[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by newmoon

What stunt with 11:80s, you understand several reviews have gotten 12:00s and 11s right? Its only a stunt because the Camaro can't match it. If C&D can get 12:00s out of a 18 GT on an unprepped track do you really think it is far fetched that it could run an 11:80s on a preppered surface with a great driver? Look at the mph the car traps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You want to know whats a stunt, Chevy taking a supposed stock car to a track thousands of miles away, installing roll bars, endless electronics to review every foot of data, having an entire Chevy support team there supposedly not making any modifications to the car, going through endless sets of tires (tire manufacturer support either on site or on the telephone), having a paid pro-driver run the car to an inch of his/car's life in order to publish a time that will never ever be duplicated without a massive budget to match all above. This is a stunt! This vs what you call is a stunt, a GT running 11:80s at the track. Comical!

Car and driver got 12.1

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by newmoon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is who is going to be tracking a standard SS or a standard GT, very very few if any I would guess so its really not worthy of debate. If they choose to track these models there would likely be aftermarket upgrades.

The 1LE and the PP2 yes a small % of owners may track their cars. Will the PP2 overheat maybe, some owners claim to not experience issues unless it is an extremely hot day, but the possibility is surely there. If there are no overheating issues then I don't think there is a clear winner between the two and results would likely depend on track and driver.

Lots of non 1le guys track their SS's. I think the driver between the 1le and pp2 would obviously be the biggest variable but all things equal the 1le has reigned supreme the few times they have been compared head to head by the same driver or same day, not too mention has been consistently described as the better handler and chassis.

Having said that the pp2 is a very capable car and with the right driver mod could beat the breaks off of a zl1 driven by a lesser driver, so obviously driver matters most regardless of whatever Randy Pobst can do with said car. However the owners that don't get the pp2 to overheat after 5 or so laps are probably not pushing it that hard. Lack of coolers is lack of coolers.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Car and driver got 12.1

@ 120 mph. That's always been the most impressive thing to me about C&D's 1/4 mile run w/ the GT*. 12.1 is good, but to hit that 120 mph mark is a big deal, IMO. 2 mph better than the best SS published test, and about 4-5 mph better than the Challenger 392 auto tests (forget the 5.7 Challenger in the low 100s competing with 4th gen F-bodies). Also better than the C7 'Vette (LT1 powered versions), '20 Supra, M4 (119 mph), and a handful of AMG and Audi RS factory hot rods, etc. There's a long list of cars that haven't ever hit 120 mph in the magazine tests. Roll racing bragging rights over a lot of road cars w/ that trap speed

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

@ 120 mph. That's always been the most impressive thing to me about C&D's 1/4 mile run w/ the GT*. 12.1 is good, but to hit that 120 mph mark is a big deal, IMO. 2 mph better than the best SS published test, and about 4-5 mph better than the Challenger 392 auto tests (forget the 5.7 Challenger in the low 100s competing with 4th gen F-bodies). Also better than the C7 'Vette (LT1 powered versions), '20 Supra, M4 (119 mph), and a handful of AMG and Audi RS factory hot rods, etc. There's a long list of cars that haven't ever hit 120 mph in the magazine tests. Roll racing bragging rights over a lot of road cars w/ that trap speed

That C&D time is impressive, no question about it.

One thing though that I do find a bit sketchy is the "correction factor" used in C&D tests (and used in most publications) to correct back to a "standard day" condition. Since MotorTrend tests vehicles in CA, the temp swings and presumably any correction factor would be small. The tests run by C&D are performed in MI, which has pretty large temp swings and large correction factors to correct back to standard day conditions. For instance, the uncorrected quarter mile time and trap speed for that specific run was 12.33 at 117.5mph. With modern combustion controls / calibrations, the correction factor may not always be accurate if the system is already compensating for the ambient temp/pressure/humidity conditions. Tire traction vs. ambient conditions is another factor that the correction factor probably isn't all that accurate at predicting. That's just something I noticed that I plan to look into further. For what it's worth, the '18 SS auto Camaro's uncorrected time was 12.35s, but we really need more than one decimal pt. in the test sheet data when splitting hairs like this.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

WTH Ford?!

https://www.motor1.com/news/301700/f...-times-shelby/

What are they afraid of?

