ZL1 vs GT500 This Friday.

[69NMYSS]

Originally Posted by pdari

Some of you guys changed from "the ZL1 will outperform, outrun, out handle and detroy the GT500" to "the ZL1 is better because 4 magazines said its more comfortable for the average driver despite the GT500 being faster.". A BMW 3 series would have been picked the winner by those same magazines based on good-enough performance and comfort vs gT500. Give credit where it is glaringly due. Nothin wrong with the ZL1, it's just not the car GM said it was going to be. Owners and magazines have proven it.

Agree. I don't think it is quite the car GM lead us to believe. However, the fact that 4 out of 4 mags, with the same pro driver on the same day, rated the ZL1 the better all around vehicle is saying something. It's hard to judge both if you haven't had chance to drive both on the same day with same conditions. The fact the ZL1 is just as fast or faster on a road course than a car with more than 80hp and 250+lbs less is a true testament to the ZL1. It's obvious it will not be able to hang at the strip given the weight and hp disadvantage. What it comes down to is, they are both amazing machines, personally I wish I could have both, anyone would be happy with either one and whoever says otherwise is ignorant. My god 662hp for under $60k, how could you not respect and praise that?

[KarFan]

Both the Camaro and Mustang suffer from not having their own specific platform for different reasons. GM's Zeta platform is modified from a sedan. It's more modern and robust in both structure and design than the D2C under the S197 Mustang. It has IRS but is also RWD sedan heavy. Ford had to cheapen up the DEW98 RWD in order for it to work at a Mustang price point to where only parts were retained by the redeveloped D2C and it lost significant pieces like IRS.

If the Camaro feels like it's on a more solid and modern structure it's because it is. If the Mustang feels lighter and more dominated by its engine and solid axle it's because it is.

This hasn't been missed in any comparison test of the two yet. Call it magazine subjectives or excuses but it can't be called inaccurate.

[C5RocksC5]

I wish I could have both. If only one, I would still get a ZL1 because the fact is, I'll be driving it 95% of the time on public roads.

[AZ-ZL1]

Originally Posted by KarFan

Both the Camaro and Mustang suffer from not having their own specific platform for different reasons. GM's Zeta platform is modified from a sedan. It's more modern and robust in both structure and design than the D2C under the S197 Mustang. It has IRS but is also RWD sedan heavy. Ford had to cheapen up the DEW98 RWD in order for it to work at a Mustang price point to where only parts were retained by the redeveloped D2C and it lost significant pieces like IRS.

If the Camaro feels like it's on a more solid and modern structure it's because it is. If the Mustang feels lighter and more dominated by its engine and solid axle it's because it is.

This hasn't been missed in any comparison test of the two yet. Call it magazine subjectives or excuses but it can't be called inaccurate.

I, for one, respect your perspective and arguments...here and elsewhere.

Very well said.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

There appear to be some Ford fans that don't like the fact that the first four magazines that compared and reviewed the 2013 GT500 and the ZL1 all chose the ZL1 as the better vehicle.

There are those who point out that the four road course tests came out with the GT500 having a faster lap on one course, the ZL1 performing better on another, with the same lap time for both vehicles on another, and with a split result on the fourth (faster first lap for the GT500 and faster last lap by the ZL1) for a 1-1-2 record, with the ZL1 being the easier vehicle to drive on the road courses.

Ford fans are quick to point out that the GT500 is faster in a straight line. However, it's not the 1960s anymore when "muscle" cars of that era were judged mainly on straight line acceleration. Today's high performance vehicles are judged on much more than simply straight line acceleration, such as on handling, slalom and skidpad, braking, drivability, comfort, and styling.

The street road tests showed the ZL1 to be the better vehicle in that area.

Therefore, given the overall performance of each vehicle over each of the tested areas, including in real world everyday driving, all four reviews chose the ZL1 as the better overall vehicle between the two.

However, if one is mainly interested in drag racing, the 2013 GT500 may well be the better choice between the two vehicles.

Wrong again.

Roadcourse was 2 for the GT500 1 for the ZL1 and 1 tie. Goal was to set fastest lap, not a race. GT500 did that more than the ZL1 one did. if you think that was not their goal, then they wouldnt have bothered posting a fastest lap time for either car. And using your own words from another thread, the MT test ran three laps, and on the third lap the ZL1 was faster. That means the GT500 was faster on 2 of 3 laps. Thats what the data shows, you cant change that. So explain to me, based on the results that being faster 2 out of 3 laps is not better. you couldn't do it in the other thread, so I'll keep waiting for your response.

