2012 gt500 vs 2012 Zl1

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

Car & Driver

Steven Cole Smith
Bilstein Damptronic...Firm and Very Firm... it felt like the tires were attached to your spine
Understeered like the world's fastest front wheel-drive car
Stability control... momentary one wheel braking
On dips, you do feel the extra weight
It is the proving grounds policy to run winter tires

Michael Austin
With the ZL1, General Motors has made the Camaro into a true GT car -- daily driver, long range missile and track day special all in one.


Hmmm...
200 MPH with tires attached to you spine
180 MPH true GT car, long range missile and track day special

Sounds familiar...

Originally Posted by JusticePete

Can you say, dumb, dumber and dumbest, because those are the guys Ford had running the Car & Driver GT500 event. When we at Pedders setup an event, we set it up to show our best possible performance. Why would Ford arrange a vehicle review at a track where they knew in advance would handicap the car with winter tires? That was partner Dumb. Partner Dumber made the earlier decision to use Firm and Very Firm dampers. Dumbest came up with traction and stability control a decade behind the ZL1 system. Together they turned what should have been a Ford lovefest into a disappointing article.

All good sales and marketing programs use product strengths to position the product in the market place as a class leader. For the GT500 that appears to be raw horsepower and blistering fast 1/4 mile times. So why would we be at a road course on the winter tires They should have been on a drag strip with the best Goodyears money can buy banging the drum so loud it would be impossible to even think about a ZL1.

Ford seized the high ground with a 650 HP motor announcement when the ZL1 TEAM was announcing final specs. They gave it all back with a poorly constructed event, Chevy brought a GT and demonstrated a world class GT automobile the ZL1. Ford brought a 650 HP monster and demonstrated a 650HP winter tire handicapped limp noodle.

Were I running Ford, there would be three people with a lot of explaining to do. They took the best car Ford makes and turned it into an also ran.

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

It was a preview ride-along, not a full test or comparison, so it really didn't mean more than furthering speculation. You also seemed to neglect their comments on some of your continually expressed concerns and the context of the comments you quoted. This context is important because it presents striking contrast with your own conclusions drawn from other statements in the very same article. For example:

"A portion of Ford’s proving ground has adjoining strips of pavement that replicate different surfaces, from smooth asphalt to very bumpy roads, the latter achieved by bolting strips of steel to the pavement. On some surfaces, the difference in the two suspension settings was barely perceptible, while on others, it felt like the tires were attached directly to your spine."

Quoting without context the way you did seems to give the impression the ride is extremely rough on all terrains while the article clearly states the opposite.

"Of course, the Shelby’s extra 215 pounds over the Boss Laguna Seca also increase front downforce. On dips, you feel that extra weight, but what are you going to do?"

Again, context.

Some comments I'm surprised you missed based on your previous posts -

"The suspension does a remarkable job of keeping the tires planted coming off elevation changes, and there is no perceptible body roll. Stability control can be turned off entirely, of course, but it’s so good in sport mode that you have to wonder if you need to."

"Surprisingly, though, Martindale says that, properly heated by a good burnout, the stock Goodyears nearly match the slicks’ launch traction."

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

wow, that actually changes everything! i should have read the article instead of that guys cliff notes!! thanks for the very informative post

Nothing is out of context. Not a single word. They are quotable phrases and do not reflect well on the GT500, deserved or not, from a C&D article. They stick out like a sore thumb. Hell they make you wince like you just hammered your own thumb if you are from Ford or a Ford enthusiast. The article was an EPIC FAIL for Ford and the 2013 GT500 marketing department. It has everything to do with Ford's presentation of the vehicle to Car and Driver.

"Surprisingly, though, Martindale says that, properly heated by a good burnout, the stock Goodyears nearly match the slicks’ launch traction."



Trust me the the stock Goodyears nearly match the slicks
Trust me the stock tires corner much better
Trust me the steering feels great
If we had the stock Goodyears we would be pulling 1.6 G turns
I'ld be happy to race and would beat you by 87 car lengths but I have a bowl of goldfish on the front seat so I can't

You betcha I'll be surprised when a street tire launches at the strip like a


The ZL1 review reads like GM wrote it for a ZL1 brochure. I guarantee you the 2013 GT500 article does not read the way Ford would have written it for anything. Why would Ford take them over the rough road test to demonstrate that when the dampers are set to hard it rattles your bones Those are exactly the type of bullet points that you don't EVER want to see in print.

