bobbyd Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 MT just announced the Camaro over the GT500 based on their subjective view. The GT500 stopped better, had better gas mileage, was much faster on the drag strip and also on the Laguna Road course. As expected MT had to find fault so they assumed the GT500 brakes would possibly fade faster than the Camaro if they raced all day on the track. MT never mentioned top speeds, since the GT500 is near 200 MPH compared to near 175-180 MPH for the Camaro. They also did not mention the Gas guzzler tax that you pay on the Camaro, since the GT500 is exempt. It was very bias...but it feeds many readers and gives them the impression that the GT500 is inferior. If they would have used a computer to load all the test results...the GT500 wins. Scott Evans at MT is clearly a GM fan....he should have gone with the test results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) MT just announced the Camaro over the GT500 based on their subjective view. The GT500 stopped better, had better gas mileage, was much faster on the drag strip and also on the Laguna Road course. As expected MT had to find fault so they assumed the GT500 brakes would possibly fade faster than the Camaro if they raced all day on the track. MT never mentioned top speeds, since the GT500 is near 200 MPH compared to near 175-180 MPH for the Camaro. They also did not mention the Gas guzzler tax that you pay on the Camaro, since the GT500 is exempt. It was very bias...but it feeds many readers and gives them the impression that the GT500 is inferior. If they would have used a computer to load all the test results...the GT500 wins. Scott Evans at MT is clearly a GM fan....he should have gone with the test results. Ok...even with the GG tax (which is one of the stupidest taxes in the land), the Camaro was STILL $8,405 cheaper. As expected MT had to find fault so they assumed the GT500 brakes would possibly fade faster than the Camaro if they raced all day on the track. They were fading after the FIRST lap...they were so hot that they could smell them in the pits after the FIRST lap. By the third lap, the Mustang was already behind the Camaro. The Camaro on the other hand never experienced such an issue as it's brakes were solid lap after lap. There was nothing biased at all about the article. The GT500 IS inferior in every aspect other than straight line performance. Motor Trend, Automobile, Inside Line, etc have all come to roughly the same conclusion. Hell, Motor Trend had a third party drive the cars on a track. God fanboys piss me off. Can't we just say that both cars are an amazing feat of engineering rather than accusing an organization of being biased because you're car didn't win? Edited June 30, 2012 by FPVFalcom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) ... Edited June 30, 2012 by FPVFalcom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) And if anyone wants to delete this old guys mistakes (who would have thought that "reply" is NOT "edit" above that'd be great. Edited June 30, 2012 by FPVFalcom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The GT500 IS inferior in every aspect other than straight line performance Then how was it faster around Laguna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyd Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share Posted June 30, 2012 Hey old guy, you sure are a cranky one. Its evident you are either losing your eyesight when reading or maybe having a senior moment. First off, the base Camaro and base GT500 are both virtually the same price $55,000. If you added 'GAS Guzzler Tax'....you are slapped with extra $$$ for the Camaro. As far as the brakes, after continuous road course braking (they had to find a fault) and a number of laps, the advantage faded...BUT (Use your reading glasses) the article admitted the Camaro also lost braking by a couple of tenths. At the end of the total laps run they both still were only a couple of tenths difference between the 2 cars. Bottomline, if the article would have simply used the real world, average driving tests, that they NORMALLY use with every other car they review....which is : who has best gas mileage, best braking 60-0 , best straight line/drag racing and best road course times....(rather than assuming the cars were going to run a race at Laguno for extended laps)...the GT500 would win. You can either agree with me or admit you are wrong! Go Ford! People like you are usually "snipers" who hate Ford but act like they are members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 accusing an organization of being biased because you're car didn't win? Dude. Motor Trend is a terrible magazine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Hey old guy, you sure are a cranky one. Its evident you are either losing your eyesight when reading or maybe having a senior moment. First off, the base Camaro and base GT500 are both virtually the same price $55,000. If you added 'GAS Guzzler Tax'....you are slapped with extra $$$ for the Camaro. Again, in the article YOU referenced, the Mustang was $8K more than the Camaro. As far as the brakes, after continuous road course braking (they had to find a fault) and a number of laps, the advantage faded...BUT (Use your reading glasses) the article admitted the Camaro