'

[martinjlm]

Different tires, different compounds, different suspensions.

I'm familiar with all of that and on each car. My comment stands.

The only saving grace I can see would be camber settings. Again, yet another article that isn't crystal clear on what numbers each car ran.

Different compounds is a huge matter. Because of the differences between the Alpha platform and the S550 platform, plus the mass differences between the ZLE and the GT500, it is likely that Ford has to rely on the tires to play a larger role in managing the forces generated through cornering and braking. As a result they may have specced a more aggressive compound for the GT500 version of the Cup 2 than the compound GM specced for the Eagle F1 Supercar 3. Less aggressive compounds last longer. And if they are being called upon to play a lesser role than the tires on a GT500 when it comes to cornering and braking, that will also contribute to the differences in tire life.

Sponsored

 

[Epiphany]

Everything matters. And I'm acutely aware of the hardware differences between both having inspected each, underneath and at close range. Regarding the "mass differences" - this is what I was getting at, that the proportional increase of the GT500 over that of the ZLE is not that great.

Regarding compound, and while not the best at least it offers some comparative data, the two share similar traction ratings.
Regarding one compound vs the other, the tires on the GT500 are rated for near twice the tread life over that of the ZLE.
ZLE tires
GT500 tires

I don't see the GT500 tires shitting the bed in three laps whereas the ZLE somehow didn't when at the same track at the same time. Again, I'd be looking at alignment specs very carefully (and would like to have seen the numbers each car was running), as well as ensuring proper inflation, etc. Bottom line, the cars are close, and starting with a fresh tire vs a well used one makes quite a difference. One that was ultimately overlooked (via excuses, etc) but that shouldn't have been if the data collected was to have any semblance of objectivity.

 

[martinjlm]

Everything matters. And I'm acutely aware of the hardware differences between both having inspected each, underneath and at close range. Regarding the "mass differences" - this is what I was getting at, that the proportional increase of the GT500 over that of the ZLE is not that great.

Regarding compound, and while not the best at least it offers some comparative data, the two share similar traction ratings.
Regarding one compound vs the other, the tires on the GT500 are rated for near twice the tread life over that of the ZLE.
ZLE tires
GT500 tires

I don't see the GT500 tires shitting the bed in three laps whereas the ZLE somehow didn't when at the same track at the same time. Again, I'd be looking at alignment specs very carefully (and would like to have seen the numbers each car was running), as well as ensuring proper inflation, etc. Bottom line, the cars are close, and starting with a fresh tire vs a well used one makes quite a difference. One that was ultimately overlooked (via excuses, etc) but that shouldn't have been if the data collected was to have any semblance of objectivity.

Have you ever seen a car review where that information was communicated? I haven’t. Maybe you have?

 

[Hack]

Have you ever seen a car review where that information was communicated? I haven’t. Maybe you have?

The tough thing is once you start giving out information it just leads to more questions. And with the last Corvette C8 road course test Motor Trend made a huge change to the alignment and gained several seconds. I'm glad they shared the information about what they did and the difference it made in lap times. It's part of a trend in reviews - sharing more information and keeping it real. The Camaro in the test visually has a lot of camber in the front, but the Mustang doesn't. The Mustang's aero package was missing. When you can visually see that kind of thing but no information is shared it does make you wonder.

~5% difference in weight and small differences in performance - for the magazine racers one car is brilliant and the other sucks. Having more details is helpful to quell some of the less realistic claims.

 

[02gtnh]

The tough thing is once you start giving out information it just leads to more questions. And with the last Corvette C8 road course test Motor Trend made a huge change to the alignment and gained several seconds. I'm glad they shared the information about what they did and the difference it made in lap times. It's part of a trend in reviews - sharing more information and keeping it real. The Camaro in the test visually has a lot of camber in the front, but the Mustang doesn't. The Mustang's aero package was missing. When you can visually see that kind of thing but no information is shared it does make you wonder.

~5% difference in weight and small differences in performance - for the magazine racers one car is brilliant and the other sucks. Having more details is helpful to quell some of the less realistic claims.

What pic are you looking at. The ones I've seen show the gt500 with more camber? The owner of the 1le said his car was set at street settings for the test and the gt500 was set at track.