Now were I to draw conclusions from the article they would be:

• Damptronic is dated technology. Set to hard I knew it would be hard. If you didn't know it would be hard you should have.
• Ford's single wheel brake S/TC is dated technology compared to offerings from a number of different MFGs.
• The engine is AWESOME, but the article didn't really reinforce it.
• I read nothing in the C&D article that increased the perceived value of the GT500. In fact reading the Camaro review and the GT500 back to back made it worse than a stand alone article.
• Ford brought C&D to a test track to ride along on SNOW TIRES

So I ask the 2013 GT500 enthusiasts -- You read the Car and Driver article and really thought DAMN! What a fantastic presentation of the soon to be best ever Mustang?

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by NoWRX

It was *NOT* a review, it was more of a preview. Car and Driver didn't even drive the cars themselves, Ford employed drivers drove them around as passengers. It'd be incredibly ignorant to make conclusions about the car based off of such a brief preview.

To me, the whole thing seemed to be an ad-hoc sort of thing. I'm sure someone from Ford called C&D at the last minute and said something along the lines of, "Hey, we're testing pre-production prototypes at the proving grounds, you're welcome to come out and see the cars and go for a brief ride". There was no formal testing done with any equipment.

In an environment that Ford controlled right down to the drivers, there is absolutely no excuse for the 'passenger' to come away with a list of quotable phrases that make the GT500 look bad. Hey I have a great last minute idea. We should put a C&D writer in the passenger seat and drive over the rough road test section to show him how brutal the ride is with the Damptronics set to HARD

The new ZL1 is supposed to be a great handling car and we should show the world that Ford has a better idea. Let's grab a C&D writer and take him out on a road course in the 2013 GT500 with SNOW TIRES to show him how great it handles!

Where is The Donald when Ford needs him?

[Unobtainium]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

So I ask the 2013 GT500 enthusiasts -- You read the Car and Driver article and really thought DAMN! What a fantastic presentation of the soon to be best ever Mustang?

I have to agree with this. What was the point of that? Why would you not put your best foot forward? It's as if they were desperate to keep the new gt500 in everybody's mind because the zl1 is stealing the show or something.
They goofed. I'm sure the car is great when it's not on winters, or going over simulated washboard, or on the stiffest settings...

[Tob]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

It was a preview ride-along, not a full test or comparison, so it really didn't mean more than furthering speculation. You also seemed to neglect their comments on some of your continually expressed concerns and the context of the comments you quoted. This context is important because it presents striking contrast with your own conclusions drawn from other statements in the very same article. For example:

"A portion of Ford’s proving ground has adjoining strips of pavement that replicate different surfaces, from smooth asphalt to very bumpy roads, the latter achieved by bolting strips of steel to the pavement. On some surfaces, the difference in the two suspension settings was barely perceptible, while on others, it felt like the tires were attached directly to your spine."

Quoting without context the way you did seems to give the impression the ride is extremely rough on all terrains while the article clearly states the opposite.

"Of course, the Shelby’s extra 215 pounds over the Boss Laguna Seca also increase front downforce. On dips, you feel that extra weight, but what are you going to do?"

Again, context.

Some comments I'm surprised you missed based on your previous posts -

"The suspension does a remarkable job of keeping the tires planted coming off elevation changes, and there is no perceptible body roll. Stability control can be turned off entirely, of course, but it’s so good in sport mode that you have to wonder if you need to."

"Surprisingly, though, Martindale says that, properly heated by a good burnout, the stock Goodyears nearly match the slicks’ launch traction."

Very well put.

[JusticePete]

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

Nothing is out of context. Not a single word. They are quotable phrases and do not reflect well on the GT500, deserved or not, from a C&D article. They stick out like a sore thumb. Hell they make you wince like you just hammered your own thumb if you are from Ford or a Ford enthusiast. The article was an EPIC FAIL for Ford and the 2013 GT500 marketing department. It has everything to do with Ford's presentation of the vehicle to Car and Driver.

