ZL1 - 4, gt500 - 0

Bigerik

Bigerik

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Automobile Magazine this time:

That said, the Camaro ZL1 objectively feels like the all-around victor. Despite its 82-hp and 268-pound disadvantage, it managed to set outstanding times on a road course, impressive times at the strip, and feels far more genteel and tractable on a daily basis. It may aim at the same customer demographic as the GT500, and share a similar powertrain configuration and price tag, but drive the two back to back, and they hardly feel as if they're direct competitors. The ZL1's well-rounded behavior, both on and off the track, and respectable performance numbers earn it a victory...

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/review...elby_gt500_on_road/viewall.html#ixzz1zbvDIAsn
 
They tested at Gingerman, and the ZL1 lapped faster - 7'10ths faster. In the quarter mile, of course, it was the Mustang.

The ZL1 did its best pass in 12.38 seconds at 114.5 mph, while the GT500 turned the quarter-mile in 11.78 seconds at 125 mph.
 
Last edited:
Some quotes from the track portion:

Entering the turns, the Shelby displays a boatload of body roll. That's not completely surprising given the GT500's humble origins, but I expected more from the Bilstein two-mode adjustable shocks, which are part of the $3495 Performance Package. The car wallows like a stuck pig and I desperately attempted to load up the outside wheels on corner entry. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't calm the Shelby to precisely attack a corner. To make matters worse, the understeer in the fast turns was significant, meaning I was unable to carry the speed through the important fast sections of the lap. Power down, however, was solid and when the rear did break loose, the car was easily manageable.


Clearly, for the Camaro to come out on top, it had a small mountain to climb. There is no hiding the 80-hp deficit in the ZL1 and despite the Shelby's hoggish handling, I initially thought its power advantage was too great. The Camaro is further hobbled by a curb weight of 4120 pounds compared to the relatively svelte Shelby at 3850 pounds. The differences were clear on the track. At the end of the back straight, the ZL1 was down more than 6 mph to the brutish GT500.
It looked like the chubbier ZL1 was fighting a losing battle, but as I entered the first few turns, I noticed something significant. I felt like I was driving a sports car. The steering was sharp and responsive and the car reacted instantaneously to my actions. The body roll is a fraction of the GT500's, which is simply titanic. I began smiling. The ZL1 was magnificent to drive and already I was blown away. The car rotates effortlessly mid-corner and power down is predictable and with poise. It oozed with confidence, daring me to push even harder. Chevrolet's Performance Traction Management has five distinct settings and frankly it's overkill. I switched it off entirely.


Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/review..._ford_shelby_gt500/viewall.html#ixzz1zbx6VFft
 
I figure that is enough of these threads. The pattern is clearly visible. I'll only post a new thread if the Mustang wins one.
 
I think it's funny how everyone wants/prefers to drive the ZL1. The wonders of Magnaride. :D
 
Jailtime said:
I think it's funny how everyone wants/prefers to drive the ZL1. The wonders of Magnaride. :D
Click to expand...

And of really good engineering. The Magnaride is just part of it. The entire car seems incredibly well balanced.

Nice job, Chevy!
 
Bigerik said:
Nice job, Chevy!
Click to expand...


Sight Lines - horrible

Belt Line - horrible

guage cluster - horrible, come on, it wa stupid in '69 to put them on the center console......and they did it again !

For all the good there is in this car there still is a 'ton' of stupidity !
 
twitch54 said:
Sight Lines - horrible

Belt Line - horrible

guage cluster - horrible, come on, it wa stupid in '69 to put them on the center console......and they did it again !

For all the good there is in this car there still is a 'ton' of stupidity !
Click to expand...

Which is why I would buy a Challenger. :)

But I wouldn't try to fool myself that it is a better car.
 
If we lived at the track these numbers might mean something, but we don't.

The Camaro is just hard to look at, it's roof looks like it was drawn in three-quarter scale when compared to the rest of the car. The interior is not much better.

I was sixteen when my dad had a '69 Camaro, loved that car. I wanna like the new Camaro but I just can't.

