2013 GT500 laps the ring quicker then ZL1

[FINALLYSATISFIED]

Originally Posted by trademaster

The 'ring is a big power track and the video is there. Even if the timing is off by a few seconds or more the GT500 is obviously within close range of the ZL1 and that has been shown in pretty much every other track test.

I'll agree with that. It is close. 580hp vs 650hp+ you wouldn't expect it to be close. When the ZL1 is victorious which it has proven to be on numerous tracks it speaks volumes.

GT500 is lacking, sorry. Beautiful machine but no way is it light years ahead. It's behind at the moment.

[TheReaper]

Originally Posted by FINALLYSATISFIED

I'll agree with that. It is close. 580hp vs 650hp+ you wouldn't expect it to be close. When the ZL1 is victorious which it has proven to be on numerous tracks it speaks volumes.

GT500 is lacking, sorry. Beautiful machine but no way is it light years ahead. It's behind at the moment.

It just needs bigger tires.

[LOWDOWN]

Car - Curb Weight -- HP -- P2W --- 'Ring

ZR1.....3,300............638....5.2.......7:19

GT500..3,850...........662....5.81.....7:39

Z06/7...3,200..........505....6.33.....7:22

Z/28.....3,827..........505....7.58.....7:37

ZL1......4,120..........580....7.10.....7:41

Chassis dynamics, including weight distribution, tire sizes and compounds, all come into play. IRS vs. SRA. Even the Laws of Physics cannot defy such a staggering P2W advantage the GT500 has over ALL except the ZR1.

The fact the 'Ring numbers are in the same neighborhood as the GMs listed is strictly due to one outrageous engine, wrapped in an outdated chassis. By moving to IRS with the next-Gen Mustang is a clear admission of this significant shortcoming by its parents...

[ZL1-V]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Car - Curb Weight -- HP -- P2W --- 'Ring

ZR1.....3,300............638....5.2.......7:19

GT500..3,850...........662....5.81.....7:39

Z06/7...3,200..........505....6.33.....7:22

Z/28.....3,827..........505....7.58.....7:37

ZL1......4,120..........580....7.10.....7:41

Chassis dynamics, including weight distribution, tire sizes and compounds, all come into play. IRS vs. SRA. Even the Laws of Physics cannot defy such a staggering P2W advantage the GT500 has over ALL except the ZR1.

The fact the 'Ring numbers are in the same neighborhood as the GMs listed is strictly due to one outrageous engine, wrapped in an outdated chassis. By moving to IRS with the next-Gen Mustang is a clear admission of this significant shortcoming by its parents...

I don't understand Ford sometimes. I never looked at buying the GT500 because of the live rear axle. They implemented IRS before after several aftermarket companies were making them and installing them in the late 90's? Oh wait a minute the car can't launch as hard with the IRS, let's change it back! There is definitely a drag racer mentality at Ford that has hurt them for years. Low ET low IQ.

[LOWDOWN]

It's more of a co$t factor, too. The T-Bird - Cougar twins had IRS, but for some reason that bypassed the volume-model Mustangs. Mustang has ALWAYS wanted a price advantage in the marketplace...from Day 1, when they sold for the price of a Chevy II Nova. It'll be interesting to see what base price the next-Gen starts at, with platform development borne by a single model (initially...).

[trademaster]

If they had gone IRS with a new chassis they couldn't have wedged a 662hp DOHC v8 under the hood for the price they did. Different strokes. If we had two of the same cars from GM and Ford the this segment would be pretty boring.

[ZL1-V]

Originally Posted by trademaster

If they had gone IRS with a new chassis they couldn't have wedged a 662hp DOHC v8 under the hood for the price they did. Different strokes. If we had two of the same cars from GM and Ford the this segment would be pretty boring.

True but we would have two bad ass cars. Both great handling. We would have a battle from both for the title of better handling faster car around the Ring. I can dream at least.

[TheReaper]

Originally Posted by ZL1-V

True but we would have two bad ass cars. Both great handling. We would have a battle from both for the title of better handling faster car around the Ring. I can dream at least.

We have two badass pony cars to choose from already. How often do you drive on the Ring ?

[ZL1-V]

Originally Posted by TheReaper

We have two badass pony cars to choose from already. How often do you drive on the Ring ?

That's true but why do I personally have to settle for mediocre "pony cars"? It seems you would be content and happy. I have always modded the suspension on my cars when needed. Tell you what, ask me that question regarding the Nurburgring in about a year! I have friends in Germany that keep saying "come over". I'm retired so it is a bucket list item. In the interim, I have my own little Ring course here in So Cal. The benefits of having the mountains here. I've seen Motor Trend up there doing photo shoots!