 

[martinjlm]

The tough thing is once you start giving out information it just leads to more questions. And with the last Corvette C8 road course test Motor Trend made a huge change to the alignment and gained several seconds. I'm glad they shared the information about what they did and the difference it made in lap times. It's part of a trend in reviews - sharing more information and keeping it real. The Camaro in the test visually has a lot of camber in the front, but the Mustang doesn't. The Mustang's aero package was missing. When you can visually see that kind of thing but no information is shared it does make you wonder.

~5% difference in weight and small differences in performance - for the magazine racers one car is brilliant and the other sucks. Having more details is helpful to quell some of the less realistic claims.

The Camaro in one of the pictures has a lot of camber. It was not the Camaro used in the test, though. Here’s how the gray car that was used on the road course looks. Added the GT500 view for comparison. I do not see more negative camber for the Camaro. In fact, there might actually be slightly more negative camber for the GT500.

As for the Mustang’s canards not being in place, shame on Ford. That’s how they sent the car. The wing setting could be a couple things. It could be that Ford wanted it that way because whomever is in charge of sending the cars may not be astute in the nuances of track setup. That would also explain the lack of canards and the laise’ faire approach to the tires. Or it could be that whoever set the car up figured that with it being a track with some long straights, setting the wing for speed would be the best blend to allow the car to take advantage of speed on the straights as well as put the best foot forward for the 1/4 mile without having to adjust it. I don’t know if Randy, Jason, or the TH guys consider themselves adept at adjusting aero on the GT500, so there is some consideration that maybe they should have adjusted it between the road course and 1/4 mile runs. Or Ford could have provided a “handler” for the car to adjust whatever needed to be adjusted for each event.

 

[Epiphany]

Have you ever seen a car review where that information was communicated? I haven’t. Maybe you have?

Until recently I hadn't seen a girl replaced by a shirtless guy waving a flag at the starting line or a stock GT500 that could hang with some of Porsche's finest. Times are changing.

In the context of trashing tires, camber, or lack thereof can mean everything. And with the ZL1 1LE having a truly slick damper setup that allows for rapid changes and a GT500 that comes with camber plates (yes, in a box , blah, blah) intended for the track, yeah, data on specs that have an impact on tires/tire life and lap times - it's time to step up to the plate and be more specific. The aim should be to mitigate ambiguity as best you can and to gear towards objectivity.

 

[martinjlm]

Until recently I hadn't seen a girl replaced by a shirtless guy waving a flag at the starting line or a stock GT500 that could hang with some of Porsche's finest. Times are changing.

In the context of trashing tires, camber, or lack thereof can mean everything. And with the ZL1 1LE having a truly slick damper setup that allows for rapid changes and a GT500 that comes with camber plates (yes, in a box , blah, blah) intended for the track, yeah, data on specs that have an impact on tires/tire life and lap times - it's time to step up to the plate and be more specific. The aim should be to mitigate ambiguity as best you can and to gear towards objectivity.

Well clearly one of those things was Jason Camissa schtick (which I always appreciate) and lends nothing to the actual analysis of results. But I do agree with you that the reviewers need to mitigate ambiguity. Thing is, they can’t be expected to get into the minds of every enthusiast and anticipate all of the “what bout.....?” Issues that we come up with. I commend them on being as transparent as they were about the “well cooked” tires and also pointing out that even though it was the last part of the review, the track testing was done first in order to have the Cup 2s in their best possible condition. Most reviews don’t provide that level of detail.

And I actually wonder if they would have even mentioned it in this review had Randy not mentioned it during his lap time with the GT500. Once he put it out there it had to be addressed. As far as camber in the ZLE, the photos of the cars do not lead me to believe there was any negative camber dialed in. Definitely not any more than the GT500, just from eye-balling tire stance when both cars were still (post 331).

 

[Epiphany]

Can't speak to camber based on a photo with much level of confidence by my eye shares your thoughts there. That said, data, data, data. The reviews that rise to the top have sadly become mere visual spectacles without much more. Somebody (maybe Savage Geese but his aren't usually track based) will break it down better in due time. We shall see.

