Can't be positive as it was so long ago, but I believe that it was MT which conducted a test of a stock 1978 Z28 Camaro (all 160 hp) and had it run a 14.8 quarter mile. Since then, I've really taken their (all the automotive rags) results with a grain of salt.

 

My brother has a 2006 Ford GT, and he essentially parks it during the months of November-March. As I cannot afford to do that, an AWD GT500 is practically a requirement if I am ever to own any 650 plus hp version of it.

 

To be fair, do note that track conditions can have a huge effect on times from one day to the next. A cold damp day could easily trim seconds off a time run on a nice warm dry day.

 

What about studless snow tires and some throttle and clutch control?


As for the article. I read it through last night and chuckled aT the overall comparo. Let me preface this with the question of: what do magazine jockeys always prefer in a performance car? Typically you always get the same result. Flat torque curve, road feel through a hydraulic rack and pinion, a little throttle steer and nothing getting in the way of performance to include sat nav and ransoms goodies they don't care for. Even in the age of technology there are certain cars that are a benchmark for a reason. Now at the end of this article its all about the technology?? Or lack thereof in the Mustang case? It was a complete one eighty! It went on and on about now many adjustments the car makes on the fly and how easy it is to turn any driver into superman. I respect all of the technology put into the ZR1. I would have rather seen an LS7 powered car. For me there is nothing more pure than NA power. FI has its place DGMW. I also respect that it is pretty awesome that boulevard cruisers can go race car in no time. Pretty on the streets and mean at the track. If only women were so perfect. But as much fun as all that sounds it just means the car is compensating for my lack of...driver skill. This is the time that magazine racers dreams come true. A time when moody cars are a thing of the past. I love. Consistency but it can be boring. Getting to know the quirks of your car are going by the way side.

All that said, I think the Mustang still offers a best of both worlds. New and old. If I want to change my shocks on the Mustang. I can. At my house. And it's a few hundred bucks. The Mustang going into the future I see as more like this Camaro. The car drives and you're just their to point it. Personally I've driven cars that don't like driver feedback because they are pretentious and have every situation figured out for you. I hated it! Worst driving car I've been in. It was also over $120k. What a waste.

To tie this all up. I have nothing against the Camaro. In fact I think it's sweet as hell and would love to drive one. But the Boss is the experience I want. It has all the things I love about cars, well almost, wrapped into one package. I grew up on trucks so a solid axle doesn't bother me a bit.

The Camaro's steering wheel is icky because it's the standard one they are using in pretty much all cars. This one just has some fancy leather.

 

"To tie this all up. I have nothing against the Camaro. In fact I think it's sweet as hell and would love to drive one." Well, I don't care at all for the Camaro's looks or that they even have the nerve to call it a Camaro (should be a Chevelle). Yes, it is an impressively powerful track car, but the interior is ridiculous and the exterior is absurd. It's a checker coat with striped pants and a polka dot tie combined with black and white saddle shoes. All that's missing is a clown nose, an excessive amount of orange hair, and a flower that squirts water.

 

Unfortunately, Motor Trend didn't test the Camaro ZL1 and Boss 302 at Laguna Seca. It would be interesting, though, to see how both cars would fare against each other at Laguna Seca; being that the Boss was developed there, it may perform even better against its more-powerful, much-heavier rival.

 

Right you are. It was a mistake by the original poster.

 

Just for craps and giggles... Please forgive the formatting. I played with it for awhile, trying to get everything centered, but this is as good as it's going to get, at least from me.

Car and Driver

2011 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 PP coupe ---- 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1

base price - $49,495 ----------------------------------- $56,295
price as tested - $55,330 ------------------------------ $56,795
curb weight - 3,751 lbs; 6.8 lb per hp ----------------- 4,120; 7.1
0-30 - 1.7 seconds -------------------------------------- 1.8
0-40 - 2.3 ------------------------------------------------ 2.4
0-50 - 3.2 ------------------------------------------------ 3.1
0-60 - 4.1 ------------------------------------------------ 4.1
0-70 - 5.1 ------------------------------------------------ 5.0
0-80 - 6.4 ------------------------------------------------ 6.2
0-90 - 7.7 ------------------------------------------------ 7.5
0-100 - 9.1 ----------------------------------------------- 8.9
0-110 - 11.0 --------------------------------------------- 10.7
0-120 - 12.9 --------------------------------------------- 12.6
0-130 - 15.1 --------------------------------------------- 14.7
0-140 - 18.9 --------------------------------------------- n/a
0-150 - 23.6 --------------------------------------------- n/a
street start, 5-60 - 4.5 --------------------------------- 4.6
top gear, 30-50 - 11.0 ---------------------------------- 7.8
top gear, 50-70 - 9.9 ----------------------------------- 6.7
1/4 mile - 12.7 @ 117 mph ---------------------------- 12.3 @ 119 mph
top speed - 155 mph ----------------------------------- 180 mph
70-0 braking - 151 feet -------------------------------- 165 feet
skidpad grip - 1.0 g ------------------------------------ 0.98 g
fuel economy - 15 city / 23 highway; 15 observed -- 14/16; 13

