GT350 vs Camaro 1LE

[mustang_guy]

A failure? How so? It was 2 tenths behind an M4 within same day testing...and 3 tenths behind a 5th 1LE on different day testing. With RFT's...I might add. That's very impressive IMHO.

Check the willow spring time. Thats more then 3 tenths.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/willow-springs-streets-of-willow

^I was just about to say:

Three words. Run, flat, tires.

still didnt do what gm said itd do.

Sponsored

 

[Nataphen]

still didnt do what gm said itd do.

.45 of a second difference on a different day with different conditions? That doesn't seem out of line to me.

Let's talk about things that Ford said about the GT350 matching the Z51 to the tenth, then falling almost two seconds a lap behind in the magazine test.

Do I believe that the GT350 matched the Z51 laps at the track and time of their testing? Yes, I do. Just because a completely separate test shows something different doesn't mean that I think they lied.

Do I believe that Chevy edged out the 5G 1LE with the 6G SS in their testing? Yep. The test here shows that it's close enough that, in a controlled back to back test, it's possible for the new SS to be a little quicker than the old 1LE.

 

[Boosting Stangs]

No one from Ford ever substantiated the claimed 7:32. You can thank horsepower freaks or one of those other click bait sites for that rumor.

And that is not the actual site, this is http://www.nuerburgring.de/en/home.html

Recently the GT350R and the Z28 were tested under the identical conditions and same driver, same day. The track was 2.68 miles. The GT beat the Z28 by 1.16 seconds. Nurburgring is 12.9 miles, simple math will bring this to an end....
12.9 / 2.68 = 4.813432

4.813432 * 1.16 sec. = 5.583582.....you get the point.

BTW, you can watch the Z28 video. It did rain a little at the very end while the Camaro was starting down the last long straight. Also watch how it struggled to reach 160mph while the tach is redlining.....very telling.

 

[krt22]

Lol, nothing screams keyboard racer like interpolating lap times based on a linear equation

 

[Trackaholic]

That's what happened with the stingray when it was compared to the gt350. The gt350 had better tires than the vette running RFTs. Stingray was still clocking faster lap times. I know they aren't in the same league of cars, and I would definitely take a gt350 over a stingray.

The vette's tires are still the Mischelin Pilot Super Sports. I don't think they are really any worse than the GT350's Super Sports. Maybe for drag racing due to the stiff sidewalls, but for road course stuff they are probably very close in capability.

-T

 

[icormba]

This is how I sum up the differences between the two...

[ame]

and...

Why?
Because nothing on Planet Earth sounds like Bonham except for maybe the GT350's Voodoo Engine!!!

[ame]

 

[chuckty101]

Talking about Jolt of Electricity
I see Nascar Tony Stewart Racing is switching to Ford products in 2017.

I guess he also wanted a Shelby GT350R in his garage. LOL

 

[Norm Peterson]

A failure? How so? It was 2 tenths behind an M4 within same day testing...and 3 tenths behind a 5th 1LE on different day testing. With RFT's...I might add. That's very impressive IMHO.

Impressive - I'll give it that much. Though run-flats - at least the MPSS ZP's - are better than forum opinions give them credit for being.

Not being the clear victor in either case is at least a let-down.


Norm

 

[mustang_guy]

.45 of a second difference on a different day with different conditions? That doesn't seem out of line to me.

Let's talk about things that Ford said about the GT350 matching the Z51 to the tenth, then falling almost two seconds a lap behind in the magazine test.

Do I believe that the GT350 matched the Z51 laps at the track and time of their testing? Yes, I do. Just because a completely separate test shows something different doesn't mean that I think they lied.

Do I believe that Chevy edged out the 5G 1LE with the 6G SS in their testing? Yep. The test here shows that it's close enough that, in a controlled back to back test, it's possible for the new SS to be a little quicker than the old 1LE.

I couldnt careless what those magazine editors could do. They are not professional drivers. They cant even get good 60ft times. So im not concerned with what they lacked in skill to make the gt350 do. Now randy p couldnt make a substantially faster 6 gen camaro, get around a track faster then a 5 gen, it failed at GM's claim. Those run flats have proven to be very sticky, getting the 60fts it has gotten for some, you might want to stop discrediting them.

