ZL1 Review

[Ebm]

Is this good pricing on a ZL1? http://mobile.flowauto.com/cardetails.aspx?Id=421904&value=Chevrolet&type=PreOwned&filterby=Make

2014 ZL1 with 2225 miles on it. Manual. 41,999?

Sponsored

 

[ZaneWayne]

Is this good pricing on a ZL1? http://mobile.flowauto.com/cardetails.aspx?Id=421904&value=Chevrolet&type=PreOwned&filterby=Make

2014 ZL1 with 2225 miles on it. Manual. 41,999?

Yes. Check the car fax though.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Here's my '17 ZL1 review:

When Ford put an extra 200hp on a GT and called it a GT500, there were some compromises. That exact situation has occurred yet again, this time on Chevy's side. The mission is simple, use the Boss 302's foundation, in this case the 1LE, add 200hp and nothing else. While it can go fast at Nurburgring (GT500 beat the ZL1's time) and it murdered the ZL1 in the 1/4 mile, it is, as they say, quite rickety.

Fast forward to 2016 and it is the same approach. Save money and weight by adopting the 1LE's platform and most of its equipment. The Boss came out first because of Motorsport, the ZL1 came 2nd because of the A10.

Yeah, but the 1LE doesn't have ALL 11 Sub-Frame Connectors! Yeah, and the ZL1 is missing some engine bay reinforcement. Regardless, it is so very cheap and not considered a quality in many opinion. Nothing is special about the ZL1's sub-frame Picasso... it was engineered on the convertible and used on the 1LE...


I wasn't impressed with the under tired set up, 285/305? The small rotors or the massive application of coolers? Where the hell is the track times? It's as if they quit playing Track as soon as IRS showed up. I hate the sub-frame connectors... it is pure garbage in 2016. Cool in 1996, not in 2016.

This was their best shot and it's vastly over priced vs. a 1LE. Nothing on a XL1 commands a $20,000 premium. Absolutely nothing... it's a parts bin experience, Chevy themselves know a DOHC is needed and 650hp won't cut it.

A GT500 is coming and it will blindside Chevy as equally as the '13... that is just its nature.

Under tired and it still stopped in like 97 feet from 60. Under "braced" and still handles well. I can't even imagine what this car would do if it had proper engineering.

 

[Voodooo]

Is this good pricing on a ZL1? http://mobile.flowauto.com/cardetails.aspx?Id=421904&value=Chevrolet&type=PreOwned&filterby=Make

2014 ZL1 with 2225 miles on it. Manual. 41,999?

Why would you ask that on a mustang forum

 

[mustang_guy]

Under tired and it still stopped in like 97 feet from 60. Under "braced" and still handles well. I can't even imagine what this car would do if it had proper engineering.

Youve clearly never drove a 13-14 gt500 it definitely got tires thats too small. Most dont have the balls to push it around corners because it is kind of shakey in that aspect . If it had gotten more aggressive bracing and a better tire set up it would have been far better. As far as the brakes, the pads needed an upgrade and fluid change to not fade when pushed hard.

 

[Stage_3]

Is this good pricing on a ZL1? http://mobile.flowauto.com/cardetails.aspx?Id=421904&value=Chevrolet&type=PreOwned&filterby=Make
2014 ZL1 with 2225 miles on it. Manual. 41,999?

I saw a 2015 this afternoon on the way home from work. Man,...what an ugly looking car! At least they tried with the 2016 ZL1. A huge improvement, but all previous years are just plain ugly, exterior and interior.:tsk:

 

[ZaneWayne]

Youve clearly never drove a 13-14 gt500 it definitely got tires thats too small. Most dont have the balls to push it around corners because it is kind of shakey in that aspect . If it had gotten more aggressive bracing and a better tire set up it would have been far better. As far as the brakes, the pads needed an upgrade and fluid change to not fade when pushed hard.

I was talking about the new Z. Not all platforms are created equally. The Z doesn't necessarily need more tire or bracing. It does just fine with what it's got. Now, could it be better? Well duh. Every car could be better.

 

[mustang_guy]

Well pardon me then.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Well pardon me then.

Consider yourself pardoned.

 

[thePill]

I was talking about the new Z. Not all platforms are created equally. The Z doesn't necessarily need more tire or bracing. It does just fine with what it's got. Now, could it be better? Well duh. Every car could be better.