There goes Ford with more of their dumb shit. Why even build the car then if they're not interested in lap times? It doesn't matter because they would have gotten embarrassed anyway. I guess it's better to make an excuse to not race than to get beaten. I'm still betting that even the standard ZL1 will beat the CF GT500.

Originally Posted by newmoon

What stunt with 11:80s, you understand several reviews have gotten 12:00s and 11s right? Its only a stunt because the Camaro can't match it. If C&D can get 12:00s out of a 18 GT on an unprepped track do you really think it is far fetched that it could run an 11:80s on a preppered surface with a great driver? Look at the mph the car traps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You want to know whats a stunt, Chevy taking a supposed stock car to a track thousands of miles away, installing roll bars, endless electronics to review every foot of data, having an entire Chevy support team there supposedly not making any modifications to the car, going through endless sets of tires (tire manufacturer support either on site or on the telephone), having a paid pro-driver run the car to an inch of his/car's life in order to publish a time that will never ever be duplicated without a massive budget to match all above. This is a stunt! This vs what you call is a stunt, a GT running 11:80s at the track. Comical!

Cool completely made up story.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

A while back I posted about the c8 z06 going back to NA with near 600hp, and the zr1 being turbo. A few posters said it wouldn't be likely or that NA wouldn't come close to 600hp. Glad to see it may actually be happening.

I also believe that although the trend has been to see an increase in HP, we might see less HP but a better performing car. I think the C8 is going to prove to be much better than some expect. The C8 Z06 will not need 700 or more HP. I'm betting that 550 will be enough to destroy records.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

That C&D time is impressive, no question about it.

One thing though that I do find a bit sketchy is the "correction factor" used in C&D tests (and used in most publications) to correct back to a "standard day" condition. Since MotorTrend tests vehicles in CA, the temp swings and presumably any correction factor would be small. The tests run by C&D are performed in MI, which has pretty large temp swings and large correction factors to correct back to standard day conditions. For instance, the uncorrected quarter mile time and trap speed for that specific run was 12.33 at 117.5mph. With modern combustion controls / calibrations, the correction factor may not always be accurate if the system is already compensating for the ambient temp/pressure/humidity conditions. Tire traction vs. ambient conditions is another factor that the correction factor probably isn't all that accurate at predicting. That's just something I noticed that I plan to look into further. For what it's worth, the '18 SS auto Camaro's uncorrected time was 12.35s, but we really need more than one decimal pt. in the test sheet data when splitting hairs like this.

So the 120 run never actually hit 120?

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

@ 120 mph. That's always been the most impressive thing to me about C&D's 1/4 mile run w/ the GT*. 12.1 is good, but to hit that 120 mph mark is a big deal, IMO. 2 mph better than the best SS published test, and about 4-5 mph better than the Challenger 392 auto tests (forget the 5.7 Challenger in the low 100s competing with 4th gen F-bodies). Also better than the C7 'Vette (LT1 powered versions), '20 Supra, M4 (119 mph), and a handful of AMG and Audi RS factory hot rods, etc. There's a long list of cars that haven't ever hit 120 mph in the magazine tests. Roll racing bragging rights over a lot of road cars w/ that trap speed

Impressive run no doubt, but I was simply correcting newmoons incorrectly quoted time.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

So the 120 run never actually hit 120?

That's correct and that strategy of correcting times goes for all tests the big magazines conduct, but depending on the actual ambient conditions the correction will vary. Here's a link to how MotorTrend tests (see weather correction portion): https://www.motortrend.com/news/motor-trend-testing/

There's more to it than that, since I've read through the SAE 1349 standard and did not see exactly how the correction factors were modeled, but the article give you a good idea.

C&D typically tests in MI (larger temp / humidity swings), while MT does almost all of their tests in Southern California (closer to standard day ambient conditions). The less correction needed the better.

Just so it doesn't look like I'm picking on the Ford time/mph, here's a GM (ATS-V) that C&D tested that seems to be a "flyer" with a 122mph trap speed: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...n-test-review/

The link to the test sheet has since been removed for that specific test though, so I couldn't tell if a high correction factor was the cause or if some other factor was in play. That seems a little bit high though with a similar power to weight and transmission as the Camaro.