also lost braking by a couple of tenths. The 3rd party driver was experiencing noticeable brake fade after ONE lap of a race track (and not even a long one like Road America). It's 2.2 miles long. Furthermore, it was not specifically stated that the two-tenths of a second in variation in the Camaro's times were due to the brakes. It could be assumed as the statement was in the same secion where they were talking about brakes, but two-tenths could have been because of a sloppy shift, not a good lap for the driver, etc. But everytime the Mustang went 'round, it was slower and slower with less braking ability. Bottomline, if the article would have simply used the real world, average driving tests, that they NORMALLY use with every other car they review....which is : who has best gas mileage, best braking 60-0 , best straight line/drag racing and best road course times....(rather than assuming the cars were going to run a race at Laguno for extended laps)...the GT500 would win. So you want Motor Trend to use the same testing methodology for the two hottest cars to be tested this year that they use on minivans and crappy small SUVs? I suppose they shouldn't have taken the Raptor to some sand and hills and instead tested it in the mall parking lot counting how fast you can get you bags from Target into the back seat, then go on for three paragraphs on the fuel mileage of a factory pre-runner with a 377 cubic inch V8. That makes sense. Basically, you wanted the cars tested on only the items where you think the Ford would have won. You can either agree with me or admit you are wrong!Go Ford! People like you are usually "snipers" who hate Ford but act like they are members. I choose to take the high road and realize that both cars are fantastic and I would be proud to own either. Then how was it faster around Laguna? I'll just direct you to the section of the article referenced where they talk about that: When we mapped both cars' fastest laps, we were shocked by how similar they were. In fact, were the cars running head-to-head, the lead would change 12 times in that one lap -- impressive, considering the track has only 11 turns. As we expected, the Mustang and its massive engine were faster on the straights and up the hill from turn five to the top of turn eight, Laguna Seca's famed Corkscrew. The Camaro, though, was faster in the corners and pulled higher g's in nearly every turn. To our surprise, the cars were dead even exiting the final corner. The Mustang laid down the faster lap solely by virtue of its 82-horsepower, 75-lb-ft advantage in a drag race up the front straight to the finish line. The result: Shelby, 1:38.69; ZL1, 1:39.18. But wait, there's a catch. You see, Randy had another observation about the Shelby. "The brakes just don't generate confidence. They're not enough to stop this car on a racetrack. On the street, they're probably fine. But the Camaro brakes do stop the car." While the Mustang was a half-second faster around the track than the ZL1 on its best lap, it couldn't repeat the performance. By the end of the first lap, the brakes had already begun to heat up so badly, we could smell them from the pits as the car passed by on the front straight. By the end of the second lap, the Shelby had lost more than half of its advantage over the ZL1, turning a 1:39.03. By the third lap, the Mustang was behind the Camaro, turning a 1:39.30. The ZL1, meanwhile, never deviated by more than two-tenths of a second. Read more: http://www.motortren...l#ixzz1zJWjsoaM Dude. Motor Trend is a terrible magazine. Didn't seem all too bad when they gave the Escape a good review... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Didn't seem all too bad when they gave the Escape a good review... They're still a terrible magazine. MT: To our surprise, the cars were dead even exiting the final corner You: The GT500 IS inferior in every aspect Seems that the worst that MT says is that they're even, HP aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I choose to take the high road and realize that both cars are fantastic and I would be proud to own either. BTW: Talking about how great you are = instant argument fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 BTW: Talking about how great you are = instant argument fail. I didn't talk about how "great" I am. However Next time I'll put my fanboy hat on and ignore the facts. Probably easier actually. Facts just get in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I didn't talk about how "great" I am. Did you, or did you not favorably compare yourself with other people on the board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Ford vs Chevy, Mac vs PC, iOS vs Android....I just can't get away from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyd Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) All you seem to have for your defense of the Camaro is an extended Laguna road race where the GT500 might fall a few tenths behind after a number of laps. However, I want a car that is fastest at 0-60 MPH...fastest in the quarter mile (by train lengths and growing)...a car with no Gas Guzzler Tax...a car that gets up to 5 Miles per gallon better and a car that will safely stop a shorter distance than the OTHER car. I'm not concerned with using the car in a extended road rally. So, if