[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ZRacerLE

I look at it this way, you'll never fully understand why the factory engineers made the decisions they did, so if you modify the car, even with stickier tires, you have to be prepared for breaking it. Keep it stock and just enjoy it's limits is my thinking. If I get to the limit and need more, then I'll trade up or modify with complete acceptance I'll have to repair it so keep some "self warranty money" saved.

I tend to think along the same lines. Only performance mod I've done to mine is CAI. And even that is the CAI engineered by GM Performance with the dealer install of the GM Performance tune. When it's out of warranty (3 more years on the powertrain) I may go E85. But that's about it. By then I'll probably be in the market for a C8 Z06 or a GT500. Keeping the Fifty, though.

[Lafourche1]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

Uh oh, you two are going on his ignore list haha

Downside?

[oldman]

Originally Posted by bradmo9

ALL makes models have issues you can search all day long and pull up brand new cars with issues. From Porsche , KIA to Chevy/gmc.

The one that keeps coming up in the GT500 is the clutch over heat. It might be Ford set the value so low that a couple back to back passes on sticker than stock tire will cause this. Who knows till they can actually start tuning the trans and tms. Don’t think the c8 will suffer from this since it’s good bit less power and weight.

Add in a significantly stronger transaxle (trans and diff), designed for the application. The Mustang's diff was designed for a 1986 200 HP 5.0 OHV
https://lmr.com/products/Mustang-7-5...-End-Axle-Info

We all know street tires don't need that much heat into them, these are road race tires anyway not drag, those burn outs on video are extreme and for show, something has to be slipping as the engine is loaded against the trans... its not like this car has a highstall converter or more importantly a line lock. Am I surprised that the clutch pack will overheat very quickly when both engine power and brakes are applied? The car was built as a performance car on street (road race) rubber, not as a burn out contestant. The Demon has a line lock and a transbrake but more importantly, it has a torque converter vs a liquid-cooled clutch pack.

I personally don't consider extreme burnouts as "racing", I'm sure the Ford engineers will say the same thing, but the "rocket scientist" aka the sales force in the two following videos seem to think differently.

You can see the launch control and as his launch continues you can see the brake lights come on as in I'm WOT and stipping on the brakes at the same time the engine is bouncing its revlimiter, please only children consider a smokey burnout as an indication of performance.
This first video is sometime after the car is launched, I count 10 seconds of WOT and brakes on this "launch", how much heat is being injected into the clutch pack? Clearly NO clutch pack will survive. My god folks, this is a computer-controlled MANUAL transmission. Does anybody want to calculate the heat load in joules of 10 seconds of WOT? It is enough to at some pitiful thermal efficiency for a combustion engine to send a 4500 lbs to ride down a 1/4 mile with a 127 MPH terminal velocity.
https://drivetribe.com/p/2020-ford-m...SCSO0QhSFwj-4A


I'm going to assume this is a Ford supported marketing effort, yeah I hope Ford gets sued big-time by customers that buy a GT500 to do 10 to 12-second WOT on the brakes burn-outs. As this is what Ford is promoting in video. Which to my mind can't be done on a DCT. To perform the same abuse on a manual Zl1, I'd need three legs, one for WOT, one to ram on the brakes, one to slip the clutch. The Supra before the GT500 just does a normal launch. I'm sure Toyota will warranty any claim there.

Ford: Warranty voided DCT overheat condition codes repeatedly set, conditions: WOT, full brake application, long periods of time against factory fuel cut (max RPM). Customer, I was at a press event that Ford showed the car burning out for 12 seconds as a demonstration of what the car was DESIGNED to do. So I purchased one to do the same thing. Take it to court, I think I know what decision will be made.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I tend to think along the same lines. Only performance mod I've done to mine is CAI. And even that is the CAI engineered by GM Performance with the dealer install of the GM Performance tune. When it's out of warranty (3 more years on the powertrain) I may go E85. But that's about it. By then I'll probably be in the market for a C8 Z06 or a GT500. Keeping the Fifty, though.

