[TaylorRyanSS]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Gotta bring up something here. Keep reading the Camaro is better looking. More modern, sure, good looking maybe even but better looking? That's subjective. And every G5 Camaro looks the same...pretty much. At least with Mustangs there is a variance in the styling. I'd consider a Camaro, but just one. Whereas I'd have both a '12 and 13 Boss or Shelby. Just saying. But then again I have nearly 20 Fender Stratocasters and other than colour they all pretty much look identical.

Thats what aftermarket is for

[JMAN311]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Gotta bring up something here. Keep reading the Camaro is better looking. More modern, sure, good looking maybe even but better looking? That's subjective. And every G5 Camaro looks the same...pretty much. At least with Mustangs there is a variance in the styling. I'd consider a Camaro, but just one. Whereas I'd have both a '12 and 13 Boss or Shelby. Just saying. But then again I have nearly 20 Fender Stratocasters and other than colour they all pretty much look identical.

I'm sorry, but there is about as much styling variance in the Mustang as with the Camaro models.....not much. The average person isn't going to tell the difference between models of either brand. As for my personal taste, the only model of Mustang I'd consider is a GT500.

[Truck Norris]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Originally Posted by tt335ci03cobra
I've heard enough from this guy. Just reading from page 90-97, I got that lowdown is mental and deranged. Funny I had a feeling earlier but now there's no doubt in my mind.

I like both cars but am obviously a ford fan [true, dat] as I have an 03 cobra that's very built up. I've staked my cash on the line and proof trumps eloquence. I like the zl1 a lot but plan to buy a gt500 all said and done. I've done enough research and am now decided. I was debating both but that time is done for me. $55k is too much to throw out without seeing reviews of both even though I am a foes fan. Above all I'm a realist and want bang for my buck.


True facts lowdown has muddled:

-It does 202 in any coupe configuration.

Now confirmed, personally, through SVT, and stated here.

-A zl1 is not 54,995 base out the door though. It must be acquired with a mandatory $1,300-2,600* option. This option is the gas guzzler tax.

-base to base the gt500 is $1,000 cheaper because of out the door gas guzzler tax. Sorry but you lose, have lost and can't win the 61k argument so please stop spewing rhetoric, uploading dead articles from February, and vehemently voicing what is and can only be your opinion.

Sanctioned by Mustang News...apparently a source of Ford disinformation, something others want to take Settlemire to task for, even though he has stated nothing false. You have a beef with Mustang News, not me...

-Also factor that 14/16 mileage will cost you much more per year to put 5,000 miles on vs the gt500's 15/24. That's 50% better freeway mileage. At $4.00 a gallon this is a huge compromise. If anyone really plans to buy these cars only to drive in the city and avoid highways, so be it, most won't.

I'm sure mpgs will win over all manner of salivating Stang studs...and BTW, I have never broached the mpg deal...not once...

-where is the 202mph option for a zl1?

Never said there was...more rhetoric/pot-stirring you share.

-where is the 600whp option? Zl1's are making 485whp while the gt500 is making 585-600 time after time.

...to 515...

-where is the navigation option? Awesome reccaro's? (zl1's are nice though) etc? You criticize fords 65k price but I dont see nav or glass roof etc on the zl1's sheets. Let's stay on point with apples to apples bud.

"reccaro's"...are you thinkin' of Rickie Riccardo?...or Recaro, the seat people...?

Not once have I uttered "$65"...more rhetoric...

NAV and glass roof...equates to boulevardier...and you're moanin' about PRICE?
-on that note, where is the shaker 1000 esq option? You ring the fcking price to 65k on fords price it site but fail to realize half those options don't exist on the zl1.

Nice...do you kiss your kids with that mouth, Boulevardier?

I've never been to the Ford site to ring up a $65 price...you have me confused with someone else. Or did a voice in your head tell you this?! Speaking of "mental and deranged"...

All that said, the zl1 is an awesome car, it is a different car than a gt500. Maybe a better handler, but not a faster or quicker car. The zl1 does not make a 2013 a mule buggy handling wise even if it out performs it by a few 10ths on a windy tiny circuit.

Ah...don't give up now? We were just comin' up to the twisty-turnie part of this debate...again...

All said and done its my opinion that both cars are brilliant and you are a fanboy that needs to grow up.

Coming from you, an apparent knower of such things, I'll take your kind words under advisement...


Just to show your true intent here, from Day 1, let me replay your very first post back in February...

I'm a ford guy obviously. That said I want the zl1 to be awesome so ford will improve improve the gt500. Competition breeds awesomeness as we all are seeing. 580hp Camaro? Awesome, magnetic ride? Incredible. Just what competition is all about.

The zl1 has the potential to be a serious contender, especially once some initial tweaks and bugs get worked out and the car evolves. We all know the 2007 gt500 was just ok in bone stock trim but now that 4 years have passed, the 2011 svtpp is quite a good value. I hope the same for the zl1. Maybe 4 years from now, as an automotive society, we'll have mid to low 11 second, 1g+, super muscle cars in the form of insane zl1 and gt500 offerings-hell maybe even an sc'd challenger/charger too, that would be great.

