ccap41

This is what you said. I guess when you said "out on the street" you don't mean dipping into the throttle too much. When you say 0-60 and street that sounds like a sprint. I brought up 1/4 mile as a finite finish line as the streets don't have a finish line. Yes, the Z has more bottom end, by a lot. But in any race, even 0-60, you only utilize that for a very short period in 1st gear only. Daily driving or cruising, definitely more of a Z thing than an R thing. $h!tin' n gettin' is slightly more R than Z.

As off topic as this is going to fuelly is kind of a mixed bag no matter what vehicle you're looking at. For instance, Ford now has a n/a 3.5 AND 3.5T in the F150. They only break them down by displacement so you would be looking at both if you clicked "3.5". You also are relying on all of those people with only a handful of fillups to be accurate when odds are somebody with less than 10 fill ups, in a way, cherry picked them. Whether they wanted to see their road trip mileage or their towing a boat on vacation mileage. Also, From what I see both 2015 models, across the board, say they are averaging 17.1mpg. Breakdown of engines for those two? No clue at all. For all I know thats 90% 2WD 2.7s for Ford and 90% 4WD 6.2's for Chevy. Point being, as they are "real world" you're also looking at a lot of idiots trying to keep track of something and you won't get an even sample of all the variables. If you want you can break down all 201 vehicles from 2015 Ford F150s and get a real idea of what those people are getting in 2WD and 4WD and engine size but looking at it from a broad perspective you're missing a lot of information and the numbers can be misleading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxqwQFqxPHM

Lol, there's no aero effect at low-mid speed roll-on acceleration. Come on now. And if you think the Shelby's 150lb weight advantage makes up for it's 100 lb-ft torque deficit, I don't really know what to tell you. When you're foot is flat on the floor and you're racing somebody else, other than 1st gear, low-mid range torque means nothing. It could be down 200lb-ft under 4000rpm and it wouldn't matter once you're in second gear. Heck, once you're going about 25mph it wouldn't matter because the motor would be so wound up at that point. The drag race between the two cars is a perfect example of that. I'm going to do you a favor and pretend like you didn't just say any of that. In the interest of you still having credibility. Because I like you. Are you serious? When these high strung motors are spinning at 5000 rpm and up that torque advantage at 2000 rpm doesn't mean anything and when you're racing you're not just hanging out at 2000rpm. If your scenario was the case why did the GT350R win the quarter mile sprint with a higher trap speed as well? It couldn't have just been the 150lb advantage. If low-mid range torque was that critical I don't think there would have ever been a flat plane crank v8 into production.

No, but I can read a dyno graph. Ohhhhhh.. Dynos don't show weight or anything aero going on which both of these cars utilize in acceleration.And, as you've said, dynos are used for tuning not measuring lol Lol, there's no aero effect at low-mid speed roll-on acceleration. Come on now. And if you think the Shelby's 150lb weight advantage makes up for it's 100 lb-ft torque deficit, I don't really know what to tell you. When you're foot is flat on the floor and you're racing somebody else, other than 1st gear, low-mid range torque means nothing. It could be down 200lb-ft under 4000rpm and it wouldn't matter once you're in second gear. Heck, once you're going about 25mph it wouldn't matter because the motor would be so wound up at that point. The drag race between the two cars is a perfect example of that.

I understand the persona of a V8 that means "high end" but like Drew has said over and over again that some still refuse to agree with(everybody has their own opinions) some here care way too much about the "how" rather than the results. A turbo 6 has more bottom end and will rev the same or even less than a n/a V8. I should say a modern turbo 6. And why does it matter in a car that isn't supposed to be sporty to begin with? If "quiet luxury" is the goal then and 400hp/tq is the end result why does it matter if it is a turbo 6 with less emission or a n/a v8 that usually make a little more noise and usually need a few more revs for torque(not significant but 1-200rpm makes more noise with 8 cylinders than it does with 6).

That's a pretty easy answer.. The bigger victory is the alpha over the GT. But as times creep closer and closer to 11's the percentage of victory of 1 tenth will grow. A car winning by 0.1 running 10.0 is a greater percent than winning my 0.1 when running 15.0(extreme examples). So as they creep closer and closer to a "perfect" 0.0 second sprint to 60mph(which is impossible for street legal cars) a win by 0.1 becomes a greater victory than it was 10 years ago. When a blistering time was 5.0 and now it's 4.0. Next is 3.0 then 2.0? Eventually you cannot be faster than 0 seconds to any amount of speed. I hope that makes sense.. I think I'm confusing what I'm trying to say. I feel like you're using the "out of production" argument to your advantage and not crediting how freakin good the Z28 is. The Z got nothing but praise by everybody just a year ago in every performance metric out there and now the car gets discredited because it isn't produced anymore? That shouldn't take away got great it is still. A Mclaren F1 is no less a car just because it's out of production. Comparing a car to that and beating it is still an outstanding accomplishment.

From how I see it, it was a huge victory but that's because the z28 is that great of a car. Had the Z not been as spectacular of a car it wouldn't be such a good victory but beating a car of that caliber whether in production or not is huge. And as cars advance and times diminish to 60 and 1/4 mile 1 tenth of a second becomes a larger and larger margin of victory.

Speaking of forced induction.. Who do you think will bring a blown 6 to the segment first? And in what "variant"? Could GM bring the new 3.0T somewhere or Ford put the 2.7 into the mustsng? Or 3.5?

