[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by IOMike

The thing about magazine times is if all 3 cars are run on the same day you know there are as few variables as you will ever get. These hero times may have slight modifications like tunes or other "hidden" mods.

The only relative times are the mag times between the Camaro and Mustang because they were on the same day.

Let's not forget that stock 10.4 hellcat that had race fuel, drag radials and later found to have a hidden shot of nitrous.

I agree.

Just saying the rear tires suck on the scat pack. With a good 60 ft they are pretty close. 30 more hp and slightly better gearing but 4-500 lbs heavier. With equal traction I think they are a drivers race with edge to camaro.
As delivered the camaro has an obvious edge for the average person.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by IOMike

The thing about magazine times is if all 3 cars are run on the same day you know there are as few variables as you will ever get. These hero times may have slight modifications like tunes or other "hidden" mods.

I agree and have said this before. Even if the magazine test is on a crap track, and with an average driver, just the fact that all the cars were there and ran with the same driver at the same place, at the same time is huge. It will really show what car is the quickest, and which is the slowest...

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

In defense of the scat pack it's stock rear tires are piss poor.

Well, I wouldn't call the SS run flats fantastic.

[TheSpectre]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I agree.

Just saying the rear tires suck on the scat pack. With a good 60 ft they are pretty close. 30 more hp and slightly better gearing but 4-500 lbs heavier. With equal traction I think they are a drivers race with edge to camaro.
As delivered the camaro has an obvious edge for the average person.

Tires on the SRT 392 (same power, better brakes and suspension, not to mention interior bits) are wider than the Scat Pack's (245 vs 275 mm), so those migth make for a better comparison.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by TheSpectre

Tires on the SRT 392 (same power, better brakes and suspension, not to mention interior bits) are wider than the Scat Pack's (245 vs 275 mm), so those migth make for a better comparison.

And it runs no better times. Might be the weight of the extras over the SP.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[brutusvk]

Run flats are known for their drag radial qualities.

[TheSpectre]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

And it runs no better times. Might be the weight of the extras over the SP.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Fair point.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by brutusvk

Run flats are known for their drag radial qualities.

[ULTRAZLS1]

lol...okay okay

Don't get me wrong im not trying to make unfair excuses for the scat pack and im obviously a Camaro fan.

I just like to give a fair shake/see things for what they are.

In stock form it is well documented they have a heck of a time hooking up and see great improvement with a DR.

Probably a combo of the tires, weight and suspension of the car. So far it doesn't look like the Camaro gains nearly as much from a DR compared to the scat pack.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by brutusvk

Run flats are known for their drag radial qualities.

Lol

Those tires are actually dangerous at the track. Junk

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by big hammer

Lol

Those tires are actually dangerous at the track. Junk

Can you enlighten me a bit further?

I'm not at all a drag racer, and the sum total of my experience driving on run-flats is exactly one lap on a road course in a car I'd never driven before - or since.

So it's a serious question.


Norm

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Can you enlighten me a bit further?

I'm not at all a drag racer, and the sum total of my experience driving on run-flats is exactly one lap on a road course in a car I'd never driven before - or since.

So it's a serious question.


Norm

By design, the sidewalls have to support the weight of the car. That means they are very stiff which doesn't lend itself to good launches.

The Michelin zero pressure tires are not bad for the road course. Only the inside wall is stiffened, so they can still roll on one side in the turns. I wish they had used those on the 6th Gen, but that would have added some cost.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by big hammer

Lol

Those tires are actually dangerous at the track. Junk

Are they good, hell no, dangerous, not really. I ran my old C5 on run flats many times before I switched to regular tires. Never had an issue...

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by SUMMIT WHITE SS

Are they good, hell no, dangerous, not really. I ran my old C5 on run flats many times before I switched to regular tires. Never had an issue...

I've never run them at the track, but I can see where coming out of the groove could be very interesting.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

By design, the sidewalls have to support the weight of the car. That means they are very stiff which doesn't lend itself to good launches.

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to get it now - they don't 'give' as much to reduce shock. Suggests to me that they'd be more prone to develop wheelhop if everything else was kept the same.


Norm