2010 GT500 Dyno

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

If you compare HP and ET's the GT 500 Mustang is the winner over the Camaro.

BUT, if you compare apples to apples, then the Camaro SS beats out the Mustang GT and that is the only measuring stick that is fair.

Everything else is personal taste.

I don't get your apples to apples argument? If you are looking for Muscle Coupes under $50k, the GT500 is the big boy on the block (by a huge factor). Do you have to pay up for that? Duh! But marginally about the same as adding a S\C to a non-forged SS, R/T, GT. In the 40k range, I would personally pick the GT500 over any of the others (probably a few other peeps would too ). In the $30k range, I would pick the SS over the RT or GT.

So, you seem to be saying that in the $30k range, you would pick the SS over the others. I can buy that. Then, if you had the money, you would prefer to mod a SS over a GT500. This is where it all falls apart for you. Some like to grow their own, so nothing wrong with that. However, in the long run, the GT500 will be more reliable, faster, and likely cheaper than a Frankenstein-ed SS.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

Acceleration curves are not linear, meaning a car with 2000 HP cannot run a 1/4 mile in zero seconds. However, the biggest issue is traction on cars faster than 13 second quarter milers. Often the hi-HP cars are not at WOT until sometime during second gear. Put drag radials on that GT500 and you will see 11's all day long.

Yeah, I understand that, but mph tells you more than that. I have a TBSS that would outrun that Cobra running a 12.4 (before 418 ci LS3), but my mph is like 107, I'm AWD so yeah I have traction, but the MPH tells you that 1) I'm too heavy, 2) i'm not making as much power. These cars are fairly similar in weight, so it can't be that, its either test conditions + power difference or just power difference. Running 3.8mph faster only is not a traction limited factor. MPH is HP, and 3.8mph suggests either the testing conditions between the two were WAY WAY different, or their really isn't that much of a power difference like the dyno suggests.

My point is, if the GT500 dyno'd at 511 rwhp, then why is it only trapping 114???? With almost 150 rwhp over the camaro, it should KILL the camaro, but its only trapping 3.8mph more according the Edmunds (who tested both cars with similar testing methology). We will soon see when folks actually get to take many cars to the track and we can compare lots of data, but based on what I'm seeing here, something aint' kosher.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

The Mustang was out for three years before the Camaro in the mid 60's. The Mustang was a square looking car and the Camaro was rounder. Chevy did an excellent job of making a car people would want, and did not copy one thing from Ford, except to build on the phylosophy of the type of car it should be.

History repeats itself. Ford was first with the New Mustang, and Camaro was second. The Mustang is square, and the Camaro is a much rounder car.

One very big difference is that Ford has Carrol Shelby, Jack Roush, Saleen, Steeda, etc, etc. AND they are making money.

And Chevy pretty much as rolled out a breathtaking car all on their own WHILE getting ready to declair bankruptcy.

No doubt in my mind, that once the playing field is level, and Chevy gets the Z28 into production, it will be the same as it was in the 60's.

At the drag strip and on the road courses, Chevy will once again beat the snot out of Ford.

I was at the drag stips during this time, and i saw it again and again. Engine for engine, Chevy motors where the dominating factor in Stock, Super Stock, Modified Production, Gas, Altered and even in Pro Stock in the early days.

I can still remember when Bill Jenkins came out with a small block chevy in Pro stock and the big Blocks struggled to keep up.

Chevrolet is not always the first to do something, but usually they are there at the end and more often than not, dominate.

I'll give you points for creativity. Example? The supposed GM domination of Pro Stock during the early years. In the early days you had three years of drag racing before Ford utterly took the place over, those years were 70, 71, and 72. GM won two championships during that time frame in 71 and then again in 72, but they did so by the grace of God in 1971 as Chrysler arguably dominated this class in both 1971 and 1972 with Ford nipping at their heels holding low et records for some time but being less populous in the series overall.

GM only dominated for one season, and this was in 1972 the first full year after the NHRA lowered the displacement limits, a decision which arguably played to their strengths at that time, because of this Ford barely participated in the 72 season in any official capacity and the same can be said of Chrysler. In 1973 Ford returned and won the championship every every year but one until 1981 when Lee Shepherd took the title. Two championships in three years, one by the skin of their proverbial teeth, is not domination. Seven championships in eight years? That is domination.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by pharmd

Yeah, I understand that, but mph tells you more than that. I have a TBSS that would outrun that Cobra running a 12.4 (before 418 ci LS3), but my mph is like 107, I'm AWD so yeah I have traction, but the MPH tells you that 1) I'm too heavy, 2) i'm not making as much power. These cars are fairly similar in weight, so it can't be that, its either test conditions + power difference or just power difference. Running 3.8mph faster only is not a traction limited factor. MPH is HP, and 3.8mph suggests either the testing conditions between the two were WAY WAY different, or their really isn't that much of a power difference like the dyno suggests.

My point is, if the GT500 dyno'd at 511 rwhp, then why is it only trapping 114???? With almost 150 rwhp over the camaro, it should KILL the camaro, but its only trapping 3.8mph more according the Edmunds (who tested both cars with similar testing methology). We will soon see when folks actually get to take many cars to the track and we can compare lots of data, but based on what I'm seeing here, something aint' kosher.

I see. I never follow the edmunds test numbers, they are always whack for whatever reason, as if they have nerds running the tests using tape measures and wrist watches.

Numbers are pretty well established for the 500HP Shelby, with Traps ~ 115+ as the norm.