I have said numerous times here I know why they chose the Camaro as better overall and I agree with the reasons. It truly is an amazing vehicle and is the better overall vehicle.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Wrong again.

Roadcourse was 2 for the GT500 1 for the ZL1 and 1 tie. Goal was to set fastest lap, not a race. GT500 did that more than the ZL1 one did. if you think that was not their goal, then they wouldnt have bothered posting a fastest lap time for either car. And using your own words from another thread, the MT test ran three laps, and on the third lap the ZL1 was faster. That means the GT500 was faster on 2 of 3 laps. Thats what the data shows, you cant change that. So explain to me, based on the results that being faster 2 out of 3 laps is not better. you couldn't do it in the other thread, so I'll keep waiting for your response.

I have said numerous times here I know why they chose the Camaro as better overall and I agree with the reasons. It truly is an amazing vehicle and is the better overall vehicle.

Oh Lord... who gives a shit...

[C5RocksC5]

Originally Posted by mlee

Oh Lord... who gives a shit...

apparently, a lot of people here.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by pdari

apparently, a lot of people here.

Yeah but that was yesterdays bitch session... I love the GoldenBear chasers too...

[IOMZL1]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Wrong again.

Roadcourse was 2 for the GT500 1 for the ZL1 and 1 tie. Goal was to set fastest lap, not a race. GT500 did that more than the ZL1 one did. if you think that was not their goal, then they wouldnt have bothered posting a fastest lap time for either car. And using your own words from another thread, the MT test ran three laps, and on the third lap the ZL1 was faster. That means the GT500 was faster on 2 of 3 laps. Thats what the data shows, you cant change that. So explain to me, based on the results that being faster 2 out of 3 laps is not better. you couldn't do it in the other thread, so I'll keep waiting for your response.

I have said numerous times here I know why they chose the Camaro as better overall and I agree with the reasons. It truly is an amazing vehicle and is the better overall vehicle.

Well, how would you define racing? If lap times weren’t posted what is the point? Of course these drivers are going as fast as they can to get a quick lap.

Some GT500 fans were quick to point out how the ZL1’s Nurburgring lap was a “hero lap” and “marketing exercise”. Many were also quick to assume the ZL1 would lose HP due to heat soak vs. the Boss and that the Boss would be faster by the 2nd or 3rd lap on that particular comparison.

Fast forward to reality where generally the ZL1 has been observed to be more consistent on the track, “hard lap after hard lap”. Racing has 2 facets when it comes to lap times – qualifying and race. Generally setups are modified between qualifying and the race because the qualifying setup would be too difficult to drive over the course of a race. The race setup tends to be more comfortable, compliant, easier to drive but a tick slower around the track.

GM has admitted to making the ZL1 easier to drive over the long haul and this is exactly what it would seem they have accomplished. Perhaps another MRC calibration would have given Aaron Link the capability to lap faster around VIR or the ring on one flying lap, but for the masses what they seem to have landed on may have been the better choice for a long day of running. Hero lap, indeed.

Although this is not exactly the case, one can look at the GT500 as having the qualifying setup and the ZL1 having the race setup. The more laps in the race, the more chance the ZL1 will win. The GT500 could have been faster on laps 1 and 2 but the ZL1 could have been faster on laps 3-25. The GT500 has been clocked faster around some tracks – for a “hero lap” but not for the long haul.

Since the 650 HP announcement, the tables have turned in this ZL1 vs. GT500 argument more times than I care to count, yet ZL1 fans are accused of being the only ones changing their arguments.

Generally the ZL1 was marketed as being equipped for the track. Supercharger and MRC or not, that part of the hype has been lived up to. Maybe the configuration of the ZL1 is not as ideal as a N/A engine and traditional damper setup for SCCA racing, but against the GT500 (its defined competition) it seems the better “track ready” car. The ZL1 was called by few a “mutant” or “outcast” because it was designed for a setting where it would never fit in, yet you have the GT500 trying to achieve a 200mph top speed and likely deleting brake cooling ducts to do so.

All of these and other facts will fall on deaf ears as each side will remain loyal to the car they have chosen. There are 1000 ways to spin this information and apparently we are trying to find them all in this thread and 100 others like it.

[69NMYSS]

Originally Posted by mlee

Oh Lord... who gives a shit...

