ZL1 vs GT500 This Friday.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

Im sorry, I was referring to the multiple posts, and video's of ZL1 owners claiming "heat soak" as the reason for pulling slow lap times, losing to GT500's or averaging 112 mph traps. Not just one video. I mean its not like it hasn't been a common theme.

Unless they are hot-lapping their cars numerous times I doubt heat soak is killing off their mph that much. The summer heat is an impact though and probably costing a few tenths and 1-2 mph in lost performance. If you pay attention when the ZL1s first hit the streets there were a few owners running low 12s to high 11s stock at 117+mph, as the temps rose into summer the times really increased. My guess is come Fall you will see better times. Also I suspect much of the terrible times are due to operator error, there seems to be much confusion as to which settings would be best for the TC and LC.

[Bola1103]

I dont think is right for a camaro to have to mod the motor to beat a mustang.camaro has always had more power than a stang

[Bola1103]

Originally Posted by Rcfiddy1

Theres no more sugar coating it, Drs or stock tires. The Mustang is in a class of its own for now. You can slap Drs on a ZL1 it still won't be faster than a GT500. Now pass the kool aid please...

For me no v8 mustang should pull on a v8 camaro we have the bigger motors 6.2 vs 5.8 i like the good ole days when you went to a drag stip and walked mustangs with easy this going around a corner thing is a way of saving face who wants to get beat by a mustang at the strip not me chevy needs to put more power in it but they wont

[Deki]

Both the GT500 and the ZL1 suck. The 5.0 and the SS is where it's at. Now stop all this pointless bitching.

[AZ-ZL1]

Originally Posted by Deki

Both the GT500 and the ZL1 suck. The 5.0 and the SS is where it's at. Now stop all this pointless bitching.

I like this post.

But the arguments will never end.

Love my Z, but the Shelby's just plain faster, and that's ok.

[GoldenBear]

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

You don't like the criteria that the ZL1 lost more laps because it happened to pull a faster last lap. Ok try a different criteria. Overall time for three laps the GT500 wins. Fastest lap the GT500 wins, most laps won, the GT500 wins.

The raw results from the two vehicles used in the Motor Trend comparison were that the GT500 ran faster lap times in the first two of the three laps that were run and the ZL1 ran the faster lap time in the last of the three laps that were run. Does that by definition make the GT500 the better track vehicle? Motor Trend concluded, "No."

For those who draw the conclusion that the GT500 is the better track vehicle simply from the raw Motor Trend comparison lap time numbers, I think that a carefully re-reading of the Motor Trend article is appropriate, as, evidently, Motor Trend doesn't conclude that the raw times from three laps on a track are the sole criteria required to determine the better track vehicle.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

In a race situation the GT500 would of won. End of story.

Many SCCA, or SCCA like, races are at least 12 or 16 or more laps. Given that fact and the fact that the GT500 lap times were getting slower every lap and that fact that the ZL1's lap times were all consistent, being within 0.2 seconds of each other, I don't believe one can logically conclude that the GT500 would have won in a race situation.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

You can't claim that the ZL1 would of consistantly of pulled faster laps than the GT500 just because you believe that third lap was the indication that obviously the GT was laboring. It could of been a superb run by the driver the last lap in the ZL1 compared to a not so great last lap in the GT500.

The article indicated that the GT500 was struggling by the end of the first lap and labored even further each subsequent lap, whereas, the ZL1 was consistent across all laps:

"While the Mustang was faster around the track than the ZL1 on its best lap, it couldn't repeat the performance. By the end of the first lap, the brakes had already begun to heat up so badly, we could smell them from the pits as the car passed by on the front straight. By the end of the second lap, the Shelby had lost more than half of its advantage over the ZL. By the third lap, the Mustang was behind the Camaro. The ZL1, meanwhile, never deviated by more than two-tenths of a second."

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

Unless you can show lap after lap of ZL1 beating the GT, then its purely specualtion.

I think that many would like to see a comparison of 16 or 20 laps between the two vehicles on the same course, on the same day, by the same driver.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

For the most part the GT500 has won more laps, more overall victories, and pulled the faster times on laps than the ZL1. Deal with it.

