[LESS1]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Any idiot can look at my runs and tell the screw ups and also tell that each outing resulted in going faster. So even if someone is dense enough to say I went 13.5 to 11.8 then they still could see that each time I went I got faster and that each night my good runs were within 2 tenths of each other. The same cannot be said of the GT500. Out of multiple runs most of them are well into the 11s. So to me something is off. Maybe it's the LC or the delay is throwing people off. But something is causing these GT500s to be very inconsistent.

I'm just throwing a guess in...perhaps the delay and the inconsistencies are Ford's way of controlling these cars so they don't have as many errors and accidents as we have seen from the Mustang crowds in the past. These guys were having accidents with 400+ HP Mustangs. I can only imagine how bad they could mess up in a 760 HP Mustang. So maybe Ford used this as a safety feature to keep the car under control and maybe that is causing the inconsistent runs.

Here is the issue I have always had with the sportscar magazines. With an occasional exception, the folks performing these "performance tests" are not fantastic drivers, to begin with. Most are better off behind a keyboard then the wheel of a 500+ HP car. Take any car and place it in the hands of a really good test driver (strip and road course) and the inconsistencies are minimized or even eliminated altogether. The problem today is we have all these internet morons who think the can drive when in reality they cannot, make a few runs and proceed to spout off about car x is sooo much better/faster than car y bro. And the sheepeople eat it up and spread the gospel. Concerning the approach Frod has taken with the GT500 safety measures, I think you are correct. To your point, if these Frod owners can't keep a 400HP car out of a crowd leaving Cars and Coffe, how the hell are they going to fare any better with an extra 300+ HP? They aren't.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Supercar killer was MT words, not Fords. Not sure you can really slam Ford for something a third party said.

Venom Kills demons - I am just guessing, but I bet the guy From Ford that said that wished he had back the second it left his mouth lol.

I thought the GT500 was equal to the $187,500 Porsche 911 GT3 RS.?.?



And this

[LESS1]

I thought the GT500 camouflage was a protective measure for the Cars and Coffe spectators...no?

[hotlap]

This was my favorite Ford propaganda piece. The 2015 GT is a terrible handling car.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

This is my point. And I appreciate that you acknowledged that. It seems that the fanboys will argue everything I say. So at least someone neutral is acknowledging the truth. GT500s are showing very wide variances even when driver error is not the cause. It could be due to a number of different things. But to act like it isn't a reality is a bit naive. ZL1s do tend to show some inconsistencies as well as all cars.

All tracks time differently. My local track that I've done maybe 2000 passes down maybe quite a big more. On open nights the timer does NOT start till you break the beam. So if you know what you are doing you got 10" to 12" of run time before the beam is broken. That is .3 or more right there. If this GT500 launch control is lazy even better.

It was not that long ago that 3rd wheel was the way most production cars were tested with the roll out built in. I.E. the posted 1/4 mile time was actually 1329 feet the first foot or .3 never was counted.


My take especially magazine testers, the timer don't start till the beam is broken, the hero runs are deep staged full tree i.e. he is launching the car at on the first yellow and is moving a full 10" before the green.

One can plainly see on a flag drop, the GT500 launch control sucks, even if did not, it does not seem the GT500 is all that quick out of the hole. Now most magazines do NOT use rollout on 0-60. It also does not count against you if you have a lazy launch control. One can plainly see in the MT article the C8 destroys the GT500 on a true 0-60 without any roll out shinanigans.
2.8 vs 3.7 or 3.6 for the carbon CFTP

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

One thing I do like about Ford is that they leave some money for the aftermarket to soak up. They definitely help keep those guys in business which leads to better parts for us to buy. GM does not leave a lot for the aftermarket to do. That is, unless you want to open the engine and replace the cam, heads, etc and spend upwards of $15K minimum.

GM has a reasonable heads and cam package the: Hot Cam, rated at 80 HP with tune on an otherwise stock engine... not bad at all. I still remember when Mopar under Direct Connection was the company support guys, I got a bolt-in A body Dana 60, I got firm feel box, purple shaft cams, hemi rods for the 440... Port yourself templates. Shelby brain from my GLH-Ss (had two of them).

