Gt500 vs zl1

[nismodave]

I await the shitsorm that will follow.

Both are INCREDIBLE cars.

IMO....

Ford- More Power, better at the dragstrip

Chevy-More refined, better brakes, faster over many laps

If I had the $, and had to choose.....It would be a coin flip.

FF-db7bX9LI

[BigSnailBuick]

I still just cant get into either : / Nice vid though..definitely lays down the pros and cons of each. I'm a GM guy but if it came down to it Id prolly scoop up the Gt500. Aside from what he said about feeling like your sitting on top of the car....which is one thing I hated about driving the GT. It is definitely more visually appealing than the camaro and packs a little more punch.

[Z You L8r]

I'd say if you are going to go to Road America alot I'd take the ZL1, but for everyday asskicking around the streets and dragstrip the Ford would have my vote. If only they would make the interiors of both cars look more modern (or more German car like). A dual clutch tranny option would also be nice.

[JC70SS]

If I had to choose....none.

A used head/cam C6 Z.

[VroomPshhTsi]

Gt500

[CATNHAT]

Saw a black ZL1 in Hales Corners thursday. License plate "STNGETR". Had some 4" tips--looked and sound pretty damn good! Id still take the Shelby if I had my choice.

[Prince Valiant]

it's a coin flip here too...both make stupid levels of power and possess mind numbing capabilities. Lean toward the GT500 simply because I prefer the look of the car, and am not a big fan of the camaro's interior. Throw that with slightly cheaper price and there you go...

[DynoTom]

GT500 all the way !

[michelle]

Gt500

[flyin_blue_egg]

I'm a GM guy all the way. But I would go for the GT500 if I could afford both. My biggest problem with GM lately is they have been focusing too much on their econo-box cars. And the interior shittyness of said cars seems to be translating to the vettes and camaros. It's been a big issue for a few years now.

[Waver]

I am not really surprised by the results at the track. I would still take the GT500 over the ZL1 even if, in their opinion, the ZL1 is the more "refined" car.....

[fly5150]

I'm a GM guy all the way. But I would go for the GT500 if I could afford both. My biggest problem with GM lately is they have been focusing too much on their econo-box cars. And the interior shittyness of said cars seems to be translating to the vettes and camaros. It's been a big issue for a few years now.

Every week I'm in some rental car. The GM cars have shitty interior, and most are rattling after 10,000 miles. The new Ford Taurus and Explorer are very nice cars. Even the loaded Edge is nice.
+1 for the Gt500. Ford is really trying.

[nismodave]

I rented a Ford Taurus in LV.....Pile of Shit.

[fly5150]

I rented a Ford Taurus in LV.....Pile of Shit.
Driven a chevy impala lately? Bigger pile of shit.

[nismodave]

I bet I could at least see out of it....The blind spots in the Taurus are awful.

[michelle]

Hello, have you driven a new Camaro? Talk about not being able to see out of it.

[nismodave]

I would not expect to see well out of a Camaro.

A Taurus on the other hand is a 4 door sedan, It was worse than driving a Charger for blind spots. On top of that I hated the interior layout.

[Waver]

I would not expect to see well out of a Camaro.

A Taurus on the other hand is a 4 door sedan, It was worse than driving a Charger for blind spots. On top of that I hated the interior layout.

I think you said that when you drove on as part of the $50 gift card promo that Ford did

[Irish]

GT500 /thread.

[brotherbenn83]

both cars are ass-ugly

[PureSound15]

both cars are ass-ugly

Wait...

Didn't you or don't you own a Grand AM? Or Grand Prix? Errrr GTO?

:) I joke, I joke

[PonyKiller87]

If I had the money, I would take the ZL1, have it dropped off at Lingenfelter and get this

https://www.lingenfelter.com/news/2012/05/hot-rod-magazine%E2%80%99s-david-freiburger-pilots-lingenfelter%E2%80%99s-camaro-zl1-first-200-mph-pass

[BAD LS1]

http://vimeo.com/45682950

[Josepy]

http://vimeo.com/45682950

Holy shit was that funny.

[Prince Valiant]

Here is the one thing that bugs me about the GT500, even though it's likely the car I'd pick b/w the two: Has it done 200mph yet?

All the recent and independent test I've seen have yet to touch 200mph...though not all the tracks were *perfect*, there were some measures applied to extrapolate the acceleration at a given speed and then determine how long it would have taken to get to 200, and near as I saw, most put the top speeds right around 190-192. Impressive to be sure...but not "200 mph."

One wonders if the failure to hit 200mph by the independent test will become a fiasco much like the first 4v cobra engines not making the rated horsepower was...might ford have to retrofit either to make more power or improve aerodynamics so that they can hit the magical 200 number that it was "certified" at?