I modified my 13 ZL1 and almost immediately regretted it. My attitude now is that the Camaro in stock form is satisfying and I'm not going to mess with it.

Even putting LED side marker lights resulted in battery drain down issues on my 16.

[oldman]

Nothing wrong with stock... I look at it this way, stock I could do 4.0 0-60 in the M6. I was called all kinds of things like a cheater, doing it on jack stands et al. I predicted that within a few weeks many guys especially auto guys would do the same. Sure enough, we all know it can be done with an SS. With some blot-ons and a better 220 wear summer tire I could do 3.6 to 4.0. With all my mods and PS4P, guess what on a good launch, I can do a 3.6 to 4.0 on a GOOD launch, which is actually hard to do (get a good launch). So 10K (I do all my own work or that would be FAR higher) and I'll be on my 4th set of tires in 20K miles I can get the car to um do what a few bolt ons and PS4 would do or a bone stock SS auto on with a set of take-off 1LE rims and tires under DD conditions. I will add the a STOCK BASE C8 would absolutely destroy my ride and the secretary would still be sipping her Starbucks double frap.

The ZL1 M6, yeah, I'd keep it stock and enjoy the ride. Just knowing even moded pretty heavily on 220 wear street rubber, a slightly modded SS auto will probably faster to any legal road speed.

If I get a C8, the only thing I'm doing to it is tint and ceramic coat and I'm getting the base, when the warranty is up, I'll source a set of OEM headers ceramic coated and polished (still 100% stock).

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by oldman

well yes, but it is a 760 HP engine...

The old GT500 made use of a 3.31 gear ratio vs 3.73 for the Mustang GT in part IMO of course to just have a stronger diff, as strength of the diff is MOST closely related to ratio. Also, 1st gear in the trans was reduced to reduce overall torque to the rear diff / tire:"With a 200-mph top speed as their goal, the SVT engineers altered the GT500’s gearing. They changed the final-drive ratio from 3.55:1 (or optional 3.73:1) to 3.31:1 to give the GT500 longer legs, and five of the six gearbox ratios are new. First gear goes from 2.97:1 to 2.66:1, which, combined with the differential change, reduces maximum rear-wheel torque by a couple of percent from the 2012 model’s, despite the engine’s 90-pound-foot bump. Hameedi explains, “We already had more first-gear torque than we needed, so this makes it easier to launch the car.”

I believe from memory this relation of strength to ratio is a square function, while the strength of the ring size is an PI x Diameter, basically a linear change. The 10 speed auto lets GM run a 2.85 gear ratio, so that is WAY stronger even if the ring was the same size (it is not). Same goes for the auto Demons / Hellcats, the mild ratio coupled with the auto helps the rear end to some extent (note the failure mode here is the diff case exploding so it is NOT a contact patch pinion to ring problem) it is probably more related to such a porker trying to save a few pounds by making the case aluminum which actually makes NO sense in a drag application. Dodge should embrace the weight (I had a supercharged Challenger). AFAIK the manual Hellcats, depending on conditions, are actually launched in 2nd gear, so that may help save the manual diff.


so why does the new DCT have an even steeper 1st gear AND a 3.73 rear diff? Sumting is not right? All supercharged cars that I know of including the 2012 GT500 try to reduce 1st gear ratios and / or rear diff ratios. I honestly don't know. It could be that:
1)That Ford would provide or contract out a diff strong enough no matter what rear gear ratio selected, just like Dodge farms out the trans and diff for most Challenger models.
2) That the engine was supposed to be a smaller higher reving engine with turbos (need more initial gear for spool). This was already baked into the DCT design.
3) Ford just decided to slip the clutch on the DCT and use other electronics on launch with OEM tires to keep the 8.8 alive as it was just no worth putting any more money / time into the effort.
All IMO of course.