I am glad you brought that up, fortunately for thePill, Chevy finally released a photo of the naked structure. Manufacturers cooperate with this site because they communicate with First Responders... it's required by law I believe.

Anyway, this is the naked profile of what we assume is a base Camaro. I say that because there is no reinforcement at the A or B Pillar nor visable on the side of the torque boxes. Here is the link:

http://www.boronextrication.com/tag/2016-models/page/3/

The area in question is the extremely large gap underneath the quarter panel skin (not shown), between the B-Pillar and C-Pillar/Sail. The S550 is built pretty much like the S197 was in that area and then the Convertible/GT350 beef that came standard. The area the Alpha Camaro seems to be missing looks as though it could require an intrusion beam...

Regardless, this is where the awful torsional rigidity comes from. That and the sub-frame reinforcement is bolted in :( and nothing was integrated. Anyway, as far as we know, this is how weight loss was achieved. We haven't seen spaces behind the panels like that since the 60's. This is one of maybe 30 areas that can have metal added when needed. As of now, most of it is missing.

Understand that this is the biggest and most obvious changes vs. the 5th Gen. The Mustangs shorter wheelbase nearly merges the wheel well to the B-Pillar.

This is as plain as it gets... a lot of metal was removed, some feel the complex group of connectors do not compensate for reductions in some areas.

FYI, as of today, still hasn't released any chassis specifications vs. the ATS, S550 or M4. It is the only Alpha with this design feature, even the ATS Coupe has sheet metal connecting the rear of the car to the B- Pillar. We never had both sides off, this profile truly shows how flimsy the Camaros Alpha truly is.

 

[ZaneWayne]

I am glad you brought that up, fortunately for thePill, Chevy finally released a photo of the naked structure. Manufacturers cooperate with this site because they communicate with First Responders... it's required by law I believe.

Anyway, this is the naked profile of what we assume is a base Camaro. I say that because there is no reinforcement at the A or B Pillar nor visable on the side of the torque boxes. Here is the link:

http://www.boronextrication.com/tag/2016-models/page/3/

The area in question is the extremely large gap underneath the quarter panel skin (not shown), between the B-Pillar and C-Pillar/Sail. The S550 is built pretty much like the S197 was in that area and then the Convertible/GT350 beef that came standard. The area the Alpha Camaro seems to be missing looks as though it could require an intrusion beam...

Regardless, this is where the awful torsional rigidity comes from. That and the sub-frame reinforcement is bolted in :( and nothing was integrated. Anyway, as far as we know, this is how weight loss was achieved. We haven't seen spaces behind the panels like that since the 60's. This is one of maybe 30 areas that can have metal added when needed. As of now, most of it is missing.

Understand that this is the biggest and most obvious changes vs. the 5th Gen. The Mustangs shorter wheelbase nearly merges the wheel well to the B-Pillar.

This is as plain as it gets... a lot of metal was removed, some feel the complex group of connectors do not compensate for reductions in some areas.

FYI, as of today, still hasn't released any chassis specifications vs. the ATS, S550 or M4. It is the only Alpha with this design feature, even the ATS Coupe has sheet metal connecting the rear of the car to the B- Pillar. We never had both sides off, this profile truly shows how flimsy the Camaros Alpha truly is.

Well I can personally attest to the structure of the Camaro, as I was t-boned in the side at 50 MPH. The worst injury I had was a small burn from the air bag. Seriously though, PlanB, if you wanted to have legit arguments about the Camaro, stick to the price, visibility issues, and styling. Everything else you have been wrong about. Remember our weight bet we had. You still don't have the pride to man up and just admit that you were wrong. Because, you were wrong. Everyone knows it. Probably why all your posts have to be reviewed by a Mod, before they can even let you post it :lol:

 

[1320']

Based on the thickness of that rocker box...I'm not surprised you fared so well.

I remember those pics...that first Camaro of yours saved you from a world of hurt.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Based on the thickness of that rocker box...I'm not surprised you fared so well.

I remember those pics...that first Camaro of yours saved you from a world of hurt.

it sure did! I can honestly say that I wasn't hurt at all. Didn't go to the doctor.

 

[Ebm]

.

Why would you ask that on a mustang forum

Just curious? I like my mustang, but by no means am I brand loyal.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Just curious? I like my mustang, but by no means am I brand loyal.

Better watch out. He likes to make fun of anyone who doesn't own a 350.

Sponsored