Top Gear Z/28 Review - "the results are both terrible and wonderful"

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by mlee

LOL... Baseball is way better

I don't even like Soccer

[edco]

Originally Posted by Egon

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? The only reason I mentioned identification of stock components is because you were trying to use a vehicle with virtually no stock components to prove a point about the viability of the stock Mustang chassis. I pointed out that it was a ridiculous example, and IF you were going to use THAT example then provide us with the reasons why it is valid. IE: What components does THAT vehicle have that would prove your point, all I asked for was for YOU to back up your example. After I pointed this out to you, you ditched the GT1 car and shifted to SCCA AS class which is a more valid comparison which I NEVER commented on. I also don’t understand how you are accusing me of cherry picking, you picked the examples not me. It is not my responsibility to do your research for you, since I explicitly never said ANYTHING about the lack of ability of the Mustang ever. All I did was point out that GT1 results were not germane to any discussion here. If all you had done was post the SCCA AS results I would NEVER have commented.

Others in this thread have provided you real world apples to apples comparisons with lap times of the stock vehicles we are discussing, some of them on the same day same track and same driver. Every model of Camaro discussed was faster by at least a second or two per lap to each equivalent Mustang model. With the 2015 Mustang GT with IRS on its way that can and likely will change and only the most hardcore fanboys will attempt to deny it.

So if your entire reason for coming here to a CAMARO forum is to tell us that you like Mustangs more than fine you did, thanks for your input. But if you want to stick around you could take a page from posters here like Fenderaddict2 (the thread starter) and Norm Peterson, both Mustang owners who routinely acknowledge the merits (or weaknesses) of both cars then feel free to stick around. Just don’t expect to come into a discussion and on your first post fire off comments like “it’s a fast army tank” or suggest that its only fast because of “overkill engine and tires” and expect no one else to respond in kind. (I highly doubt that a 7:37 Nurburgring time from a 3,800 lb car that only costs $75,000 when compared to cars 2 times its price is attrubitable to an “overkill engine and tires” how about a little bit of credit to GM engineers) When you start out like that you have no grounds to claim that everyone is ganging up on you as you attempt to take the moral high ground. You set out to cause that response and that is exactly what you got.

By the way, I have NEVER said anything against the Mustang, not even once in this entire abortion of a discussion (or ever in my posting here) as I believe talking down other makes/models is childish especially since so much of a cars appeal (or anything for that matter) is subjective and based on the purchasers taste. Both sides have done it here but the entire discussion after page one has been a result of your initial subjective and misinformed comments. If you really want to continue this discussion and mend fences you can start by acknowledging that fact.

So noted. Right now I sympathize with McRat.

[URBAN LEGEND]

Can a get someone to summarize after the first summary? Rep sent.

[McRat]

Cliff Notes: Top Gear is not going to air the episode on TV. So let's talk about Mustangs!

[Bhobbs]

Edco has to be thePill. No one mentioned any kind of formal racing but he is arguing the Mustang is better because of its success in formal racing. We are talking about street legal cars that are oriented for the track. Bringing up purpose built or heavily modified races cars to prove your point shows you A) don't know what you are talking about or B) realize you have lost the argument so you change it in order to feel like you have won.

[alaskacamaro]

wonder if they have this kind of issue on the mustang forums?

[edco]

I think competition is the real test. If you want to stick your head in sand go for it.

[JoeFire]

I love BBCs Top Gear and have watched it since the beginning. However, I don't believe they give the Muscle cars we produce a fair shake. Just look at the comparison they put the SS against! An AMG Merc costing at least twice (or more) that of the SS? I love the cars they test and their reviews are accurate but I guess you have to expect the Brit slant on things when it's a BBC show. How about comparing it to a car of equal price? The next thing you know they will be using the Z/28 for their reasonably priced car segment!

[alaskacamaro]

Originally Posted by edco

I think competition is the real test. If you want to stick your head in sand go for it.

Looks like I got too close to the event horizon and got pulled in, so here it goes...

The "real test" is running cars that have equality in equipment and driver. It would be ridiculous to pit a stock street car against a heavily customized 3 million dollar. Your examples, as far as I can see, make zero sense.

Sanctioned competitions usually classify the car based on several factors. When I race, I am placed in a category with like minded vehicles. Your illustrated examples have almost nothing in common with a street legal car. Yes, there are excellent mustangs out there that destroy on the track and strip, because the owners have built them up and/or very skilled drivers.

It would be like a chevy fanboy boasting his favorite NASCAR is far superior to a GT500.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by edco

I think competition is the real test. If you want to stick your head in sand go for it.

How is comparing a race prepped or even purpose-built car to a street legal track car a "real test"?

[alaskacamaro]

Originally Posted by JoeFire

I love BBCs Top Gear and have watched it since the beginning. However, I don't believe they give the Muscle cars we produce a fair shake. Just look at the comparison they put the SS against! An AMG Merc costing at least twice (or more) that of the SS? I love the cars they test and their reviews are accurate but I guess you have to expect the Brit slant on things when it's a BBC show. How about comparing it to a car of equal price? The next thing you know they will be using the Z/28 for their reasonably priced car segment!

Like other have said, there is a general bias against "cheap" American (or in our case Canadian) vehicles. Did the same thing a few years ago with an Audi R8 vs. Corvette ZR1.

Again, love the show but realized a long time ago they only really like cars most of us will never be able to afford. Just glad I live here where I can get the power and torque I want a lot cheaper...

[DanSS24]

I see why the Mods are letting this thread carry on...I get it. Don't you guys see it? Good one. "Only winning move is not to play".

[McRat]

Originally Posted by edco

I think competition is the real test. If you want to stick your head in sand go for it.

Competition tests whether they balanced the cars in a class as far as restrictor racing goes.

SCCA AS/GT racing is about as relevant to the 5th gen Camaro as NASCAR is to the Chevy SS.

[Angrybird 12]

Bill Murray quote from Twitter:
"@BiIIMurray: How come people who think they know everything never seem to know when to shut up?"