[sizl1]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Car - Curb Weight -- HP -- P2W --- 'Ring

ZR1.....3,300............638....5.2.......7:19

GT500..3,850...........662....5.81.....7:39

Z06/7...3,200..........505....6.33.....7:22

Z/28.....3,827..........505....7.58.....7:37

ZL1......4,120..........580....7.10.....7:41

Chassis dynamics, including weight distribution, tire sizes and compounds, all come into play. IRS vs. SRA. Even the Laws of Physics cannot defy such a staggering P2W advantage the GT500 has over ALL except the ZR1.

The fact the 'Ring numbers are in the same neighborhood as the GMs listed is strictly due to one outrageous engine, wrapped in an outdated chassis. By moving to IRS with the next-Gen Mustang is a clear admission of this significant shortcoming by its parents...

No, you guys are all wrong. With a Watts link and Torque Arm, racing teams like Griggs Racing have created Mustangs that can outcorner Porsches. The problem with the stock Mustang is NOT the live rear axle. In fact properly set up, a live rear axle will outhandle IRS (as Griggs, for example, has proven) on the track because it mimics F1 "suspension" (which is really no suspension at all) on the track - that is wheels on both sides having the same angles at all times.

The PROBLEM with stock Mustangs is the use of a panhard bar, which means during s-turns, the car feels unsettled because turning left feels different from turning right. Most reviews state exactly this: that the GT500 felt unsettled during s-turns. A Watts link solves this problem.

The benefit of IRS has nothing to do with the track. The benefit of IRS is for regular roads that have potholes and other imperfections where an IRS would benefit - all of which is irrelevant on a track.

Google the reactions of people who have installed suspension like that from Griggs Racing on a Mustang. They are simply astounded about the difference. I repeat: the problem is not the live rear axle - it's the panhard bar.

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by ZL1-V

True but we would have two bad ass cars. Both great handling. We would have a battle from both for the title of better handling faster car around the Ring. I can dream at least.

Better handling doesn't mean faster. The GT500 has won just as many track battles against the ZL1 as it has lost.

[ZL1-V]

Originally Posted by sizl1

No, you guys are all wrong. With a Watts link and Torque Arm, racing teams like Griggs Racing have created Mustangs that can outcorner Porsches. The problem with the stock Mustang is NOT the live rear axle. In fact properly set up, a live rear axle will outhandle IRS (as Griggs, for example, has proven) on the track because it mimics F1 "suspension" (which is really no suspension at all) on the track - that is wheels on both sides having the same angles at all times.

The PROBLEM with stock Mustangs is the use of a panhard bar, which means during s-turns, the car feels unsettled because turning left feels different from turning right. Most reviews state exactly this: that the GT500 felt unsettled during s-turns. A Watts link solves this problem.

The benefit of IRS has nothing to do with the track. The benefit of IRS is for regular roads that have potholes and other imperfections where an IRS would benefit - all of which is irrelevant on a track.

Google the reactions of people who have installed suspension like that from Griggs Racing on a Mustang. They are simply astounded about the difference. I repeat: the problem is not the live rear axle - it's the panhard bar.

I had Griggs on my 1996 Mustang Cobra! Great components. Not cheap, but worth it.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by sizl1

No, you guys are all wrong. With a Watts link and Torque Arm, racing teams like Griggs Racing have created Mustangs that can outcorner Porsches. The problem with the stock Mustang is NOT the live rear axle. In fact properly set up, a live rear axle will outhandle IRS (as Griggs, for example, has proven) on the track because it mimics F1 "suspension" (which is really no suspension at all) on the track - that is wheels on both sides having the same angles at all times.

The PROBLEM with stock Mustangs is the use of a panhard bar, which means during s-turns, the car feels unsettled because turning left feels different from turning right. Most reviews state exactly this: that the GT500 felt unsettled during s-turns. A Watts link solves this problem.

The benefit of IRS has nothing to do with the track. The benefit of IRS is for regular roads that have potholes and other imperfections where an IRS would benefit - all of which is irrelevant on a track.

Google the reactions of people who have installed suspension like that from Griggs Racing on a Mustang. They are simply astounded about the difference. I repeat: the problem is not the live rear axle - it's the panhard bar.

Thank you for stating what many fail to realize. People think solid axle means it can't handle and IRS will instantly make it a handler.

[ZL1-V]

Who stated in this thread that IRS was a better handling system?