[oldman]

Originally Posted by LESS1

DSC Sport controller provides near limitless MRC tuning potential.

The Ford GT's DSSV is controlled via the cockpit. Is the DSC controller fast enough to control the MRC during the compression rebound stroke? I thought I read that the mag particles did NOT react fast enough. Sound interesting if it can be tuned within the stroke..Just when you think you know.

Yeah I know road racing is expensive my bro runs a Boxster. My point was putting anything sticker on a show room car sold to the public with 100 or even 80 wear tires (Z/28). Well I give the Z/28 a pass cause IMO that really is a track car that can be driven on the street vs everything else are street cars that can be driven on the track, including the GT500. If the majority of customers are not on the track it would be my opinion that cars be tested with street alignment and 220 wear summer tires. If they are being compared at the track, then they should be shod as best as possible with road race tires and feature a road race alignment to get an apples to apples, oranges to the oranges combo. Right now we get apple to banana to we don't even know what tire or alignment etc. IMO of course. We even get PP2 with road race tires that the OEM says is not designed for road racing

[oldman]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I thought the GT500 was equal to the $187,500 Porsche 911 GT3 RS.?.?

nice... IMO the C8 has pushed Porshe to put a real 4.0 in the Boxster, I want one so bad... don't get me wrong I want a C8, but a 4.0 Boxster

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...-drive-review/

I want that yes I do...

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by oldman

The Ford GT's DSSV is controlled via the cockpit. Is the DSC controller fast enough to control the MRC during the compression rebound stroke? I thought I read that the mag particles did NOT react fast enough. Sound interesting if it can be tuned within the stroke..Just when you think you know.

Response time for the MR fluid is less than 5ms

https://www.lord.com/products-and-so...gical-mr-fluid

The sample rate for the factory controller is generally touted to be in the 1,000hz range, but it's tough to find exact details on it.

The one non-biased review on the DSC controller here found it actually was slower around the track. You're just not going to get close to what the factory suspension engineers can do with the MRC.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by oldman

nice... IMO the C8 has pushed Porshe to put a real 4.0 in the Boxster, I want one so bad... don't get me wrong I want a C8, but a 4.0 Boxster

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...-drive-review/

I want that yes I do...

This is what I'm talking about!!! That's awesome, I'll take one too.

[NW-99SS]

Oh man, manual GTS Boxster just hit my Cayman GT4 radar in terms of want.

Well done Porsche!

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I thought the GT500 was equal to the $187,500 Porsche 911 GT3 RS.?.?
Attachment 1020539


And this

Attachment 1020540

Originally Posted by hotlap

This was my favorite Ford propaganda piece. The 2015 GT is a terrible handling car.

So they benchmarked against higher end cars and your point is? Ford finally set their sights higher than an outgoing camaro model/generation. Now if some of the guys on 6G think that makes it equal to it than that is their problem.


There was some screenshots of the C8 Z06 mule being tested with a 458....the 458 hasn't been made since like 2015 or 2016. You liked to address how it was bad of Ford to target the outgoing Z/28 I would like your opinion on this

EDIT: the 458 is NA FPC the 488 that replaced it is turbocharged - so that is probably why they are testing against it. I still find it odd they would test against a 5 year old car though. I am sure we will see more current benchmark cars eventually

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So they benchmarked against higher end cars and your point is? Ford finally set their sights higher than an outgoing camaro model/generation. Now if some of the guys on 6G think that makes it equal to it than that is their problem.