No, but I can read a dyno graph. Ohhhhhh.. Dynos don't show weight or anything aero going on which both of these cars utilize in acceleration. And, as you've said, dynos are used for tuning not measuring lol

You are 100% wrong. The LS7 is currently peaked or near peak in NA guise. GM threw a lot of money and a lot of tricks at it. To claim it is not, means you have not looked into the hardware and manufacturing costs or at the very least, priced a crate motor. GM even talked about how many millions of CAE iterations were modeled before achieving their goals. So unless you believe GM just left a lot on the proverbial table, or that suddenly CAE tools have evolved much better...then I see little room for improvement without much more cost thrown at at. The most exotic costly thing about the 5.2L is that they CNC'd the heads, which is pretty standard stuff. There is nothing costly about the FP crank, other than a new casting is needed. Hardly exotic. Pistons are forged, again, standard stuff. Basic aluminum rods, so no ultra premium lightweight titanium. And all the tuning was achieved with cam designs. Again, standard hot rod stuff. A 5.2L crate motor is much less than the LS7. The most exotic tech about the 5.2L was that they were pinched for larger bore diameter, so they plasma coated the bores instead of cylinder liners. You are welcome. An LS7 is 16K retail. I work at a GM store, in case you didn't know. And if theink the LS7 is anywhere near tapped out, you're even more clueless than I thought. http://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1430350-ls7-heads-cam-dyno-final-results-619whp-532wtq.html Feels stronger than what? An Alpha or GT350R? The Shelby. You've gotten behind the wheel of one of them?????

How is a cam and heads not a lot of investment? You're talking about a couple grand in parts.. Not saying it isn't very responsive to bolt ons(even though it already has an intake built by k&n) just that heads and a cam aren't really cheap and easy to do and will obviously require a tune.

Feels stronger than what? An Alpha or GT350R?

What are all three of the times to 60? I honestly looked past that and looked at the other numbers. Wasn't the Alpha like 4.1 or 4.0? What are the other two? And as its been said by others and myself included about the Z and R but neither are 0-60 cars. They're special and include waaaay more than a 0-60mph time. They are here to pull well north of 1.00g sustained and brake while turning, switchbacks, hairpin turns..etc. but also run 12.1-12.3 in the quarter mile, which is more of a bonus for these cars. For perspective, what's a Ferrari 458 sprint to 60 in? I assume no quicker than 4.0 as well. But that isn't what that car(or the Z or R) are about. They do way more than that and that's what actually makes these cars special. A Hellcat can sprint in a straight like like a bat out of hell but it's easy to make big power. It's tough to get that power to the ground while doing all of the above moves and that's where these new era of pony cars come into play. They sprint aaaand handle like exotics. I know the GT doesn't so much, compared to the alpha, Z, or R. I don't want you thinking I'm putting the GT into the same category as the Alpha has already proven itself as quite superior in any performance metric. Wow. Quite the ramble. I guess I'll read it tomorrow to see if any of it made sense.

Sorry, the Z(if truly only a 508hp car) only lost 8.7%!! I think that means it's more underrated than anything else. Still, it's one hell of a motor.

Silly is when someone tries to claim the car that was always behind was quicker. I thought he said an Alpha Camaro not the Z. It beat one damn good Camaro though. Not like it beat an SS.. It beat a freakin great car.

I've already said my part but I'll say it again.. The Z has to be underrated as the GT350R only lost 10.4% from engine to wheels. The former standard not all that long ago was 12-15% for manual trans cars and 15-20 for autos. Oh how times have changed! That means the Z was right around 10% or less loss. Impressive(or underrated). Either way it's working for them.

I actually don't think it's out of production yet. The video said it will be soon and it's still available on chevy's website. Production ended November 20th. Makes since then. They probably had the video and cars well before then, then. Thanks for the clarification, Drew!

I actually don't think it's out of production yet. The video said it will be soon and it's still available on chevy's website.

The 1SS does not come with the magnetic shocks will be necessary on the theoretic car. Add back, what, 5-10lbs a corner over a conventional shock/strut? Why do you think a larger overall wheel will weigh less than the aluminum wheels that are already on the car? I don't think your weight loss goal is unrealistic but I think your pricing is unrealistic. This performance car you speak of will only cost a couple grand over a 2SS? I just don't think that is realistic. Personally, I think it would come in closer to GT350 price than 1SS price.

The GT350R only lost 10.4% from engine to wheels. I think the z28 is underrated. To me one of the most telling comments from them was the numbness in the steering in the Z. I'd also like to say that I called the superior corner exit strength of the 5.2 and its power band. Gobs and gobs of low end and mid range torque are great for driving every day but when you're trying to put the power down at the limit its that much tougher. The progressive power band of a flat plane crank make it easier to get the power to the ground.

Weird enough, I do have the right to pick apart any vehicle that I choose to. I've already said that I really like the front end. Just because I like it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve criticizm as well. Here's something I know you'll enjoy. (apologies for the off-topicness and I couldn't make it a hot link from my phone)

As many times as I would like to mention it. If you do not approve, you can ignore the posts. If all you see is the grill then that's fine. I see nearly an entire front end, even the headlights.

Supply side if you want to be technical. Given they want to make/sell 5500 of these in the first year, the vehicles equipped with clocks is only 0.0727...% of the first year production run. Basically, the vehicles equipped with clocks for the entire product cycle, which means for the entire vehicle generation were already spoken for even before this press release. If I had the coin, why not? Why not spend 160k more for a vehicle that costs at base price 160k more than a base Range Rover. You can see my expression of hideous laughter, which by the way I love using pictures... hideous laughter. I guess I was looking at it more from the point that people will want it because there will only be a few of them..forcing a high demand rather than a shortage of supply.. either way you look at it they're charging peole 160k and, like you said, they've all been taken for most likely.

Hahaha no $h!? That's pretty crazy. Well, I guess that makes things a little easier in some ways.