Chevrolet: Stock 2012 ZL1 Runs 11.93 Quarter Mile (Video)

[KKreme15]

Originally Posted by ffrcobra_65

So many will be eating crow when the bad ass snake comes out to feast on the ZL1. It won't be easier to drive but bad ass it will be. I don't want it. I will be quite happy with having the second place car.
What is patthetic is some of you who just last week gave up the straight line race to the snake and switched your argument to the roadcourse. Now listen to you bandwagoners switch argument again. Pathetic.

[Chevy Troll SS]

Well I ran my stock 2012 GT500 with 200 miles on it at the track Wednesday on the stock tires. Only thing I did was ice down the blower between runs. Here is a pic of some of the slips................

Your track didn't use enough VHT, clearly the stock tires are good for 1.6 60's

Maybe he should get magnetic ride control

Well I ran my stock 2012 ss1 with 201 miles on it at the track Wednesday on the stock tires. Only thing I did was ice down the CAI between runs. Here is a pic of some of the slips...............

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by 1ltcap

so what's gonna be the excuse when the shelby runs a quicker 1/4, quicker nurburgring lap, faster top end, and better lap times at tracks here in the usa? will we shift it to the "gt500 vs zr1" argument again? or will we use the "well if the camaro weighed 250 pounds less" argument.

[/B]

Gosh golly gee, one light cap, maybe Ford got it wrong...maybe they should have named it after that other greatest American hero, Ali...

"I am the GREATEST!" You don't NEED to run anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Just take your word for it...like the Camaro Cats foolishly take Mr. O's word, right?

Words alone don't win races...

The ZL1 IS fully a match for the existing GT 500 in a straight line, and kicks its hiney on any road course...ANY... It certainly remains to be seen how 662hp gets transmitted through those 285s. With the weight-to-power ratio it supposedly has, there shouldn't be a production car in the WORLD it can't handle, right? (After all, there isn't a single NHRA Stock or Super Stock class it qualified for with its sub-6.00 lb/hp rating. FACT). Hell, it should trounce a Cobra Jet...

But we certainly ALL know THAT won't be the case...and THAT is Ford's real insecurity. Pro Street...when the world has turned to Pro Tour!

A One-trick Pony...

[2ndCamaro79]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

Ask and ye shall receive!
*
http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...orrection.html
*

So all of Motor Trends times are corrected? Your information points to corrections for the extremes of hot and cold testing. No where in the ZL1 written review did they say the times were corrected. So your implying the ZL1s time was 12.6 corrected to 12.1 for print and then corrected again to under 12 seconds for their video Boy what can we believe anymore next we must argue about rollout vs non rollout 0 to 60 times.

[Bob Cosby]

...and then use the SAE's J1349 procedure as a guide to correct all test results to standard operating conditions of 77 degrees F, 29.32 inches mercury barometric pressure, and zero-percent humidity.

Pretty sure all means all. It's actually a smart thing for a magazine to do.

[JimmyDeanSausage]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

So all of Motor Trends times are corrected?

Yes. It doesn't really make sense to correct some of them and not others, does it?

Your information points to corrections for the extremes of hot and cold testing. No where in the ZL1 written review did they say the times were corrected.

Nowhere in any of their tests do they state it's corrected, because they all are.

So your implying the ZL1s time was 12.6 corrected to 12.1 for print and then corrected again to under 12 seconds for their video Boy what can we believe anymore next we must argue about rollout vs non rollout 0 to 60 times.

I'm not implying it, it's a stone cold fact, which has been proven. 12.1 is corrected, period.

And the difference in 1/4 times is probably because they had an MT guy as well as an Ignition guy there. Or maybe he hadn't looked at the weather station for a while, and the correction decreased. Or maybe it's because they averaged two runs in opposite directions to eliminate wind. (probably one of the latter two, since ignition also reports 12.1 rather than 11.9x). If you really want to know, ask them. But there is ZERO doubt that the 1/4 times are corrected. If you know anything about drag racing you should KNOW that there's no way a Boss ran a 12.4 in a DA of 4000+.

[OldScoolCamaro]

Originally Posted by ffrcobra_65

So many will be eating crow when the bad ass snake comes out to feast on the ZL1. It won't be easier to drive but bad ass it will be. I don't want it. I will be quite happy with having the second place car.
What is patthetic is some of you who just last week gave up the straight line race to the snake and switched your argument to the roadcourse. Now listen to you bandwagoners switch argument again. Pathetic.

With all due respect, your rhetoric is negative and inflamatory. In your present state you are not being a valued contributor to this Camaro board. Have a nice day, and those who stir the pot must remind oneself that all comes back full circle. On what side of the line do you wish to be placed on?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

So all of Motor Trends times are corrected? Your information points to corrections for the extremes of hot and cold testing. No where in the ZL1 written review did they say the times were corrected. So your implying the ZL1s time was 12.6 corrected to 12.1 for print and then corrected again to under 12 seconds for their video Boy what can we believe anymore next we must argue about rollout vs non rollout 0 to 60 times.

we record the weather conditions using a Computech RaceAir system and then use the SAE's J1349 procedure as a guide to correct all test results to standard operating conditions of 77 degrees F, 29.32 inches mercury barometric pressure, and zero-percent humidity.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...#ixzz1u3C2TAQ9

That's about as plain as it gets. . .

[2ndCamaro79]

We can split hairs all night long.Different dynos give different numbers, some magazines test with rollout, all manual cars have some degree of driver error. Motor Trend sells a lot of magazines and has been doing so for a long time. When they say the ZL1 got a corrected time of under 12 seconds I am going to roll with it. This claim was just backed up by Chevy engineers at the drag strip.