The fact remains that this 8.8 (assumed) is the most undersized diff that I know of in relation to the torque being delivered to it. Probably equal to or worst than the 10 bolt 4th gen behind the LS1 with manual 320 HP 3.42 ratio, 7.65 ring.

Wow that is some great technical insight! Thanks for the education.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Ok. Before the GT500 was released it did show signs of, inconsistencies while the C8 didn't?

Yes that is correct and lets just leave this topic on that note.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I based my statements off the little info that was available at the time. Ford was not exactly forthcoming. In fact they made it into some secretive thing. So what was anyone supposed to think? Their only statements regarding it questioned who exsactly is going that fast anyway and then went on to talk about cornering capabilities...all while refusing to actually prove how well it actually does handle. Meanwhile the two other manufacturers had none of these issues whatsoever. So I came up with an opinion that it must be unstable. So sue me. FTR, I still do believe that it is probably unstable at high speeds. Even if it is a trans issue then there would still be no reason to cap it. Unless perhaps the drop off in HP and the gearing means you'd have to keep it pinned for such extended periods that the trans and engine starts to cook...but we'll debate that after we find out more...

That's fine to have an OPINION. My problem is spouting it as FACT with no proof.

Basically, the 500 needs to be at redline in 5th to get over 180, it then drops down over 100 HP in 6th gear and combine that with the 6th gear ratio basically you would need an insane amount of runway to keep gaining any speed. So yeah I would say it's capped at 180 to protect the engine and driveline.

[oldman]

The 2013 GT500 with 3.31 and 27.44" diameter tires has a single piece driveshaft speed of 8000 RPM at 200 MPH. Note driveshaft speed is directly related to diff gear ratio. Also note that the CF single piece shaft and gear change was done specifically for higher top speed.

The 2020 GT500 with 3.73 and 27.44" diameter tires has a single piece driveshaft speed of 8250 RPM at 180 MPH. 9200 RPM would be needed to achieve 200 MPH.

So it may well be the vibration limit of the single-piece CF shaft the limits the GT500's speed.

The ZL1 Camaro has a far more stable metal 2 piece driveshaft. So driveshaft speed is not an issue.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That's fine to have an OPINION. My problem is spouting it as FACT with no proof.

Basically, the 500 needs to be at redline in 5th to get over 180, it then drops down over 100 HP in 6th gear and combine that with the 6th gear ratio basically you would need an insane amount of runway to keep gaining any speed. So yeah I would say it's capped at 180 to protect the engine and driveline.

When did I ever "spout" it as a fact? From the get go I stated it as an opinion and said that to me that must be the case. I did what everyone else here did (including you), came up with what I thought the problem was based off the little that we knew. You chose to continue on with me and I chose to stick to my opinion. And even now that is all anyone is doing. Didn't you say that until Ford themself come out with the info or until it is proven that you choose not to believe it? If the problem was the trans and the ratios then all it would have taken was Ford to say "hey based on the trans etc we are limiting the car to 180 MPH since it would be too much of a strain or take too long to go much faster anyway". No. What did we get? "Who goes that fast anyway?". They limited the car 20 MPH slower than the competition and then put out a stupid remark with no actual info on why. So they drew my criticism. And I still think there is some instability to it at certain speeds. Maybe the suspension isn't. Maybe it's the trans.

So I'd like to know why you offense to it and tried to defend it along with all it's other faults that none of the other manufacturers seem to have? I could see if it was just one thing or another. But this car is turning out to be a joke. An expensive, 760 HP joke. I honestly would rather buy a GT Premium and then fully mod it and have no warranty instead of buying a GT500 at this point and I have never said that about any top tier Pony/Muscle/Sports car in the past.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I modified my 13 ZL1 and almost immediately regretted it. My attitude now is that the Camaro in stock form is satisfying and I'm not going to mess with it.

Even putting LED side marker lights resulted in battery drain down issues on my 16.

