'10 SS VS '10 GT500

[Mod4SS]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

If you want to hang your hopes on one single data point, you are in for a big letdown. At 540HP, the GT500 is capable of low 12's.

You're still missing the point... A Super-Charged V8 (GT500) versus a V8 (SS). However, to give you some additional data, read the following article about the GT500 from Car and Driver... (Camaro owners will love this )

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

[Mod4SS]

"Ford thought our 12.9-second quarter-mile was slow by a half-second, but after two test sessions in imperfect conditions—and after letting Ford’s own hot shoe take the wheel—we were unable to better the times. Ford figures the car should run 12.5-second quarters, maybe quicker. Maybe so—we await the proof. Meanwhile, it’s no quicker than a Chevy Camaro SS, which is about $17,000 cheaper."

[DeathChill]

I understand what you're saying, but just because this time it didn't work out for the GT500 really doesn't mean much. Like Sleestack quoted, the GT500 is capable of much better times then that!

[nester7929]

Originally Posted by Moderator4SS

"Ford thought our 12.9-second quarter-mile was slow by a half-second, but after two test sessions in imperfect conditions—and after letting Ford’s own hot shoe take the wheel—we were unable to better the times. Ford figures the car should run 12.5-second quarters, maybe quicker. Maybe so—we await the proof. Meanwhile, it’s no quicker than a Chevy Camaro SS, which is about $17,000 cheaper."

Usually Car and Driver is able to get better times than other publications, but this was not the case here. I don't know if it was a fluke, or the car needed a break-in, or what. However, there are quite a few people running low 12's with stock 2010 GT500's. There is a significant difference in performance between the GT500 and the SS. Now, it's debatable if it's worth the asking price, but stock for stock and driver for driver, it will beat the SS every time.

[DeathChill]

Also, sometimes the GT500 will steal your wallet in a back alley at knifepoint. I've never seen any other car do that!

[nester7929]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Also, sometimes the GT500 will steal your wallet in a back alley at knifepoint. I've never seen any other car do that!

What? He's got child support payments to make. You've seen all the versions of the Mustang running around.

[Mod4SS]

Originally Posted by nester7929

Usually Car and Driver is able to get better times than other publications, but this was not the case here. I don't know if it was a fluke, or the car needed a break-in, or what. However, there are quite a few people running low 12's with stock 2010 GT500's. There is a significant difference in performance between the GT500 and the SS. Now, it's debatable if it's worth the asking price, but stock for stock and driver for driver, it will beat the SS every time.

Sheesh...I thought you got the point in your previous post, remember?

Originally Posted by nester7929

... it's not really fair to compare a GT500 to a SS. The upcoming (hopefully) Z/28 definitely, but not to a SS. Thanks to the price/power gap, the real comparison is between the SS and the GT, which the Camaro wins by a narrow margin in most of the comparison tests.

[ironpeddler]

Originally Posted by Moderator4SS

If I was a GT500 owner, I would be embarrassed by this thread. First of all, please re-watch the video... it states the GT500 beat the Camaro by one tenth of a second (12.8 vs 12.9). Are you kidding me? 540 HP vs 426 HP and it only beat it by one tenth of a second! This is proof that GM is superior to Ford. I showed this video to my buddy who owns a GT500 and he started to cry. LMAO!

Picked up my 2010 gt500 yesterday. Guarantee it will beat any Camaro SS by more than a tenth of a second. I am in no way embarrassed to own this car. It's a bad-ass freaking car and 99% of the people on this forum would agree.

They are both sweet cars, and I would be happy with either one. You have to take magazine times like this with a grain of salt. Could be partial to GM, could be partial to Ford. Depends on what magazine you are talking about. The times used in this magazine are the Camaro's probably best possible stock times and one of the Shelby's worst possible stock times.

[SWAT 79]

God we're on page 9 of this thread and its still going back and forth? WHY!?

The gt500 is a beast of a car. In my opinion its bad ass looking, and as a fact, its fast. We're comparing a camaro ss with a above average quarter mile time to the gt500 with a slightly below average quarter mile time. (capable of 12.3 stock, average is 4-6 tenths slower). The gt500 is superior in this comparison, and as it should be. Its about 15 grand more, and is the top of the line model from ford. The camaro is on of my favorite cars right now, and its pretty impressive that it blows away all competition around its price. The only thing is, with a better driver, it would get blown away by the gt500.

Wtih all that said, I don't understand why the 2 were compared, while the camaro beat the challenger and mustang, they're all competitive and comparable vehicles. I have no idea why some (not all haha) mustang guys got so upset over losing to the camaro, the new mustangs, even 05+ are bad ass cars that can be modded and customized like no other.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by SWAT 79

Wtih all that said, I don't understand why the 2 were compared...

Because such a comparison creates controversy. Controversy creates publicity. Publicity creates sales. How many "clicks" do you think that particular article on-line has received since the piece was published, let alone the folks who bought the actual print magazine. It's all about the $$, nothing more, nothing less.

Do you really think that any of the magazines have a vested interest in what car wins their comparison or if the general populace agrees with their results?

[SWAT 79]

I didn't, but the only reason they did this was because of so much whining and crying from a few mustang loyalists. So come to think of it, YEAH, i think they care a bit.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by ironpeddler

Picked up my 2010 gt500 yesterday.

Congrats, it will only get faster after the break-in period (Super-Car speed). It is addictive. Enjoy.

[Ninjak]

Originally Posted by Moderator4SS

"Ford thought our 12.9-second quarter-mile was slow by a half-second, but after two test sessions in imperfect conditions—and after letting Ford’s own hot shoe take the wheel—we were unable to better the times. Ford figures the car should run 12.5-second quarters, maybe quicker. Maybe so—we await the proof. Meanwhile, it’s no quicker than a Chevy Camaro SS, which is about $17,000 cheaper."

You do know that was the first article and its been proven the car does better with a second article. Wow I love people who go out of their way to find a article that supports their argument from one magazine....If that's the case lets look at the articles that says the GT is a better car than the camaro. Ahh yeah..that's right....that magazine has a secret alliance with Ford....

This horse has been beaten to death. Anyone with decent knowledge of cars knows a GT500 will smoke a stock Camaro. Its not even close. Bad drivers are bad. I guess I should believe that the guy with the 2SS on Weds night at the test and tune, pulling down 9.3~9.5's is not his fault but the car is slow.

Yeah because he was getting smoke by the Charger, Benz, the BMWI35, and yeah..A Genn Coupe as well. Hell a Honda civic gave him a run for his money in one race...I guess I should believe the Camaro is just not that fast and its all hype...because of the driver. Yeah...that's it.

[nester7929]

Originally Posted by Moderator4SS

Sheesh...I thought you got the point in your previous post, remember?

Read those two quotes again.

I said that you couldn't really compare the two because they were in different classes. You agreed, but then also said that the SS was only a tenth or so slower than the GT500. I was just telling you why that wasn't the case (because like I originally said, they are in different classes). It doesn't contradict what I said at all.