Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 6th gen Camaro vs...


Phastek Performance


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-27-2020, 07:00 PM   #7925
Idaho2018GTPremium

 
Idaho2018GTPremium's Avatar
 
Drives: 2021 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Actually nobody is complaining about the fuel efficiency. If you read and understood the comments (you didn't), you would have saw that what we're talking about is the size of the fuel tank. Where the competing cars have 19+ gallon tanks the GT500 has like a 17 gallon tank which is significant in a car as portly as the GT500 is. Get your facts straight.
I did, actually, see my post above which quotes (I missed doing that in my previous post) the post referring to mpgs that I was responding to. My point was mainly to show the cars aren't that far apart on the mpg spectrum. The smaller tank is an issue for range, agreed; however, I wasn't responding to fuel tank size, though. I admit I was a bit aggressive with the "complaining" comment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Regardless of what your magazine claims, there have been several complaints that the GT500 barely makes 1 lap on some tracks on a full tank. Whereas the ZL1 and ZLE can make several laps. So maybe C&D tested the cars going at 50 MPH in top gear or something. Who knows? Who cares? Fact is when these cars are driven daily under normal conditions the GT500 will get significantly less miles per tank than a ZL1 or HC. Several GT500 owners have already mentioned that they have to make frequent gas station stops.
HAHAHA barely make one lap w/ 16 gallons? What track is this you are referring to? This is why people laugh at you. Even at 2 mpg, the GT500 could go 32 miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Or maybe they built the car correctly whereas Ford had to do a rush job on the GT500. This all goes back to those conversations we had way back when about how Ford had to re-do other stuff (GT350, PP2) which is probably what cut into the time they had to develop the GT500 properly. Because a lot of this stuff that we keep talking about with the GT500 is sounding like it is a very undercooked turkey.
Quote from Randy Pobst (per MT article): "The incredible performance capability of these two new Shelbys moves the Mustang into the supercar realm, it pleases me to claim. They will not disappoint. In fact, they both provide such thrills that they are a good value even at these prices, driving with confidence-inspiring and consistent speed that is rare to find at any price."

I'll take his word for it over yours; someone who hasn't even driven one, and obviously not anywhere near the driver Pobst is (none of us are). It doesn't sound like it's an undercooked turkey to me based on a race car driver's take. And it's no secret he likes the Camaros, so that's high praise for the GT500s, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Well when these are "track cars" and one is 173 pounds heavier and all that weight is on the nose then that kinda makes a big difference. Especially when the GT500 roasts the tires after 1 lap, burns thru the fuel tank in one lap, voids the warranty just for taking it on the track in the first place, and has a much steeper price. Again, it isn't just one issue with the GT500. It is several issues which we first starting hearing about when they first started to release the specs. The ZLE will destroy the GT500 in any configuration on the track. And it has way better options and costs much less.
Agree, 4,059 lbs for the CFTP is heavy. But everyone needs to stop pretending that the ZL1/ZLE is some lightweight in comparison. The ZLE A10 weighs nearly 3,900 lbs. FWIW the regular ZL1 A10 is 3,933 lbs. Also, C&D weighed the base GT500 in a test and it was about 4,150 lbs +/- IIRC (I can't find the article). They weigh their cars w/ full fuel tanks. That said, the DCT is responsible for about 75-100 lbs of those pounds over the A10 IIRC, and the beefier driveline and chassis and brakes are responsible for the rest. If GM gave the ZL1 another 100 hp (ahem, LT5), it would also weigh more than the LT4 version, it's the nature of the higher powered beasts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Yea let us know when you get your $90K GT500 bro.
I wouldn't pay markup for one, for the record. And, I'd rather have a C7 Z06 or a C8 Z06 over a GT500. That said, I'm perfectly content with my GT and plan to keep it for a long time (2 years and counting).
__________________
2021 Camaro ZL1 A10
2022 GR Supra 3.0

Past:
2018 Mustang GT Premium w/ PP1, MR, and A10
2007 MazdaSpeed3
1995 Pontiac Trans Am
1987 Camaro Z28

Idaho2018GTPremium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2020, 07:40 PM   #7926
UnknownJinX

 
UnknownJinX's Avatar
 
Drives: 19 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 1LE Shock
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
HAHAHA barely make one lap w/ 16 gallons? What track is this you are referring to? This is why people laugh at you. Even at 2 mpg, the GT500 could go 32 miles.
He probably wanted to say one lapping day? That could happen.

