[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I find it odd that Ford is claiming 10.7 unless their claim is for prepped surfaces only. There would be the misconception against GM's ZL1 claim, which is for unprepped surfaces like the magazines test on.

Either way, it's hero times to hero times, or unprepped magazine times to magazine times. Anything else is just fanboisms.

I believe the fine print on Ford's claim is on prepped surface

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I believe the fine print on Ford's claim is on prepped surface

It's odd they broke from the norm of never publishing numbers, and then when they do they use a prepped track number.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

It's odd they broke from the norm of never publishing numbers, and then when they do they use a prepped track number.

That is odd to me that Ford posted a time at all.

But posting a 1/4 time not from a track seems even odder to me. GM when they claim 1/4 times are on unprepped surfaces?

[SlitherByU]

What's the big deal about a prepped track. Why would I want to push 760HP down an unprepped track? Doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by SlitherByU

What's the big deal about a prepped track. Why would I want to push 760HP down an unprepped track? Doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do.

I know the magazines test on unprepped surfaces...I guess I just assumed that when a car company says what a car is capable of at a drag strip that they had tested in and gotten that result at a dragstrip

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by SlitherByU

What's the big deal about a prepped track. Why would I want to push 760HP down an unprepped track? Doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do.

Definitely won't yield the best results...hence 11.4 ZL1 times and 11.1-11.2 GT500 times. Just a benchmark the mags use.

I have no problem if someone wants to compare prepped times to prepped times, just don't compare unprepped times to prepped times or a hero run.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Definitely won't yield the best results...hence 11.4 ZL1 times and 11.1-11.2 GT500 times. Just a benchmark the mags use.

I have no problem if someone wants to compare prepped times to prepped times, just don't compare unprepped times to prepped times or a hero run.

Bold = newmoon

A GT* isn't 0.4 to 0.5 faster than a SS if tested same day/driver. An average driver can run 12.0 in a SS and he knows it.

A GT500 is unlikely to be 0.7 faster than same day/driver. Time will tell but he will forever cite Evan's time

Its a dishonest assertion but he will ignore and repeat it at nauseam.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So far the fastest reported times have been in the "base" GT500

Typical Ford. Give us an extra $20K and we'll somehow manage to give you a car that is slower at something.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Straightline in independent tests they will probably be much closer than the 7tenths difference between what each manufacturer says. Ford shockingly actually put a time out there at 10.70.

I am with you, I want to see them lined up and tested.

Exactly. Which is why newmoon has to rely on manufacturer claimed times all of a sudden. Because he talked his shit. He better hope it gets back up when both cars are lined up together.

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I find it odd that Ford is claiming 10.7 unless their claim is for prepped surfaces only. There would be the misconception against GM's ZL1 claim, which is for unprepped surfaces like the magazines test on.

Either way, it's hero times to hero times, or unprepped magazine times to magazine times. Anything else is just fanboisms.

Truth.

Originally Posted by SlitherByU

What's the big deal about a prepped track. Why would I want to push 760HP down an unprepped track? Doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do.

There is nothing wrong with using a prepped track. What gets called out is when a troll suddenly decides that using a time gained on a prepped track should be compared to a magazine time which is gained thru testing in a completely different manner. And then that person insists that there is a 7 tenths difference. If you're going to claim prepped times, then compare it to prepped times. If you're going to use magazine times, then compare it to magazine times.

Magazines like MT and C&D test cars in a specific manner. They are closer to what you'd come across at a stop light. They represent what a car can do in everyday driving conditions. What Evans and Ford did was completely different. Heating a track, spraying tire treatments on the tires, lowering the tire pressure, and other tricks are used on prepped track. Those same tricks are not used in magazine testing to my knowledge. So the discussion is that if you aren't testing the cars in the same or a similar manner then the results are invalid. It would be like comparing a YT video of a stock run to a magazine stock run which, as you know, is ridiculous and unfair.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Typical Ford. Give us an extra $20K and we'll somehow manage to give you a car that is slower at something.

.

Pretty sure everyone knew that the base GT500 would be the better 1/4 car. It makes sense given the aero and other bits that set the car up ford ROAD COURSE

The ZL1 is a better 1/4 car than the ZLE is, the base C8 has a higher all important top speed than the Z51

Originally Posted by hotlap

Bold = newmoon

A GT* isn't 0.4 to 0.5 faster than a SS if tested same day/driver. An average driver can run 12.0 in a SS and he knows it.

A GT500 is unlikely to be 0.7 faster than same day/driver. Time will tell but he will forever cite Evan's time

Its a dishonest assertion but he will ignore and repeat it at nauseam.

Just so we can all get on the same page. the 7tenths difference is based on what Ford claims and GM claims.

