[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

The m6 zl1's protections, while totally lame and not to be defended, keep it from breaking itself. For whatever reason the m6 GT was protected at a much lower power level, but it still breaks regardless. I'm sure the broken shift fork joke isn't that funny to the guys who have to deal with it.

Never heard of the M6 GT having a bunch of torque management built in, although looking at the specs the MT82 is rated for 375 lb/ft versus the TR6060 at 500 lb/ft.

I think the torque of the SS M6 makes it a bit more forgiving to launch on the street.. browsing through a 'real world 0-60' thread on M6G had a lot of them reporting 4.8-5+ second 0-60's. The one and only time I've tried (with the in-car timer) I got a 4.5...

I'm really glad Chevy went with the TR6060. Great transmission. I make use of the no lift shift whenever I can, the 'brrrrt' the car makes is addicting. Can bang through the gears without worrying about busting something.

As for the SS A10 times, I always figured it was GM who went heavy on the torque management, which is why times are always a bit slower.

[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by Laststandard

Never heard of the M6 GT having a bunch of torque management built in, although looking at the specs the MT82 is rated for 375 lb/ft versus the TR6060 at 500 lb/ft.

I think the torque of the SS M6 makes it a bit more forgiving to launch on the street.. browsing through a 'real world 0-60' thread on M6G had a lot of them reporting 4.8-5+ second 0-60's. The one and only time I've tried (with the in-car timer) I got a 4.5...

I'm really glad Chevy went with the TR6060. Great transmission. I make use of the no lift shift whenever I can, the 'brrrrt' the car makes is addicting. Can bang through the gears without worrying about busting something.

As for the SS A10 times, I always figured it was GM who went heavy on the torque management, which is why times are always a bit slower.

Torque management on the SS M6 was more than on the SS A8 for sure. This is why the M6 was so much slower at the track than the A8 SS. It stumbles at the line if you get a good launch. It was even noticable to spectators. I have not yet seen an A10 SS at the track. I have heard the SS A10 is not so sturdy but no facts to back that up. I do know some A8s are oe were still alive in 9 second cars.

Agreed about the TR6060.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Yup. Only 6 of them would be faster than "the slowest pony car".

James. Would it be fairer to say that 6 of them have the possibility of being faster than any SS?

After all, a 0.01 second advantage is a drivers race.

For those that are math challenged. That example equaled 16.7%. Since only 3 were coupes its actually 8%

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

James. Would it be fairer to say that 6 of them have the possibility of being faster than any SS?

After all, a 0.01 second advantage is a drivers race.

For those that are math challenged. That example equaled 16.7%. Since only 3 were coupes its actually 8%

.01 second of an advantage would be 100th of a second

.1 would a tenth of a second

for those that are math challenged LOL - all in good fun hotlap

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by hotlap

James. Would it be fairer to say that 6 of them have the possibility of being faster than any SS?

After all, a 0.01 second advantage is a drivers race.

For those that are math challenged. That example equaled 16.7%. Since only 3 were coupes its actually 8%

I’m assuming the other 3 would only pick on SS Verts.

Shaffe already spanked you for your math, so I’ll let that go.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Yeah, but since the GT PP1 A10 is faster then ALL GTs are faster. Didn’t you get the memo? Just like since a Challenger Hellcat can roast an SS, so can an R/T. I mean they both have Hemis, right? At least that’s how every other Challenger R/T driver behaves in the Detroit area.

So....the GT PP1 A10 is faster than an SS. And an M6 pick-a-trim-level GT is the slowest pony car. So which one is the “REAL” GT? Yes, people, trim levels matter. That’s why Ford has so many of them. Choose wisely.

I think you of all people would know the GT M6 is not the slowest pony car. The 5.7 liter Challenger M6 is the slowest by a wide margin (13.7 @ 103 mph per C&D). I also believe that the 6.4 liter Challenger M6 is equal in e.t. but slower in trap speed than the GT M6. The first C&D test I found for the 485 challenger M6 was 12.6 @ 112 mph. The GT M6 is 12.6 but at 115 mph (per C&D as well). So it's pulling away at the top end. By the way, that 115 mph IIRC matches the best SS M6 trap speed (major magazine tests) as well.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I sure am enjoying my M6.

GT* A10
0-60 : 3.8 sec
1/4: 12.1 @ 120

SS A10
0-60: 3.9
1/4: 12.2 @ 118

GT M6
0-60: 4.3 sec
1/4: 12.6 @ 115

SS M6
0-60: 4.0 sec
1/4: 12.2 @ ?

