I would assume that the Challenger will be offered with the 340 HP Hemi and then an SRT8 version with the 425 hp. Since it will be based off of the same platform as the 300/Charger, I think you'll see it being a fairly heavy vehicle.

Of course, since it won't be produced until 2009, you might see some HP upgrades from the HEMI between now and then. It'll be interesting to see if they think there will be a market for a 6 cyl. version.

I bet it will be cheap however. probably 25K for the 340hp version and right at 30-32K for the SRT8.

 

Alright, if you want to argue that the performance package should be part of the deal I'll go along. However, at this point, to be as fair as possible, you need to add the 18" wheels to the Mustang GT I compared the GT500 to earlier. We more or less know that the side airbags, anti-theft system, Shaker 1000 stereo, and IUP will all be equaled or bettered on even a base GT500. And, we can safely assume this because previous Cobra's have always come with more feature content in base trim than have their GT brethren. (in fact, while anything can happen, we cannot really logically assume much else given SVT's history) So, with the 18" wheels and the Shaker 1000 stereo system added to my earlier total we have a Mustang GT that barely squeaks past.....$30,000.

Even when comaring this to the 1LT C6 with the performance package we have a variance of at least $7,000 between the GT500's price premium and the Z06's. For those who haven't read all the posts, several folks had made the insinuation that the GT500 and Z06 demanded roughly the same price premium over their lesser brethren. As we can see from the above, and as I correctly argued earlier in this thread, this just isn't true. You can argue about the exact dollar amount all you want, the truth is unless something unforseen takes place the GT500 appears to be a far cheaper add on than does the Z06.

As for your comments regarding the Z06, let me begin with "Nuburgring Tuning". I once though this was somewhat interesting myself, right up until every auto maunufacturer and their mother sarted doing it, and it attained a status that was based more in myth than fact. Put simply, while I am sure tuning here is beneficial it has become grossly over-rated at best.

Why? First, let's start with the assumption that the Nurburgring is a good indicator of performance at most tracks and in most conditions for every car. This is wrong. The Nurb sustains speeds far too high for far too long to be a good indicator for many other tracks, and even for typical road conditions, and is therefore biased towards cars designed to run consistently at speeds over 150mph. For cars like the Z06 and the Ford GT this is fine (The GT was not Nurb tuned and certainly does not seem to have suffered for this)

For cars like the GT500 which just were not meant to, and in many cases cannot, consistently travel at speeds in excess of the above this will absolutely make the car look slower than it is. And, let's be realistic, I drive like a maniac and I virtually never see speeds over 140mph. In fact, I have been on several race tracks in several very fast cars and can say with some assurance speeds over 150mph are rare at most venues for all but ridiculously fast cars......but the Nurb emphasizes these speeds. As for the GT500's suspension, according to Ford they used the Grand Am Cup Mustang's for research which, in the real world, is going to provide at least as much benefit and almost certainly more than the Nurb could. The Nurb is at least as much about spec sheet bragging rights as real world performance, and likely more so.

In the end, from a perfromance standpoint I am plenty impressed by the Z06, but I don't think it is the end all, be all that you seem to. You have claimed that the Z06 is like a race car in street guise, but I don't see it. Sure, Chevy's racing program helped to develop the Z06, but this car is simply a light weight, very powerful, production Corvette that is absolutely pushed to the limits of what the production chassis can handle by using some of the racing proggrams toys. Compare this to the GT and you will see what I mean.

Part of the reason I believe I will like the GT500 so much is, as early testing would seem to indicate, this car is a real, everyday car. It isn't uncomfortable, it isn't overly loud, but it will be very fast. I like to go fast as much as the next guy, but I would want to drive this, or a Z06, or a 911S everyday, and of this group the Z06 is the one that really doesn't come accross as meant for, or at least well executed for, that task.

As for SVT's method of rating power. Going back to 1999 to find one car justs look desperate. At this point that is almost ten years old, and it is worth remembering that SVT's trend of under-rating began with the debacle that car caused. Of course, I can see your logic that has SVT pulling a complete 180 now, after almost a decade of doing exactly the opposite, with nothing of substance to back it up other than desperation to support your argument. Oh wait, no I can't. Also, note that this car will be rated with the new SAE standard, which seems to leave some room for under-rating but none for over-rating.