There was some screenshots of the C8 Z06 mule being tested with a 458....the 458 hasn't been made since like 2015 or 2016. You liked to address how it was bad of Ford to target the outgoing Z/28 I would like your opinion on this

EDIT: the 458 is NA FPC the 488 that replaced it is turbocharged - so that is probably why they are testing against it. I still find it odd they would test against a 5 year old car though. I am sure we will see more current benchmark cars eventually

I retired from GM in March 2017. Before I left, there were two 458s in the Corvette Team fleet. One was torn down to study the chassis and powertrain. The other was a driving benchmark vehicle. 488 had not been released yet at the time the 458s were acquired and I doubt that even the Corvette team could’ve justified going out and buying a 3rd Ferrari.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest they are consistent low 11s. I'd say more like mid 11s based on the testing alone. And there aren't enough examples of them doing 10s. Like I said, when people are spending an entire day at a track that they rented and are only posting 1 time then something is up. If they ran multiple 10s then they would be posting them along with the best run. But all we are seeing is the one run that is the best and it is a 10. No mention of the other runs. So the point, was that can all this be contributed to driver error? If you spend an entire day at a track rental and only get one run worth publishing then can you tell me something isn't up? EVen if it is driver error, there has to be something with the actual car that drivers cannot seem to get a consistent string of runs. THAT is what I'm saying. Yes, I had my driver errors. But that was one out of 3 runs and I posted each of those runs. Take the driver error out and my runs each day was within 2 tenths. We're not even seeing what the other runs these drivers are doing. A time slip would help us tell if it is something with the driver or the car.


This is my point. And I appreciate that you acknowledged that. It seems that the fanboys will argue everything I say. So at least someone neutral is acknowledging the truth. GT500s are showing very wide variances even when driver error is not the cause. It could be due to a number of different things. But to act like it isn't a reality is a bit naive. ZL1s do tend to show some inconsistencies as well as all cars. But that typically is from driver to driver. An excellent driver in one ZL1 might do much better than a poor driver. But the poor driver 9 times out of 10 (figure of speech before someone jumps down my throat) will run consistently even if it is far off from what we typically see. I once saw a 5th Gen ZL1 driver run a consistent string of low 13s on the same day that I was running high 12s to low 13s. He was inexperienced tho. But he ran those times consistently even if they should have been in the 12s. So I fully agree with what you're saying but just with a footnote, if you will.


Again, thanks for acknowledging what I've been saying all along. And I agree that there has not been any 12 sec runs...that we know of. If I ran a 12 in one of those cars I would tear the slip up and never speak of it. LOL!! Even tho, I would not even consider a 12 sec in a GT500 nor would I knock it if someone posted it as it clearly is not a 12 sec car. Even if some of these trolls try to insinuate that my ZL1 in my hands is a 12 sec car...you and I both can look at things rationally. Which is why I respect your thoughts on the matter. I would definitely not criticize the GT500 if someone ran a 12. Well, maybe a little, lol...just to get shaffe rolling hahaha!! But I can give it that much that a 12 definitely shows that something went horribly wrong. Hell, my very first outing in my 5th Gen Camaro 2SS/RS resulted in a 15.5. But it was below 40 degrees that morning on a Sunday with me being hungover and it was my first time ever at the strip in a manual trans. My second time out saw 13 flats. My third time out saw 12s. That same day an 800 RWHP supercharged Roush GT was running 13 flat...but at 135 MPH. He was on street tires.

Sorry for the long write. Anyway, there are a number of issues that could contribute to the GT500 being inconsistent. Ignoring these things does nothing positive. Heat soak has been an issue with Frdo's OHC engines from the start. As well as high intake temps and timing being pulled. OHC engines typically run hotter than OHV engines and also tend to retain that heat longer. So that could be the issue. Also the GT500s with all that power is not using eLSD like the ZL1s are. And the delay could be fckuing things up as well. It just might be that it has to be timed just right and one miniscule slip could result in a loss of several tenths. These are just guesses. But it does deserve some investigation as well as people being forthcoming about what they're running and not just their best time that particular day.


Monster energy drink, vodka, rum, and Gin stepping in for Blaqwhole to write this part. BW will be back tomorrow morning with a headache...