[JimmyDeanSausage]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

We can split hairs all night long.Different dynos give different numbers, some magazines test with rollout, all manual cars have some degree of driver error. Motor Trend sells a lot of magazines and has been doing so for a long time. When they say the ZL1 got a corrected time of under 12 seconds I am going to roll with it. This claim was just backed up by Chevy engineers at the drag strip.

Where in the MT article do they say they got a corrected time of less than 12 seconds?

Why does the ignition video say also say 12.1? There must be a reason the numbers they put on the screen says 12.1, and not 11.9x, right?

How much do you think MTs GT500 time would be improved if they tested in a location at 4400' elevation, where an 11 GT500 would have around 75 less horsepower (making it significantly easier to launch, obviously)?

[2ndCamaro79]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

Where in the MT article do they say they got a corrected time of less than 12 seconds?

How much do you think MTs GT500 time would be improved if they tested in a location at 4400' elevation, where an 11 GT500 would have around 75 less horsepower (making it significantly easier to launch, obviously)?

In the Ignition video which is produced by Motor Trend they stated a 1/4 mile time of 12.1 and a corrected time (at 2:52 in video) of under 12 seconds when launched correctly. So to me he was saying the normal time was 12.1 and the corrected time was under 12

All I know is Motor Trend got a 12.7 1/4 mile time for the Shelby if that is corrected skip to 4:40 to see that 12.7

[hognutz]

Originally Posted by SVT Murrocket

Not true at all. Most are here because GM's top brass started thumping his chest saying how much faster the ZL1 was than the GT 500. He issued the challenge. He called out the GT 500. We are here to answer the challenge. It has nothing to do with having the need to "bash" anything." We respect the competition and understand that competition mankes both better. Ask yourself this - would GM have even produced the ZL1 if the Shelby GT 500 had not been in the market place? Probably NOT! Would the '13 GT 500 be as bad as it is without the ZL1 - DEFINATELY NOT! When they FINALLY do go head to head - we shall see who is right. Both will perform well. I'm betting the GT 500 is faster in a straight line and around the track. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. And guess what? It will change NOTHING. Both will still be awesome cars.

I hate to tell you this but a 2012 ZL1 is 35mph faster than 2012 GT500. It consistantly laps quicker everywhere it goes. as 2012 gt500 goes 155 ha ha.

Now what we have not seen is same day same track drag race. I have a feeling the 3.73 geared manual cars are going to be very close.

the auto in stock trim may struggle.

I unlike half of the whinning bickering biased people in this thread just want to see a real race. None if this this guy 1year ago on this track ran 11.95 gt500 and this guy three weeks ago ran 12.02 in a manual ZL1.

In a drag race same day is really a must. I don't even car if the gt500 wins even though I have never lost to one in my vette someone out there owns one that would blow my doors off in a drag race and I still would rather have my vette.

I am struggling to understand why ford people come hear to debate. I am perfectly comfortable having a 12.0 car that handles better than and 11.9 car. thank you drive through.

[JimmyDeanSausage]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

In the Ignition video which is produced by Motor Trend they stated a 1/4 mile time of 12.1 and a corrected time (at 2:52 in video) of under 12 seconds when launched correctly. So to me he was saying the normal time was 12.1 and the corrected time was under 12

1. You just got shown a direct link from MT stating that ALL the performance numbers they publish are corrected, and you're still going to insist that the 12.1 isn't corrected? Really? Are you kidding? Why don't you send them an email and ask them? Maybe you should send them an email to revise their testing methodology article to say "ALL the numbers we publish are corrected, EXCEPT for the ONE TIME we tested a ZL1, for no apparent reason."

2. If you knew ANYTHING about drag racing and DA you'd know that 12.1 at 4400' would correct to around 11.4 at 124 at sea level. You really think that's right? Again, are you kidding? Dude, look it up. Go to http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...ect+ET+and+MPH
and put in 4400' elevation, 60 degree temps, 29.92 pressure, and 0% humidity, see what you get.

You're wrong. It's that simple. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet you continue to believe what you want to believe. Why is that?

All I know is Motor Trend got a 12.7 1/4 mile time for the Shelby if that is corrected skip to 4:40 to see that 12.7

12.7 eh? Is that better or worse than the 12.9 that R&T ran in a ZL1? Can you help me with the math here, I can't figure it out.

[2ndCamaro79]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

1. You just got shown a direct link from MT stating that ALL the performance numbers they publish are corrected, and you're still going to insist that the 12.1 isn't corrected? Really? Are you kidding? Why don't you send them an email and ask them? Maybe you should send them an email to revise their testing methodology article to say "ALL the numbers we publish are corrected, EXCEPT for the ONE TIME we tested a ZL1, for no apparent reason."

2. If you knew ANYTHING about drag racing and DA you'd know that 12.1 at 4400' would correct to around 11.4 at 124 at sea level. You really think that's right? Again, are you kidding? Dude, look it up. Go to http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...ect+ET+and+MPH
and put in 4400' elevation, 60 degree temps, 29.92 pressure, and 0% humidity, see what you get.

You're wrong. It's that simple. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet you continue to believe what you want to believe. Why is that?



12.7 eh? Is that better or worse than the 12.9 that R&T ran? Can you help me with the math here, I can't figure it out.

Next time when Ignition does a test video (for us dumb folk) they need to say the corrected time is 12.1 seconds and the SUPER corrected time is under 12 seconds