In the retro muscle car wars, the Challenger flat out nails it, a great looking car with plenty muscle for the average enthusiast. The Mustang looks pretty good as well, I'd own either.
 
tonyk said:
In the retro muscle car wars, the Challenger flat out nails it, a great looking car with plenty muscle for the average enthusiast.
Click to expand...

as a owner back in the 'day' of a '70 T/A Challenger please....don't kid yourself, they didn't nail it (two door version of a Charger that in itself was never a four door !) rather thay came close. With that being said the top end SRT-8 is pathetic when one looks at it's relative msrp !

lets all hope when / if the 'cuda comes out all these shortcomings have been corrected.
 
To me, the Challenger is a fine example of an epic lack of creativity. It was like there was no attempt at all to just have a few visual cues, instead, it basically took the old car and put a modern fascia on it. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very nice looking car, I just don't find the styling inspiring. The Camaro's interior isn't my favorite for the same reason the Challenger's exterior isn't. It lacks inspiration. That said, I really like the exterior of the Camaro. It certainly does have visual cues to the original, but it's more aggressive and modern looking. For me, being taller, I don't feel like my site lines are terrible while driving one. Not great, maybe not even good, but perfectly acceptable.

It's significantly more comfortable for me to drive than the Mustang. The ergonomics in the mustang just feel out of whack. I'm sure I'd get used them quickly, but the initial feel is quirky at best.
 
Both are big,heavy cars. They need to lose about a thousand pounds. Is this the best America can do, rehash cars from earlier days? No new ideas?
 
KR7600 said:
Both are big,heavy cars. They need to lose about a thousand pounds. Is this the best America can do, rehash cars from earlier days? No new ideas?
Click to expand...

No, these aren't the best that America can do. In terms of performance, that would be the ZR1 for a production car and I'm sure there is room for improvement there if they set their minds to it. I'm sure they've learned some lessons from their LeMans dominance over the last decade.

I'd love to see them lose a few pounds, in any case. But considering they are putting up track times and numbers that are beating up on many smaller/lighter non-domestic cars, I'd say they are doing a respectable job of representing their companies.

As far as rehashing cars, if you have a buying public that wants to buy rehashed cars, you'd be an utterly stupid company to ignore that market and build something you think they public wants instead of what they have very boisterously have shown they want.

Maybe they can bring over a Holden Monaro, it worked so well last time. :)
 
I have 3 GM products. A C6 ZO6 and ZR1 corvettes. I also have a 1976 Trans Am. My Corvettes have come a long way from my 1968 427 Corvette convertible. The rest of the world makes cars that are just as fast, lighter and more fuel efficient. If people want early Camaros and Mustangs, there is no shortage of them. Why doesn't GM just resurect the tooling for the old cars and start making them.
 
KR7600 said:
Both are big,heavy cars. They need to lose about a thousand pounds. Is this the best America can do, rehash cars from earlier days? No new ideas?
Click to expand...

How is it a rehash? The rest of the world produces cars like these also. They just charge 3 or 4 times as much.

Let's be honest, between the ZR1 and the ZL1, Chevrolet makes a joke out of Aston Martin. Their cars are slower, less refined and much less reliable. They just add leather and a few coats of paint, and charge many times as much.

Yes, I have driven Aston Martins modern product. Neither a Vanquish nor a DBS can hold a candle to a ZR1, as a car.
 
Well, I think most people would never want to drive an early Camaro/Mustang as a daily driver? The idea isn't to regress in technology/safety 40+ years, it's to recapture the style in a modern car. Or were you just being facetious?
 
I have nothing against the new Camaro/Mustang, if you want to buy one, more power to you. My opinion,you are free to have yours,is that they are copies of the old cars,updated 40 years. I,personally would not buy one.
 
That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, I was just attempting to answer your question about why they are "rehashing" cars. The answer is simply demand.
 
I like the looks of the Challenger but the interior feels like you are sitting in a truck. Especially the seats. It sucks that bad! The Charger has a much nicer interior.

I don't mind the Camaro since they changed some of the materials to make it a little more upscale. The thing is with the Camaro, the gauge cluster is a horrible design. They might as well leave the analog tack and speedo out because the steering wheel blocks at least a quarter of their view. You end up looking at the digital readout to see how fast you are driving.

I would have to say the Mustang is the clear winner for the interior. Nice layout. Comfortable seats. Overall, a great design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bigerik
Camaro ZL1 beats Mustang GT500 - First Comparison Test
Replies
13
Views
624
twitch54
twitch54
Back
Top Bottom