 

[MaskedRacerX]

Somebody (maybe Savage Geese but his aren't usually track based) will break it down better in due time. We shall see.

Yeah, he generally gets pretty granular with the analysis (even if it's not anything measured on track), always enjoy his videos ... even if he's got a little serial killer vibe going on ...

 

[9secondko]

The Camaro in one of the pictures has a lot of camber. It was not the Camaro used in the test, though. Here’s how the gray car that was used on the road course looks. Added the GT500 view for comparison. I do not see more negative camber for the Camaro. In fact, there might actually be slightly more negative camber for the GT500.

As for the Mustang’s canards not being in place, shame on Ford. That’s how they sent the car. The wing setting could be a couple things. It could be that Ford wanted it that way because whomever is in charge of sending the cars may not be astute in the nuances of track setup. That would also explain the lack of canards and the laise’ faire approach to the tires. Or it could be that whoever set the car up figured that with it being a track with some long straights, setting the wing for speed would be the best blend to allow the car to take advantage of speed on the straights as well as put the best foot forward for the 1/4 mile without having to adjust it. I don’t know if Randy, Jason, or the TH guys consider themselves adept at adjusting aero on the GT500, so there is some consideration that maybe they should have adjusted it between the road course and 1/4 mile runs. Or Ford could have provided a “handler” for the car to adjust whatever needed to be adjusted for each event.

Seriously? You cannot see anything on the gt500 pic. The Camaro pic does indeed look like slight negative camber.

 

[JohnnyUtah]

We are now arguing alignment specs based on photos taken at an angle. This thread has officially shit the bed.

 

[martinjlm]

Don’t know how I missed this. It’s almost a month old now. I found it after reading a Car & Driver article that tested CFTP vs ZLE vs Redeye. More on that later. Here is a CFTP vs ZLE, both in full track mode, head to head. Spoiler - A lot of you are not gonna like this....

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ng-shelby-gt500-vs-2019-chevy-camaro-zl1-1le/

And here’s the article that landed today that adds the Redeye to the mix. Looks like all three were tested at the same time. Data on the CFTP and the ZLE is exactly as in the other article I posted.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30870010/2020-muscle-car-showdown/

 

[ALUSA]

Don’t know how I missed this. It’s almost a month old now. I found it after reading a Car & Driver article that tested CFTP vs ZLE vs Redeye. More on that later. Here is a CFTP vs ZLE, both in full track mode, head to head. Spoiler - A lot of you are not gonna like this....

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ng-shelby-gt500-vs-2019-chevy-camaro-zl1-1le/

And here’s the article that landed today that adds the Redeye to the mix. Looks like all three were tested at the same time. Data on the CFTP and the ZLE is exactly as in the other article I posted.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30870010/2020-muscle-car-showdown/

Remember these prices are also based on the MSRP, does not reflect the actual sales + taxes for these beasts. Camaro is alot cheaper regarding out of pocket pull into the drive way stand point.

 

[Arthonon]

Don’t know how I missed this. It’s almost a month old now. I found it after reading a Car & Driver article that tested CFTP vs ZLE vs Redeye. More on that later. Here is a CFTP vs ZLE, both in full track mode, head to head. Spoiler - A lot of you are not gonna like this....

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ng-shelby-gt500-vs-2019-chevy-camaro-zl1-1le/

And here’s the article that landed today that adds the Redeye to the mix. Looks like all three were tested at the same time. Data on the CFTP and the ZLE is exactly as in the other article I posted.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30870010/2020-muscle-car-showdown/

I saw that as well, I think in the actual print magazine, if you can believe that (I have a subscription because I got a deal and it's like $5 a year or something crazy).

The comparison between the Camaro and Mustang is pretty consistent at just about every level - the Camaro is generally a little better on the track, and the Mustang is a little easier to live with. With the GT500, I think it's clear that Ford wasn't trying to make an all out track weapon, but wanted good (maybe even excellent) track performance in a usable package. I think they succeeded at that, and I guess it could be what it takes to have a good ride and good track performance, but it sure seems more expensive than I think it should be. But as they say, the price/value is basically whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Sponsored