When I brought my SS 1LE to a lapping day last time, I started with the needle at 3/4 mark and ended with the needle at 1/4 mark. Keep in mind, I wasn't pushing my car to the absolute limits as that was my first time. With a GT500 on a full tank, I could see the tank size being an issue for an entire day. You might have to shell out a bit of money for the expensive track has.

Sent from toaster or something
__________________
Current:
2019 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 1LE M6 Shock

GM Performance Intake and that's it, because driver mods before car mods

Past:
2009 Mazda RX-8 GT M6 Velocity Red Mica (Sold)
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 2LT M7 Velocity Yellow Tintcoat (Flood totaled)
UnknownJinX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 01:29 AM   #7927
BlaqWhole
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
I did, actually, see my post above which quotes (I missed doing that in my previous post) the post referring to mpgs that I was responding to. My point was mainly to show the cars aren't that far apart on the mpg spectrum. The smaller tank is an issue for range, agreed; however, I wasn't responding to fuel tank size, though. I admit I was a bit aggressive with the "complaining" comment.
Well you didn't quote anyone and nobody here has time to try to figure out who you were referring to. Fact is, GT500s have an incredibly small gas tank as compared to the competition which is probably because it was not a very well thought out endeavor. Much like everything else with that car.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
HAHAHA barely make one lap w/ 16 gallons? What track is this you are referring to? This is why people laugh at you. Even at 2 mpg, the GT500 could go 32 miles.
Yes. Barely one lap. I saw a post on a Mustang site with a guy who took his to the track and barely got thru 1 lap on 1 tank. And several of them have complained about frequent gas trips. And who exactly is "laughing" at me? You and your Mustang buddies? LOL, I have a ZL1 and a Hellcat. And I'll own your dream car before you if I had half the mind to go buy one. Trust me, I'm not worried about a bunch of dudes in Mustang GTs "laughing" at me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
Quote from Randy Pobst (per MT article): "The incredible performance capability of these two new Shelbys moves the Mustang into the supercar realm, it pleases me to claim. They will not disappoint. In fact, they both provide such thrills that they are a good value even at these prices, driving with confidence-inspiring and consistent speed that is rare to find at any price."

I'll take his word for it over yours; someone who hasn't even driven one, and obviously not anywhere near the driver Pobst is (none of us are). It doesn't sound like it's an undercooked turkey to me based on a race car driver's take. And it's no secret he likes the Camaros, so that's high praise for the GT500s, IMO.
Have you driven one? No? LOL, ok then. And that dang thing is in no way shape or form a "Supercar". The McLaren 720S is a "Supercar". The Aventador is a "Supercar. The Murcielago is a "supercar". The GT500 is nowhere even close to that level of performance. Not weighing in at over 4100 pounds with a 16 gal tank, 180 MPH top speed, and all the flaws that thing comes out from the factory with. It wouldn't even compare to those cars. Go on a track against one of those and you'll get "laughed" at. In fact, the GT500 can't even beat the $70K ZLE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
Agree, 4,059 lbs for the CFTP is heavy. But everyone needs to stop pretending that the ZL1/ZLE is some lightweight in comparison. The ZLE A10 weighs nearly 3,900 lbs. FWIW the regular ZL1 A10 is 3,933 lbs. Also, C&D weighed the base GT500 in a test and it was about 4,150 lbs +/- IIRC (I can't find the article). They weigh their cars w/ full fuel tanks. That said, the DCT is responsible for about 75-100 lbs of those pounds over the A10 IIRC, and the beefier driveline and chassis and brakes are responsible for the rest. If GM gave the ZL1 another 100 hp (ahem, LT5), it would also weigh more than the LT4 version, it's the nature of the higher powered beasts.
Yea, try to spin it any way you want. The GT500 is a nose heavy overweight diabetic.

And that is not the nature of these cars. It is the nature of poorly built cars like the GT500 is. GM took their time and did their homework and made the ZL1 smaller and lighter than the previous Gen. Ford did a rush job and undercooked the GT500 and it came out at near Hellcat proportions while still managing to have less options. Then they threw a bunch of mismatched parts at it, it rolled off the assembly line with fit and finish resembling that of an Ecoboost Mustang, and gave it a price tag much higher than the competition with less options. Again, it is not anywhere close to the performance deal of the other cars. All the praise it got was due to it being the first time in years that Ford built something that could compete with the others. And it still came up short.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
I wouldn't pay markup for one, for the record. And, I'd rather have a C7 Z06 or a C8 Z06 over a GT500. That said, I'm perfectly content with my GT and plan to keep it for a long time (2 years and counting).
Good for you.
BlaqWhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 12:31 PM   #7928
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
OK, ok, I should have quoted this message in my response about mpgs. He mentioned under 10 mpg for the GT500 (which is probably true for all of these cars on a track). I was quoting the C&D article that showed the mpgs are pretty similar between a GT500 and a ZLE. 1 mpg difference in their tests. I wasn't addressing the smaller tank, which obviously is an issue in the GT500 on a track.