For the 2010 model with 540HP stock, Motortrend pulled a 118MPH test with limited traction noted. That is more like it......

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by syr74

I'll give you points for creativity. Example? The supposed GM domination of Pro Stock during the early years. In the early days you had three years of drag racing before Ford utterly took the place over, those years were 70, 71, and 72. GM won two championships during that time frame in 71 and then again in 72, but they did so by the grace of God in 1971 as Chrysler arguably dominated this class in both 1971 and 1972 with Ford nipping at their heels holding low et records for some time but being less populous in the series overall.

GM only dominated for one season, and this was in 1972 the first full year after the NHRA lowered the displacement limits, a decision which arguably played to their strengths at that time, because of this Ford barely participated in the 72 season in any official capacity and the same can be said of Chrysler. In 1973 Ford returned and won the championship every every year but one until 1981 when Lee Shepherd took the title. Two championships in three years, one by the skin of their proverbial teeth, is not domination. Seven championships in eight years? That is domination.

If you read the post thoroughly, I said engine for engine.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

I don't get your apples to apples argument? If you are looking for Muscle Coupes under $50k, the GT500 is the big boy on the block (by a huge factor). Do you have to pay up for that? Duh! But marginally about the same as adding a S\C to a non-forged SS, R/T, GT. In the 40k range, I would personally pick the GT500 over any of the others (probably a few other peeps would too ). In the $30k range, I would pick the SS over the RT or GT.

So, you seem to be saying that in the $30k range, you would pick the SS over the others. I can buy that. Then, if you had the money, you would prefer to mod a SS over a GT500. This is where it all falls apart for you. Some like to grow their own, so nothing wrong with that. However, in the long run, the GT500 will be more reliable, faster, and likely cheaper than a Frankenstein-ed SS.

The GT 500 baseline price in Canada is $49,000. I can buy one today in my colour of choice.

The Camaro SS is $40,000. It is unlikely that I can buy one today and may have to wait for months if I want a specific colour.

For the extra $9,000 it had better be a faster car with more strength in its components.

The comparison I was making was between the SS and the GT.

The GT right now is about $4,000 less, but that is because no one is yet discounting the Camaro for cash deals.

Once the hype of the new car is over and there are Camaro's on the lot, then they should be very close to the same price, except the Camaro is a newer technology and more HP than the Mustang.

That is the comparison I was alluding to.

I agree that modifying the Camaro to meet the same HP as the GT will make the car more prone to breakage and repair bills. Also, the GT 500 will retain more value in the car than a modified Camaro.

The main thing that would keep me away from getting a GT 500 is that they do not come with an automatic.

My ideal car would be a Convertible Camaro with the LS9 and tap shifter built by Chevrolet. Call it the Z28.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

I see. I never follow the edmunds test numbers, they are always whack for whatever reason, as if they have nerds running the tests using tape measures and wrist watches.

Numbers are pretty well established for the 500HP Shelby, with Traps ~ 115+ as the norm.

For the 2010 model with 540HP stock, Motortrend pulled a 118MPH test with limited traction noted. That is more like it......

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html

All the mags tested the manual SS trapping 110.9-111, whereas the GT500 is all over the place, I just referred to Edmunds because they did test both, and they were the one to dyno the GT500...trying to be consistent...different mags, temperatures, test procedures etc...

We will see real #'s when real enthusiasts run these at real tracks.

GT500 is very strong for sure...I just don't see how they (Ford) is getting by with underrating the hp output with all manufacturers are suppose to be SAE standardizing everything.

[fazm]

Originally Posted by pharmd

All the mags tested the manual SS trapping 110.9-111, whereas the GT500 is all over the place, I just referred to Edmunds because they did test both, and they were the one to dyno the GT500...trying to be consistent...different mags, temperatures, test procedures etc...

We will see real #'s when real enthusiasts run these at real tracks.

GT500 is very strong for sure...I just don't see how they (Ford) is getting by with underrating the hp output with all manufacturers are suppose to be SAE standardizing everything.

maybe its rated at one rpm and pulled to another? not sure

either way, i definately want one, but at 25, 50k for a car isnt practical

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by fazm

maybe its rated at one rpm and pulled to another? not sure

either way, i definately want one, but at 25, 50k for a car isnt practical

50k for a car is never practical.

[ironpeddler]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

50k for a car is never practical.

Is $40k or $35k really that much more practical?? 2ss w/rs package including tax, etc. is going to be damn near 40k. $38k high i believe is what mine was when i had one ordered. Even a 1ss will be almost $35k when everything is said and done.

[Ninjak]

Guy I talked to down in S.Fla got his for 39k out the door. He tol told me another had paid like 5k or more over the invoice for a V6. In most cases, a SS is going to cost you close to 40k. Those who get it for 32k or so, OUT THE DOOR, well you got a great deal my friend.

[GatorBlue371]

530rwhp and only 4.3 0-60.



Thats pathetic in my book.



Hell the M3 does 0-60 in 4.3 with 370rwhp and 270lbft

[bballr4567]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

530rwhp and only 4.3 0-60.



Thats pathetic in my book.



Hell the M3 does 0-60 in 4.3 with 370rwhp and 270lbft

Traction. Its something a SC'd car has a very hard time finding with street tires.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

530rwhp and only 4.3 0-60.

Thats pathetic in my book.

Hell the M3 does 0-60 in 4.3 with 370rwhp and 270lbft

What's the infatuation on boards with 0-60 times. Are we racing to the end of my driveway????