The Mercedes E55 does make about 500 crank hp, which is right at or even just a bit shy of where I would bet the GT500's actual hp rating ends up. I say this based on SVT's behaviour over the last several years and hints they have dropped about the GT500, not one ten year old car. As for the GT500's motor being less high tech it just isn't so. (nice argument by the way, seeing as how it never went more into detail than the MB simply being high tech.)

The MB's advantages are it's alloy block and twin screw supercharger, two items I wouldn't mind seeing on the GT500 but so it goes. On the other hand, the GT500 uses a DOHC/4-valve setup, which is very well designed by the way and has specific left and right side castings (rare and desirable in case you didn't know), verses the MB's SOHC/3-valve. By your own standard, the DOHC must be better since MB is reverting to the same

The GT500 uses coil on plug ignition, SEFI, all of which sound more or less like what the MB uses. The major differences here are 3-valve/SOHC heads verses 4-valve/DOHC heads, and lysholm/twin screw verses an eaton/rootes. In the end the power band, and peak power on these two motors are very similar so these warrant comparison. Rated the GT500 will make around 475hp @ 6,000rpm and the MB delivers around 469hp at roughly 6000rpm. The MB is rated at 516lb-ft tq @ 2630-4500rpm and the GT500 is rumoured to be rated at, again, at least 475lb-ft tq probably close to the GT's peak of 3,750rpm....or right in the middle of the MB's peak torque range. I am guessing you found the comparo retarded largely because it shot holes in your argument and not because of vast differences in peak power or dlivery thereof. Unless the hp Mercedes uses is somehow extra special that is.

As for the MB wighing the same, actually with all that luxury content the typical E-Class weighs about 4300lb and change, not the base (and never seen) 3900lb curb weight you so happily cite. Just for giggles that is nearly 500lb heavier than the GT500 coupe's 3850lb estimate. As for the GT500 being "pathetic" at 3850lb, please note the pathetic 3900lb M6 and what could only be called the ridiculously pathetic 4100lb Ferrrari 612. Unfortunate to see these cars handle so poorly and go so slow when lower weight could have given so much more. LOL

Sounds like you should have done more research.

 

I wouldn't bet on that. DCX is asking right at 30k to start for the standard Hemi-powered Charger. An SRT8 Charger starts at just over 38k. Put the same equipment on a lower production coupe that will be based on a newer chassis and it is hard to imagine DCX asking 06 Charger RT money for an 09 or 2010 Challenger SRT8. If anything, I would expect the Challenger to be at least as much in base Hemi and SRT8 trim as the Charger is asking for these same packages right now, and possibly more.

 

Good points, I agree. Probably more in the range you are talking about.

 

OK, but if you want to compare apples to apples. Where is Ford offering HID's, an IRS, lightened chassis, CF Panels, etc etc. They aren't....That was my original point. Chevy is offering a heck of a lot more performance parts and engineering for an extra 15K.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
Even when comaring this to the 1LT C6 with the performance package we have a variance of at least $7,000 between the GT500's price premium and the Z06's. For those who haven't read all the posts, several folks had made the insinuation that the GT500 and Z06 demanded roughly the same price premium over their lesser brethren. As we can see from the above, and as I correctly argued earlier in this thread, this just isn't true. You can argue about the exact dollar amount all you want, the truth is unless something unforseen takes place the GT500 appears to be a far cheaper add on than does the Z06.

See above. The Ford lacks modern technology. The GT500 is obviously a bit cheaper because it lacks content. We are getting inferior technology, for 10K (to appease you) vs. modern technology in the Z06 for ~17K.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
As for your comments regarding the Z06, let me begin with "Nuburgring Tuning". I once though this was somewhat interesting myself, right up until every auto maunufacturer and their mother sarted doing it, and it attained a status that was based more in myth than fact. Put simply, while I am sure tuning here is beneficial it has become grossly over-rated at best.

Why? First, let's start with the assumption that the Nurburgring is a good indicator of performance at most tracks and in most conditions for every car. This is wrong. The Nurb sustains speeds far too high for far too long to be a good indicator for many other tracks, and even for typical road conditions, and is therefore biased towards cars designed to run consistently at speeds over 150mph. For cars like the Z06 and the Ford GT this is fine (The GT was not Nurb tuned and certainly does not seem to have suffered for this)

For cars like the GT500 which just were not meant to, and in many cases cannot, consistently travel at speeds in excess of the above this will absolutely make the car look slower than it is. And, let's be realistic, I drive like a maniac and I virtually never see speeds over 140mph. In fact, I have been on several race tracks in several very fast cars and can say with some assurance speeds over 150mph are rare at most venues for all but ridiculously fast cars......but the Nurb emphasizes these speeds. As for the GT500's suspension, according to Ford they used the Grand Am Cup Mustang's for research which, in the real world, is going to provide at least as much benefit and almost certainly more than the Nurb could. The Nurb is at least as much about spec sheet bragging rights as real world performance, and likely more so.

