[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Yes..and as usual everyone wants to compare the best private owner times vs initial mag reviews.

Rediculous.

I haven't seen any private times for either car posted in this thread. . .

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I haven't seen any private times for either car posted in this thread. . .

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I haven't seen any private times for either car posted in this thread. . .

Originally Posted by Rock36

It's the concept he was referring to boys....ease off....

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It's the concept, he was referring to boys....ease off....

I wasn't attacking anyone, just agreeing that there aren't any real times yet.

When you get to it, I agree with ULTRA too, you can't cherry pick times to prove a point either.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Rock36

I wasn't attacking anyone, just agreeing that there aren't any real times yet.

When you get to it, I agree with ULTRA too, you can't cherry pick times to prove a point either.

Just trying to keep any fires from starting....

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

That would be cool. But speculation would fly because some would think he (and the people he works for) would favor the ford in testing. Which is a perfectly plausible speculation.

He ran the best published time(destroyed the other posted times, and still a time Chevy fans point to) for the LS1 f-bods in an article for MMFF, that talked about why mustang owners should fear the Camaros.

He is well beyond any of that speculation at this point.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

He ran the best published time(destroyed the other posted times, and still a time Chevy fans point to) for the LS1 f-bods in an article for MMFF, that talked about why mustang owners should fear the Camaros.

He is well beyond any of that speculation at this point.

I was thinking about that as well. I know the article well.

But you never know. As heated as this competition is these days nothing would surprise me. All it MIGHT take is for some money to be slipped into his pocket.

For the most part I would probably agree he would be fair...but a lot of people wouldnt.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It's the concept he was referring to boys....ease off....

I was just pointing out the fact that nobody has compared private times to mag times, as a whole I agree with his point. I don't know what you mean by referring to the concept. If the action is not exhibited here, why say it is?

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I was thinking about that as well. I know the article well.

But you never know. As heated as this competition is these days nothing would surprise me. All it MIGHT take is for some money to be slipped into his pocket.

For the most part I would probably agree he would be fair...but a lot of people wouldnt.

I would probably also be inclined to believe Evan Smith. He almost put a C5 Z06 (405 hp) into the 11s bone stock with 12.04, and ran something like a 11.2 with a C6 Z06. He hasn't pulled any punches when it comes to Chevys from what I can tell.

[8cd03gro]

I think Evan Smith has proven himself to be a reliable source with any car. He consistently runs near the fastest reported times of any car he sits in, at least when he runs at ATCO. I bet he could pull an 11.8 or quicker in a zl1 on a good day. Does anyone know the fastest CTS-V ET? Knocking .2-.3 or so off of that would probably be a good indicator of what will be possible in the zl1.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I think Evan Smith has proven himself to be a reliable source with any car. He consistently runs near the fastest reported times of any car he sits in, at least when he runs at ATCO. I bet he could pull an 11.8 or quicker in a zl1 on a good day. Does anyone know the fastest CTS-V ET? Knocking .2-.3 or so off of that would probably be a good indicator of what will be possible in the zl1.

The sad thing is that he doesn't get to take the cars to ATCO anymore. They are in Florida now, iirc.

[tooslow]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The sad thing is that he doesn't get to take the cars to ATCO anymore. They are in Florida now, iirc.

Which explains why he managed 11's out of a 2010 GT500 and only low 12's out of the 2011, both on stock tires.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by tooslow

Which explains why he managed 11's out of a 2010 GT500 and only low 12's out of the 2011, both on stock tires.

Definitely. ATCO is one of the best tracks in the country because of the DA.

[GT5Junkie]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

You just seen the vid and how easy it was. Not sure why you have so much hate. Must be worried or jealous. If you are talking about the video where the guy hit the rev limiter so hard it made him go forward in his seat then yes he ran bad. A C6 Zo6 will run 12's with a bad driver...so what. He used the launch system and made clean shifts..nothing more...ran a 12.1.

When did they say altitude corrected?...I must have missed that. What was the DA on that day?...do you even have that information for your speculation?

And you do realize forced induction cars dont have nearly as much altitude correction in the first place.

The car could actually run FASTER (or slower) than the corrected time at sea level. It is just a calculation.

I'm not sure why you equate stating the truth as hate. And no, I'm not talking about the rev limiter guy, he didn't even run that fast. One of the mags reported a 12.6, and another a 12.9. I can't remember which ones, but they're all listed in the ZL1 subforum.

They said sub 12s as a corrected time. If you didn't hear it, you did indeed miss it.

It doesn't make sense to use the same correction factor for a turbocharged engine as a supercharged engine. Most turbocharged engines lose less power at altitude due to how the wastegate controls boost. This is NOT the same for supercharged engines, because the amount of boost is usally controlled only by pulley size, not by a wastegate. If you look at regular SAE altitude correction factors for horsepower (for NA engines) you will find that they apply very well for supercharged engines and VERY poorly for turbocharged engines. Treating a supercharged engine like an NA engine in terms of correction makes sense, and works in practice. Treating it like a turbo engine does not.

So I do not think it's guaranteed they used the correction factor that you think they did, and in fact if they're smart they did NOT use it, because it's silly to use the same one for super and turbo engines. Maybe someone can send them an email and ask them.

It's possible the car could run faster at sea level, but not very likely. It's far more likely it would actually run slower, for one simple reason: traction. The correction factors deduct time for the horsepower you lost, but they DO NOT add time for the traction issues you avoided by having less HP. If you wanted to get a really amazing corrected timeslip in a very high horsepower car you'd take the car to the highest elevation you could find. The lesser horsepower makes the car a lot easier to launch and then the horsepower is all "added back in" via the correction factor.