I was a little aggressive w/ the "complaining" comment, I give y'all that...
Great post, so rarely seen around here
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 01:29 PM   #7929
DaveC113

 
DaveC113's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Camaro 1SS 1LE
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
OK, ok, I should have quoted this message in my response about mpgs. He mentioned under 10 mpg for the GT500 (which is probably true for all of these cars on a track). I was quoting the C&D article that showed the mpgs are pretty similar between a GT500 and a ZLE. 1 mpg difference in their tests. I wasn't addressing the smaller tank, which obviously is an issue in the GT500 on a track.

I was a little aggressive w/ the "complaining" comment, I give y'all that...
No worries!

I think the issue was the car has a 15.5g tank, you can use about 12g of that by the time the light comes on, nobody uses all the gas in a tank. They said (Sorry I should link to the vid, it was prolly Throttle House) they were filling up every 100 mi or so, which means 10 mpg or less on the street. I'm sure this is with liberal throttle applications...

My SS might get 5-6mpg on track, I think the issue is the GT500 gets much less than that so it can empty it's tank exceptionally quickly, it sounds like it needs to be topped off every session and even then might drain it before it's over!

I know mileage isn't a main factor when choosing a sports car but range may be, and when it gets this excessive it's an issue to fill up so often.
__________________
DaveC113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 01:34 PM   #7930
Idaho2018GTPremium

 
Idaho2018GTPremium's Avatar
 
Drives: 2021 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX View Post
I feel like the Mustang tank is realistically only fit for the Ecoboost models. A V8 with a 60 L/15.9 US gal tank isn't gonna be enough. In fact, that's smaller than the gas tank on the Mazda6 2.5T I am driving now. That's the gas tank capacity you find on most midsize Sedans with much smaller engines.

Maybe it was done for weight reduction, but IMO that tank size would make me paranoid on road trips.

Sent from toaster or something
I rarely fill my GT up past 1/2 tank for weight savings since there's a gas station very convenient to me on the way to the freeway from my house, so a 16 vs 19 gallon tank is not an issue for me. If we go on a road trip, we take my wife's comfy Volvo XC90.

That said, for my car, EPA rates the GT A10 at 25 mpg on the highway -- however, my car's trip computer indicates 30+ mpg on the 7 mile stretch of highway between my house and downtown, but that's pretty flat so I realize a road trip would probably be less with hills, etc. Assuming 16 gallons @ 25 mpg = 400 miles per tank on the highway; that's not really nerve wracking for me if I ever had to take it on a long trip.

Most likely the 16 gal tank size was due to packaging requirements.
__________________
2021 Camaro ZL1 A10
2022 GR Supra 3.0

Past:
2018 Mustang GT Premium w/ PP1, MR, and A10
2007 MazdaSpeed3
1995 Pontiac Trans Am
1987 Camaro Z28

Idaho2018GTPremium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 01:54 PM   #7931
UnknownJinX

 
UnknownJinX's Avatar
 
Drives: 19 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 1LE Shock
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
I rarely fill my GT up past 1/2 tank for weight savings since there's a gas station very convenient to me on the way to the freeway from my house, so a 16 vs 19 gallon tank is not an issue for me. If we go on a road trip, we take my wife's comfy Volvo XC90.



That said, for my car, EPA rates the GT A10 at 25 mpg on the highway -- however, my car's trip computer indicates 30+ mpg on the 7 mile stretch of highway between my house and downtown, but that's pretty flat so I realize a road trip would probably be less with hills, etc. Assuming 16 gallons @ 25 mpg = 400 miles per tank on the highway; that's not really nerve wracking for me if I ever had to take it on a long trip.



Most likely the 16 gal tank size was due to packaging requirements.
Well, on a GT in purely highway driving, the tank size is fine. It's once when you get in town that you might get in trouble. On a GT350 and GT500, however, it definitely becomes an issue as their highway mileage isn't nearly as good.

Again, no one drives to 100% empty, so realistically I think you would get 350 miles on highways before fueling. On a track, you probably also don't want to go too low on gas as fuel starvation can happen as it sloshes around when it gets too low and lean spikes are deadly, especially on an engine with forced induction. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with the needle below 1/8 of a tank on a track. 1/4 would get my attention already.