There have been four magazine comparisons that I've seen so far and all four have concluded that the ZL1 is the better vehicle. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

If someone came in here and claimed a Porsch GT3 was superior to the ZL1 no one would bat an eye. Why is it so hard to accept the GT500?

Because the reviews so far don't draw or appear to warrant that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

Suddenly we are going to accept "magazines" perceived better car

Accept it or not, like it or not, it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

when most of these same people complained in years past over these mags claiming another car was better when it didn't constitute it?

Do you have statistic significant data supporting this claim regarding "most of these same people" or is it simply your opinion based on anecdotal evidence?

Originally Posted by Sweet Zness

When they refused to accept the GTR as being better than the Z06 because the Z06 was a real car that wasn't easy to drive and suddenly the roles are reversed?

Again, is this claim regarding refusing to accept the GT-R as being better than the Z06 supported by statistically significant data or is it simply another of your opinions based on anecdotal evidence?

For the record, I have never claimed that the GT-R is not a better vehicle than the Z06.

[A-little-perspective]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

Many SCCA, or SCCA like, races are at least 12 or 16 or more laps. Given that fact and the fact that the GT500 lap times were getting slower every lap and that fact that the ZL1's lap times were all consistent, being within 0.2 seconds of each other, I don't believe one can logically conclude that the GT500 would have won in a race situation.


I think that many would like to see a comparison of 16 or 20 laps between the two vehicles on the same course, on the same day, by the same driver.


There have been four magazine comparisons that I've seen so far and all four have concluded that the ZL1 is the better vehicle. Deal with it.

No one knows where the ZL1 deviated 0.2 seconds. What did the ZL1 do on the second lap?

I don't think either car would last 16-20 laps without some modifications.

To be fair. You were both right. The magazines support his claim that the GT500 is faster, as well as support your claim that the ZL1 is overall better. You both win.

[shaffe]

GB, I don't think the other posters in here are trying to say the GT500 is the better track vehicle, I think they are simply just pointing out that in the results we have to look at the GT500 was overall faster through the 3 laps that the MT, and simply put "better results" is all, not a better car but in the testing.

I know I agree with you the Z is the better track car. I believe they are all just saying what I was, that in pure numbers, the GT500 was faster. I think thats all Sweet Zness wants you to say/agree with him on. Not that the GT500 is the better track or overall car, just that in those 3 laps it was faster.

[jewc75]

5.0 > ZL1 that is all.

[AZ-ZL1]

Originally Posted by jewc75

5.0 > ZL1 that is all.

Maybe all...BS

[2cnd chance]

This is a very messed up thread

[GoldenBear]

Originally Posted by shaffe

GB, I don't think the other posters in here are trying to say the GT500 is the better track vehicle, I think they are simply just pointing out that in the results we have to look at the GT500 was overall faster through the 3 laps that the MT, and simply put "better results" is all, not a better car but in the testing.

I know I agree with you the Z is the better track car. I believe they are all just saying what I was, that in pure numbers, the GT500 was faster. I think thats all Sweet Zness wants you to say/agree with him on. Not that the GT500 is the better track or overall car, just that in those 3 laps it was faster.

I simply don't understand the point of restating that which I think most who can read at least at a third grade level can determine by reading the Motor Trend article, and with which there is general agreement, and that is that in the three track laps that were run in the Motor Trend comparison the GT500 was faster in the first two laps and the ZL1 was faster in the third lap.

With respect to road course racing that would be similar to watching three laps of a 5K race in the Olympics where one runner was faster in the first two 400 meter laps and another runner was faster in the third 400 meter lap, and then restating the lap times of both runners for the first three laps. That, of course, would be restating observed factual information. However, those particular facts, in and of themselves, are not determinative as to who won the 5K race or who is a better 5K runner.

Is anyone disputing the fact that the GT500 was faster in the first two laps and that the ZL1 was faster in the third lap?