 

[Nataphen]

I couldnt careless what those magazine editors could do. They are not professional drivers. They cant even get good 60ft times. So im not concerned with what they lacked in skill to make the gt350 do. Now randy p couldnt make a substantially faster 6 gen camaro, get around a track faster then a 5 gen, it failed at GM's claim. Those run flats have proven to be very sticky, getting the 60fts it has gotten for some, you might want to stop discrediting them.

You're taking everything that you don't want to be the case with the Mustang with a grain of salt.

With the Camaro, you have two individual tests, a year apart, within the margin of error on lap time due to conditions, which may have been done on a different track than the claimed tests were conducted on, and you're taking it as concrete evidence. Not to mention that the best lap times in GM testing were most likely accomplished with an MRC equipped 1SS, and the 2016 that MT tested was a 2SS without MRC.

GM didn't say it was x.xx faster than the 5G 1LE, so that means it could essentially be tied with a .01 of a second advantage. That's still impressive to me considering that it's the old track model versus the new touring model.

 

[GOFAST]

You're taking everything that you don't want to be the case with the Mustang with a grain of salt.

With the Camaro, you have two individual tests, a year apart, within the margin of error on lap time due to conditions, which may have been done on a different track than the claimed tests were conducted on, and you're taking it as concrete evidence. Not to mention that the best lap times in GM testing were most likely accomplished with an MRC equipped 1SS, and the 2016 that MT tested was a 2SS without MRC.

GM didn't say it was x.xx faster than the 5G 1LE, so that means it could essentially be tied with a .01 of a second advantage. That's still impressive to me considering that it's the old track model versus the new touring model.

You're wasting your time bro. Anything without a Pony on it is inferior to this guy.

 

[Nataphen]

LOL! Well, some people just know what they like.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

You're wasting your time bro. Anything without a Pony on it is inferior to this guy.

Says the camaro 5/6 poster.....You might want to learn what his background and make of cars is that he has owned...Just saying...Carry on.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I couldnt careless what those magazine editors could do. They are not professional drivers. They cant even get good 60ft times. So im not concerned with what they lacked in skill to make the gt350 do. Now randy p couldnt make a substantially faster 6 gen camaro, get around a track faster then a 5 gen, it failed at GM's claim. Those run flats have proven to be very sticky, getting the 60fts it has gotten for some, you might want to stop discrediting them.

Not being able to "get good 60ft times" is utterly irrelevant in discussions comparing the GT350, 1LE, and similarly intended (i.e. road course) cars. Hardly any different than saying if a car can't pull big cornering g's that it isn't a good drag race car.

If "those magazine editors" are the same people time after time, you at least have that for consistency. If they aren't capable of running times comparable to Randy P's in one car, it's still a reasonable conclusion that they'll be about the same (percentage?) amount 'off' of his times in a different car. For people who don't drive such a wide variety of cars (like you or me), I would expect poorer correlation when jumping around among a variety of cars.

I've already given you the point on RFT's, having driven a C7 so equipped for exactly one lap on a real road course as a little real-world experience. Inside half a lap it was evident that these weren't run-of-the-mill sedan RFT's.


Norm

 

[mustang_guy]

You're taking everything that you don't want to be the case with the Mustang with a grain of salt.

With the Camaro, you have two individual tests, a year apart, within the margin of error on lap time due to conditions, which may have been done on a different track than the claimed tests were conducted on, and you're taking it as concrete evidence. Not to mention that the best lap times in GM testing were most likely accomplished with an MRC equipped 1SS, and the 2016 that MT tested was a 2SS without MRC.

GM didn't say it was x.xx faster than the 5G 1LE, so that means it could essentially be tied with a .01 of a second advantage. That's still impressive to me considering that it's the old track model versus the new touring model.

Where am i taking everything with a grain of salt? Im taking non professional drivers lack of skill at face value. They are not great drivers. Better then a casual enthusiast, sure. That isnt saying much though. I take results from actual professionals.

Youre assuming they used mrc. Either you or i have any evidence of that. Im aware of road course variables. I have over 500hrs of road course experience. However looking at the fact of just pure acceleration the 6th gen is substantially faster. In my opinion if it cant flat out beat the 5 gen 1le even with a possibility of a nice difference in conditions, it failed. Its speed difference should definitely negate 3-4 tenths.

Your last paragraph i can agree with. They didnt say how much faster. The way they boasted it suggests its was more then .01.

You're wasting your time bro. Anything without a Pony on it is inferior to this guy.

You couldnt be more incorrect

Sponsored