As for the weight reduction argument, can't say I agree with that. These pony cars are already a little front heavy and so a little fuel in the back is a good thing. And 50 pounds, which is how much half a tank weighs on a Mustang, isn't all that much in a car of that kind of power, and it's not to mention that's sprung mass. I don't even believe fuel weight played much role in acceleration in my RX-8, which is a lighter car(so the fuel amount would have much relative impact on the weight) with a slightly bigger tank(about 5 litre/1.3 gallon more) on the Mustang, and that thing has a lot less power and torque compared to the V8 ponies.

Sent from toaster or something
__________________
Current:
2019 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 1LE M6 Shock

GM Performance Intake and that's it, because driver mods before car mods

Past:
2009 Mazda RX-8 GT M6 Velocity Red Mica (Sold)
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 2LT M7 Velocity Yellow Tintcoat (Flood totaled)
UnknownJinX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 06:52 PM   #7932
Rodan
 
Rodan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 coupe
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Prescott, Arizona
Posts: 589
Our ZL1 gets a measured 4mpg on track when driven reasonably aggressively (HPDE) on track tires. At a race pace, I could see 3mpg pretty easily... which equates to nearly a gallon a lap on longer tracks. I'm not buying the 'one lap to empty' line, but IIRC there were some fuel gauge issues early on with the GT500s that were causing problems. What is certainly possible is a car that uses 10 gallons of fuel in a 20-30 minute HPDE session. That gets old pretty quick.

10-12mpg on the street with a 15 gallon tank would drive me crazy. Our ZL1 gets 19mpg in 'around town' driving and 22-24mpg on the highway. I don't like to go below 1/4 tank in normal driving. In our ZL1, that's ~250-270 miles. It sounds like a GT500 would be there in 110-130 miles... makes it pretty unusable, IMHO.

Not that it matters all that much. There are five GT500s among the 'car guys' in our little town now. None of them do anything but drive them to C&C once a month anyway...
Rodan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2020, 09:22 PM   #7933
BlaqWhole
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-99SS View Post
Great post, so rarely seen around here
Definitely not from me
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX View Post
Well, on a GT in purely highway driving, the tank size is fine. It's once when you get in town that you might get in trouble. On a GT350 and GT500, however, it definitely becomes an issue as their highway mileage isn't nearly as good.

Again, no one drives to 100% empty, so realistically I think you would get 350 miles on highways before fueling. On a track, you probably also don't want to go too low on gas as fuel starvation can happen as it sloshes around when it gets too low and lean spikes are deadly, especially on an engine with forced induction. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with the needle below 1/8 of a tank on a track. 1/4 would get my attention already.

As for the weight reduction argument, can't say I agree with that. These pony cars are already a little front heavy and so a little fuel in the back is a good thing. And 50 pounds, which is how much half a tank weighs on a Mustang, isn't all that much in a car of that kind of power, and it's not to mention that's sprung mass. I don't even believe fuel weight played much role in acceleration in my RX-8, which is a lighter car(so the fuel amount would have much relative impact on the weight) with a slightly bigger tank(about 5 litre/1.3 gallon more) on the Mustang, and that thing has a lot less power and torque compared to the V8 ponies.

Sent from toaster or something
I do not like going less than a quarter tank for the very reasons you mentioned. It could be catastrophic. I have seen and heard way too many horror stories. I would rather be safe and have no worries than save a few pounds and win some silly race. There are some times when I am at a quarter or eighth tank but in those cases I just granny drive. You figure if you're at a quarter tank on a 19 gal capacity then that is about 5 gallons. On a 16 gal tank that is about 4. At an eighth you have about 2 gallons which is not safe at all even for NA engines. Definitely not safe for my cars. It isn't worth the risk.
BlaqWhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 07:44 AM   #7934
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Definitely not from me

I do not like going less than a quarter tank for the very reasons you mentioned. It could be catastrophic. I have seen and heard way too many horror stories. I would rather be safe and have no worries than save a few pounds and win some silly race. There are some times when I am at a quarter or eighth tank but in those cases I just granny drive. You figure if you're at a quarter tank on a 19 gal capacity then that is about 5 gallons. On a 16 gal tank that is about 4. At an eighth you have about 2 gallons which is not safe at all even for NA engines. Definitely not safe for my cars. It isn't worth the risk.
This is good practice - in tank electric fuel pumps do not like heat, and in saying so, 1/4 tank of fuel heats up quickly in the hot months.
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 10:34 AM   #7935
TheRealJA105

 
TheRealJA105's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 C6Z06
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: PA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium View Post
HAHAHA barely make one lap w/ 16 gallons? What track is this you are referring to? This is why people laugh at you. Even at 2 mpg, the GT500 could go 32 miles.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I AM ABSOLUTELY LAUGHING AT HIM AGAIN! I thought he mistyped that but then he doubled down and said it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX View Post
He probably wanted to say one lapping day? That could happen.