you look at all those factors...its the GT500. CASE CLOSED. Edited July 1, 2012 by bobbyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 All you seem to have for your defense of the Camaro is an extended Laguna road race where the GT500 might fall a few tenths behind after a number of laps. However, I want a car that is fastest at 0-60 MPH...fastest in the quarter mile (by train lengths and growing)...a car with no Gas Guzzler Tax...a car that gets up to 5 Miles per gallon better and a car that will safely stop a shorter distance than the OTHER car. I'm not concerned with using the car in a extended road rally. So, if you look at all those factors...its the GT500. CASE CLOSED. I think MT has it in its mind that the Camaro is more modern and has more sophisticated suspension, and wants to make that case no matter what the numbers show or don't show. So not surprised by its conclusions. No matter what, Chevy fan boy will buy the Camaro no matter what the auto testers say and ditto for Ford fan boys. I personally prefer the Mustang no matter how dated compared to Camaro or any other sport coupe competitor. I'm just on record saying that I hope next one is around 3300 pounds, and lower and sleeker with wider front track. And bring back the famous rear fender scoop. Present Mustang power is fine with me and could care less if it gets EB or not. Cutting 300 pounds would be better than creating 30 more hp anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 What I get out of this is that the GT 500 probably needs better shocks and brakes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 What I get out of this is that the GT 500 probably needs better shocks and brakes. Maybe a bit of good stuff developed for Falcon, like virtual pivotfront suspension and bigger brembo brake package Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Maybe one of the other paper-mags will do another comparison with different attitudes . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 What I get out of this is that the GT 500 probably needs better shocks and brakes. Well then that is a blackeye for Ford and I can't believe that they let the car out with that fault. For $65000 it should have the best brakes available. Or at least as good as the Camaro. In the grand scheme it means little to most owners, but jeez, fading after 1 lap?! Ford should do better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think the suspension geometry is fine, JPD, and as for the brakes twmalone, another factor to consider is that the press car(s) that's making the rounds for these tests are pre-production model(s). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The Ok...even with the GG tax (which is one of the stupidest taxes in the land), the Camaro was STILL $8,405 cheaper. The GT500 is CHEAPER . BASE PRICE $55,895(ZL1) $54,995(GT500) PRICE AS TESTED $56,365(ZL1) $64,770 (GT500) As tested the GT500 is more $$, But the Camaro does not have any options due to GM serving up the best they could. If MT wanted to do it right. They should of done a base vs. base comparison. And MT is off on their number for the ZL1. Add $2K for the GGT! Bobbyd, Great POST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Well then that is a blackeye for Ford and I can't believe that they let the car out with that fault. For $65000 it should have the best brakes available. Or at least as good as the Camaro. In the grand scheme it means little to most owners, but jeez, fading after 1 lap?! Ford should do better. Again, I would think both use similar Brembo brake packages. I would say the increased power of the GT 500 in the straights means more braking in the corners plus the Camaro probably handles a little better in corners with its Corvette DNA. On a course with lots of tight curves, and lots of power on tap, it's easy to cook brakes in one lap. Furthermore, even some top race drivers tend to overbrake and a vehicle with the power of the GT 500 does proabably create some overbraking. I've seen Porsche Cup cars with ceramic brake pads have overbraking issues after one one lap, and believe it or not, driver turns faster lap with brake fade because they can't stand on the brakes for tight corners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 What I get out of this is that the GT 500 probably needs better shocks and brakes. Or maybe a test driver that lifts a little earlier for oncoming corner so that he doesn't have to stand on the brakes and cook them in one lap. Not sure how long they drove either car to get familiar with that particular car on that particular course before they start scoring timed laps. In club racing, they practice one whole day morning and afternoon getting used to course and best braking areas and lines on track. In DE, they put out cones to show you where you are braking either too late or too early with your particular car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 ...... and believe it or not, driver turns faster lap with brake fade because they can't stand on the brakes for tight corners. Interesting point and it makes sense. How often do brakes go out in racing? There's a recent Tube video of a BOSS going off the track due to brake failure, and there was the MT prototype example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.