[IneedAZ]

I could be wrong in my thinking, but GM could dip into the sales of GT500's and Redeyes, or even regular Hellcats by getting off their duffs and release what everybody wants which is the LT5 ZL1 and not 2 years from now. The Hp/weight ratio is better than both top dogs and if GM would ease up on TQ management beat both cars in all areas.

They need to drop the boring commercials and give us what we are asking for. Dodge is stealing the sales by giving people the mind set we have lots of power. Redeye, Hellcat, 1320, etc.. I have been a Chevy guy since 1983, prior was Mopar. I now own both. I would ditch my Charger for a second ZL1 if it had the LT5.

I think we can agree, when you put Redeye, GT500, and ZL1 on drag radials, ZL1 is not first. Hard to overcome 100+hp if they are able to plant it.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Power train wise yes I would agree. This gen I think they greatly missed on how good the alpha platform itself was going to be.

Will be interesting going forward though, what used to be good for Corvette was good for camaro. Will stuff that is no made for a ME car translate as well

Ford was well aware how good the Alpha platform was, it was in the ATS and CTS with high praise of the chassis, then came the ATS-V, which was pretty much a Camaro with a TTV6 instead of an N/A V8. In fact, they are almost the same in HP and TQ.

I remember watching a MT video with the ATS-V, and realizing that the performance part of the review would be just about exactly the same as the upcoming Camaro.

Are you telling me, that I, as an average car guy, knew how good the Alpha was going to be, but Ford didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think for does some stupid stuff from time to time, but they aren't THAT stupid...

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Ford was well aware how good the Alpha platform was, it was in the ATS and CTS with high praise of the chassis, then came the ATS-V, which was pretty much a Camaro with a TTV6 instead of an N/A V8. In fact, they are almost the same in HP and TQ.

I remember watching a MT video with the ATS-V, and realizing that the performance part of the review would be just about exactly the same as the upcoming Camaro.

Are you telling me, that I, as an average car guy, knew how good the Alpha was going to be, but Ford didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think for does some stupid stuff from time to time, but they aren't THAT stupid...

Exactly this. No way Ford could not have know. Their Competitor Intelligence people are sharp and would no doubt have passed the info on to Engineering. The thing is, and it’s true of all the Domestic 3, there is very little incentive to spin your own development plans on a dime just because of something a cross-town competitor does that you don’t have a ready answer for. Earlier I commented that the Camaro team knew that the 2013 GT500 was coming in at 662 hp because my team told them. Camaro was already on the path of delivering the 580 hp ZL1 and the 505 hp Z28. At that point it is what it is. The Camaro Team focused on making both of those cars better all-around performers on the Zeta platform instead of chasing the horsepower.

Likewise, Ford was in a position where the D2C platform that the S197 and S550 are built in is what it is. Even though they knew Alpha was coming, they didn’t have enough time to adequately deal with it, so they focused on delivering horsepower, while gradually improving the D2C to eventually deliver the GT350 and GT500.

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by LESS1

And you completely missed my point. Let me try again. Just because MRC tuning isn't mainstream and widely accepted doesn't mean it isn't a viable option which when tuned correctly will produce positive results. Your skepticism is based on a few opinions and incomplete data. You cannot tune a suspension for the race track (road course) on the street, sorry it doesn't work. And the results you provided support this fact. As far as requiring a "suspension dyno, to extract improvements, this is also not correct. However to address your question, sure thing I have access to a shaker table, as do you or anyone willing to do the research and spend the money. To close let me add that as I said before this isn't easy but when done correctly the gains are there, just need to put in the time and effort. Here is a link you might find interesting. I think you may have heard of at least one of these gents. Enjoy! https://rennlist.com/forums/gt4/9404...acing-gt4.html

So do you work for DSC or a shop that sells DSC? Or sponsored by them?

That link was more focused on the toe links. One member posted about an improvement after they sent him a 'non-faulty' unit.

Shaker table is for vibration testing. You can't simulate road conditions with that. No independent wheel movement. But disregarding that, how much would it cost to have my DSC controller tuned there? You contest that you don't need a dyno to tune it, yet it can't be done on the street either? Does DSC offer a free track rental with the purchase of a controller?

If it can't be tuned on the street, how good is it really to the enthusiast?

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

A shallow stage would technically allow for a higher trap speed as you have more distance to accelerate.

However, shallow or deep, the E/T only begins once the Stage beam is tripped out. Since RT does not affect E/T - it all comes down to driver preference.

A deep stage offers no actual advantage over full or shallow stage when it comes to tripping the beam that initiates the clock. Truthfully, I prefer more rollout - which means shallow stage. Allows more movement before the clock begins which should yield higher traps and lower ETs by premise - it is only ~1-1.5' depending on when the Stage beam is initially tripped, which is why all the other factors of launch rpm, traction, prep, DA, wind direction affect a timeslip far more.

