Jmtoast
Well-Known Member
yes.. Kind of gets old.Do ladies of ill repute swoon and then accost you at every opportunity in order to experience your stud-muffin accomplishments.
Sponsored
yes.. Kind of gets old.Do ladies of ill repute swoon and then accost you at every opportunity in order to experience your stud-muffin accomplishments.
Technically speaking, the only C8 that has been released is the base, as in Stingray. Z51 is simply an option package available on the base Stingray. Just like 301A and PP1 are option packages available on the base Mustang GT. The other C8 models (Grand Sport, Z06, ZR1, "Zora") have not been introduced yet. Another model, Stingray Convertible, will be released next week.The base C8 isn't the model that had 0-60 under 3 seconds. That's the Z51.
Remember how I was complaining about this?
It's been a long week.
Well, the base is 3.0 seconds so the GT500 would have to do sub 3 to beat it ;)
Top speed then? But I guess since the GT500 is limited to 180 and the current ZL1 / C7 and the C8 beat that those are all faster?
C8 will be about mid 11's (Magazines). 11.3 is the leaked Chevy Claim. real world, as in actual people going to the strip, will be mid 11's. GT500 is built off the S550 and there are an rediculous amount of 4klbs S550's with the same horspower rating running mid 10's. Not magazines, not Ford but actual real life people running mid 10's.Technically speaking, the only C8 that has been released is the base, as in Stingray. Z51 is simply an option package available on the base Stingray. Just like 301A and PP1 are option packages available on the base Mustang GT. The other C8 models (Grand Sport, Z06, ZR1, "Zora") have not been introduced yet. Another model, Stingray Convertible, will be released next week.
As far as performance, what we KNOW based on claims from BOTH manufacturers is that Stingray is fastest 0-60 and has a higher top speed. What we DON'T KNOW is which is faster in the quarter mile (logic says GT500 will be faster than Stingray) or on a road course (logic says GT500 will be faster on any course with long straights. Shorter, more technical courses will have to wait for real world tests)
Real people getting the explanation on how the c8 is fasterAs in real people going to the track.
So, true, GM flat out lies just like dodge did with the Demon with its 9.65 ET... lol Some people just don't get it, the mustang is the best car to mod. in the world! Boosted, untuned C8s will be catching on fire while modded GT500s will be going 8's in their first month out of the dealership doors. LMAO...So lets use my car. With a proper tune which would put it at 675rwhp (around 770 crank) , with an A10, 4000lbs it's capable of running low to mid 10's. Most A10 supercharged S550's with a custom tune, which puts it at the same HP level as the GT500 are capable of that time. Weighing around 4000lbs usually. GT500 will be around the same HP rating but with dct but 200lbs extra weight. I'm saying mid 10's based upon that. Knowing Chevy it will take an act of God for the C8 to come close to their claimed 1/4 mile times of lowish 11's in the real world... As in real people going to the track. Not magazines.
Thats the Ford tune and nothing else time. Shit is goign to get real when people start making minor modifications to these cars.
So, true, GM flat out lies just like dodge did with the Demon with it 9.65 ET... lol Some people just don't get it, the mustang is the best car to mod. in the world. Boosted untuned C8s will be catching on fire while modded GT500s will be going 8's in their first month out of the dealership doors.
Real people getting the explanation on how the c8 is faster
He finally found some Real people who believe him
Let’s say actively engineered. Then shut down. More than once. Over a long span of time.Just to be clear “working on” is relative. Money and resources doesn’t get directed to any program until it has a positive business case that gets it put into the Product Plan. I capitalized Product Plan for a reason. That is a very specific document that details what vehicle program teams are allowed to spend money and people resources on.
Engineers have been developing ideas and proposals for mid-engine Vettes since Zora Argus-Duntov, but for some of the chief engineers (Dave Hill, Tom Wallace) it wasn’t really a priority and they didn’t really push for resources to get it done. Tadge worked under both of them and was always hell bent on making it happen. When he took the helm it was pretty obvious that there would be a full tilt effort to make it happen. And clearly it did.
Creepy Joe is a piece of shit. TRUMP 2020Joe Biden
so what's Ford's excuse for nixing the ready-for-production IRS back in 2005? It's been celebrated since 2015 when Ford got out their engineer's way and allowed a 10 year old design to come into the light.If the effort was bearing fruit, they’d have tied up the loose ends, marketed the heck out of it, and sold it to the masses.
Selling cars is all about marketing it would be automotive suicide to build a car there wasn't any market for or we'd have a lot more cars like this.Somebody in marketing probably had a hand in killing the mid-corvette
I'm only continuing to discuss this because I was no-foolin' part of the process for several years. I'm actually trying to give car guys (not just Corvette guys or Camaro guys) some feel for how stuff happens from the inside. I'm not just trying to mince words with you. The only time it was "actively engineered. Then shut down" was in the transition from C6 to C7 and that was due to the bankruptcy. Otherwise C7 would have been mid-engine.Let’s say actively engineered. Then shut down. More than once. Over a long span of time.
If the effort was bearing fruit, they’d have tied up the loose ends, marketed the heck out of it, and sold it to the masses.
It didn’t, so they didn’t.
Simple enough.
doesn’t mean the latest effort isn’t great. Just pointing out a flaw in another individuals argument.
Probably not Marketing. More likely Finance or Product Planning. Marketing has surprisingly little influence in Product Development. At least, that's the way it played out at GM. I can tell you that the discussions that almost killed IRS in Camaro were focused around cost and mass. IRS was not good for the business case because it added significant cost to the product and was not perceived to be a feature that could be used to justify raising the price or placed as an option that the buyer could select and pay for. Meaning, you put it on every car and you can't increase the price of the car enough to recover that cost. Camaro Team fought hard to get it and it won. But the discussions were often brutal.so what's Ford's excuse for nixing the ready-for-production IRS back in 2005? It's been celebrated since 2015 when Ford got out their engineer's way and allowed a 10 year old design to come into the light.
Some things are intuitively right - like mid-engine sports cars. Somebody in marketing probably had a hand in killing the mid-corvette in the interests of maintaining the status quo.
Not following that. The Camaro got IRS with the 5th gen which I thought was a reskinned Holden. Did the Holden ever have a solid rear axle? If not, I would think developing a whole new solid axle for a low volume car would be more expensive than using an existing IRS. Am I wrong about the Camaro being based on a car that already had IRS or am i overlooking something else?Probably not Marketing. More likely Finance or Product Planning. Marketing has surprisingly little influence in Product Development. At least, that's the way it played out at GM. I can tell you that the discussions that almost killed IRS in Camaro were focused around cost and mass. IRS was not good for the business case because it added significant cost to the product and was not perceived to be a feature that could be used to justify raising the price or placed as an option that the buyer could select and pay for. Meaning, you put it on every car and you can't increase the price of the car enough to recover that cost. Camaro Team fought hard to get it and it won. But the discussions were often brutal.