Did something happen that made you regret it?

I think nowadays these stock Camaros and Corvettes are performing closer and closer, and in some cases beyond, the limits of most people anyway. And they are performing where you'd have to heavily mod older cars to get to this level and even then they'd be lacking something. Seriously, Camaros are built well enough that they are taking on and beating cars with much higher HP. And now the C8 is available for $60K and does 11.1 consistently in the quarter mile with full warranty and handles/brakes well. This is an every day car performing like this. So I agree that the stock performance levels are more than enough. Maybe with just some little mods like a cai and catback.

With that said I am still planning to mod my ZL1!!

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

When did I ever "spout" it as a fact? From the get go I stated it as an opinion and said that to me that must be the case. I did what everyone else here did (including you), came up with what I thought the problem was based off the little that we knew. You chose to continue on with me and I chose to stick to my opinion. And even now that is all anyone is doing. Didn't you say that until Ford themself come out with the info or until it is proven that you choose not to believe it? If the problem was the trans and the ratios then all it would have taken was Ford to say "hey based on the trans etc we are limiting the car to 180 MPH since it would be too much of a strain or take too long to go much faster anyway". No. What did we get? "Who goes that fast anyway?". They limited the car 20 MPH slower than the competition and then put out a stupid remark with no actual info on why. So they drew my criticism. And I still think there is some instability to it at certain speeds. Maybe the suspension isn't. Maybe it's the trans.

So I'd like to know why you offense to it and tried to defend it along with all it's other faults that none of the other manufacturers seem to have? I could see if it was just one thing or another. But this car is turning out to be a joke. An expensive, 760 HP joke. I honestly would rather buy a GT Premium and then fully mod it and have no warranty instead of buying a GT500 at this point and I have never said that about any top tier Pony/Muscle/Sports car in the past.

Because you had no evidence, you were just guessing and then stuck to it and every time the topic of the 180MPH came up you came around with it's unstable past 180, can't make a car stable past 180. I wanted to take a wait and see approach because we didn't have a ton of info and being honest with you I'm not smart enough to guess if it would be unstable or not.

Yes I did say it was odd they capped it at 180 when last gen they pushed for 200.

We can see with the number crunching oldman has done, that in the simplest of terms it doesn't have much left in the tank after 180. And after he did some more crunching to me it seems like the cap is because it's not capable of going much faster due to driveline physical restrictions so to me the cap at 180 makes sense.

Ford basically said as much when they said the car was made to be good on strip and track. So its geared super aggressive 1-5 and that sacrifices top speed.



And now that there was another review of all 3 cars(CFTP, ZLE RE)

CFTP is for the most part to me failure and that massive price tag is totally unjustified.

Id love to see a review of the "base" cars now

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Did something happen that made you regret it?

I think nowadays these stock Camaros and Corvettes are performing closer and closer, and in some cases beyond, the limits of most people anyway. And they are performing where you'd have to heavily mod older cars to get to this level and even then they'd be lacking something. Seriously, Camaros are built well enough that they are taking on and beating cars with much higher HP. And now the C8 is available for $60K and does 11.1 consistently in the quarter mile with full warranty and handles/brakes well. This is an every day car performing like this. So I agree that the stock performance levels are more than enough. Maybe with just some little mods like a cai and catback.

With that said I am still planning to mod my ZL1!!

I didn't have any serious problems with the 13. It was more in my head after personally splicing into the wiring harness under the fuse block and having the front off several times. It was a brand new car so it just felt wrong.

I daily my cars so I've been thinking... Once this SS hits the age that I'd normally sell it, why not keep it and turn it into a true track day car? Financially, that would be the best time.

Your ZL1 isn't new so this too might get be the right time to go for it.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Because you had no evidence, you were just guessing and then stuck to it and every time the topic of the 180MPH came up you came around with it's unstable past 180, can't make a car stable past 180. I wanted to take a wait and see approach because we didn't have a ton of info and being honest with you I'm not smart enough to guess if it would be unstable or not.