I will take the word of world class engineers from BMW and Porsche. You know guys whom have experience building race cars, over guys like us arguing over the internet. You are simply wrong. The Nurburgring is a world renowned track that stresses every part of the suspension,chassis, and braking system. A 500 crank hp car should be able to get up to 150 pretty quickly and there is a fairly famous track about 3 hours North of me that permits speeds in that area. It's just a small track called Road America.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
In the end, from a perfromance standpoint I am plenty impressed by the Z06, but I don't think it is the end all, be all that you seem to. You have claimed that the Z06 is like a race car in street guise, but I don't see it. Sure, Chevy's racing program helped to develop the Z06, but this car is simply a light weight, very powerful, production Corvette that is absolutely pushed to the limits of what the production chassis can handle by using some of the racing proggrams toys. Compare this to the GT and you will see what I mean.

Have you seen a C6 Z06 at a road course? Have you read the articles on it? Here read up: http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/index.shtml . The C6 Z06 isn't near the limits of the production chassis, don't know where you got that one from. I really don't understand the comparison to the GT. It's a very capable track car too, but costs almost double.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
Part of the reason I believe I will like the GT500 so much is, as early testing would seem to indicate, this car is a real, everyday car. It isn't uncomfortable, it isn't overly loud, but it will be very fast. I like to go fast as much as the next guy, but I would want to drive this, or a Z06, or a 911S everyday, and of this group the Z06 is the one that really doesn't come accross as meant for, or at least well executed for, that task.

The C6 has a comfortable ride and so did the C5 Z06. I've never riden in a C6 Z06, so I can't say. I do know that you can drive the C6 Z06 everyday with more creature comforts than a GT500. If you are worried about noise, sorry but maybe a Lexus is more your suit. Both cars will be loud.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
As for SVT's method of rating power. Going back to 1999 to find one car justs look desperate. At this point that is almost ten years old, and it is worth remembering that SVT's trend of under-rating began with the debacle that car caused. Of course, I can see your logic that has SVT pulling a complete 180 now, after almost a decade of doing exactly the opposite, with nothing of substance to back it up other than desperation to support your argument. Oh wait, no I can't. Also, note that this car will be rated with the new SAE standard, which seems to leave some room for under-rating but none for over-rating.

Desperate? It was a well know error on SVT's part that lead to a recall and no 2000 Production run. That wasn't to long ago. I am aware of the SAE standard and it looks like it fairs out the playing field. I honestly didn't think of that. Considering the SAE J1349 testing now in place, the GT500 should be honest in order to claim it's SAE certified.

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
The Mercedes E55 does make about 500 crank hp, which is right at or even just a bit shy of where I would bet the GT500's actual hp rating ends up. I say this based on SVT's behaviour over the last several years and hints they have dropped about the GT500, not one ten year old car. As for the GT500's motor being less high tech it just isn't so. (nice argument by the way, seeing as how it never went more into detail than the MB simply being high tech.)

Read: http://www.mbusa.com/models/features/specs...=E55&class=06_E

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
The MB's advantages are it's alloy block and twin screw supercharger, two items I wouldn't mind seeing on the GT500 but so it goes. On the other hand, the GT500 uses a DOHC/4-valve setup, which is very well designed by the way and has specific left and right side castings (rare and desirable in case you didn't know), verses the MB's SOHC/3-valve. By your own standard, the DOHC must be better since MB is reverting to the same

You found two advantages, but forgot the more advanced ignition system. You also forgot the computer controlled clutch that engages the S/C based on engine speed. AMG is going back to 4 valve heads for the next gen of N/A engines, very much correct. And because we are using this retarded comparison again, the E55 engine is more refined. Here is a nice write up for more advantages: http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/news...mercedes/1.html

Quote:

Originally posted by jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
The GT500 uses coil on plug ignition, SEFI, all of which sound more or less like what the MB uses. The major differences here are 3-valve/SOHC heads verses 4-valve/DOHC heads, and lysholm/twin screw verses an eaton/rootes. In the end the power band, and peak power on these two motors are very similar so these warrant comparison. Rated the GT500 will make around 475hp @ 6,000rpm and the MB delivers around 469hp at roughly 6000rpm. The MB is rated at 516lb-ft tq @ 2630-4500rpm and the GT500 is rumoured to be rated at, again, at least 475lb-ft tq probably close to the GT's peak of 3,750rpm....or right in the middle of the MB's peak torque range. I am guessing you found the comparo retarded largely because it shot holes in your argument and not because of vast differences in peak power or dlivery thereof. Unless the hp Mercedes uses is somehow extra special that is.

See the article above. The E55 has a more advanced ignition sys. The MB is rated at 469, but it's well known that it makes near 500 crank. So the E55 makes more power(using the GT500's estimated HP) and makes considerably more tq. Your point was again?


<!--QuoteBegin-jsaylor@December 15, 2005, 4:38 PM
As for the MB wighing the same, actually with all that luxury content the typical E-Class weighs about 4300lb and change, not the base (and never seen) 3900lb curb weight you so happily cite. Just for giggles that is nearly 500lb heavier than the GT500 coupe's 3850lb estimate. As for the GT500 being "pathetic" at 3850lb, please note the pathetic 3900lb M6 and what could only be called the ridiculously pathetic 4100lb Ferrrari 612. Unfortunate to see these cars handle so poorly and go so slow when lower weight could have given so much more. LOL

Quoted post

[/quote]

Sounds like you should have done more research.
I guess the Canadian AMG is lighter: http://www.canadiandriver.com/overviews/20...enz/e-class.php

The MBUSA website lists it at 4,087. Sorry for the confusion
http://www.mbusa.com/models/features/specs...=E55&class=06_E

So, I was 100 lbs off and not 500lbs heavier like you claim.

As for the M6: 3770 LBS
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...S184.A8543.html

and the 612 Scaglietti: 4056 lbs

The M6 and 612 are luxury cars. What don't you understand about that? Do you not understand that Luxury content adds considerable weight? The GT500 looks like a economy car compared to the two cars mentioned above. They also have the ever so heavy IRS rear suspension. I bet you could shave a hundred or so lbs off of both if Ferrari and BMW engineers had used a SRA

Again, weight is the enemy. A lighter car performs better, simple as that.


I am done arguing with you, have a good one.

 

You're not seriously trashing the most difficult and significant test track in the world (used by the world's FINEST automakers) as a justification to rationalize the poor execution of the new Shelby GT500, are you?

Sure, let's not blame Ford for their mistakes, let's just blame that overwrought Nurburgring track that was built for "snob" cars that have IRS.

 

LOL......I guess he knows of a better benchmark track. I bet Porsche, BMW, Audi, AMG, and Team Corvette would love to hear about it.

GM must have wasted a ton of money building the "Lutzring".

 

Oh, it does indeed do all that. Of course, you are assuming because it does this it is a good indicator of overall performance for every car and again I say, no. Your Road America comment actually makes my point perfectly, despite your inference to the contrary these two tracks are nothing alike. Road American absolutely permits very high speeds, but it doesn't sustain those speeds, in a road going car, over the majority of the course and the Nurb does just that. Again, unless you gearing and aero package are tuned for consitent running above 150 the Nurb is going to give a very slanted view of your performance envelope. In fact, teo very comptent track cars, the Evo and WRX, would both be severely handicapped at the Nurb against even a base C6, and yet at many tracks in america they would leave that same C6 like it was tied to a pole.

Actually, I have no idea why you think the Z06 is not near the limits of it's chassis since nothing supports your claim. However, I would point out that a renowned race car driver, Jan Magnuseen, reportedly refused to drive the Z06 for even "one more meter" full out at the Nurb claiming that the experience was terrifying. Car and Driver found much the same thing.http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=3 so he is not the only person who has expressed concern that the Z06 is quite a ride at 10/10ths. This car is all there right now, and the road tests you so happily cite make that very obvious.

