surreal1272

At the 2015 GEICO 500 held May 3rd 2015 @ Talledega, the 3 top qualifiers set lap speeds of 200.xxx MPH. Do you REALLY think they did that with only 435 HP ??? Cutting power from 850-900 down to 435 would cut race speeds in HALF. Who's going to watch a gaggle of race cars going 100 MPH?? Actually, with cautions & such, the average speed at the end of that race was 160 MPH, so change that '100 MPH' to something like 60 MPH. Yeah; 435 HP. Actually they're 450HP for Daytona and Talledega. http://www.buildingspeed.org/blog/2014/07/how-fast-would-nascar-cars-go-at-daytona-without-restrictor-plates/

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette. A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance. If the stock has to keep that plate on (which is only for the safety part of rules), then the Veyron should get one too. Take it off, and the Veyron really does not stand a chance. Just stop man.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes. A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome. . I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners. A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons. As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing. I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either. Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher. And rarity. Most are four hours. I've been to two of them at Daytona. And please stop this Veyron non-sense. It doesn't even merit a response. It is just that asinine. It's as asinine as your race driver assumptions because you can prove neither and what little evidence there is out there, is not on your side. Maybe will just discount the fact that NASCAR stock cars are built for that 200mph all out for all 500 miles of Daytona (save for speed drops in the turns of course). A Veyron would not make it 10 laps all out like that. It is not built for it. A stock car also has a better power to weight ratio than the much heavier Veyron. Just that little bit of evidence right there, kills your silly argument. Sorry, until someone is willing to pony up a $2.6 billion dollar risk by racing that Veyron that long, it is all a pipe dream.

I think you are wrong. Of course, I've actually sat in the old and the new Camaro. It is not worse in any way.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

The numbers that MB uses for their sales total includes those vans. The cost of the van is irrelevant btw and again you obviously missed the bigger point of what I was saying because I named your precious Mercedes in my post. Exactly. Cheaper than any BMW sedan. The GLA is also $2K cheaper than the cheapest BMW CUV (the X1). Yeah SMK, they are not trying to win on price at all </sarcasm>

That is just bad ass!

Agreed. A 2-3 hour race of relatively constant speed with only left turns (minus the couple road courses). Not the highest skill level needed compared to other forms of racing and the cars are relatively low tech. A stock Veyron could probably win the Daytona 500, and a stock Veyron couldn't win Le Mans or a Formula 1 race. I think what is being overlooked here, is Tesla made an SUV that does 0-60 and runs the 1/4 mile as fast as a Corvette Z06. We aren't talking the Model X is fast compared to other SUVs, it is fast compared to pure sports cars. If you think a stock Veyron could win the 500, then you really don't know much about this sport at all. You have clearly never been behind the wheel of one, that's for sure. BTW, in 43 years on this earth (and having watched literally thousands os races during that time) I have never seen a 2-3 hour NASCAR race. 4-5 hours is more like it, but not 2-3.

Sorry Drew but that is not true at all and I'm not the biggest NASCAR fan in the world here (even though I was raised in the heart of NASCAR country for 35 years). All racing is hard as hell.

Or, BMW was chasing Mercedes for the lead, so they had to resort to cheap tactics. . . Quick note on smk's point, BMW outsold Mercedes by about 3,000 vehicles. And part of Mercedes total sales comes from vans. Just saying this is all a matter of perspective and just a shell game that every make plays at one time or another

Sorry but I just don't get the big deal being made here about a nameplate going smaller.

I know it's still 1699 in Amish land, but get over the past...this is the future... Is it really now, Moltar? 1911BakerElectric.jpg The electric cars of today are far beyond the primitives of the ancient past... They're still stunted compared to ICE vehicles, just as they were then. They are mere midgets. That is not even close to the truth. EVs are far more advanced and have far more range than 100 years ago. It's not even comparable except to people who have a hard on for seeing nothing else succeed.

I know it's still 1699 in Amish land, but get over the past...this is the future... Is it really now, Moltar? 1911BakerElectric.jpg The electric cars of today are far beyond the primitives of the ancient past... Going electric is good way to say FU to the oil companies, the Texas sleaze and the OPEC filth... ^^THIS!! Screw fossil fuels and the people who use it to hold citizens hostage and prevent real growth in energy.

I'm 5'10" and had no problem seeing out of the car. Getting in is a bit of a chore but the Mustang is for me too due to having a horrible back. That's why I have always preferred the Challenger. Getting in it is like getting in my Magnum. Easy and very comfortable to drive in.