You can't seriously believe your quotes weren't out of context. The fact they are, "quotable phrases" does nothing to support the notion they weren't out of context. Here's the difference, plainly.

1. "felt like the tires were attached directly to your spine."

2. "On some surfaces, the difference in the two suspension settings was barely perceptible, while on others, it felt like the tires were attached directly to your spine."

Quote 1 will be interpreted by anyone that hasn't read the article as the suspension being so stiff it is rough in any circumstance. Quote 2, the actual statement made by the article, suggests some surfaces on the firmest suspension setting are very rough. You literally left out the SUBJECT of the sentence, which I underlined.

Here, I'll quote your statements the same way.

"Ford brought a 650 HP monster"

vs

"Ford brought a 650 HP monster and demonstrated a 650HP winter tire handicapped limp noodle."

That's a quotable phrase, is it not? Do the two quotes express the same ideas to the reader?



As for Ford's event being a marketing catastrophe. . .

"Before you ask, yes, of course we would have preferred a test drive in the 2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 instead of a test ride, but if you knew the hoops we had to jump through just to plant our asses in the Recaro right seat for an afternoon, you’d understand."

This is the very first paragraph of the article. It doesn't seem like Ford was sending their marketing department on a hunt for magazine reviewers to me. Does it to you? I also don't think any real auto enthusiasts without extreme bias drew any final conclusions about the performance of the gt500 on two different sets of winter tires. Meanwhile, you're also disregarding all positive comments about the car while lending full credit to the negative statements, despite nearly all of them being followed by the authors attributing those issues to winter tires. The article was very positive overall, constantly addressing the snow tires as a major hindrance to the vehicle performing. Read the comments, response is overwhelmingly positive from most readers. One can assume this is because they have taken the article at face value, a preview ride along in a car that isn't ready to be tested by the mags yet.

[JusticePete]

So repeatedly making excuses for performance because of snow tires is not hiding behind your' Momma's skirt and is a good thing

The test driver making the statement that street tires are as good as slicks give him credibility and is a good thing

That Damptronic is by the actual statement made by the article, suggests some surfaces on the firmest suspension setting are very rough. is a good thing

That the dated technology of Damptronic and one wheel brake S/TC is a good thing

Am I being sarcastic and having a lot of fun with this? You betcha.

Read the comments to see that people predisposed to like the 2013 found the article to be favorable? Why?

The purpose of exposure in a magazine is to bring people to the closing table that are not currently considering the purchase of your product. Everything I have written about the article demonstrates how poorly presented the 2013 was. This is a Camaro forum. The article is a feast for those that love the Camaro and don't care for the Mustang. The article has Camaro owners ROTFLing is one more reason why the article is an epic fail for Ford.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

So repeatedly making excuses for performance because of snow tires is not hiding behind your' Momma's skirt and is a good thing

The test driver making the statement that street tires are as good as slicks give him credibility and is a good thing

That Damptronic is by the actual statement made by the article, suggests some surfaces on the firmest suspension setting are very rough. is a good thing

That the dated technology of Damptronic and one wheel brake S/TC is a good thing

Am I being sarcastic and having a lot of fun with this? You betcha.

Read the comments to see that people predisposed to like the 2013 found the article to be favorable? Why?

The purpose of exposure in a magazine is to bring people to the closing table that are not currently considering the purchase of your product. Everything I have written about the article demonstrates how poorly presented the 2013 was. This is a Camaro forum. The article is a feast for those that love the Camaro and don't care for the Mustang. The article has Camaro owners ROTFLing is one more reason why the article is an epic fail for Ford.

Hmm, can you quote me saying any of the bold without taking statements out of context? Hiding behind your momma's skirt? I don't even know what you're suggesting here. I was simply pointing out that you quoted the article out of context. I never said anything about the stability and traction control or the damptronic suspension. Though, it should be noted that the article you quoted to shoot those technologies down specifically states that both do a great job.

"The suspension does a remarkable job of keeping the tires planted coming off elevation changes, and there is no perceptible body roll. Stability control can be turned off entirely, of course, but it’s so good in sport mode that you have to wonder if you need to."