Ambient temps can have a big impact on performance though, so I agree somewhat with the strategy of correcting to a common standard day condition so all the times from each test can be compared. I would just use caution for reasons I mentioned in my prior post and check the raw data, weather correction factors (if posted), and multiple tests when trying to compare cars to better understand how each car really performs.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by newmoon

What stunt with 11:80s, you understand several reviews have gotten 12:00s and 11s right? Its only a stunt because the Camaro can't match it. If C&D can get 12:00s out of a 18 GT on an unprepped track do you really think it is far fetched that it could run an 11:80s on a preppered surface with a great driver? Look at the mph the car traps.

The 11.8 stunt that you have called a 'published review' before is the one that I was talking about. That was not a normal magazine road test, but you pretended that it was by calling it a 'published review' to try lumping it in with the normal MT or C&D road tests. Like I said, any claim can be questioned. Not just the ones that Ford fanboys don't like. I have been watching these A10 Mustangs in the real world and they just are not as quick as you keep claiming that they are. Big improvement over the lame 2015-2017 Mustang, sure, but still not actually quicker than the Camaro. The real performance means more than any 'published' stuff will ever mean, real cars bought off the lot by customers in the real world.

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

There goes Ford with more of their dumb shit. Why even build the car then if they're not interested in lap times? It doesn't matter because they would have gotten embarrassed anyway. I guess it's better to make an excuse to not race than to get beaten. I'm still betting that even the standard ZL1 will beat the CF GT500.

And they put cup2's and CF wheels on the 500... why bother.

It's like buying your bride to be a $20k wedding dress and then deciding you never really wanted to get married anyway.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

And they put cup2's and CF wheels on the 500... why bother.

It's like buying your bride to be a $20k wedding dress and then deciding you never really wanted to get married anyway.

It makes no sense. So they're lying or trying to save face. Because why benchmark the ZL1 then? Why plan to release it in 18, then backtrack and plan for 19, and then backtrack again for 2020? Why waste all that time trying to pus as much HP as they could out of it? And then why do all this testing they did up to 200 MPH, then cap it at 180 MPH because it's a track car, and then say they have no intentions to race it? Ford is stupid or they've lost their minds. The ZL1 must have been soo far ahead of them that even with all that HP and CF stuff at $94K they still can't match it so they have to save face so they won't get embarrassed.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

The 11.8 stunt that you have called a 'published review' before is the one that I was talking about. That was not a normal magazine road test, but you pretended that it was by calling it a 'published review' to try lumping it in with the normal MT or C&D road tests. Like I said, any claim can be questioned. Not just the ones that Ford fanboys don't like. I have been watching these A10 Mustangs in the real world and they just are not as quick as you keep claiming that they are. Big improvement over the lame 2015-2017 Mustang, sure, but still not actually quicker than the Camaro. The real performance means more than any 'published' stuff will ever mean, real cars bought off the lot by customers in the real world.

That "11.8" is newmoon's only claim these days. That and a 0.1 sec difference between the special secret order GT vs just any ole SS. He wakes up in his beachfront house, looks over his fortune of boats and stuff, takes a deep breath, and takes enjoyment in the fact that Mustang GT that he doesn't have is a tenth of a second faster than the Camaro SS. And then he spends time on here bragging about it while revealing his deep disgust over the Camaro. And he just repeats himself over and over again. And that is about how meaningful his life is. Meanwhile his ocean front property and boat just sit there while everyone is wondering why someone who has all these things still takes time to come onto a forum for a car he hates to brag about a car he doesn't have. Maybe I'll go on to a WRX forum and talk shit about them while bragging about how much better the Evo is.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That "11.8" is newmoon's only claim these days. That and a 0.1 sec difference between the special secret order GT vs just any ole SS. He wakes up in his beachfront house, looks over his fortune of boats and stuff, takes a deep breath, and takes enjoyment in the fact that Mustang GT that he doesn't have is a tenth of a second faster than the Camaro SS. And then he spends time on here bragging about it while revealing his deep disgust over the Camaro. And he just repeats himself over and over again. And that is about how meaningful his life is. Meanwhile his ocean front property and boat just sit there while everyone is wondering why someone who has all these things still takes time to come onto a forum for a car he hates to brag about a car he doesn't have. Maybe I'll go on to a WRX forum and talk shit about them while bragging about how much better the Evo is.

That 11.8, while a great run, carries no more weight than fast list times or the really fast stock time slips on FB groups.