Motor Trend

2011 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 PP coupe ------ 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1

base price - $49,495 ------------------------------------- $55,995
price as tested - $55,330 -------------------------------- $56,465
curb weight - 3,801 lbs; 6.91 lb per hp ----------------- 4,051; 7.0
0-30 - 1.6 seconds --------------------------------------- 1.6
0-40 - 2.3 ------------------------------------------------- 2.2
0-50 - 3.1 ------------------------------------------------- 2.9
0-60 - 4.1 ------------------------------------------------- 3.8
0-70 - 5.1 ------------------------------------------------- 4.8
0-80 - 6.3 ------------------------------------------------- 6.0
0-90 - 7.7 ------------------------------------------------- 7.3
0-100 - 9.2 ------------------------------------------------ 8.7
passing, 45-65 - 2.0 -------------------------------------- 1.7
1/4 mile - 12.4 @ 115.8 mph ---------------------------- 12.1 @ 117.4
60-0 braking - 104 feet ----------------------------------- 108
skidpad grip - 1.01 g -------------------------------------- 1.0 g
fuel economy - 15 city / 23 highway --------------------- 16 / 19

 

You would really be surprised how docile a high horsepower car like the GT500 can be. My car is flirting with 600hp and is easily a magnitude less in overall refinement compared to the 2013 car and I dont have problems with it. I dont have problems in the rain, nor is it a white knuckle experience when it snows in my AO (a rare event to be sure and when it does, if they dont clear the roads immedately it generally gets packed down into ice with the secondary roads left untreated)

These cars dont run anywhere near the ragged edge nor is the throttle a simple on/off switch. In alot of instances a good set of all-season tires would complement the GT500 in the snow if thats a steady occurance where your at. If the weather is bad enough that you rountinely have more than say a few inches on the ground on a regular basis then you'll want to park the car anyways or get used to buying a front splitter on a seasonal basis.

As is, the GT500 is a summer car from the factory and is not designed with all season capability in mind ( lower ground clearence and summer tires that lose alot of grip below 40 degrees are the primary factors). The inclusion of AWD wouldn't change that very much since it would neither address the lack of gound clearence or the loss of traction that would occur with summer tires.

 

Nice! And stuck that good without those fancy shocks!

 

Right now I've got a Focus Titanium, and I've got winter tires/wheels for that as it came with summer tires. My trade on the Focus was a WRX STI, and I had a set of winter tires/wheels for that as well. All season tires are not nearly as good as winter tires (check Tire Rack.com). That being said, I used to ride either of my ZX12R Kaws during the winter, but I had to avoid snow or ice on the road. My only problem with having technological advances for the GT500 is that the cost of doing so might be too high. Other than that, I cannot see any reason for keeping the GT500 from evolving. Failure to evolve will eventually mean that the GT500 will not be at all competitive even on the road let alone the track. As far as I am concerned, if an auto trans allows the GT500 to be driven faster than do it. The same goes for any handling package, improved tires, seats, or whatever. I want it fast and not just to look fast.

 

You cant argue with the dynamic results though. GM's MRC dampers really improve compliance.

 

Based on what, one review? I'll admit, from the wave of initial reviews, the Camaro ZL1 sounds magnificent; I expected it to, though, because these are the "first" reviews and the ZL1 is perhaps the most-hyped car at the moment (except for maybe the 650-horsepower 2013 GT500). Go back and read some of the Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2011 GT500 PP comparisons and you'll see the stick axle 'Stang more than holding its own in terms of performance and handling against the allegedly-superior, more-dynamic GM vehicle.

 

Also check the ZR1 and Z06 and thier attendant improvement in ring times. A big part of that improvement was due to the sticky Michelin Sport Cup tires but another factor was due to the MRC dampers.

There is no getting around it, GM's MRC shocks allow more compliance in every instance allowing the tires to extract a higher level of grip compared to a standard damper. Its just better than what it replaces in much the same way 4 valves and TiVCT is better than 2 valves and 16 pushrods.

 

Well, that seems to work pretty dammed well on those GM cars you mentioned.

 

They just pulled the top performer out of each pony company. IMO the challenger is seriously lacking in the power department. Its the best look of the threea d screams US Muscle. I just wish it had the nads to really back it all up