I don't need evidence to formulate an opinion. And for the record, it certainly got your attention along with others. You certainly didn't have to entertain my opinion. You kept going back and forth right along with me. Probably because you enjoyed it. Anyway, who's to say that we're not getting this trans info because the 180 debate dragged on as long as it did? Thanks to me. You're welcome. Granted, oldman may have popped up at some point regardless and shared this knowledge. Or, granted, maybe he got sick of me talking shit (admittedly) and decided to come out with this info. Or maybe all the talking about it motivated him to look it up. Or all of that. Or none of it. Only he can answer it. But my ego and sense of extreme self-importance tells me that I had something to do with it. If I let it go way back when then who knows. Yes, I'm that great.

And what about my comments on the 180 debate is different than anything I've been saying for the past 3 years? I state opinions. But by the time I state them, to me they are facts. And I speak as if they are facts. Because I am confident and fully convinced that I'm right. So we got new information. According to you tho, since it hasn't come from Ford, it is not a fact.

And one thing. Quoted from oldman "The ZL1 Camaro has a far more stable metal 2 piece driveshaft. So driveshaft speed is not an issue.

So stability did have a part. So I was (partially) correct.

Originally Posted by shaffe

We can see with the number crunching oldman has done, that in the simplest of terms it doesn't have much left in the tank after 180. And after he did some more crunching to me it seems like the cap is because it's not capable of going much faster due to driveline physical restrictions so to me the cap at 180 makes sense.

So that still doesn't rule out that the suspension can't handle those speeds. Maybe Ford knew they were capping it so they decided to not even bother with the suspension for those speeds since it'll likely never got hat fast anyway. Yes, that is an OPINION.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Ford basically said as much when they said the car was made to be good on strip and track. So its geared super aggressive 1-5 and that sacrifices top speed.



And now that there was another review of all 3 cars(CFTP, ZLE RE)

CFTP is for the most part to me failure and that massive price tag is totally unjustified.

Id love to see a review of the "base" cars now

I will repeat (can't believe I'm sticking up for Ford again)...I do not think the GT500 in itself is a failure. Even (oh God I can't believe I'm about to say this) the CF version. The problem is that Ford tried to take on too much with one car and didn't have the time to do it. They cut corners, wasted time and money with the DCT (should have just went with the A10), threw CF stuff at it to compensate for the weight, apparently didn't give it efficient (enough) cooling, and threw a super aggressive tire on it which the car is too heavy and too fast for. They should have left GM alone with the cornering crown and left DOdge alone with the quarter mile crown. They should have met somewhere in the middle...just beat the ZL1 in a straight line, beat the HC/RE/Demon around a track, keep the price affordable, throw options at it, call it a day. That would have been enough. But since it is compared to the ZL1/E and HC Family, they are coming up short. Take away those cars and by itself it shines. One on one it can keep up with the HC in a straight line and beat the HC around a track. One on one it...well, it is a little faster than the ZL1/E in a straight line and it can keep up around a track. So not for nothin, it isn't a total failure. The price just sucks. And Ford apparently can't build a car around a transmission.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I don't need evidence to formulate an opinion. And for the record, it certainly got your attention along with others. You certainly didn't have to entertain my opinion. You kept going back and forth right along with me. Probably because you enjoyed it. Anyway, who's to say that we're not getting this trans info because the 180 debate dragged on as long as it did? Thanks to me. You're welcome. Granted, oldman may have popped up at some point regardless and shared this knowledge. Or, granted, maybe he got sick of me talking shit (admittedly) and decided to come out with this info. Or maybe all the talking about it motivated him to look it up. Or all of that. Or none of it. Only he can answer it. But my ego and sense of extreme self-importance tells me that I had something to do with it. If I let it go way back when then who knows. Yes, I'm that great.
.

Haha I sure did enjoy it, a good debate helps pass down time at the office.