One thing I do like about Ford is that they leave some money for the aftermarket to soak up. They definitely help keep those guys in business which leads to better parts for us to buy. GM does not leave a lot for the aftermarket to do. That is, unless you want to open the engine and replace the cam, heads, etc and spend upwards of $15K minimum. GM's products are very well engineered to the point that a blower swap or a blower install might net you a little but not much. But it will still make good use of that extra power. With Mustangs, a blower swap gets you like 200 RWHP. Tunes make a huge difference. But that power does not always seem to be efficient until around 100+ MPH. Different approaches. If I'm a tuner and modder than the Mustang is the way to go. If I want a better built car out the box and will leave it the hell alone besides little boltons then the Camaro is better.

All good man, I'm guilty of 1000 word essey responses as well lol.

For sure, Ford has their positives. They're not afraid to go outside the box and they inovate. Even simple things like an aggressive drag mode and DI + port fueling on the gen 3 5.0s. The voodoo, while problematic is an ambitious engine to build and Ford went for it where gm would wait a lot longer and definately not be the first to market to introduce something like that to the market. Even putting a dct in an old heavy platform like the s550 is something to give credit to regardless of how you feel about it. Sometimes its almost a blessing and a curse, too much ambition and not enough engineering.

I think the aftermarket in the mustang world is definately boosted by their consistent good sales over the years obviously, as well as what you said. The coyotes are ultimately expensive to make a lot of power on just like anything else and have a lower ultimate ceiling, but for mild 500 to 750hp builds they can definately be a lot cheaper to mod compared to an lt1. Not to mention that in my opinion ford doesn't leave as much on the table when it comes TB and IMs and how much meat is left in there to be ported out, they're usually pretty good out of the box.

I think the mustang gt is an expensive good engine, with so so reliablity on gen 3s, mounted on a so so cheap chassis. A camaro ss is also a good engine, but cheaper built, on an excellent chassis.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by oldman

All tracks time differently. My local track that I've done maybe 2000 passes down maybe quite a big more. On open nights the timer does NOT start till you break the beam. So if you know what you are doing you got 10" to 12" of run time before the beam is broken. That is .3 or more right there. If this GT500 launch control is lazy even better.

It was not that long ago that 3rd wheel was the way most production cars were tested with the roll out built in. I.E. the posted 1/4 mile time was actually 1329 feet the first foot or .3 never was counted.


My take especially magazine testers, the timer don't start till the beam is broken, the hero runs are deep staged full tree i.e. he is launching the car at on the first yellow and is moving a full 10" before the green.

One can plainly see on a flag drop, the GT500 launch control sucks, even if did not, it does not seem the GT500 is all that quick out of the hole. Now most magazines do NOT use rollout on 0-60. It also does not count against you if you have a lazy launch control. One can plainly see in the MT article the C8 destroys the GT500 on a true 0-60 without any roll out shinanigans.
2.8 vs 3.7 or 3.6 for the carbon CFTP




GM has a reasonable heads and cam package the: Hot Cam, rated at 80 HP with tune on an otherwise stock engine... not bad at all. I still remember when Mopar under Direct Connection was the company support guys, I got a bolt-in A body Dana 60, I got firm feel box, purple shaft cams, hemi rods for the 440... Port yourself templates. Shelby brain from my GLH-Ss (had two of them).

I agree with what you're saying but most tracks time the way you described, after you cross the beams. That's why guys chasing times not racing just sit there on their LC or 2 step while the car next to them is already halfway down the track. They don't care they just want the time.

As far as deep staging and shallow staging. Deep staging is when you get all the way up to the beams to have a kick ass reaction time and get a slight lead to actually win a race getting as far up as possible. When you're as far away from the beams as possible to get a little bit of a running start by 10"-12", that's called shallow staging. Also what the guys doing hero runs do. Thats what Revan Evan does and all those guys not racing anyone just trying to get the best et possible.

As far as the 3 foot roll out practice, I actually think more of the mags are doing that now. Car and Driver had an article on it a few months ago. They were going to switch over to the 3 foot roll out method just like the majority of the car rags are already doing according to them.