I also haven't seen camaro owners, "ROTFLing" at this article. In fact, if memory serves when this article was first posted here it just lead to speculation on price and people commenting on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile estimates in comparison to earlier statements about the zl1 being faster 0-60. That's probably because most of the forum took the ride along for what it was.

Did you read the comments or are you just assuming the positive ones were made by people predisposed to liking the gt500?

Listen, I haven't made any argument for the performance of the gt500. I simply don't agree with cherry-picking bits and pieces of quotes to misrepresent an article. The bits you chose painted a completely different picture than the article you quoted due to context. The car was on winter tires and EVERYONE that read the article knows that because it was mentioned over and over again. Nobody sane is going to translate the performance of the car on those tires to what it will do stock, it's just a sneak peak. It seems you're trying to say the article was overwhelmingly negative and had a negative reaction from it's audience which is simply a fallacy. In reality it seems most took it as a preview for a real test to come and comments are heavily in favor of a positive reaction. It's also obvious that C&D feels the car will perform quite well.

Perhaps you have a different view than most, do you believe that's possible? Is it possible that many read this article and thought, "oh, they said some pretty good things about the car while it was on snow tires. I'll have to watch for the real review when it's on stock tires and see how it does" ? Maybe everyone just saw the tiny fragments of thoughts you quoted and decided to run away from the car screaming. I have a feeling the former is more likely.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Hmm, can you quote me saying any of the bold without taking statements out of context? Hiding behind your momma's skirt? I don't even know what you're suggesting here. I was simply pointing out that you quoted the article out of context. I also haven't seen camaro owners, "ROTFLing" at this article. In fact, if memory serves when this article was first posted here it just lead to speculation on price and people commenting on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile estimates in comparison to earlier statements about the zl1 being faster 0-60. That's probably because most of the forum took the ride along for what it was.

Did you read the comments or are you just assuming the positive ones were made by people predisposed to liking the gt500?

Listen, I haven't made any argument for the performance of the gt500. I simply don't agree with cherry-picking bits and pieces of quotes to misrepresent an article. It seems you're trying to say the article was overwhelmingly negative and had a negative reaction from it's audience which is simply a fallacy. In reality it seems most took it as a preview for a real test to come and comments are heavily in favor of a positive reaction. It's also obvious that C&D feels the car will perform quite well.

Clearly your expectations for the Ford people running the 2013 program are far lower than mine. I have never said the article was overwhelmingly negative. I have said repeatedly that the way Ford choose to present the 2013 in a Ford controlled environment was badly bungled and provides a wealth of material to devalue it.

Who thinks running the 2013 on snow tires was a media savvy move and showed it in the best possible light?

Who thinks that the spokesperson for the 2013 saying that the OEM street tires are as good a slicks gives him credibility?

What possible good would come from running the 2013 on HARD across the rough road section of the test track? Hmm when I set in on HARD the ride is rough so it could be juxtaposed with the electronic wizardry smoothness of the MRC? Where is the WIN in this move for Ford?

If you were running Ford, when you read this article would you have invited everyone involved and their significant others out for a fabulous dinner with champagne corks popping because they controlled the message so well or sent a memo telling them to get their act together?

[8cd03gro]

Those are some great questions and for the most part I agree with your sentiments in the above post. Now I'd like to ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that the following post, the one I first responded to, expresses even remotely the same sentiment that your above post does? Is the following honestly supposed to be a critique of Ford's marketing department and how they conducted this event? You say I have low expectations, well if your expectations are for me or anyone else to pull your critique of Ford's marketing out of the following, you expect mind reading and flying pigs.

Originally Posted by JusticePete

Car & Driver

Steven Cole Smith
Bilstein Damptronic...Firm and Very Firm... it felt like the tires were attached to your spine
Understeered like the world's fastest front wheel-drive car
Stability control... momentary one wheel braking
On dips, you do feel the extra weight
It is the proving grounds policy to run winter tires

Michael Austin
With the ZL1, General Motors has made the Camaro into a true GT car -- daily driver, long range missile and track day special all in one.


