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

[scythezo6]

It's amazing people have nothing better to do than bicker over the internet! I refuse to believe that the folks that come onto this site are pimply snot nosed brats like you see on other forums but after reading most of the posts here it's hard to tell the difference. Props on the times. If you hate the times and go out of your way to refute the runs just go line up with a ZL1, race it, win/lose and then call it day.

[htron50]

Originally Posted by ffrcobra_65

You're wrong sir. It's not the Camaro I hate, I keep buying them so I must like them a little bit, right? Anyway, it's not the ZL1 I hate, it's a specific team at GM I dislike. Stop feeding us BS, that's all.

[2ndCamaro79]

Corrected Data
Correction factors are another source of controversy in vehicle testing. Because weather conditions vary from day to day, this affects an engine's horsepower output. As a consequence, acceleration times can be effectively compared only if the results are adjusted to a set of standard atmospheric conditions. The most widely recognized correction factors are those the SAE specifies within its horsepower measurement procedure.

SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.

The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349. Some publications still use J607, ostensibly because they don't want to lose the ability to make comparisons to their library of past data. (Sure, the 0.3-second advantage they get in quarter-mile times has nothing to do with it.)

If the outdated correction factor is combined with rollout, the results can be dramatic. The following example is based on data from a single run of our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS long-term test car. Here you can see the effects that the worst-case combination of correction factor and rollout can have on a 0-60 time.

Correction

Rollout

0-60 (sec)

1/4 mile (sec @ mph)

SAE J1349
(current)

without

8.61

with

8.30

16.44 @ 83.85

SAE J607
(obsolete)

without

8.23

with

7.92

16.17 @ 85.03

If you inappropriately apply rollout to 0-60 times and use the outmoded SAE J607 for weather correction, the 0-60 time appears to be 7.9 seconds. We use the more current SAE J1349 and do not use rollout for 0-60 runs, so we would report 8.6 seconds, a difference of some 0.7 second. On quarter-mile runs, where we do include rollout for reasons explained earlier, the difference comes down to correction factor alone, and in this example the difference would round out to 0.2 second and 1.1 mph.

Same car, same run, same raw data file, same ambient conditions, but different data processing — clearly, a lot of tricks can be played by massaging the raw data. And there's a strong temptation to corrupt the data in this way because acceleration times arouse such strong emotions among readers. Enthusiasts want their dream car to be super fast, so those publications that produce the lowest numbers are hailed as professionals, while anyone who gets a lesser number "doesn't know how to drive." We think it's more important to be as correct about performance as possible, so we're scrupulous about our data.

Meanwhile, the weather data we use for the correction calculations comes from a Novalynx WS-18 portable weather station we set up at the track. It records ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure and relative humidity at five-minute intervals throughout the day.


As we can see from above "these corrections" vary widely and sometimes help or hurt data. Since most magazines do not post what the corrected vs non corrected times are or if they use corrections, how are we to know to what degree the numbers have or have not been effected. *Then there are cars like the GT-R, whose performance seems unaffected by weather?* So if correcting test results is a standard practice then Motor Trends corrected sub 12 sec run is very much capable in good conditions. Why then should we take anything away from Motor Trends sub 12 sec 1/4 mile run with the ZL1?

[bvcamaro]

Awesome vid! How about we all just get in our cars & run em down the strip and post our slips?! To sit here & argue over a video is pointless!

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

Corrected Data
Correction factors are another source of controversy in vehicle testing. Because weather conditions vary from day to day, this affects an engine's horsepower output. As a consequence, acceleration times can be effectively compared only if the results are adjusted to a set of standard atmospheric conditions. The most widely recognized correction factors are those the SAE specifies within its horsepower measurement procedure.

SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.

The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349. Some publications still use J607, ostensibly because they don't want to lose the ability to make comparisons to their library of past data. (Sure, the 0.3-second advantage they get in quarter-mile times has nothing to do with it.)

If the outdated correction factor is combined with rollout, the results can be dramatic. The following example is based on data from a single run of our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS long-term test car. Here you can see the effects that the worst-case combination of correction factor and rollout can have on a 0-60 time.

Correction

Rollout

0-60 (sec)

1/4 mile (sec @ mph)

SAE J1349
(current)

without

8.61

with

8.30

16.44 @ 83.85

SAE J607
(obsolete)

without

8.23

with

7.92

16.17 @ 85.03

If you inappropriately apply rollout to 0-60 times and use the outmoded SAE J607 for weather correction, the 0-60 time appears to be 7.9 seconds. We use the more current SAE J1349 and do not use rollout for 0-60 runs, so we would report 8.6 seconds, a difference of some 0.7 second. On quarter-mile runs, where we do include rollout for reasons explained earlier, the difference comes down to correction factor alone, and in this example the difference would round out to 0.2 second and 1.1 mph.