Exactly. They are pretty much dead even on the track. Gt500 breaks out in the straights, the ZL1 catches up in the corners. The Zl1 may be easier to drive and produce consistent lap times, while the GT500 will likely produce golden lap times, followed by WTF lap times.

[tnspd]

yea yea but the mustang still sucks!

[GoldenBear]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Goal was to set fastest lap, not a race. GT500 did that more than the ZL1 one did. if you think that was not their goal, then they wouldnt have bothered posting a fastest lap time for either car.

If one believes that the goal of the Motor Trend comparison of the 2013 GT500 and the ZL1 was to determine which vehicle could set the fastest lap, then I suggest that a careful re-reading of the Motor Trend article would be appropriate.

It's also interesting to note that there are those who will attempt to state as fact something for which there is simply is no factual basis in order to make one's argument appear more credible. The goal was not, in fact, to set the faster lap. The goal was exactly what Motor Trend stated the goal was, and that was, "to determine which of these two titans -- arguably the greatest cars of their lineage -- is the better car."

If Motor Trend's goal was simply to set the faster lap, then Motor Trend would have no reason not to list only the fastest lap time of both vehicles and would have reason to have left it at that. However, Motor Trend did not only list the fastest lap time of both vehicles and explicitly listed all three lap times for the GT500 and stated that the ZL1 lap times"never deviated by more than two-tenths of a second."

Originally Posted by shaffe

And using your own words from another thread, the MT test ran three laps, and on the third lap the ZL1 was faster. That means the GT500 was faster on 2 of 3 laps. Thats what the data shows, you cant change that. So explain to me, based on the results that being faster 2 out of 3 laps is not better. you couldn't do it in the other thread, so I'll keep waiting for your response.

Based on Motor Trend's observed results from their review I think that it's likely that after five laps the ZL1 would be faster in three of the five laps, and that it's likely that after ten laps the ZL1 would be faster in eight of the ten laps, etc. However, that being stated, speed alone is not the only criteria used to determine which is the better vehicle on the track. As I stated in another thread the vehicle with the fastest qualifying lap doesn't always win the race, and, therefore, the vehicle with the fastest qualifying lap time isn't always, by definition, the better track vehicle.

There are other factors such as ease or difficultly of driveability near the limit, consistency of performance over time, the ability to inspire driver confidence, etc., all of which factor into the determination of which vehicle is better on the track. As the Motor Trend article concluded about the ZL1, "on the track, its solid chassis, well-controlled body motions, planted suspension, and unshakeable confidence edged it over the more powerful Shelby."

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

Well, how would you define racing? If lap times weren’t posted what is the point? Of course these drivers are going as fast as they can to get a quick lap.

Some GT500 fans were quick to point out how the ZL1’s Nurburgring lap was a “hero lap” and “marketing exercise”. Many were also quick to assume the ZL1 would lose HP due to heat soak vs. the Boss and that the Boss would be faster by the 2nd or 3rd lap on that particular comparison.

Fast forward to reality where generally the ZL1 has been observed to be more consistent on the track, “hard lap after hard lap”. Racing has 2 facets when it comes to lap times – qualifying and race. Generally setups are modified between qualifying and the race because the qualifying setup would be too difficult to drive over the course of a race. The race setup tends to be more comfortable, compliant, easier to drive but a tick slower around the track.

GM has admitted to making the ZL1 easier to drive over the long haul and this is exactly what it would seem they have accomplished. Perhaps another MRC calibration would have given Aaron Link the capability to lap faster around VIR or the ring on one flying lap, but for the masses what they seem to have landed on may have been the better choice for a long day of running. Hero lap, indeed.

Although this is not exactly the case, one can look at the GT500 as having the qualifying setup and the ZL1 having the race setup. The more laps in the race, the more chance the ZL1 will win. The GT500 could have been faster on laps 1 and 2 but the ZL1 could have been faster on laps 3-25. The GT500 has been clocked faster around some tracks – for a “hero lap” but not for the long haul.

Since the 650 HP announcement, the tables have turned in this ZL1 vs. GT500 argument more times than I care to count, yet ZL1 fans are accused of being the only ones changing their arguments.

Generally the ZL1 was marketed as being equipped for the track. Supercharger and MRC or not, that part of the hype has been lived up to. Maybe the configuration of the ZL1 is not as ideal as a N/A engine and traditional damper setup for SCCA racing, but against the GT500 (its defined competition) it seems the better “track ready” car. The ZL1 was called by few a “mutant” or “outcast” because it was designed for a setting where it would never fit in, yet you have the GT500 trying to achieve a 200mph top speed and likely deleting brake cooling ducts to do so.