Do we know for sure if GM gives it's 1/4 times on unprepped surfaces? I do not know, so I am asking

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Pretty sure everyone knew that the base GT500 would be the better 1/4 car. It makes sense given the aero and other bits that set the car up ford ROAD COURSE

The ZL1 is a better 1/4 car than the ZLE is, the base C8 has a higher all important top speed than the Z51



Just so we can all get on the same page. the 7tenths difference is based on what Ford claims and GM claims.

Do we know for sure if GM gives it's 1/4 times on unprepped surfaces? I do not know, so I am asking

I, for one, didn't guess the base would achieve the best 1/4 mile time. The potential for better tire grip is there with the CF TP, as well as an obvious rotational weight advantage with the CF wheels. The downforce would depend on the angle set on the back wing - assuming it's adjustable.

GM does not claim prepped drag race times, they do not 1/4 mile test their cars on prepped surfaces - and have always ballparked within a few tenths of magazine times, and always slightly slower.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I, for one, didn't guess the base would achieve the best 1/4 mile time. The potential for better tire grip is there with the CF TP, as well as an obvious rotational weight advantage with the CF wheels. The downforce would depend on the angle set on the back wing - assuming it's adjustable.

GM does not claim prepped drag race times, they do not 1/4 mile test their cars on prepped surfaces - and have always ballparked within a few tenths of magazine times, and always slightly slower.

This is from the C&D article that came out months ago when we found out about the 180MPH top speed

"The base GT500 gets by with no downforce-aiding elements but the prize of being the quickest GT500 in a straight line, says Ford"

And good to know on the GM claim. Makes no sense to me, but still good to know.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

This is from the C&D article that came out months ago when we found out about the 180MPH top speed

"The base GT500 gets by with no downforce-aiding elements but the prize of being the quickest GT500 in a straight line, says Ford"

And good to know on the GM claim. Makes no sense to me, but still good to know.

All good, I only thought the CF TP had a chance of being quicker due to the reasons I listed. Obviously Ford put tires with equally good traction on the base for straight line performance...something they haven't done before on the GT500s and tough to use the GT350s as evidence as they don't run typically well in the 1/4 with the lack of torque from the Voodoo on launch.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Pretty sure everyone knew that the base GT500 would be the better 1/4 car. It makes sense given the aero and other bits that set the car up ford ROAD COURSE

The ZL1 is a better 1/4 car than the ZLE is, the base C8 has a higher all important top speed than the Z51



Just so we can all get on the same page. the 7tenths difference is based on what Ford claims and GM claims.

Do we know for sure if GM gives it's 1/4 times on unprepped surfaces? I do not know, so I am asking

I thought the A10 ZLE was the faster of the 2? Should I say quicker as we are talking 1/4 mile haha.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

This is from the C&D article that came out months ago when we found out about the 180MPH top speed

"The base GT500 gets by with no downforce-aiding elements but the prize of being the quickest GT500 in a straight line, says Ford"

And good to know on the GM claim. Makes no sense to me, but still good to know.

When a manufacturer decides to post numbers, they have some choices. Do they publish hero times, prepped/unprepped, average times, etc. Some choose to go with a hero time, like Dodge did with the Demon. I am pretty sure the Demon is capapble of doing under 10 seconds, but it has to be ideal conditions with a very expeirienced driver. Under 10 seconds is a big WOW factor, but it leaves actual buyers with a little salt, since they won't be able to reproduce that time try after try.

Or, it can be done like Chevy does, and publish a more average time that a normal user can expect to see, and a similar number to what the magazines will publish. This gives less WOW factor, but seems more legit in the real world, as all the magazines pretty much confirm what Chevy claims, and real buyer get that number and better all over the country.

OR, you can do like Ford, and not (typically) publish numbers, and get someone like Evan to put up a hero time. No one can say Ford made a bogus claim of a number that no one can reporoduce, but they will get credit for that number anyway (it's a way that Ford can have it's cake and eat it too). It's a pretty smart strategy for a manufacturer as better numbers will generate more buzz, and no one can say Ford published some BS.

But, I prefer the Chevy way. Let me know a reproduceable number, and I will know that it's possible to beat that in good conditions, but buyers can achieve that number and even better. It's more real world. Plus, all these cars have 0-60 and 1/4 mile timers built into the infotainment systems. You know the first thing guys are going to do is test the car out and see if they can get the numbers they think they can get. And with Ford and Dodge, the buyers are going to be dissapointed testing these fancy timers out on an empty back road somewhere.

But, either way, all numbers need their context, and without, you might as well just make some crap up. SO, I really don't care whether a company uses a hero time on a prepped surface or not, I just need to know the exact circumstances that the test was produced. That way, I have the proper context.