Anyway good discussion, I quite familiar with timing systems as I run one with a local club to host airport racing.

A shallow stage would allow for both a higher trap speed and lower et, that untimed running start will help with both.

Rt doesn't effect et, I haven't said anything suggesting that, but a deep stage can help you trip the beam faster because you are closer to it without that rollout time of a shallow stage (won't affect et but can affect rt if you don't time it right). So you're recorded rt (not necessarily when you actually reacted) can be better from the point the tree gives you the go light to when you trip the beam.

Its all personal preferance but there are definately advantages to each one depending on what you're trying to do. If all you're going for is et and not racing anyone then shallow stage is the way to go. If you're trying to see who gets out of the hole first and gets to the finish line first then a deep stage can be beneficial. That .2 or .3 a shallow stage can net you in et is still .2 or .3 that you're physically behind someone you're actually racing if they deep or full stage. If all things are equal you're et will be better but they'll get to the finish line first.

Deep staging allows you to trigger the et clock sooner and puts you closer to the finish line at the expense of et.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by oldman

GM must have picked the DSSV over MRC on the Z/28 and ZLE, I have my own opinion but don't feel like thread jacking for today.. The Motortrend article covers a lot of suspension ground. Note the GT500 base seems to do well enough on PS4S and plain dampers.

Aren't the base gt500s "plain" dampers also mrc? Just tuned differently than the cftp's mrc dampers.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

I gotta quit staying away from the forum for multiple days, too many things to quote. So I'll cut most of Blaqs quotes i had in here and just say HOLY FREAKING WOW HE NEVER LEARNS ANYTHING!


It's been proven SO MANY TIMES that he's never even seen a road course! He thinks roll racing is a "Road Course" or "Track".


Very good post!


Don't agree with most of your posting on this subject, but this part I 100% agree with.





SOOOOOO glad you called him out on all this and caught him in another bold face lie that he still won't admit to. And it's easily found and quoted even. Again WOWWOWOWOWOWWOW

Aaannnnndddd then he does this because he will never admit he's wrong. Now you are probably on his ignore list so he can't read the truth you post when you correct him.


1SS can be optioned with mag ride and I have my doubts that the "mag ride tune" is much different for the 1LE so I agree with the second part.


Wait wait wait, now you're admitting the Cup2s fall off after 1 lap. How long ago did I freaking tell you that?????????????????????????????


No you don't omit those runs, you are the clueless one.


He doesn't listen to truth Robby, you know better.


100%


Man you really don't understand drag timing, but Robby once again beat me to the fact drop like always.


These facts

Dude, I don't even know how to quote multiple people in one post so when I ignore for a while I'm really screwed and far behind lol.

I think you and I both agree that an ss with ss 1le wheels and tires is pretty damn close to an ss 1le, just with that. Add the lowering kit and 1le sway bars and the gap closes even further. However if you drive a stock ss with mrc and an ss 1le, I can definately tell the mrc feels a lot stiffer on the ss 1le. Idk the technical notes, but track mode vs track mode is noticeably different.

I've never driven an ss with the lowering kit and 1le sway bars so I don't know how those would impact that difference in mrc feel that I noticed though.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

A shallow stage would allow for both a higher trap speed and lower et, that untimed running start will help with both.

Rt doesn't effect et, I haven't said anything suggesting that, but a deep stage can help you trip the beam faster because you are closer to it without that rollout time of a shallow stage (won't affect et but can affect rt if you don't time it right). So you're recorded rt (not necessarily when you actually reacted) can be better from the point the tree gives you the go light to when you trip the beam.

Its all personal preferance but there are definately advantages to each one depending on what you're trying to do. If all you're going for is et and not racing anyone then shallow stage is the way to go. If you're trying to see who gets out of the hole first and gets to the finish line first then a deep stage can be beneficial. That .2 or .3 a shallow stage can net you in et is still .2 or .3 that you're physically behind someone you're actually racing if they deep or full stage. If all things are equal you're et will be better but they'll get to the finish line first.

Deep staging allows you to trigger the et clock sooner and puts you closer to the finish line at the expense of et.

Yes sir, agreed

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Ford was well aware how good the Alpha platform was, it was in the ATS and CTS with high praise of the chassis, then came the ATS-V, which was pretty much a Camaro with a TTV6 instead of an N/A V8. In fact, they are almost the same in HP and TQ.

I remember watching a MT video with the ATS-V, and realizing that the performance part of the review would be just about exactly the same as the upcoming Camaro.

