE'S driving capabilities on the board... IOW... people talk about Ring times... nobody here would be able to drive these cars around the ring in under 10 minutes and they'd be shitting their pants the whole time. So really who gives a fuck. You guys arguing look like assholes
I cracked ten minutes in a Scirocco on the ring. I give a fuck, that's who. If you can't post a sub 10 minute lap time in one of these, you suck royally.
Id pay to see what time Cougs would do in a ZL1 around the Ring. Or 666 in the Rustang GT60000000. At the end of the day what does it matter.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Id pay to see what time Cougs would do in a ZL1 around the Ring. Or 666 in the Rustang GT60000000. At the end of the day what does it matter.
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish? It matters because some people say it matters.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Id pay to see what time Cougs would do in a ZL1 around the Ring. Or 666 in the Rustang GT60000000. At the end of the day what does it matter.
Dude, if we can't mag race these cars we may as well not even talk about them.
Well, sporty ruined all the fun by crying and getting in his panties in a bunch...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Id pay to see what time Cougs would do in a ZL1 around the Ring. Or 666 in the Rustang GT60000000. At the end of the day what does it matter.
If you wish to fund my trip to Germany to get there, and the car rental and track fees, I'd be more than happy to take you up on that.
Passport's valid, and I accept Paypal.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 17, 2011, 07:15:35 AM
Because then we cant argue about it don't you see??????????????
Nobody cares about the cars. Everyone just cares about being right.
Look at Cougs' trolling for the Camaro. Dude drives an Accord for Christ's sake, what does he REALLY care about the Camaro, beyond another angle to practice his internetry????
Why can't SVT666 just appreciate the Rustang for what it is and not walk into Cougs' Wily E. Coyote argument traps? Cause he has always been hoping to "pwn" him. But you can't outtroll a troll
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Both cars full potential is well beyond the realm of the street. Both cars are ungodly heavy + large. Both cars' capabilities are well beyond ANYONE'S driving capabilities on the board... IOW... people talk about Ring times... nobody here would be able to drive these cars around the ring in under 10 minutes and they'd be shitting their pants the whole time. So really who gives a fuck. You guys arguing look like assholes
I don't know about that. I'm pretty confident I could get a 10 minute or a little bit over 10 minute ring time.
Quote from: Schadenfreude on November 17, 2011, 09:57:12 PM
I don't know about that. I'm pretty confident I could get a 10 minute or a little bit over 10 minute ring time.
Clarkson did it in a diesel Jag. I'm pretty sure I could do it in a 650 hp Mustang.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 17, 2011, 01:17:21 PM
Complaining about people arguing is more annoying, IMO. :ohyeah:
Yeah. Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't invalidate their opinion. That's like when your wife/gf bitches because you, "don't listen," to her, when what she really means is that you don't agree with her. Completely disingenuous. Certain people just need to quit trying to be the school yard monitor, it's not worth one's time or seemingly significant emotional commitment to make sure everybody gets along.
ZL1 blows monkey balls. GT500 is King of the Hill.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 19, 2011, 07:41:08 PM
ZL1 blows monkey balls. GT500 is King of the Hill.
:pee:
Quote from: SVT666 on November 19, 2011, 07:41:08 PM
ZL1 blows monkey balls. GT500 is King of the Hill.
Certainly my favorite, and I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 19, 2011, 07:41:08 PM
ZL1 blows monkey balls. GT500 is King of the Hill.
They're both shit. Obviously the BRZ is the best. :pee:
Quote from: thecarnut on November 17, 2011, 09:29:32 PM
Well, sporty ruined all the fun by crying and getting in his panties in a bunch...
Yea this thread was very fun
Its nice to see the return of the peeing monkey at least.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 20, 2011, 07:40:43 PM
Yea this thread was very fun
True; Mustang trolls/apologists ruined it before you did your handy work on it...
:pee:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 20, 2011, 08:33:19 PM
Its nice to see the return of the peeing monkey at least.
:lol:
Only slightly related but...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/01/sarenicamarogt3.jpg)
QuoteHans Reiter, the chap you might know from Reiter Engineering and its winning Lamborghini racecars, started a company called Sareni United for one purpose: to build a Chevrolet Camaro GT3 race car. The resulting silver shockwave is powered by a 7.9-liter Katech V8 rated at up to 650 horsepower and 627 pound-feet, and the racer's lead engineer says it has lap times "similar to the Lamborghini Gallardo" but that there is still a lot of work to do.
More importantly, the plan wasn't to simply make a race-worthy Camaro, the brief was to make one one that was cost efficient enough to lure new entrants into the racing game. Planned overhauls for the engine and gearbox are at 5,000 kilometers and other parts at 10,000 km.
The Camaro GT3 has been homologated by the FIA, Reiter says two cars are already planned for use in Germany's ADAC GT Masters series and that other inquiries have been made about GT4 and touring cars. It is priced at ?195,000 + VAT ($253,056 U.S.).
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/03/sareni-uniteds-chevrolet-camaro-gt-turns-pony-car-into-thorough/
Can't wait to hear this thing.
So for the price of Gallardo, you can buy a car that is just as fast as the Gallardo but a million times uglier? What a deal!
You've got it all wrong. Its as fast as his Gallardo GT3 race cars, but designed to be cheaper to buy and run.
That racing Camaro looks evil and awesome.