If not, then I don't understand the point of continually restating those self-evident facts that are not in dispute.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by HpJunkie69

Dont forget about those years when there was NO camaros and mustangs were still running the streets. Pretty certain the mustangs had more power during that time too. Lol

^^^^Now there's the most intelligent post I've seen in a while...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

With regard only to the absolute number of faster lap times out of the three track laps that were run in the Motor Trend Comparison between the 2013 GT500 and the ZL1, the GT500 ran faster laps during the first two laps of the track testing and the ZL1 ran the faster lap time during the last lap of the track testing. Those are the facts with respect to the absolute number of faster laps out of the three laps that were run.

I don't think that people disagree with the first part of your statement that the GT500 ran two laps that were faster, and the ZL1 ran one lap that was faster. The disagreement lies in your conclusion, "thus not a draw."

I think that where the disagreement or confusion lies with respect to which vehicle had the better "results" is in which "results" one chooses to use. You appear to be using the absolute number of faster laps as the sole criteria in determining which vehicle performed better or had better "results" on the track. Many are not willing to and won't use only the number of faster laps as the sole criteria because they think that it's not adequate with regard to overall track performance to consider only a few raw lap times, and, therefore, they believe that a vehicle that doesn't have the greatest number of faster lap times in a given setting can have the better track "results."

Evidently, Motor Trend uses other other criteria, in addition to the number of faster laps, such as consistency, "well-controlled body motions, planted suspension, and unshakeable confidence" when determining which vehicle performs better on the track, and, hence, Motor Trend concluded that the track comparison was a draw, based on all of what they believe to be the relevant criteria.

If you want to look at only the number of faster lap times and conclude, based on that number alone, that the GT500 performed better on the track, that's your choice. Others, including Motor Trend, won't limit the criteria they use to determine the better "results" only to which vehicle has the greater number of faster lap times.

We can agree that because the GT500 ran two laps faster and the ZL1 ran one lap faster, that you believe, based on that particular number, that the GT500 "outperformed," or had better "results" than, the ZL1, or, in other words, that the GT500 performed better in the category of the number of faster laps out of the three laps that were run in the Motor Trend comparison.

If you state that the GT500 was faster on two out of the three laps, I doubt that many with argue with you. It's when one starts interpreting the overall "results" and drawing conclusions where disagreements may arise.

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

I simply don't understand the point of restating that which I think most who can read at least at a third grade level can determine by reading the Motor Trend article, and with which there is general agreement, and that is that in the three track laps that were run in the Motor Trend comparison the GT500 was faster in the first two laps and the ZL1 was faster in the third lap.

With respect to road course racing that would be similar to watching three laps of a 5K race in the Olympics where one runner was faster in the first two 400 meter laps and another runner was faster in the third 400 meter lap, and then restating the lap times of both runners for the first three laps. That, of course, would be restating observed factual information. However, those particular facts, in and of themselves, are not determinative as to who won the 5K race or who is a better 5K runner.

Is anyone disputing the fact that the GT500 was faster in the first two laps and that the ZL1 was faster in the third lap?

If not, then I don't understand the point of continually restating those self-evident facts that are not in dispute.

I don't want to keep arguing with you, but the way I read your posts(and I think others have as well) is that when someone states the GT500 is faster 2 out of 3 times, thus better performance results. your reply most often is how is that better, or how does that make it a better track car, how does that translate into a race, or my opinion leads me to believe that X will happen.

I don;t know if its you not reading my or other peoples posts correctly, or us not wording them correctly. But I am pretty sure no one hear said it would be a better race car, or would win a 15 lap race or would be the better track car. What me and a few others have said directed at you, was that the GT500 peformed better in 2 of the 3 laps MT ran, thus it had better performance results. You can not deny that. yet, when we bring it up to you. you tip toe around it and bring up other stuff like how it translates into a 15 lap race. you still have not clearly admitted that anyone who has said that was correct. Or even when you do somewhat acknowledge that the GT500 was faster, you still don't say it was you go into the feel, the brake fade, the way the drivers felt about the cars so that you can still give the edge to the ZL1.

basically cliff notes is you wont flat out say that the GT500 put down better numbers on Laguna Seca. You twist into something else, but if you would just agree with what was said people wouldnt be arguing with you. Last time i checked being fast 2 out 3 times, that means those 2 times i had better results. Thats all anyone has been saying