[Irish]

Here is the one thing that bugs me about the GT500, even though it's likely the car I'd pick b/w the two: Has it done 200mph yet?

All the recent and independent test I've seen have yet to touch 200mph...though not all the tracks were *perfect*, there were some measures applied to extrapolate the acceleration at a given speed and then determine how long it would have taken to get to 200, and near as I saw, most put the top speeds right around 190-192. Impressive to be sure...but not "200 mph."

One wonders if the failure to hit 200mph by the independent test will become a fiasco much like the first 4v cobra engines not making the rated horsepower was...might ford have to retrofit either to make more power or improve aerodynamics so that they can hit the magical 200 number that it was "certified" at?

The 96-98 Cobra engines made the power they were advertised as. It was the early 99-01 engines that need some help. I think it had something to do with the intake getting extrude honed or some shit like that.

[Prince Valiant]

The 96-98 Cobra engines made the power they were advertised as. It was the early 99-01 engines that need some help. I think it had something to do with the intake getting extrude honed or some shit like that.You're right...it was the 99 that was supposed to make 320hp, but they were finding that there was no discernible difference in performance from earlier 305hp models that started the complaints.

[BOSS LX]

The car was at 196mph in horrible conditions, it will hit the 200mph mark. Want to talk about not performing??? Didn't GM claim pretty decent 1/4 mile times? Well here is the real world.


Atco Raceway Run #1

GT500: .388 2.229 5.420 8.007 91.81 10.267..... 12.136 122.01

ZL1 .464 2.333 5.800 8.572 89.12 10.943........ ..12.941 112.10


Atco Raceway Run #2

GT500: .237 1.947 5.121 7.622 96.54 9.797...... 11.618 124.78

ZL1 .651 2.203 5.682 8.466 88.92 10.838......... 12.837 111.55

[BigSnailBuick]

Asking for 200mph outta a $50,000 car. What on earth has the car world come to :P

[Prince Valiant]

The car was at 196mph in horrible conditions, it will hit the 200mph mark. Want to talk about not performing???
eh....

As I pointed out before, the conditions were irrelevant to the top speed...a head wind would affect it, but not the DA.

It's like an airplane...sure, just like other engine, we make less power as we climb at altitude...on top of that, the prop "bites" less to boot. Yet, planes fly a good bit quicker at altitude...because even though the engine produces less power, the air offers less resistance...oftentimes enough so to more than make up for the decrease in power (and in planes, always...).

That's why one doesn't read too much handwringing about DA's at the Bonneville raceway or other salt flats raceways...at worst it's has a neutral effect.

So I wouldn't hang my hat on "horrible conditions"...it appears that it is NOT a "200mph" car, despite being "certified" (whatever that means) by svt engineers and all their claims. I mean, don't get me wrong...190-ish is still pretty damn fast (Which ones got 196? I don't recall that one...), but perhaps it's time to stop calling it a 200mph car?

[BOSS LX]

lol!
The DA is huge in drag racing Prince! I admit when I have no experience in something, like trying to ring a car out for a top speed number, but one would think the DA effects would carry over. Even MoterTrend says with a elevation change it would hit 200mph.

I think one should worry more about the ZL1's 113mph 1/4 mile trap speed other then the fact the Shelby ONLY did 196mph in SHITTY conditions.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1205_gunning_for_200_mph_in_the_2013_ford_shelby_g t500/viewall.html

[BAD LS1]

From my above posted video: "GT500 Owners will be scared to leave the dragstrip, in fear of seeing a ZL1 on the road" I lol'ed. But the traps speed would indicated that 650hp>580HP, this we could have all guessed.

We can compare stock numbers all day long, meanwhile the aftermarket tuner shops are busily working on both, and both are already in the 9's...

[BOSS LX]

They both may be in the 9's Tom, but one has a untouched long block. From what i have seen the Shelby has been faster on the road courses as well. It is the magazines saying the shelby is too hard to drive ,for the average person, which I would call horsepower.

[JC70SS]

who really cares if their car can reach 200mph? Not me.

[STANMAN]

These comparo's between Mustangs and Camaro's from magazines get old quickly, I mean lets go back to that 2003 comparo....oh wait......my bad.

The biggest thing between the two that I have noticed is I can see out of a Mustang, you feel like you are in a submarine in the Camaro as you can't see out!!!

[Z28Envy]

These comparo's between Mustangs and Camaro's from magazines get old quickly, I mean lets go back to that 2003 comparo....oh wait......my bad.