When I brought my SS 1LE to a lapping day last time, I started with the needle at 3/4 mark and ended with the needle at 1/4 mark. Keep in mind, I wasn't pushing my car to the absolute limits as that was my first time. With a GT500 on a full tank, I could see the tank size being an issue for an entire day. You might have to shell out a bit of money for the expensive track has.

Sent from toaster or something
Nope he said it twice. Edit: Now he actually said it 3 times I thought he meant one session which is correct and not even close to one day. Yes you will use a full tank even in a SS on a full track day at advanced pace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
Yes. Barely one lap. I saw a post on a Mustang site with a guy who took his to the track and barely got thru 1 lap on 1 tank. And several of them have complained about frequent gas trips. And who exactly is "laughing" at me? You and your Mustang buddies? LOL, I have a ZL1 and a Hellcat. And I'll own your dream car before you if I had half the mind to go buy one. Trust me, I'm not worried about a bunch of dudes in Mustang GTs "laughing" at me.
ME ME ME I'M LAUGHING AT YOU, because what you said is 100% stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodan View Post
Our ZL1 gets a measured 4mpg on track when driven reasonably aggressively (HPDE) on track tires. At a race pace, I could see 3mpg pretty easily... which equates to nearly a gallon a lap on longer tracks. I'm not buying the 'one lap to empty' line, but IIRC there were some fuel gauge issues early on with the GT500s that were causing problems. What is certainly possible is a car that uses 10 gallons of fuel in a 20-30 minute HPDE session. That gets old pretty quick.

10-12mpg on the street with a 15 gallon tank would drive me crazy. Our ZL1 gets 19mpg in 'around town' driving and 22-24mpg on the highway. I don't like to go below 1/4 tank in normal driving. In our ZL1, that's ~250-270 miles. It sounds like a GT500 would be there in 110-130 miles... makes it pretty unusable, IMHO.

Not that it matters all that much. There are five GT500s among the 'car guys' in our little town now. None of them do anything but drive them to C&C once a month anyway...
Very well said
TheRealJA105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 05:30 PM   #7936
BlaqWhole
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,692
Looks like some of the modded GT500s are already starting to blow TF up. Stangmode's blew up and it was only at about 900 RWHP. And some other one blew up but was over 1100 RWHP. At least so the story goes. 900 RWHP to me is not really a level where these cars should be grenading. So perhaps it was a tuning issue. Or maybe Ford didn't make them as strong as people think they are. The LT4 seems to be good to about 1100 RWHP. If anything the trans is the weak spot at those levels. Kttxz06 made it all the way to about 1200+ to the wheels before the trans finally gave out on his ZL1. I'll probably call it quits around 1000 RWHP. But if the GT500 isn't strong enough to handle that then they're pretty much gonna lose the mod wars. For the record, Hellcats can handle over 1000 RWHP easily as well.

And if I remember, didn't SP also have some issues with his GT500? Looking at all the complaints coming from owners, I'm starting to really think Ford rushed this car and badly.
BlaqWhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2020, 08:20 PM   #7937
DaveC113

 
DaveC113's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Camaro 1SS 1LE
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole View Post
I'm starting to really think Ford rushed this car and badly.
That's the main reason I have a hard time with Ford products. The Focus RS was a massive kluge, even though it has potential it seems like some guy's garage project.

Ford has a long history of letting customers do their testing, putting out questionable designs and vehicles. All mfg'ers have their issues though, so pick your poison...
__________________
DaveC113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2020, 12:28 AM   #7938
BlaqWhole
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro ZL1 A10
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC113 View Post
That's the main reason I have a hard time with Ford products. The Focus RS was a massive kluge, even though it has potential it seems like some guy's garage project.

Ford has a long history of letting customers do their testing, putting out questionable designs and vehicles. All mfg'ers have their issues though, so pick your poison...
Yea for sure. With all the problems I see with the GT500 it's hard to imagine paying big bucks for one. If they are capping around 900 to the wheels then they for sure won't be much of a match for most of the competition.

I'm wondering if the DCT is an issue at those numbers. I remember we all talked about this months ago and it was mentioned that there was a good reason why most cars with DCT aren't over like 600 HP. WHich is further why I think a DCT in a Mustang was a bad move on Ford's part. Not only did it delay the car, but it also added unnecessary costs and now just might be the limiting factor if it is the weak point. We'll learn more as more people mod them.
BlaqWhole is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.