Are you telling me, that I, as an average car guy, knew how good the Alpha was going to be, but Ford didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think for does some stupid stuff from time to time, but they aren't THAT stupid...

I'll have to take Martin at his word because he knows lol. What I more or so meant by that comment is I don't know if they expected it to be as good as it turned out. I mean I sure as hell didn't expect Alpha to be able to put a 40K SS1LE on almost the same level as the 75K Z/28 from a year ago. I am sure they had a better understanding than me, just that maybe they still got caught a little off guard with just how good it was.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Exactly this. No way Ford could not have know. Their Competitor Intelligence people are sharp and would no doubt have passed the info on to Engineering. The thing is, and it’s true of all the Domestic 3, there is very little incentive to spin your own development plans on a dime just because of something a cross-town competitor does that you don’t have a ready answer for. Earlier I commented that the Camaro team knew that the 2013 GT500 was coming in at 662 hp because my team told them. Camaro was already on the path of delivering the 580 hp ZL1 and the 505 hp Z28. At that point it is what it is. The Camaro Team focused on making both of those cars better all-around performers on the Zeta platform instead of chasing the horsepower.

Likewise, Ford was in a position where the D2C platform that the S197 and S550 are built in is what it is. Even though they knew Alpha was coming, they didn’t have enough time to adequately deal with it, so they focused on delivering horsepower, while gradually improving the D2C to eventually deliver the GT350 and GT500.

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

A shallow stage would allow for both a higher trap speed and lower et, that untimed running start will help with both.

Rt doesn't effect et, I haven't said anything suggesting that, but a deep stage can help you trip the beam faster because you are closer to it without that rollout time of a shallow stage (won't affect et but can affect rt if you don't time it right). So you're recorded rt (not necessarily when you actually reacted) can be better from the point the tree gives you the go light to when you trip the beam.

Its all personal preferance but there are definately advantages to each one depending on what you're trying to do. If all you're going for is et and not racing anyone then shallow stage is the way to go. If you're trying to see who gets out of the hole first and gets to the finish line first then a deep stage can be beneficial. That .2 or .3 a shallow stage can net you in et is still .2 or .3 that you're physically behind someone you're actually racing if they deep or full stage. If all things are equal you're et will be better but they'll get to the finish line first.

Deep staging allows you to trigger the et clock sooner and puts you closer to the finish line at the expense of et.

This ^ and that was my main reason for doing it you just explained it a lot better and simpler than I did lol. When I ran that series, it was heads up had to get to the line first. My RT were killing me so I needed that slight advantage of being closer to the line to have a shot at winning. The cars in my class were so even pretty much every race was won at the tree

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

The way you wrote it, you literally didn't understand how the timer worked. To get the fastest run you prepare for it, it's not cheating
GT500 is not sluggish off the line. It's launch control has a delay. If GT500 driver doesn't use launch control he can manually launch at the flag drop with no delay.

I don't live in Mexico "Texas" like you so I hardly see other performance cars unless I'm cruising with my buddies.

I saw Cleetus McFarland's video on the c8 yesterday, and learned more about the c8 than from a lot of other people's if you can believe that lol.

I know in the gt500 pulling both paddles puts you in neutral, and maybe it can do what the c8 does and I just don't know it.. but on the c8 apparently you can hold the two paddles and rev up like depressing the clutch on a manual car and you can essentially clutch drop by releasing the paddles. Found that pretty cool and an easy alternative to LC.

I do think unless the driver can time it perfectly the gt500s delay will hurt it in actual racing, not just hunting good et's.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by oldman

The faster times, the car has traveled a foot and that could equal .3 in 1/4 time. That is ALL that I'm pointing out, not weather the beam is being broken or restored to set the actual timer, the fact is that the quicker hero runs are being done with the car already moving and the flag drop is done with the car stationary and the GT500 is sluggish in a flagdrop which the type of acceleration Joe average car buy does on the street, unless traffic lights in your area have some sort of beam roll-out launch with tree.

Yet you claim the "only reason" is traction, do you think the GT500 is unique on not being able to hook all its HP to the ground? Is slower in a flag drop in part to a lazy DCT, it is slower 0-60 than its 1/4 miles times would lead one to believe in part because many 1/4 mile runs are made with 1 foot roll outs, while a flag drop drag or 0-60 is just that, which car is faster to speed or distance and 0-60 the GT500 is way slower than a launch controlled 760 HP should be, about as fast a bolton auto SS and I would assume bolton auto GT, that ain't good.