They didn't need to do a comparo until 2011 because it took the Mustang until then to keep up with a 98-02 ls1:rolf

[Waver]

The 96-98 Cobra engines made the power they were advertised as. It was the early 99-01 engines that need some help. I think it had something to do with the intake getting extrude honed or some shit like that.You are partially right on the reason, it was due to some residual flash on the intake.

After fielding a few dozen owner complaints, mostly from drag racers, Ford recalled all 1999 SVT Cobras on the ground to replace the manifold or ream out the existing one. Ford also charged nothing to replace mufflers (found to be too restrictive), recalibrate the engine computer, and substitute a more durable accessory-belt tensioner. A decal was affixed in the engine bay to certify the work once it was done.

This only effected the 99 cobras. The only way to get a cobra in 2000 was to get the R, which didnt have anywhere near the same engine. The 2001 Cobras were not effected.




You're right...it was the 99 that was supposed to make 320hp, but they were finding that there was no discernible difference in performance from earlier 305hp models that started the complaints.
Correct, It was Motortrend that first complained about it being .1 slower 0-60 than the 98. They were expecting the car to do 0-60 in in 5 flat, not 5.5.

lol!
The DA is huge in drag racing Prince! I admit when I have no experience in something, like trying to ring a car out for a top speed number, but one would think the DA effects would carry over. Even MoterTrend says with a elevation change it would hit 200mph.

I think one should worry more about the ZL1's 113mph 1/4 mile trap speed other then the fact the Shelby ONLY did 196mph in SHITTY conditions.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1205_gunning_for_200_mph_in_the_2013_ford_shelby_g t500/viewall.html



^^^ this is correct and was done at the Chrysler proving grounds I believe. They plan on taking the car to a different track over seas to hit the magical 200+ number. The test driver feels it should go faster than 200 since it was still pulling at 196 and didnt seem to be working all that hard.

[Prince Valiant]

lol!
The DA is huge in drag racing Prince! I admit when I have no experience in something, like trying to ring a car out for a top speed number, but one would think the DA effects would carry over. Even MoterTrend says with a elevation change it would hit 200mph. It is unsurprising that MotorTrend is wrong...but correct me if I am wrong on this: wasn't it you not too long ago poo-pooing MT and it's authority on anything truly car-related? And now you're appealing to their authority on the matter? :)

And anytime Nutwaver agrees with you, one should seriously reconsider their position. One might still be right if Nick agrees since even broken clocks are correct twice a day; but one should always double check their facts and reassess their reasoning just to be sure.

DA DOES have a huge effect on drag racing...it hurts power; and since the vehicles mass doesn't change w/ DA, but power does, difference in DA b/w ultra low and ultra high DA's greatly affect measures of acceleration, which is determined by the vehicles mass and power.

And while neither of us have much experience trying to wring out top speeds of cars, I DO have experience w/ how altitude affects speed...it's a very basic part of flying, of which I've done a fair amount.

So while higher DA's affect a vehicles power negatively, it also affects a vehicles wind resistance positively.

When the top speed of a vehicle is DRAG limited, then top speed equals the speed at which a vehicles power and the force of drag (wind resistance) equal. Dropping power is okay as long as WR drops too:)

Want a little proof that wind resistance would necessarily go down with higher DA (less dense air)? Look at the formula for the force of drag is Fd= 1/2(pV^2)Cd*A

Fd=Force of Drag
p=DENSITY of fluid
V^2=vehicle speed, squared
Cd=coefficient of drag
A=Area

Density is an important part of the equation...and if wind resistance drops more at a given DA than power, you'd actually go FASTER w/ increasing altitude....which is why airplanes fly at higher altitudes....they go faster and save fuel...all that despite making less power and the prop getting less "bite" (same applies for jets too, btw...)

To FURTHER drive home the point, why are all the top speed records at places like Bonneville Salt flats? It's elevation is 4200 ft, and they hold speedweek in August, when temps are frequently above 100 degrees out there...giving the dryness and typical altimeter readings, this puts the DA's at an astounding ~9000-10000 during one of the most popular top speed events out there. Now, if DA's really negatively impacted top speed that much, don't you think they'd find a more hospitable venue to hold speed week?

Here's what Car and Driver found trying to get to 200mph in the Shelby GT500...

A lesser car would squirm in the banking as if chassis and body were held together with Slinky springs. But the GT500 felt as if tethered to the pavement by cables, so we were encouraged to go faster. With a slight northwesterly breeze at our backs, the Shelby exited Chelsea’s north banking at 185 mph with more than a mile of wide-open straightaway to eat up the final 15 mph. Our VBox’s digital speedo crawled up: 186, 187, 188, 188.1 . . .