All of these and other facts will fall on deaf ears as each side will remain loyal to the car they have chosen. There are 1000 ways to spin this information and apparently we are trying to find them all in this thread and 100 others like it.

What Motortrend did was not a race, they were testing, trying to get the best performance out of each car, while comparing them to each other. I have said in numerous other threads the ZL1 is the better track car, It has all the intangibles to make it the better track car. All I did was call Golden bear out again, on that the numbers in that the MT test do not give a clear draw, if anything they gives the edge to GT500 BC 2 out of 3 laps they stated they ran the GT500 was still ahead. Now that can be open to interpretations, but looking at the raw numbers based on the info from MT (Ran 3 laps) it shows a performance edge to GT500.

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

If one believes that the goal of the Motor Trend comparison of the 2013 GT500 and the ZL1 was to determine which vehicle could set the fastest lap, then I suggest that a careful re-reading of the Motor Trend article would be appropriate.

It's also interesting to note that there are those who will attempt to state as fact something for which there is simply is no factual basis in order to make one's argument appear more credible. The goal was not, in fact, to set the faster lap. The goal was exactly what Motor Trend stated the goal was, and that was, "to determine which of these two titans -- arguably the greatest cars of their lineage -- is the better car."

If Motor Trend's goal was simply to set the faster lap, then Motor Trend would have no reason not to list only the fastest lap time of both vehicles and would have reason to have left it at that. However, Motor Trend did not only list the fastest lap time of both vehicles and explicitly listed all three lap times for the GT500 and stated that the ZL1 lap times"never deviated by more than two-tenths of a second."




Based on Motor Trend's observed results from their review I think that it's likely that after five laps the ZL1 would be faster in three of the five laps, and that it's likely that after ten laps the ZL1 would be faster in eight of the ten laps, etc. However, that being stated, speed alone is not the only criteria used to determine which is the better vehicle on the track. As I stated in another thread the vehicle with the fastest qualifying lap doesn't always win the race, and, therefore, the vehicle with the fastest qualifying lap time isn't always, by definition, the better track vehicle.

There are other factors such as ease or difficultly of driveability near the limit, consistency of performance over time, the ability to inspire driver confidence, etc., all of which factor into the determination of which vehicle is better on the track. As the Motor Trend article concluded about the ZL1, "on the track, its solid chassis, well-controlled body motions, planted suspension, and unshakeable confidence edged it over the more powerful Shelby."

Also, when a performance car is being tested, what are all the magazines going for with all their fancy equipment- best results. THUS fastest lap times is their goal when doing performance testing.

I am not trying to argue that the Shelby is the better track vehicle. If thats what you think I am arguing, you are incorrect and I will word my posts more carefully. I see where the confusion may have come from. I meant show me where 2 out of 3 laps with a faster time is not better results. I agree that the fastest lap does not make the better track car, i have said this numerous times. i also agreed with you that having the fastest lap does not win the race. I have said the ZL1 is the better car. ALL I HAVE SAID is that the numbers do not support you saying its a draw. YOU sated in another thread that they ran laps, as you put it in this thread First lap GT500, last Lap ZL1. that means Lap 2 was still GT500

2 of 3 laps the GT500 outperformed the ZL1 in the MT test. ALL I AM SAYING....THATS ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING! You can't seem to comprehend that I have agreed with you on basically 99% of everything you have said. But yet when I give an example, or show numerical stats that prove my point, and prove you wrong, you cant go with the same things I provide. you either change the context of an example I give, or when I provide full breakdown of my example you just ignore it. or here like I have shown using YOUR own words you go to change the argument into something that is not what is stated. " I think that it's likely that after five laps the ZL1 would be faster in three of the five laps," That is not what I have been saying. All I have been saying is that the numbers show that in 3 laps the GT500 was ahead for 2 of them, thus not a draw.

I know this sounds like a really dumb argument haha, and I know it is but the numbers aren't wrong. yet goldenbear keeps changing it into going into something else

[tnspd]

What I got out out of the article was that MT was trying show the lap times and drop off from lap to lap in their testing. Yes, in 3 laps the Shelby had 2 faster lap times but after 3 laps the Shelby had dropped it's time so much that if you ran more laps it would not even be a contest after that. So what is the point of the Shelby was faster 2 of the 3 laps. Do they race only 2 lap races now and I am just not aware of these new races?