Now that all said, I have to be totally honest.

The op's title and first post really made me scratch my head. I signed up just to say he probably should keep those opinions to himself because he's single handedly fueling the fires on other sites to label camaro5 as a bad site.

I'm no band wagon junkie but half the stuff he said wasn't very well founded. Do this site a solid and put a grain of thought into your posts. Your making these guys look bad.

(I'm guessing I'll get an instant ban but it's obvious I mean the best, do as you will)

Your words?

Right from post #1, you joined to put us poor unknowing Camaro comrades in our place...right? Not as a Camaro comrade, but as a Camaro commando...right?

In the month of May you have LIVED (all but 3 posts) on this thread...and have waited to ambush someone (again) with unsubstantiated statements you have erroneously attributed to me. I'm capable of messin' up enough things all on my own without someone of your ilk assisting me..and I have corrected myself, as well, given the chance to.

Review MY post history...and you will find, as I have stated in RED above, that you, sir, have the veracity of a tomcat...and the potty-lickin' mouth to go with it. That's NOT rhetoric, sir, those are FACTS.

In the immortal words of Fez, "Good Day!"

PLEASE UTILIZE THE "QUOTE" FEATURE. Its almost impossible to read a post like that without the quote windows, plus we don't know who your quoting so its even more confusing.

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

it might or might not be 662hp at the crank but we know its a legit 600+rwhp car. ZR1's only typically dyno 530-540rwhp so the GT500 is extremely efficient at putting it down to the wheels it seems

I think some of the reason for this is the 1 piece carbon fiber driveshaft which is a great idea btw. Its drivetrain loss probably truely is under 15%.

[Blueclyde]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

I think some of the reason for this is the 1 piece carbon fiber driveshaft which is a great idea btw. Its drivetrain loss probably truely is under 15%.

We need to remember how highly variable chassis dynos are. There will be readings all over the map. I find chassis dynos only to be good for baselining a car you plan to modify, assuming you use the same dyno for your post modification test. To put a car on a dyno and then back-calculate flywheel HP is hogwash. No doubt that Ford is getting every one of those 662 HP and the same for Chevrolet and the 580 HP the ZL1 puts out. I struggle when I hear people speculating about flywheel HP based on chassis dyno results. Too much variability to get good relaibale data. Take it for what it is worth. Trust me. I know what I speak of here.

[69bossnine]

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

We need to remember how highly variable chassis dynos are. There will be readings all over the map. I find chassis dynos only to be good for baselining a car you plan to modify, assuming you use the same dyno for your post modification test. To put a car on a dyno and then back-calculate flywheel HP is hogwash. No doubt that Ford is getting every one of those 662 HP and the same for Chevrolet and the 580 HP the ZL1 puts out. I struggle when I hear people speculating about flywheel HP based on chassis dyno results. Too much variability to get good relaibale data. Take it for what it is worth. Trust me. I know what I speak of here.

Agreed, the dyno numbers are "ballpark"... And while we're at it, so are 1/4 mile times... And it's difficult to reverse-calculate crank-hp #'s when the horsepower starts getting so high, because driveline loss decreases as a percentage as you increase power... The "mysteriously high" rear-wheel dyno #'s aren't mysterious to me whatsoever... There's a point at which it only takes X amount of hp to spin the driveline to the ground, and everything after that is gravy. So your percentage-factor decreases. It's not so much a function of Ford's driveline being amazingly slippery, it's more a function of the engine's power output being so high that spinning everything from the input-shaft back takes a low-percentage of the total output.

The bottom-line, as it pertains to straight-line performance, is that you can't argue-away or alter newtonian-physics to make the ZL1 pull-square with the '13 GT500.

As it pertains to road-course speed, that comparison remains to be seen, and we're all just speculating... Speculating should be done in good cheer and good sportsmanship, and a little jabbing here and there adds flavor as long as it's tongue-in-cheek.

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by ChuckD

No. It's a 662 hp car - as validated on engine dyno with SAE certification.

From SAE:
"To tout power and torque ratings as "SAE-certified," engine manufacturers must have an SAE qualified witness watch over the entire testing procedure to ensure that it is conducted in conformity to SAE standard J1349."

Originally Posted by 69bossnine

Agreed, the dyno numbers are "ballpark"... And while we're at it, so are 1/4 mile times... And it's difficult to reverse-calculate crank-hp #'s when the horsepower starts getting so high, because driveline loss decreases as a percentage as you increase power... The "mysteriously high" rear-wheel dyno #'s aren't mysterious to me whatsoever... There's a point at which it only takes X amount of hp to spin the driveline to the ground, and everything after that is gravy. So your percentage-factor decreases. It's not so much a function of Ford's driveline being amazingly slippery, it's more a function of the engine's power output being so high that spinning everything from the input-shaft back takes a low-percentage of the total output.

The bottom-line, as it pertains to straight-line performance, is that you can't argue-away or alter newtonian-physics to make the ZL1 pull-square with the '13 GT500.

As it pertains to road-course speed, that comparison remains to be seen, and we're all just speculating... Speculating should be done in good cheer and good sportsmanship, and a little jabbing here and there adds flavor as long as it's tongue-in-cheek.