It went for another 2 mph, and that’s all there was. We entered the south banking at just below 191 mph, our knuckles as white as Himalayan peaks. The top speed: 189 mph, an average of both directions.

How do we know that’s the limit? Well, our data recorder tells us that during the final 1500 feet, the Shelby averaged 0.004 g of longitudinal acceleration. At 190 mph, it was pulling 0.001 g, or, basically, zero. The car had stopped accelerating. This isn't what we'd expect from a 200 mph car. And the MT article itself, though citing (incorrectly as I argue) that the car was capable of 200 in "good air", analysis of the data indicated that the GT500 was NOT hitting 200mph on that day...disagreeing with what the test driver said. (just the fact that it was "close" should more or less prove how little DA's matter in determining top speed....)

And btw, I'll still put more stock in the C&D figures since they average a two way speed...I have no confidence that MT is doing that based on what I read citing the 196mph speed. Maybe you were right the first time to be skeptical of MT after all?


who really cares if their car can reach 200mph? Not me.Ford does. That's why they advertise it.

I don't, I'll never drive that fast. Which is why if given a choice, I'd still pick the Shelby.


These comparo's between Mustangs and Camaro's from magazines get old quickly, I mean lets go back to that 2003 comparo....oh wait......my bad.2003 called...it wants it's joke back. On a side note, the cast of seinfeld called me...they want their joke back too. Coincidence?

[STANMAN]

I just want everyone to remember that if it weren't for the Mustang, there wouldn't be the horsepower wars there are now. (Hell, without taxpayer dollars there wouldn't even be a GM or Mopar vehicle on the road right now at all.) Regardless of brand preference, everyone owes the Mustang a tip of the cap. Just sayin.

[Prince Valiant]

I just want everyone to remember that if it weren't for the Mustang, there wouldn't be the horsepower wars there are now. (Hell, without taxpayer dollars there wouldn't even be a GM or Mopar vehicle on the road right now at all.) Regardless of brand preference, everyone owes the Mustang a tip of the cap. Just sayin.Bullshit. That's the dumbest statement I've ever read from a "car guy", perhaps ever...and I think you're aware of this because you don't even bother to offer support for your glib blathering.

[WickedSix]

mustang the father of all muscle cars and power wars? wasn't it created and marketed to women?

[STANMAN]

Bullshit. That's the dumbest statement I've ever read from a "car guy", perhaps ever...and I think you're aware of this because you don't even bother to offer support for your glib blathering.

In 2005 the Mustang revitalized the domestic muscle car segment, GM and Mopar saw that money could be made and brought back the Camaro and Challenger. Is there any doubt that without the retro Mustang being so poplular that we wouldn't have the choices we have today?

Or are we speaking on the bailouts as I think that's been pretty well documented?

[michelle]

And the Taurus saved Ford, so the Taurus wins!

[STANMAN]

mustang the father of all muscle cars and power wars? wasn't it created and marketed to women?

The Mustang wasn't a muscle car back then, it was a pony car. I do, however, think it is a muscle car now as the likes of the Roadrunner, Charger, Cutless, Nova, Torino, ect are no longer in the market. The pony car of yesterday is today's muscle car (just clarifying that I have never, and would never, make the mistake of calling the first Mustangs "muscle cars"). And if you don't think that the power wars of today are fueled by Mustang vs. Camaro vs. SRT Variant, you're crazy. Come on Pat, a smart guy like you knows better, don't let your resentment towards anything STANMAN make yourself sound stupid.

[STANMAN]

And the Taurus saved Ford, so the Taurus wins!

People often forget how groundbreaking the Taurus was at the time. Hell, it starred in ROBOCOP it was so futuristic!!!

[STANMAN]

Bullshit. That's the dumbest statement I've ever read from a "car guy", perhaps ever...and I think you're aware of this because you don't even bother to offer support for your glib blathering.

Oh, and I do concur with you about my preference for glibness and blathering, two of my favorite things that go so well together, lol.

[Prince Valiant]

In 2005 the Mustang revitalized the domestic muscle car segment, GM and Mopar saw that money could be made and brought back the Camaro and Challenger. Is there any doubt that without the retro Mustang being so poplular that we wouldn't have the choices we have today? Bull-loney. Retro cars had proven popular long before the stang went retro and there was never doubt that GM would bring back the camaro. Even the revitalization of the charger/challenger (i.e., a two door coupe) was put to the forefront the moment everyone knew that the LH cars successors would be RWD(so way back in 99). So to credit either's existence to the mustang is essentially committing a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore this)...if a happens before b happens, it does not therefore mean that b happened because of a.