Why not? Two words for you. Financial suicide. You can't just jack up the price without jacking the content as well. The current prices have been conditioned to the average buyer. Just jacking up the price because you think you can will not suffice to the average buyer. We are not talking about rare commodities that attract artificial price inflation. We are talking about cars that sell well over 100K a year between them ( The Camaro and Corvette). Low volume models like the GT350R can do that. High volume can't without increasing the content. See, that's the trap the GM is in. Volume goals do lead to financial suicide. It already happened. It's a mistake in the long-run. It's a fact. But why do high volume there? Why not restrict the supply? And the content is there, believe me...believe Al, believe Bong. Artificial price inflation? I'm talking about fair value. It seems to me all this car is missing is a luxury interior for it to be a fine halo sports car for many luxury brands. The average buyer is not buying an SS 1LE or GT350 or Corvette. These guys have the money. Especially if the value is there. There are three kinds of customers. Value - which means rock bottom price, and basic features. Then there is performance - which means they will pay more if the value is there. That is the buyer. The last buyer is called the luxury buyer. You cater to every whim for this buyer. And some brands which are not exotic have managed to move their performance buyers to the luxury buyer space. Since this is still in this reference frame, a car that rivals many above its price class. Make it as limited as the Z28 then. Alpha is getting amortized already with the lower Camaros. It's not like they're going to convert every SS buyer to ILE. That's not what's going on. The problem with your suggestion about what they should do, is that it is the exact opposite of what is making them money right no. Their profits per car have been improving every year for the last few years so here's a question for you. Why fix what isn't broken? Really ccap? It's one thing to disagree with him on this but that honestly a little insulting IMO.

Why not? Two words for you. Financial suicide. You can't just jack up the price without jacking the content as well. The current prices have been conditioned to the average buyer. Just jacking up the price because you think you can will not suffice to the average buyer. We are not talking about rare commodities that attract artificial price inflation. We are talking about cars that sell well over 100K a year between them ( The Camaro and Corvette). Low volume models like the GT350R can do that. High volume can't without increasing the content.

I would love to see proof of this "fear" you speak of because I believe that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. What you are saying is pure speculation, just like Bong but he is the only one catching grief for his speculation. Just saying that you are using a double standard here Suave. Maybe, just maybe, GM doesn't want to price the Camaro any higher because they have something that Ford does not, which is why Ford is able to price the GT350 the way they do. It's called the Corvette. It's really that simple. It's not fear. It's simple math and the common sense to not step on the toes of your halo car by pricing it too close to it. I fully agree with that sentiment. Which is why I proposed ages ago that the Corvette should also go up in price. It should be more than its direct competitors. The Corvette can be plenty pricey (although a great value compared to some super cars out there) but it does not need to go up in price unless it seriously goes up in content (speaking of lower trims not trims like the Z06).

I would love to see proof of this "fear" you speak of because I believe that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. What you are saying is pure speculation, just like Bong but he is the only one catching grief for his speculation. Just saying that you are using a double standard here Suave. Maybe, just maybe, GM doesn't want to price the Camaro any higher because they have something that Ford does not, which is why Ford is able to price the GT350 the way they do. It's called the Corvette. It's really that simple. It's not fear. It's simple math and the common sense to not step on the toes of your halo car by pricing it too close to it. I don't even think it's that, necessarily. After all, the Z/28 and ZL1 overlapped the C6. And the ZL1 replacement will as well. I just think that if the Corvette is well-executed and the Camaro is well-executed the buying public will give each one their props and pay checks in good measure. But ya: Ford doesn't have a Corvette. And the only way they can fight that is through asymmetrical warfare, or something. Disregard. Had a "derp" moment.

I would love to see proof of this "fear" you speak of because I believe that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. What you are saying is pure speculation, just like Bong but he is the only one catching grief for his speculation. Just saying that you are using a double standard here Suave. Maybe, just maybe, GM doesn't want to price the Camaro any higher because they have something that Ford does not, which is why Ford is able to price the GT350 the way they do. It's called the Corvette. It's really that simple. It's not fear. It's simple math and the common sense to not step on the toes of your halo car by pricing it too close to it.

Ya know what's ironic? That is something almost EXACTLY like Wings would say. Shelby was a part of the 13+ GT500s. This is the first that I'm aware of that he is not a part of, for obvious reasons. I don't think Ford, or anybody else, is too worried what you think about the price of their GT350/R. The lone example I have.. it sat on the showroom for 2 days before being sold. I have a feeling Ford will be quite satisfied with that turnaround. Sorry but like Bong pointed out, the fact that Ford is now offering upgrades that were previously unavailable on the GT350, is at least an indication that Ford is trying to increase the value of it with the 1LE on it's way. It's a reactionary move by Ford because if they really felt the car was worth that (vs. the competition mind you, not in general), they would not have to offer that. I am not saying that his 100% the case but the evidence is certainly there to support such an assertion. Just something to consider before thinking he is just trolling to troll like the quitter did.

Never, not once, said that you did but the overall tone and words from the Ford camp was exactly what I said. I really could give a crap about the price one way or the other. All cars are overpriced. I'm just saying that the Shelby name isn't as valuable as it used to be. And are you not the one who said, on this thread, that you knew of a Shelby selling for exactly list price? Yes, I am the one who gave the ONLY example of an actual Shelby's price being sold. That was my point. We don't have examples of ones selling over or under or anything else. So to say, "...it would sell far above list because of demand for the NAME. It did not happen" is not necessarily true because out of all of the Shelbys that have been sold in the last couple of months we have one lone example of it selling at list price and zero selling at any other mark up or mark downs. We just don't know. Yes, they did insinuate or straight up say that but I don't know why you're telling me what other people have said.. that means nothing to this conversation unless you were either grouping me in with them or insinuating I said it as well. Absolutely correct, 99% of cars on the market are over priced. I'll give the sub 15k cars a break.. they probably aren't over priced.. but that's about it in my books. And this is why it sucks that cars are a hobby of mine(ours). If I could, I'd drive a different vehicle every 6 months and love it. I just love driving different things and with the price of cars that isn't practical in any way. What's your opinion on the 45k car? I'm genuinely curious because that is kind of an awkward price point for these cars. Never mind ccap because you seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand the context of what I have said here. Moving on.