I keep seeing the 12.2 @ ?? mph for the SS M6 based only on that quote. The thing is, I think it may be a typo or misprint. I can't seem to find the actual test they pulled a 12.2 in the M6 SS with. Most are 12.4-12.5 IIRC. Where is the actual SS M6 12.2 test? A link would be helpful to verify.

[7speed]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I keep seeing the 12.2 @ ?? mph for the SS M6 based only on that quote. The thing is, I think it may be a typo or misprint. I can't seem to find the actual test they pulled a 12.2 in the M6 SS with. Most are 12.4-12.5 IIRC. Where is the actual SS M6 12.2 test? A link would be helpful to verify.

I remember road/track got 12.3 best I remember seeing in mags

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...camaro-ss-1le/

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I think you of all people would know the GT M6 is not the slowest pony car. The 5.7 liter Challenger M6 is the slowest by a wide margin (13.7 @ 103 mph per C&D). I also believe that the 6.4 liter Challenger M6 is equal in e.t. but slower in trap speed than the GT M6. The first C&D test I found for the 485 challenger M6 was 12.6 @ 112 mph. The GT M6 is 12.6 but at 115 mph (per C&D as well). So it's pulling away at the top end. By the way, that 115 mph IIRC matches the best SS M6 trap speed (major magazine tests) as well.

Good point! I guess I just got caught up in responding to someone else’s misguided attempts to paint the SS as the slowest pony car. But you’re right, 5.7 Challenger is clearly back of the pack.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Did they also program the shift forks to shatter?

Yeah I heard the Ford guys were thinking about action similar to the Camaro A8 owners class action lawsuit, but the numbers are much higher on the Chevy side.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Good point! I guess I just got caught up in responding to someone else’s misguided attempts to paint the SS as the slowest pony car. But you’re right, 5.7 Challenger is clearly back of the pack.

Funny I never referred to a 5.7 L, but again you know that.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I keep seeing the 12.2 @ ?? mph for the SS M6 based only on that quote. The thing is, I think it may be a typo or misprint. I can't seem to find the actual test they pulled a 12.2 in the M6 SS with. Most are 12.4-12.5 IIRC. Where is the actual SS M6 12.2 test? A link would be helpful to verify.

I was skeptical of this article as well as all others were 12:30 - 12:50s, but its printed so in my opinion its valid.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by 7speed

I remember road/track got 12.3 best I remember seeing in mags

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...camaro-ss-1le/

That's what I could find, too, after I was able to google it after work; C&D also got 12.3 sec but at 118 mph (I was surprised at the mph for the M6, which matches the best magazine A10 trap speed).

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Yes all your above statements are spot on. Its ridiculous for either car, you paid the price for the advertised performance, and they chose to limit it. Didn't the ZL1 buyer also pay for 650/650 yet aren't getting it. If the mustang is a joke the much more expensive M6 ZL1 is an even bigger joke.

Actually no, it is not ridiculous for both cars. The ZL1 has 650 HP. As such it needs more control than a 460 HP car. That is just a manufacturer's way of stopping some lead-footed goon from smashing into crowds of people. Now if a Mustang with almost 200 less HP needs the same amount of TM then that is a testament to it being an inferior car. And I doubt that even you would argue that the Mustang GT is indeed inferior to the ZL1 in every possible way. Cars are getting faster and more powerful. How many people have died and hurt people because they are not wise enough to use this power responsibly? So they need to be controlled. Especially one with a manual trans.

Originally Posted by rocket403

None of these cars is a joke they are all very close to each other in their abilities, and all of the 3 have programming built-in to the platforms to limit damage for one reason or another.

They are not all very close. They are close in one category which is straight line performance. Outside of that the Camaro is in a completely different league.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Yes Ford was short sighted to target the Z/28. as we have discussed many times, it was a total d*** measuring contest type move. The only thing in the 350R price range is the ZL1 and yes the Z is faster. The 350/R is also faster than many cars that are more expensive than it, just as the ZL1 is.

The Shelby is faster than some cars that are more expensive. But those cars have other features that justify why they are more expensive. Like luxury, tech, options, AWD, etc. The GT350(R) has none of that. And early on it was very poorly optioned even among Pony Car standards. And even when you did option it they made you pick between certain things that could not be added if other things were added. Like not being able to combine the tech pack and the track pack. So comparing it to more expensive cars that integrate performance and luxury/tech and then saying that it beats more expensive cars is not a fair comparison. It cannot beat cars in it's same category that are priced similarly. And it cannot beat cars in it's same category that are cheaper even tho those cars are optioned better. That is what I meant.