It's like earlier claims that "were it not for ford mustangs, there would be no "pony cars"!"...yes, because the physics of producing a small affordable sporty two door cars was mind boggling and only discovered on accident by brilliant ford scientist :rolleyes:

True, it might not have been called something nifty like "pony cars", but such cars certainly would have existed, just as the challenger and camaro would exist now even withOUT the Mustang.


Or are we speaking on the bailouts as I think that's been pretty well documented?"Bailouts"? You're better at sticking to the term "taxpayer dollars" since all three actually received "bailouts"...THAT's been pretty well documented too.

Though I don't necessarily expect "car guys" (and even many "business guys" etc) to get this: But the belief that bankruptcy w/o taxpayer dollars would have resulted in the disappearance of GM or Chrysler is both simplistic and wrong.

Remember how the "bailouts" were to keep them out of bankruptcy? How that work out? They still went bankrupt.

And yet, they're both still here. A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!!!

While no doubt w/o the taxpayer dollar, GM and Chrysler would look different...but almost as certain, they'd still be here. Chrysler was in the most danger, but as we saw there were buyers and someone certainly would have picked them up, for all the tooling, dealerships, infrastructure and engineering they've already had in place, and GM might had been forced to take on a partner, likely someone w/o a presence in the US already like TATA, etc.

Neither company was like, say AMC, whom with the exception of Jeep (who still around, btw) was such a small bit player the market could easily absorb the loss of production from them. If another competitor or a chinese producer wanted market share, purchase of either would have been the quickest way to get their foot in the door.

[WickedSix]

didn't the thunderbird go retro prior to the mustang?

[Prince Valiant]

didn't the thunderbird go retro prior to the mustang?yup...after the VW bug, plymouth prowler, pt cruiser...so really we should be thanking the new beetle for the current HP wars and camaro/challenger. really.

[WickedSix]

I think power wars are a cultural phenomenon..... unatributable to a vehicle manufacturer but wholey attributable to a sub-culture... OE's will always make vehicles that research shows will be profitable.... you have a boom in the population who want new-old muscle cars and who also have the means to purchase them and maintain them.... then you get the power wars we currently have....

[STANMAN]

I think if it weren't for the Mustang we wouldn't have the HP wars we have today, and we wouldn't have the Challenger or Camaro. That's just my opinion. Opinion's are great that way, no one is ever wrong!

And I don't think that without "bailouts" that GM would have went away, although Chrylser may have. I just think they would have shrunk to offer light duty trucks, an econobox, and something mid-class. The stuff they put out now like the ZR1, the ZL1, the CTSV, all of them for sure would have never hit the showroom without "bailouts". Ford on the other hand sold when the market was high, had large sums of cash on hand, and was able to keep out of the limelight when all the "bailouts" happened. Did they profit from that image, of course they did, and they played it to the hilt.

[Prince Valiant]

And I don't think that without "bailouts" that GM would have went away, although Chrylser may have. I just think they would have shrunk to offer light duty trucks, an econobox, and something mid-class. The stuff they put out now like the ZR1, the ZL1, the CTSV, all of them for sure would have never hit the showroom without "bailouts".Why? ZR1/ZL1/CTSV's are NOT the reason for any un-profitability. Why keep around the low profitability stuff and get rid of the high profitability stuff? Hell, while selling well, cars like the cruze don't actually bring in a lot of dollars for GM.



Ford on the other hand sold when the market was high, had large sums of cash on hand, and was able to keep out of the limelight when all the "bailouts" happened. Did they profit from that image, of course they did, and they played it to the hilt.Yah...except that didn't happen. Ford was running out of cash on hand well ahead of GM and chrysler. Ford threw a hailmary and for the first time in the last 100 years, had to put up collateral including it's logo (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-17/freeing-fords-logo-from-debtors-prison) as well as most all of it's assets that it was legally allowed to use. "Sold when the market was high"??? Please sucka! Ford was the weakest of the big three, even w/ Diamler bleeding off chrysler's cash reserves(which in the late 90's/early 00's was considered the highest of the big 3...GM even considered purchasing chryco for it's cash as diamler did). Simply put, Ford had the good fortune to hit the critical point before the credit crunch.

[Prince Valiant]

That's just my opinion. Opinion's are great that way, no one is ever wrong!Oh, and opinions can certainly be wrong. Have the opinion that you could survive crashing your motorcycle into a tree at a 130mph and find out what your opinion is worth.

There is subjectivity to this type of opinion since there is really no way to test the statement since the mustang is out. But as stated, it lies on blatantly faulty logic, and can easily be termed "illogical." If that's the type of opinions you like to hold, hey...more power to you.