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

We need to remember how highly variable chassis dynos are. There will be readings all over the map. I find chassis dynos only to be good for baselining a car you plan to modify, assuming you use the same dyno for your post modification test. To put a car on a dyno and then back-calculate flywheel HP is hogwash. No doubt that Ford is getting every one of those 662 HP and the same for Chevrolet and the 580 HP the ZL1 puts out. I struggle when I hear people speculating about flywheel HP based on chassis dyno results. Too much variability to get good relaibale data. Take it for what it is worth. Trust me. I know what I speak of here.

All of the above here.

Hopefully if this is posted enough times, people will catch on.

[SlingShot]

Originally Posted by 69bossnine

Agreed, the dyno numbers are "ballpark"... And while we're at it, so are 1/4 mile times... And it's difficult to reverse-calculate crank-hp #'s when the horsepower starts getting so high, because driveline loss decreases as a percentage as you increase power... The "mysteriously high" rear-wheel dyno #'s aren't mysterious to me whatsoever... There's a point at which it only takes X amount of hp to spin the driveline to the ground, and everything after that is gravy. So your percentage-factor decreases. It's not so much a function of Ford's driveline being amazingly slippery, it's more a function of the engine's power output being so high that spinning everything from the input-shaft back takes a low-percentage of the total output.

The bottom-line, as it pertains to straight-line performance, is that you can't argue-away or alter newtonian-physics to make the ZL1 pull-square with the '13 GT500.

As it pertains to road-course speed, that comparison remains to be seen, and we're all just speculating... Speculating should be done in good cheer and good sportsmanship, and a little jabbing here and there adds flavor as long as it's tongue-in-cheek.

WOW ... I actually agree, I've been arguing for a long time that the drive train loss is a static number. There is no reason for the loss to increase with the increase of power.

[69bossnine]

Exactly, drivelines don't become more resistant when you bolt a higher-power engine to them.. It's more complicated than that, when you start spinning mass, but still, the basic principle should be simple to understand.

The one elephant in the room that I've yet to hear anyone ponder is the fact that all of the various "stock" drag strip times that have been tossed around for the ZL1, fast, slow and average, don't seem terribly different or faster than the CTS-V, especially with respect to trap-speed.

The ZL1 seems a touch "quicker" with its version of launch control, but it's not showing that supposed 24 hp and 50 less lbs advantage over the CTS-V.

Were I going to shift paradigms unexpectedly and switch to a GM ride, I'd still find myself spending slightly more and buying a Caddy... (love that interior, better fit/finish overall, more whistle/bells available, etc..)

Thoughts? (since this whole 2013 GT500 vs. ZL1 debate is pretty much argued-out)

[LOWDOWN]

As fenderaddict was a fan of Cougars, back in the day, the CTS-V is kinda the "Cougar XR7" to the Camaro's "Base Stang", a comparison our Ford friends can hopefully acknowledge...

Nice to have choices...and we now have several...

[Blueclyde]

Originally Posted by 69bossnine

Exactly, drivelines don't become more resistant when you bolt a higher-power engine to them.. It's more complicated than that, when you start spinning mass, but still, the basic principle should be simple to understand.

The one elephant in the room that I've yet to hear anyone ponder is the fact that all of the various "stock" drag strip times that have been tossed around for the ZL1, fast, slow and average, don't seem terribly different or faster than the CTS-V, especially with respect to trap-speed.

The ZL1 seems a touch "quicker" with its version of launch control, but it's not showing that supposed 24 hp and 50 less lbs advantage over the CTS-V.

Were I going to shift paradigms unexpectedly and switch to a GM ride, I'd still find myself spending slightly more and buying a Caddy... (love that interior, better fit/finish overall, more whistle/bells available, etc..)

Thoughts? (since this whole 2013 GT500 vs. ZL1 debate is pretty much argued-out)

I hear you but I do not think enough people have been down the track yet with the ZL1. I'm still thinking this car has a very high 11 in it on factory tires with a sea level DA and the right driver.

[69bossnine]

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

I hear you but I do not think enough people have been down the track yet with the ZL1. I'm still thinking this car has a very high 11 in it on factory tires with a sea level DA and the right driver.

Maybe, but... What about all these 117-118 traps for the ZL1?? Car & Driver just retired it's long-term-test CTS-V wagon, and if my memory serves, it trapped at 119mph both when new and at 40K miles.

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by SlingShot

WOW ... I actually agree, I've been arguing for a long time that the drive train loss is a static number. There is no reason for the loss to increase with the increase of power.

hes not saying drivetrain losses are a static number. It cant be. for example an l99 car dynos 320rwhp. thats a drivetrain loss of 80hp. are you saying if the car had an 80hp engine, it wouldnt be able to move the car at all since the drivetrain will soak it all up???

i DO think the percentage goes down though, but its NOT static.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

I hear you but I do not think enough people have been down the track yet with the ZL1. I'm still thinking this car has a very high 11 in it on factory tires with a sea level DA and the right driver.

Agreed. It WILL happen, though perhaps not till this fall.