I think oldman was just kind enough to fill us in on the tech details because he could understand them far better than I could.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And what about my comments on the 180 debate is different than anything I've been saying for the past 3 years? I state opinions. But by the time I state them, to me they are facts. And I speak as if they are facts. Because I am confident and fully convinced that I'm right. So we got new information. According to you tho, since it hasn't come from Ford, it is not a fact.

I wouldn't go that far as it needs to come from Ford but now that we have some actual data that can be thrown into the equation I will take that as good enough for me.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And one thing. Quoted from oldman "The ZL1 Camaro has a far more stable metal 2 piece driveshaft. So driveshaft speed is not an issue.

So stability did have a part. So I was (partially) correct.


So that still doesn't rule out that the suspension can't handle those speeds. Maybe Ford knew they were capping it so they decided to not even bother with the suspension for those speeds since it'll likely never got hat fast anyway. Yes, that is an OPINION.

I will have to give you that first part on a technicality. When I think of stability I am think control of the car, suspension, steering etc not durability of the parts.

Second part, maybe. I am not smart enough to chime in on that, but if its stable and planted at 170 I don't think going 180 would all of sudden make it totally unstable

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I will repeat (can't believe I'm sticking up for Ford again)...I do not think the GT500 in itself is a failure. Even (oh God I can't believe I'm about to say this) the CF version. The problem is that Ford tried to take on too much with one car and didn't have the time to do it. They cut corners, wasted time and money with the DCT (should have just went with the A10), threw CF stuff at it to compensate for the weight, apparently didn't give it efficient (enough) cooling, and threw a super aggressive tire on it which the car is too heavy and too fast for. They should have left GM alone with the cornering crown and left DOdge alone with the quarter mile crown. They should have met somewhere in the middle...just beat the ZL1 in a straight line, beat the HC/RE/Demon around a track, keep the price affordable, throw options at it, call it a day. That would have been enough. But since it is compared to the ZL1/E and HC Family, they are coming up short. Take away those cars and by itself it shines. One on one it can keep up with the HC in a straight line and beat the HC around a track. One on one it...well, it is a little faster than the ZL1/E in a straight line and it can keep up around a track. So not for nothin, it isn't a total failure. The price just sucks. And Ford apparently can't build a car around a transmission.

Fair points, I think they had to try and go for the ZLE and this is the result we get when it probably wasn't planned for originally. An expensive heavy car. They shot their shot and this is what they could do.

I still think the CFTP is a failure. If it was "only" a 7500 option like the 1LE is then maybe not as big but its an 18,500 option. That should have resulted in game changing performance so to me the CFTP car is a failure.

The base 500 seems to be a decent value when compared to the ZL1 and RE. Obivously the ZL1 offers more value but the base 500 seems to strike a good middle ground between the ZL1 and RE.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Haha I sure did enjoy it, a good debate helps pass down time at the office.

I think oldman was just kind enough to fill us in on the tech details because he could understand them far better than I could.



I wouldn't go that far as it needs to come from Ford but now that we have some actual data that can be thrown into the equation I will take that as good enough for me.



I will have to give you that first part on a technicality. When I think of stability I am think control of the car, suspension, steering etc not durability of the parts.

Second part, maybe. I am not smart enough to chime in on that, but if its stable and planted at 170 I don't think going 180 would all of sudden make it totally unstable



Fair points, I think they had to try and go for the ZLE and this is the result we get when it probably wasn't planned for originally. An expensive heavy car. They shot their shot and this is what they could do.

I still think the CFTP is a failure. If it was "only" a 7500 option like the 1LE is then maybe not as big but its an 18,500 option. That should have resulted in game changing performance so to me the CFTP car is a failure.

The base 500 seems to be a decent value when compared to the ZL1 and RE. Obivously the ZL1 offers more value but the base 500 seems to strike a good middle ground between the ZL1 and RE.

We're BFFs again.