Creature comforts, you mean like when Motor Trend claimed that you have to yell, yes yell, at the passenger at speeds above 70mph for them to hear you? In fact, the Z06 may be more civilized than I gave it credit for now, but only because GM felt compelled to add more insulation and improve NVH in the car! (Wow, seems GM even agreed with me...check the same Car and Driver story above the info was found there)


Oh, the more advanced ignition system clinched it. LOL And, I love how you hapilly compare the MB's actual hp to the GT500's rated hp. That desperation popping up again? Also, I find it interesting that you call the MB's engine more refined, when we really don't know how refine the GT500's mill will be. That said, if you want it to idle like a old Rolls Royce maybe you should buy a Lexus.


Ah, unfortunately MB simply lists the lightest E55 in the stable, which really isn't typical of the E55 in general or of the cars running mid 12's. Check this article http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...9&page_number=3 and note that this E55 weighs 4200lbs. Also note that the CLS55 AMG featured in the latest issue of C&D uses the same motor the E55 does, weighs in at 4300lb, and runs the same 12.5 second 1.4 mile. I never said that you wer off by 500lb, I said that the E55 weighs almost 500lb more in the correct trim, this particular E55 merely weighs 400lb more...woo hoo. My point being that, unlike your high 12 second refernce for the new GT500, these cars with reasonably similar power and much more weight indicate otherwise

The 612 a luxury car? ROFLMAO It is, in the truest sense of the term, a GT....just like the Mustang. And, while the 612 is nicely appointed, it is no I-Drive endowed, NAV screen befuddled monster. It is, in actuality, very simple and endowed with the features people would want and need in a GT. Funny, sounds like what we can probably expect the GT500 to be...if on a 40k scale. Of course, the 612 is better appointed, for the money I would hope so.

Your kidding? Thank you Mr. Obvious. Of course, not every car can be a 3100lb light weight....especially not for 40k. That said, you sound like somebody far more concerned with a spec sheet than the real world. I am surprised you don;t own a BMW.

 

Actually, if you feel the Nurb is that great more power to you. I think the track is biased toward cars designed for consistent high speed cruising and can skew results. Looked at in the conext of high speed capabilities the track is fine, but people have decided now that it is a good overall indication of tracks in general and this just isn't so. It is truly ironic in light of your post that the GT500's SRA is one of the cars features that likely would not be a major liability at the Nurb. The track is very smooth and thus nullfies many of the major advantages IRS provides....not rocket science.

The GT500's real problem with the Nurb would be it's aerodynamics, or lack thereof, that absolutely will be a liability at sustained high speeds and the fact that it is undertired. I am really surprised at the people here that cannot look at a car as a package and see how it works together, and that IRS is not the answer to everything. Take the GT500 as is but with the addition of an IRS and I would bet Nurb times would be nearly identical.

For a little tidbit, here are a list of cars that are not now, and never were well suited to the Nurb.

289 Cobra Roadster

427 Cobra Roadster

WRX STi

Evo IX

Wow, what a list of losers. Hey, don't all of those have IRS? Of course IRS has it's advanatages. Ironically, I am now unsure if many of the people on this forum complaining about the lack thereof even understand what these are. On a smooth surface the advantages of IRS are negligible. If you want to do high speed testing the Nurb is a good place, but some of us more concerned with the real world than a spec sheet know that there is more to a car than speeds above 150mph.

 

You have NO clue what you are talking about. Please list your world class credentials to disprove basically every performance manufacturer in the world.

 

Here is the problem, you are assuming that BMW and Mercedes are using the Nurb for something other than what I said it was approriate for. How do you know they feel this way? Did they tell you? If it is the perfect all around indicator of performnce then why does Porsche take cars to South America for track testing as well? Or, why were the potent and very succesful 289 FIA Cobra's unbelievably ill-suited and totally unsuccessful at the Nurb. If they perform poorly here then, by your standard then shouldn't they perform poorly elsewhere...if not everywhere. Why didn't they.

Like everything else the Nurb can be useful taken in context. Unfortunately, it has been given mythical abilities and taken well out of context by the average person at this point.

edit: I would love to hear you reasoning on how the 289 FIA Cobra managed to do so poorly here and yet nearly dominate elsewhere, since this flies right in the face of your argument. Of course, you will avoid this because you cannot answer it.

 

Talk about avoiding questions...Again, what are your credentials to discredit BMW, Porsche, etc.

Your arguement is plain wrong and I simply don't know enough about the 289 FIA Cobra to honestly answer that. The Shelby could have had mechanical problems for all I know.

FYI...If your theory was correct about the Nurburgring being used for high speed; a better track would be Nardo. You know where they top speed tested the Ford GT.

