Chevrolet: Stock 2012 ZL1 Runs 11.93 Quarter Mile (Video)

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Looking at all the runs by individuals and testers, it looks like this is about as close a drivers race as any as much as neither side wants to admit it. Both cars have now run 11.9x stock and both have private owners running bottom 12s constantly.

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...t/viewall.html

I would give the edge to the zl1 with average drivers though because of launch control. Most people can't drive.

This post makes too much sense! Get this guy out of here!!!!

[72MachOne99GT]

I like the well organized and clear layout in the link.

A simple post like that in the review this thread is about, might not have avoided heated debate, but certainly would have cleared the air for a clear point of discussion.

[newmoon]

Tiss Tiss Tiss. the 500 gang just can't accept the fact that there are now two bone stock vehicles faster than they are, the ZL1 and the 392 Challenger automatic .

[Bob Cosby]

Eh, the 392 Challenger has its hands full with a 5.0 GT, and most certainly a Boss 302. A Mopar guy (member of this forum) were discussing that last night. Click this link if you are interested in the discussion (scroll down).

[JimmyDeanSausage]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Tiss Tiss Tiss. the 500 gang just can't accept the fact that there are now two bone stock vehicles faster than they are, the ZL1 and the 392 Challenger automatic .

Sure, if you want to compare average magazine times for the GT500 to hero runs for the other two.

[2ndCamaro79]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

It's corrected, obviously.

Ok, so being that most people who read auto magazines are not professional drag races (that know you have to correct every time thats not in ideal temps/altitudes), and none of the articles I quoted mention being corrected. How would a simpleton like myself know what printed times are "corrected" and which are not?? I will now just assume any good 1/4 mile times the ZL1 gets are corrected . You said that Road & Track's times were NOT corrected, hence why they were on the slower side? Road and Track cite the reason for their slow times as cold tires and track conditions. I would figure they would go into your elaborate discussion of how their times were non corrected for the altitude?

[SUX2BU]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

Thanks. I couldn't read the date on the timeslip - can you by chance make out the time?

Anyway....High temp that day for Milan was 62F (I looked it up). Not great air, but not bad either. Given the track's altitude, and assuming they ran in the middle of the day, figure a DA of ~+750 ft.

The only one you can see is the top slip. It was at 3:07:43. The DA was +554, not bad at all.

[big hammer]

why are ford guys so butthurt over this?

[2ndCamaro79]

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

The 12.1 is also a corrected time. If you want an uncorrected time youre going to need to take a look at Road and Tracks.

Again, you state Road & Track times as uncorrected ... am I correct? Well Road & Track also tested the GT-R against the ZL1 at the same altitude. The GT-R's 1/4 mile time was 11.2 sec(this is the time it normally gets when tested). So if all high altitude times have to be corrected (like the ZL1s 12.1 run by Motor Trend) the GT-Rs real 1/4 mile time would be 10.XXX

You know what sir, I think everyone should just forget about the Shelby and ZL1 and just buy (by your terms) the factory 10 sec monster GODZILLA

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by capnkirk52

Why do you say that? I think everyone just wants the unbiased truth.

Because every time someone posts a ZL1 time that looks good, the Mustang faithful call them liars. Apparently they feel competition is bad, and it makes them angry.

[vertcobra99]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

Again, you state Road & Track times as uncorrected ... am I correct? Well Road & Track also tested the GT-R against the ZL1 at the same altitude. The GT-R's 1/4 mile time was 11.2 sec(this is the time it normally gets when tested). So if all high altitude times have to be corrected (like the ZL1s 12.1 run by Motor Trend) the GT-Rs real 1/4 mile time would be 10.XXX

You know what sir, I think everyone should just forget about the Shelby and ZL1 and just buy (by your terms) the factory 10 sec monster GODZILLA

GTR is a turbo car which aren't effected by altitude as much as supercharged or NA cars due to the way they boost.

[KKreme15]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Someone's mad at the Camaro.

Nah I Agee with him. It is what it is.

[JimmyDeanSausage]

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

Ok, so being that most people who read auto magazines are not professional drag races (that know you have to correct every time thats not in ideal temps/altitudes), and none of the articles I quoted mention being corrected. How would a simpleton like myself know what printed times are "corrected" and which are not??

Most simpletons simply don't care, which is why you see such a vast amount of misinformation on the internet. We know the MT times are corrected because they very clearly state that they correct ALL their times.

I also personally know that C&D also corrects all their times, but I'm not going to bother seaching for proof, because the proof, if you're not a simpleton, is right there in their numbers. They published a trap speed of 119 if I recall correctly. If this was NOT already a corrected number, that would mean a corrected trap speed (i.e. what a ZL1 would likely run if it WASN'T at 4400' elevation) of around 126 or 127 mph. Do you think that it's likely a ZL1 will trap 126 or 127 at sea level? No. We know for a fact that it won't trap anywhere near that at lower elevations, because we've seen plenty of other time slips (from Hennessey, Redline, private owners, etc), so even if we couldn't already figure it out simply from the cars power to weight ratio (which we can), we can figure it out from the other timeslips.

So you know, for a fact, that C&Ds time is already corrected.

You said that Road & Track's times were NOT corrected, hence why they were on the slower side? Road and Track cite the reason for their slow times as cold tires and track conditions.

And one of those track conditions they mention is altitude: "...turbos dealing better with the high altitude and cold air".

Originally Posted by 2ndCamaro79

Again, you state Road & Track times as uncorrected ... am I correct? Well Road & Track also tested the GT-R against the ZL1 at the same altitude. The GT-R's 1/4 mile time was 11.2 sec(this is the time it normally gets when tested). So if all high altitude times have to be corrected (like the ZL1s 12.1 run by Motor Trend) the GT-Rs real 1/4 mile time would be 10.XXX

First of all, as has already been pointed out (both in this thread, and by the actual R&T article), turbo cars aren't affected much by altitude due to how they control boost. It's not surprising at all to see them run a typical time because of that and the AWD allowing them to make full use of the cold air that day.

Second, if R&Ts number is already corrected, that would mean they ran a 13.4@109 or so in the ZL1 and then corrected it to a 12.9@113. Is that really what you're trying to assert?

Third, why would R&T mention altitude as an issue if they were correcting so that altitude ISN'T an issue?

Fourth, GT-Rs have in fact gone 10s bone stock. Google around a little and you'll see plenty of people talking about it.

MTs 12.1, and C&Ds 12.3 are both corrected. R&Ts 12.9 is not. These are facts, they are not subject to debate.

[ffrcobra_65]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Someone's mad at the Camaro.

You're wrong sir. It's not the Camaro I hate, I keep buying them so I must like them a little bit, right? Anyway, it's not the ZL1 I hate, it's a specific team at GM I dislike. Stop feeding us BS, that's all.