Same car, same run, same raw data file, same ambient conditions, but different data processing — clearly, a lot of tricks can be played by massaging the raw data. And there's a strong temptation to corrupt the data in this way because acceleration times arouse such strong emotions among readers. Enthusiasts want their dream car to be super fast, so those publications that produce the lowest numbers are hailed as professionals, while anyone who gets a lesser number "doesn't know how to drive." We think it's more important to be as correct about performance as possible, so we're scrupulous about our data.

Meanwhile, the weather data we use for the correction calculations comes from a Novalynx WS-18 portable weather station we set up at the track. It records ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure and relative humidity at five-minute intervals throughout the day.


As we can see from above "these corrections" vary widely and sometimes help or hurt data. Since most magazines do not post what the corrected vs non corrected times are or if they use corrections, how are we to know to what degree the numbers have or have not been effected. *Then there are cars like the GT-R, whose performance seems unaffected by weather?* So if correcting test results is a standard practice then Motor Trends corrected sub 12 sec run is very much capable in good conditions. Why then should we take anything away from Motor Trends sub 12 sec 1/4 mile run with the ZL1?

This is why it's all until two cars line up side by side and settle it. If they they are within tenths of each other either way it's a wash in my book. To have a clear winner there needs to be at least a 1 second difference.

[motorhead]

I think the GT500 guys should invade C5 fest. I'm sure there will be plenty of ZL1s there to find out if your better or not. That would be interesting.

[2ndCamaro79]

Honestly I don't know how the thread got so off course. The original debate was over if the engineers achieved their sub 12 second 1/4 mile on slicks or stock tires. That was settled when several sources verified with Chevy the times were posted with stock tires. In addition to the great times the camaro engineers got, Motor Trend also stated the ZL1 when launched correctly is capable of sub 12 sec runs. They proved this by using a "corrected" time because of the elevation at the test site.

A poster then opened the "corrected times" can of worms, and assumingly suggests the ZL1 is not able to run a sub 12 second 1/4 mile on stock tires. I suppose the Camaro engineers are liars and Motor Trend will say or do anything to make the Camaro look good, because they are owned by GM and The Man.

[big hammer]

one member here ran a 12.02 bone stock down to the tires on his second time down the track. and the zl1 cant touch 11's? come on people!

[kbar4782]

Exactly,

[KKreme15]

Originally Posted by kbar4782

Exactly,

Moreover,

[camarofreak]

Originally Posted by big hammer

one member here ran a 12.02 bone stock down to the tires on his second time down the track. and the zl1 cant touch 11's? come on people!

[Pro Stock John]

I would like to see the ZL1's run more mph stock but oh well, the cars are still cool in many ways. Maybe after some time passes, we'll see someone take a Ranger like approach to their car and really try to run a great time stock (GM guys know who Ranger is...).

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by ffrcobra_65

Define "valued contributor.". It seems anyone who doesn't quite drink the full glass of ZL1 flavored koolaid is branden a bad one. I understand if you feel you must believe everything GM spoon fed you to justify your $60k purchase but some of us are open enough to argue against even a car we like. Keep looking away but the simplest fact is, you were told this ZL1 is the GT500 destroyer but there is no limit to GM's opportunity to prove that (thousands of GT500s out there I beat on, easy to grab one of them to test against) but what do we get? Nothing but smokescreen and result only GM can seem
to produce. These are facts. But like I said earlier, it is what it is and until someone out here in the real world run a stock ZL1 bought from a dealer (not one for
GM garage) posts a su 12 sec time....it is what it is...

I hope you maintain an equal level of skepticism for any cars provided directly from Ford as you do for GM. After all your fanboy accusations, and accusing others of delusion, I would hate to see you become a hypocrite in the end.

If you expect a stock ZL1 bought from a dealer for real results, I hope you expect no less from the 2013 GT500.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by Rock36

I hope you maintain an equal level of skepticism for any cars provided directly from Ford as you do for GM. After all your fanboy accusations, and accusing others of delusion, I would hate to see you become a hypocrite in the end.

If you expect a stock ZL1 bought from a dealer for real results, I hope you expect no less from the 2013 GT500.

I'm sure he does. On another note the Shelby is back at the Ring even as I type and press drive day of the new GT500 is a couple of weeks away as I know one Automotive journalist who has an invite in hand.