Hmmm...
200 MPH with tires attached to you spine
180 MPH true GT car, long range missile and track day special

Sounds familiar...

[radz28]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

LOL

kinda like how everyone here used to bag on the Dodge challenger srt8 for being "too expensive" but in reality it was because it came so loaded and now the ZL1 is really expensive but people praise it because it comes pretty loaded

I we take into consideration how much more technologically advanced ZL1 is than the Challenger, I still think that's a relative point. Can you point out one system on the Challenger that is more advanced than ZL1? I'm not going to waste time with listing everything that comes to mind, however, this point is moot, IMO.

Regarding the preview - when someone says a street tire, after heated, hooks like a slick - they lose most of their credibility with me. That is about the craziest thing I've read lately, especially coming from a car rep'. I guess will see the GT500 pull it's front tires when it's released on the OEM G2s... LOL.

Let's keep the conversation respectful, please...

[ffrcobra_65]

I am not understanding all the "advanced tech" references. The suspension? What? Is there anything new on the ZL1 that hasn't been on any car before? I am not trying to be smart-arse, I just want to add to what I already know. I am sure I am going to enjoy the ZL1's ability to hold its own in a roadcourse but I am not blind to the fact that it sorely needs the "high tech" suspension to negate its porkiness in order to compete in a roadcourse.

[JusticePete]

This post is not addressed to anyone individual. It is addressed to those that will protest the loudest and with the greatest frequency. It is blunt. There will be collateral damage.

Bilstein Damptronic...Firm and Very Firm... it felt like the tires were attached to your spine TRUE or FALSE

Understeered like the world's fastest front wheel-drive car TRUE or FALSE

Stability control... momentary one wheel braking TRUE or FALSE

On dips, you do feel the extra weight TRUE or FALSE

It is the proving grounds policy to run winter tires TRUE or FALSE


Did we know before the article that that the Damptronics set to HARD would ride HARD? YES

Does the 2005 on Mustang deliver from the factory with an understeer bias, with the exception of the BOSS LS? YES

Did we know before the article ran that the new 2013 Mustang would use dated technology like the one wheel brake T/SC system? YES

Did we know that the new 2013 would be heavier and it would show on track? YES

Did we know the first ride along in the new 2013 would be on winter tires? No, I guess that means I am not perfect.

Hmmm...
200 MPH with tires attached to your spine -- No way I am running at 200 MPH set to city or soft mode so this would appear to be dead nuts on accurate.

180 MPH true GT car, long range missile and track day special. Did we know the ZL1 would be this good? Yep, I knew because we built one this good two years ago and I drove it 20K on track and cross country.

Sounds familiar... It sure does sound like the results we all expected and mirrors too many other threads. Go ahead and love your 2012 GT500. I think it can be a great car. I simply don't want to hear the chest thumping here on Camaro5 and in the ZL1 section in particular. It is why I take particular delight in posting the wonderful negatives from the C&D article Are Camaro owners ROTFLing along with me -- you betcha They are just as tired of this worn out my GT500 is better than a ZL1 as I am, but they are too polite to post it here. On the other hand the phone calls, PMs and emails are hysterical

There is not any thing in the 2013 article that can compare to this sentence written by Michael Austin.

With the ZL1, General Motors has made the Camaro into a true GT car -- daily driver, long range missile and track day special all in one.

This is


Camaros win. Period. End of Story.

If there were a Mustang forum as good as the Camaro5 forum and I was a regular there I would say the same thing about a Camaro ZL1 lover posting in the 2013 GT500 section. Take your bluster and BS back to your own forum.

This is Camaro5. Show some or go home to your Mustang forum.

Any questions? Ask a Moderator for directions home

[ffrcobra_65]

Justice Pete, not trying to poke at you but what will you say when the 2013GT500 blows the ZL1 out of the water...0-60, 1/4 mile, and roadcourse?

BTW, I don't have a forum that I call home. Like many here, I am a car enthusiast, I belong to many forums because I have owned and own many different cars. I enjoy this hobby and can be biased but NEVER a blind one.

FYI...Camaro5 is getting a bad rep at other forums, get this, even at other Camaro/Chevy forums. We are being accused of blind fanboys.