This takes all logical comparison out the window. If you are just going to compare what a car is capable of rather than what it can do from the factory (for $50K+), then we might as well compare this to the '03 and '04 Cobras. I mean, they are capable of a lot, and they did it 6 years ago!

 

I am starting to question your logic here.
There is nothing "magical" about either car. If you gice the camaro "540hp" it is not going to faster becuase it is a camaro.
The new car is also geared more agressively tha the older car.

 

You're assuming that the Ford guy was a driver. He was probably an engineer.

I agree with you on this one to an extent. The C6's don't perform very well IMO for what their MSRP is. Low to mid 12's with similar mph to this GT500.
That's comparing a 4,000lb four seater to a 3,200lb 2 seater. Not too bad considering the GT500 is only going to be a few tenths off that pace.

I would love to see it run 10's stock, but it doesn't. It will definitely run 11's with a CAI kit, exhaust, and a tune. Add a pulley and drag radials and it'll run 10's. You won't find another car to run 10's that easily for the price...unless you buy an old POS and dump money into it.

C5 Z06's aren't that much faster than the new GT500 all things considered. A few tenths is meaningless IMO in stock trim since no one leaves their car stock.

It's 4,000lbs. What did you really expect?
...and it's not making 540 to the wheels either.

Yes Chris, I know that. I was making a comparison between a Ford and a GM driveline.

Great, a R1 would eat a Z06 for much less money too. There's another bad comparison for you while we are comparing apples and oranges.


No, actually my comment is fact. People in the industry have already been testing these cars. Previous model years prove it as well.

Your comment is speculation. Mine is not.


You sure are concerned about the performance of a stock car.
Stock sucks. 99% of stock cars are slow. Nothing new there. That's why we modify them.


So instead of being pissed at GM because they are too inept to produce a blown Z28, you're pissed at Ford because they actually built a blown Mustang.


It's ironic isn't it? Guys driving 12 and 13 second cars are the ones who always do the complaining!

Magazine racing is for ricers. You know that.

Bench racing is for ricers too. Again, something you know.

 

You can't fix the GT500's weight and crappy weight distribution though....

It's not all about 1/4 miles times. At least not to me.

 

I compared a cheaper better performing car to another car. You compare a bike and bring up apples to oranges? Makes no sense, I was talking about a C5 ZO6 not a C6, says it clear as day in my post.

 

You're comparing two cars that are in completely different classes.
Should we compare a stock eliminator car to a 10.5 outlaw car?

Regardless, comparing a C5 or a C6 to a GT500 is apples and oranges.

 

The problem with that is the C6, unlike the GT500, can also turn and brake. That's why you don't see people complaining about them. The GT500 is disappointing because the same year C6 can do everything better for similar cost, whether or not they are in the same class.

 

Assuming it was an engineer is somehow better? At least I'm going on the "hot-shoe" description (again, read the article), which certainly would NOT describe an engineer.

 

The only reason these cars are being compared is due to power output and price range. Dissect each vehicle and the only thing simular between them both are rear wheel drive,big brakes, 6 spd trans,and a V8 engine.

 

.96 on the skidpad = can't turn?

Except put someone in the back seat. Two very different cars. Not everyone can fit into a C6. They are pretty small.

 

The GT500 is a few tenths of the pace of a C6 that is 120hp less powerful. You neglected to mention that rather pertinent fact.

You seem to be starting to see my point here.

Both our comments fit the same bill. They are speculation until there is proof out there. There is no more proof out there that a 2010 GT500 has "potential" than there is that it will run low twelves. You can't dispute that factually, I know this.


You sure are concerned about making known that this car mods well. You are making my point for me.

Did you even read what I said?

 

It's not apples and oranges, price points are in the C5Z's favor and the C6 is about the same price.

If you wanna get into "apples and oranges" why compare a NA car to a FI car?

You can go on and on and on....bottom like is the car perfoms below where it should for the power/money.

 

What a car does on the skidpad had little to do with overall track performance though. The cars are nose heavy and will push into corners. And at nearly 4000 pounds they will not be fun,or easy to toss around a track. If someone is looking for a track car this would not be the car for them.

 

Tell that to the ******** (Wesman02, surprise) who said that the new Camaro SS is "much better in every aspect" than the 370Z .

 

I get the point guys. $50K is too much for you and you're pissed that the car doesn't perform like you think it should. So now what? Cry and complain about every car that doesn't cost and perform exactly like you think it should?

Guys have already run 7's in GT500's and they've also won quite a few road course events. Every stock car for $50K and under is slow. Corvettes, Mustangs, fbodies, etc. If they weren't, we would not be modifying them.

 

You are still missing the real point i'm trying to pound home here. Lots of cars under $50k don't perform like we all wish they would...but there's only one of those that has 540hp...the GT500. THAT, AGAIN, IS MY PROBLEM. Yeah the C6 may not be THAT FAST, yeah the Camaro may not be THAT FAST...etc...but give ANY of those cars 540hp, and they would be THAT FAST.

The point is that this car is pricey, has tons of horsepower, and is just pretty fast. Instead of addressing things that would turn this car into a true bargain performer...Ford just heaps on more power...and accomplishes very little in the process.

 

540hp.. 113 mph trap speed is a solid 12 sec car. I like the new looks of it too!! I don't like the weight but your not going to get away from that.

 

I have read what you have said and i evaluated and looked at other vehicles at this cars weight. 540 hp /510 ft-lb tq doesn't always equate 11 second quartermile times. The price of entry into this horsepower level is expensive and i'm sure Mr. Shelby isn't letting Ford use his name without some cost. The only car i can find in my current Road&Track mag that comes close to this level of power is of course the Corvette Z06 with 505hp/470 lb-ft and thats at price as tested $79,595 dollars. The 11.7@123.7 is better than the GT500 and the 3190-lb curb weight is also.

 

Unit why do you bother with these kids. All they have is a beat down 98 LS1 with free mods. To them thats the fastest thing ever. They will never get it...

 

Is your car stock? None of mine have ever stayed stock. That is just the way I am. Therefore, performance that can be extracted by bolt ons is very important to me as a buyer, as well as the engine's strength. I have been sayin for years that I would end up with a GT500, or the new Z28 (which looks doubful now). The one I would choose would be the one with the stronger shortblock. I don't have brand loyalty like some of the blind people aroung here. I have a power/forced induction loyalty.

Lot's of guys do compare the GT500 to the terms, and the Shelby is better.