Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole
No I'm not talking about driver error. If you wanna seriously discuss this then I will oblige. I'll repeat what I said before.
The GT500 is affected by conditions more so than the ZL1. It isn't about defying physics. We have already seen it. Ford claims 10.7 on a prepped track in optimal conditions. Usually when a Mustang runs we hear "oh well if the DA was better" or "well in cooler late year temps" and similar comments all alluding to the fact that if it is run in better conditions then it will do much better. And it has done that. Remove those conditions and it is an 11.3-11.5 sec car as we have seen. The ZL1 regardless of conditions (not conditions like rain in case someone wants to be a smartass) has maintained mid 11s in testing. In those runs we often are not told what the DA or temps were. And it is not often on a prepped track from what I understand although I could be wrong on that point. In any case we have typically seen it run 11.3 to 11.6 with even the M6 equipped versions running 11.6-11.8 I believe. So we are seeing around a 7-9 tenths difference with the GT500. Some are even saying the 500 could run 10.4s bone stock which would be a 1.1 sec difference all based on conditions. With the ZL1 we are seeing more of a 2-4 tenths difference. The testing we are discussing now showed 11.3 (GT500) and 11.6 (ZL1). Now if you were to put both cars on a prepped track and run them in optimal conditions then apparently you could shave almost a full second off the 500 based on claims of 10.4 to 10.6. With the ZL1 it might be more around 3-4 tenths.
Now this is open to debate. But when a pro runs a 10.6 and then a kid who claims to have never driven on a track before runs 10.6 both on prepped tracks...but other pro-level drivers on an unprepped track and in hotter climates run 11.5 (all Base 500s), then that kinda proves the point. We are seeing much wider ranges in GT500 times as opposed to ZL1 times. (See the comment I quoted from shaffe who typically disagrees with me).
Now I hate trying to explain things to Mustang guys because all you guys do is troll. But I am not saying that the GT500 is not the faster car. I am saying that if it is not in conditions that are to it's advantage, then it will suffer. The ZL1 in those same conditions will not be affected as largely. Again, see the examples above.
Also of note is that on an unprepped track the C8 (not a Camaro of course) was able to run faster than the GT500. 11.1 (CF) to 11.3 (CF 500) and 11.5 (Base 500). It isn't about defying physics. Rather, physics would explain why this happens.
|
Yes and no. Yes I would have to agree that based on manufacturer claims, the ZL1 is less susceptible to different conditions than the GT500 is.
However in THIS particular test, we see the conditions affected both cars by +/- a half second almost. Ford claims 10.7 on prepped surface, GM claims 11.3 on unprepped surface. This test showed a 6/10th difference for the Ford and 4/10th difference for the Chevy based on manufacturer claims.
Other tests show a similar 6/10th to almost 8/10th difference in the Mustang vs only maybe a 1/10th or 2 for the ZL1. So based on that I would have say conditions affect the ZL1 less at least in magazine testing. I mean once you cross a certain power point, running on prepped is just going to be difficult
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreedYou
Related question about the whole un-prepped/prepped surface thing that comes up a ton.
Where else but a drag strip can you get a 1/4 time for you car?
Saying "ran the 1/4 on an un-prepped surface" doesn't make any sense because where else are you going to run the quarter mile?
I mean you're at the drag strip to begin with to get the best time out of the car you came there with so I'm a bit confused about that whole line.
At the drag strip there is never an un-prepped surface, you're at a drag strip.
And on the street there is no tree with time traps... 
------
Also to pepper in something else, talking about times on these cars that have automatically shifting transmissions can't you just take any driver skill out of the conversations?
All you really have to do is keep your hands on the steering wheel. So saying "pro-driver" in an automatic car that does all the works sounds a bit off, nah mean jelly bean?
What can one driver in an automatic possibly do that a trained monkey can't do? hold the steering wheel straighter? |
To this point I agree. To me when a manufacturer makes a performance claim like 1/4 it should be done on a track not an unprepped surface. Looks like Ford and Dodge do that, GM still goes unprepped - or at least they don't mention on prepped surface.
But for the most part the unprepped surface shows what the cars would be capable of on the street. Dumb place to run them, but that is the point of the unprepped surface.