Never, not once, said that you did but the overall tone and words from the Ford camp was exactly what I said. I really could give a crap about the price one way or the other. All cars are overpriced. I'm just saying that the Shelby name isn't as valuable as it used to be. And are you not the one who said, on this thread, that you knew of a Shelby selling for exactly list price?

You are not following me at all and your number example is way extreme. Fact is that there were several commenters here when the GT350 and 350R were announced. who crowed endlessly about the Shelby name being more valuable and that it would sell far above list because of demand for the NAME. It did not happen, by your own admission. That is all I am saying. No need to read any further into that.

Not based on what's going on up here with the GT500 and Zeta ZL1. Consumers know that SVT is the real development muscle behind the Shelby name, so it's judged accordingly. ZL1 doesn't have the name recognition the Shelby name does. How many people outside of us car nuts know The Legend has even passed? Probably most that buy a Shelby and prior to the GT350 he was a part of all of the cars with his name on them. Like the 662hp GT500. The name Shelby carries more weight than 1LE and will maintain a higher resale value if both cars have the same mileage on them. How much? No clue if I'm being honest. No clue at all. I just know the Shelby name has a lot of value. Actually, if I'm not wrong, the GT350 doesn't have SVT anywhere on it.. At least it isn't in the name. Maybe they have it engraved on the valve covers like they've done in the past. If Shelby had all that recognition, then it would sell above list price. It would not just be predicated on the used market value. Just saying. If it is priced correctly then it wouldn't, right? Or are you saying it doesn't matter what the list price is people will pay above it? And according to Bong, it is priced too high, or in this case, in line or where Shelbys "should" be. I guess what do you mean by " It would not just be predicated on the used market value." because that's where collector cars are also. Yes, used, but they have a solid demand still. Personally, I love the ZL1. It's right up my ally. Big V8, supercharged, 580hp, magnet shocks for a softer AND tighter suspension when I want them. It seems like the best GT of the two..that either of them had made up until now. Now the Mustang GT and Camaro SS are just better overall cars but I'd still take a ZL1 over a GT or SS in a heartbeat. To me, it was a "bruiser". It had brawn. Okay that went a little off topic.. oh well. On another off-topic bit.. check out how insane this dealer is. Mind you, this is just a Mustang GT. ][]]&listingId=413855461&Log=0]http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=62249&endYear=2017&modelCode1=MUST&showcaseOwnerId=3251723&makeCode1=FORD&startYear=2013&firstRecord=0&searchRadius=100&showcaseListingId=387682870&mmt=[FORD[MUST[]][]]&listingId=413855461&Log=0 $100k. lol Edit: So I realize this is not scientific in ANY real way but when I sifted through AutoTrader for 13+ GT500s and ZL1 the GT500s tend to be roughly 5-7k more for about the same mileage. I tried to be at least somehwhat "accurate". Both between 3-15k miles and the GT500s were between 47k-57k(50-55 was the norm) and the ZL1s were more in the 40-50k range(they tended to have ~3-5k more miles as well). But for 45k I'd rather have a ZL1 than an SS 1LE. Actually, what would you guys rather have for 45k? It's kind of an awkward price for these cars. Can't get a GT350 or Z/28, could work really hard to find a GT500, or loaded up SS or GTs? Or throw the Challenger in there as well. No Hellcat but you could probably still find SRTs for that price. No. What I am saying is that if the Shelby name was so special, it would go for more than list, like it has in the past. The fact that you don't see that with this version is very telling to me. As far as being overpriced, I will hold judgement until there has actually been a side by side comparison of it and the Camaro, be it the 1LE or something else.

Not based on what's going on up here with the GT500 and Zeta ZL1. Consumers know that SVT is the real development muscle behind the Shelby name, so it's judged accordingly. ZL1 doesn't have the name recognition the Shelby name does. How many people outside of us car nuts know The Legend has even passed? Probably most that buy a Shelby and prior to the GT350 he was a part of all of the cars with his name on them. Like the 662hp GT500. The name Shelby carries more weight than 1LE and will maintain a higher resale value if both cars have the same mileage on them. How much? No clue if I'm being honest. No clue at all. I just know the Shelby name has a lot of value. Actually, if I'm not wrong, the GT350 doesn't have SVT anywhere on it.. At least it isn't in the name. Maybe they have it engraved on the valve covers like they've done in the past. If Shelby had all that recognition, then it would sell above list price. It would not just be predicated on the used market value. Just saying.