Yep and when I do go to my local strip I see about 50 racers a night about 1/2 them are on licensed street cars and about 10% of them even have street radials. But on my daily drives I see and many performance cars in the wild. You think the dude next to me on my way to yoga rolls down his window and shows me his time slip. I don't know why you are getting all wound up about this I was then as of now merely pointing out that hero drag strip runs are different from what Joe Average thinks about acceleration runs. That anything the mimics 3rd wheel, true street performance or 0-60 will show the GT500 to be much SLOWER than expected for a 760 HP car shod with cup2 tires.

I get what you're saying about street and real world times vs strip times where you get to manipulate things a bit, or even magazine times with roll out aids that wont be afforded to a car in a "real world" race. The gt500s LC delay will hurt it in any scenario where you dont have an easy to time start signal. I don't know how its like just rolling off of idle not using LC but its probably a little lazy. Not gtr lazy since it doesnt have to build up boost but obviously everyone is using LC for their best times.

While the trans definately adds complexity to launching the gt500 in a "real world" launch, there's no denying that traction is a problem for it like the rest of these high hp rwd cars. Zl1s have traction issues as well to deal with.

I will say though, if we're talking "real world" racing not track or strip racing, most people in TX and FL don't start from a dig and the gt500 seems to be fine once its rolling.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I'll have to take Martin at his word because he knows lol. What I more or so meant by that comment is I don't know if they expected it to be as good as it turned out. I mean I sure as hell didn't expect Alpha to be able to put a 40K SS1LE on almost the same level as the 75K Z/28 from a year ago. I am sure they had a better understanding than me, just that maybe they still got caught a little off guard with just how good it was.

It is wise to take Martin at his word, he brings a career's worth of experience in the field, and speaks from the inside view. Thanks Martin

BUT, I am sure that Ford knew EXACTLY down to the nth degree how good the Camaro was going to be, becuase the Cadillac ATS-V was pretty much the same thing. Just a different powerplant but similar power and torque.

The only things that surprised me was there was no eDiff and no PDR, which I was dissapointed in. But, those things were saved for the 1LE in 2017, which makes sense from a business perspective, and I was thinking from a purely performance perspective. The only other subtle differences were 20" instead of 19" wheels, and the diff had a differnent (longer) final drive ratio.

At this point, I think everyone knew how good the 2016 Camao was going to be except you. The car was staring you in the face. You could have even driven one (if you found one at a dealer and they let you test drive it) for pete's sake. How could you not know how good the chassis and powertrain were going to be? The ATS-V is why I started to save my money for the 2016 Camaro in my garage...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

It is wise to take Martin at his word, he brings a career's worth of experience in the field, and speaks from the inside view. Thanks Martin

BUT, I am sure that Ford knew EXACTLY down to the nth degree how good the Camaro was going to be, becuase the Cadillac ATS-V was pretty much the same thing. Just a different powerplant but similar power and torque.

The only things that surprised me was there was no eDiff and no PDR, which I was dissapointed in. But, those things were saved for the 1LE in 2017, which makes sense from a business perspective, and I was thinking from a purely performance perspective. The only other subtle differences were 20" instead of 19" wheels, and the diff had a differnent (longer) final drive ratio.

At this point, I think everyone knew how good the 2016 Camao was going to be except you. The car was staring you in the face. You could have even driven one (if you found one at a dealer and they let you test drive it) for pete's sake. How could you not know how good the chassis and powertrain were going to be? The ATS-V is why I started to save my money for the 2016 Camaro in my garage...

Well yes the ATS-V was very good and that was a sign of things to come....except the Camaro is way better than the ATS-V at a lot of things lol. Had the Camaro performed like the ATS-V that would have been a good jump from 5th to 6th in my opinion and I expected it to be close to that....but it was alot better lol.

I know LL isn't the greatest indicator but the SS 1LE was like 5 seconds faster than the ATS-V. And was about 2 seconds faster around Laguna Seca. While I will admit road course times aren't my wheel house, but from what I know a 2 second gap is pretty substantial for a car on the same chassis, similar power etc. and a 5 second gap is insane. So no I sure as hell did not expect the alpha camaro on the same chassis with similar power to be that much better than the ATS V

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I'll have to take Martin at his word because he knows lol. What I more or so meant by that comment is I don't know if they expected it to be as good as it turned out. I mean I sure as hell didn't expect Alpha to be able to put a 40K SS1LE on almost the same level as the 75K Z/28 from a year ago. I am sure they had a better understanding than me, just that maybe they still got caught a little off guard with just how good it was.....

I think what Ford may have missed was Camaro putting the Z06 engine in the ZL1. They may have taken the 505 hp Z28 as a sign that 6th Gen ZL1 would continue to use that engine. Since the 5th Gen ZL1 had a supercharged 6.2, it shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise, but with the 6th Gen being more track focused, I could see how they’d arrive at that.