 

I don't need to discredit BMW, because you assume that by testing at the Nurb they agree with your assessment of what that can and cannot tell you. You have yet to show me that BMW disagrees with a thing I said. And, I find it hilarious that you think they agree with anything you say. I never said that testing at the Nurb was useless, I even said that it is appropriate for cars like the Z06 and GT but that it has become over-rated as an all-around indicator for every car.

As for the 289 FIA Cobra. Talk about a way to avoid the question. But, since that cars experience flies right in the face of what you say I'll help you out. The 289FIA Cobra never did well at the Nurb, largely because it's poor aerodynamics became a disadvantage at speeds above 150mph (where have I heard that before?) One noted race car driver once said "I could have driven a pedal car faster" in reference to the FIA Cobra's performance at the Nurb.

But, as we well know, the Cobra roadster was a dreaded sight for years at most tracks. In fact, the little snake was outright dominant for a little while. But, how can this be, because we know from the all-knowing Jason that a car that does poorly at the Nurb must be a poor race car.

 

Hey guys,
What's all this fuzz about weight and speed?
Take my Ext.Cab long bed GMC truck, 5.3L, at 6.000+ and with only 10K in mods, I can kick everybody's hiney in the 1/4 mile.....even the new GT500

 

http://www.bmwtransact.com/microsite/Nurburgring/

Here watch that video. Notice all the turns and the abuse on the chassis and brakes.

And why are we comparing an open cockpit 60's race car to street legal production cars? The CLK GTR flipped end over end at the Nurburgring, is it a bad race car? This is 2005 and aerodynamics have advanced a ton buddy.

Again, what are your credentials? How many race cars have you built? How many times have your tested cars at the Nurburgring? You sure sound like an expert . Your assinine opinion discredits many well known car builders.

 

Keep digging, max. Maybe you'll be the first person to dig yourself out of a hole.

 

A few thoughts about the Z06.... I got the chance to drive one...( actually a pre production one )

1) It is very fast and would dust the new shelby in any race you could set up....

2) It does handle like a race car. It can pull over a 1.00 skid pad...

3) The brakes never fade even when pushed to the limit....

4) It is the least expensive "World Class" car you can buy...

It does have a few negatives however,

1) It is very loud... I am not talking just engine. The road noise is defening... ( I am guessing NO sound proofing )

2) The interior is really plain and basic ( for the money )

3) The seats are not really comfortable ( At least to me at 6'-4" )

4) It rattles and creaks a lot ( like the race car it is )

However, If I had to pick between the Z06 and the Shelby ( ignoring the money). I would get the Z06...

I am sorry, but it is a street legal race car and the preformance is without question.... I do not expect that new Shelby to be able to put up the same preformance numbers as the Z06...

However, If I had to pick between the C6 and the Z06 for my daily driver, I would get the C6.

 

Still avoiding the issue. Now the Cobra was somehow fundmamentally different than every other car ever made. And, while aerodynamics were a hindrance then for that one car it just couldn't be that way for any new car. Ironic that I also cite aerodynamics as the reason the GT500 would absolutely do poorly at the Nurb in my post above...clairvoyance?

Of course you provide no basis for this portion of your argument (likely because there isn't one) you just keep ranting that major manufacturers test their so it just cannot be so. Of course, we have the documented, real world experience of Shelby American to say otherwise, but don't let that influence your delusions. Ol' Shel and his entire race team must have been wrong.

Oh, and I cannot forget to mention that apparently, at least according to you, every car is now an aerodynamic marvel. never mind that we know the GT500 is not and that the Grand Am Cup Mustang have, at times, suffered for exactly that reason.

Are any of your arguments based on more than a Google search?

 

The purpose of your post was? Move along.

 

Aerodynamics would have been a problem in any track where the 289 Cobra could reach 150. Wouldn't it? The Cobra IS fundamentally different than the GT500. Are you that blinded? The reason why the GT500 would do poorly is weight, handling, and lack of IRS.

You stated that the Nurburgring is very smooth, which IS INCORRECT. The track is fairly bumpy in parts and the actual surface changes throughout the track. You really need use Google a bit more

Again, why do you think that Team Corvette chose the Nurburgring to test the C6 and Z06? Aerodynamics(maybe they made minor tweaks)? It's much cheaper to test that in a wind tunnel, which GM has at its test sight. They tested the Vette on the Nurburgring to test the suspension, brakes, chassis, and engine.