Ford GT Performance Numbers from C&D [Archive]

muckz

12-01-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by ProudPony
Lovin' every minute of it! :D

Take this FWIW...
I have it fairly certain that the powerplant in the 1000 units to be produced for next year will be more powerful than the 5.4 installed in the 3 units built for this year's 100th celebration. It stems from the SRT-10 of all things - Coletti wants to keep the L on top, so the supercooled 5.4 is going 540hp (under-rated too). This puts the L too close to the 550 rated in the GT-40 test units and current 3 production units. It's not too cool to have your $150k halo car being run-down by a $35k pickup!:no:
Shelby, Roush, and Saleen all agreed that the GT has to be a much more powerful unit than the L, so they went back to the table for more power in the '04 run of GT's. If 50hp is enough of a "difference", it should be easy to hit, putting the car at @600hp - ungodly for a street car today.

I reiterate... it's been a LOOoong time... :D

What you are forgetting is the weight of the truck. The truck needs at least another 100 HP on top of what it has to be able to run comparable to the GT, if not more. So the numbers themselves might have some sort of effect on buyers, however don't be fooled - 550 HP in a GT goes a looooong way compared to 540 in L.

muckz

12-01-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
The numbers from C&D are significantly faster than the ones that were tested in the other mags so what gives? Either Ford sent them the rumored more powerful GT or Ford just sent them a ringer on purpose.

Or for once, by divine providence, they were blessed with a good driver....

On the other hand, somewhat unlikely. Who knows.

muckz

12-01-2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by scott9050
LMAO. Isn't it obvious that GM is going to be the loser in the Hp war? Look at their recent track record as proof.

Yes, it does seem Ford is getting ahead of not just GM but also Chrysler. We'll see what happens in 06/07, but as of 2004 I agree, Ford does take top performance and HP (including fantasyland GT).

SNEAKY NEIL

12-01-2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Snorman
What C6 ZL1? The one being built in Fantasyland?

You mean like the 06' Cobra. :rolleyes: I believe it is Mayor of Fantasyland.

Steve0

12-01-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
You mean like the 06' Cobra. :rolleyes: I believe it is Mayor of Fantasyland.

Huh? I'm pretty sure there is no doubt that their will be a new Cobra by 06 at the earliest. As for a twin turbo Zl1..... :o

PacerX

12-01-2003, 09:28 AM

Here we go again...

Listen to me very carefully... I'll say it again...

GM WILL NOT lose a horsepower war with F*rd.

Ain't gonna happen. The next Camaro is going to send the Cobra home with it's tail between it's legs. GT will be no match whatsoever for the top-gun Corvette, and C6 Z06's are targeted squarely at the GT. NOT the top-gun ZL1. The Z06. The ZL1 will be head and shoulders above anything F*rd can do with the GT.

Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale.

1fastdog

12-01-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
My, my, my....how easy it is to say that a car that does not yet exist - and won't for at least 2 years - is superior to one that was just tested. Nevermind that at this time it is still just hearsay, assumption, wishful thinking, and vaporware - but by God when it does gets here, it will be the King of the road! Why? because someone said so and I want to believe it.

The interet - a wonderful thing.

What make you think it doesn't already exist and is being validated as we speak?

Hats off to Ford as it appears they can get get lots of performance from their Halo car. Anyone here getting one?:lol:

Snorman

12-01-2003, 10:29 AM

posted by Pacer X
Here we go again...

Listen to me very carefully... I'll say it again...

GM WILL NOT lose a horsepower war with F*rd.

Ain't gonna happen. The next Camaro is going to send the Cobra home with it's tail between it's legs. GT will be no match whatsoever for the top-gun Corvette, and C6 Z06's are targeted squarely at the GT. NOT the top-gun ZL1. The Z06. The ZL1 will be head and shoulders above anything F*rd can do with the GT.ROTFLMAO! Who are you, Bob Lutz? Another Fantasyland candidate!
What 5th-gen F-body...the one that is thus far not even officially confirmed? It's so far off you have no idea what it looks like, what the drivetrain will be or how it will perform. :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.
The C6 Z06 is targeted "squarely at the GT"? Can you prove that? Unsubstantiated blathering.
What ZL1? The Fantasyland ZL1? GM hasn't commited to building it. You have no idea about what this Fantasyland C6 variant would possibly be powered by, nor how it would perform.
Little hint, GM is already losing the horsepower war with Ford. Deal with it. The Z06 is their last standing effort, as well as the upcoming C6. Bravo. They're building a car pushing $50k for the masses? Gimme' a break.
Ford has a 300hp GT that will be unveiled in January. Ford is currently building a 260hp Mustang, a 300+hp Mustang, a 400+hp Mustang, a 400hp truck, a 300hp 4-door luxo-barge (Marauder), has an entry to compete with the imports in the SVT Focus (soon to be defunct, I hear), and a 600hp Ferrari/Lambo-killing GT.
What's GM done lately? Released an underpowered SSR and Silverado SS, discontinued the F-body and redone the upmarket Corvette for those willing to spend $50k?
After 4 years of domination with the LS1, GM is now lagging. Guessing what GM might build and comparing it to what Ford is building is pointless.
S.

Darth Xed

12-01-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Snorman

After 4 years of domination with the LS1, GM is now lagging. Guessing what GM might build and comparing it to what Ford is building is pointless.
S.

Actually it was 5 years of dominating with the LS1, and another 5 with the LT1...

but, yes, right now, Ford seems to have the upperhand in currently offered affordable performance.

Steve0

12-01-2003, 10:37 AM

Chris 96 WS6

12-01-2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by scott9050
LMAO. Isn't it obvious that GM is going to be the loser in the Hp war? Look at their recent track record as proof.

I love the unmitigated hubris of Mustang guys that come to this board and mouth off because they read some thread somewhere about "hey guys, these idiots at Camaroz28.com think the GT won't be the greatest car ever, lets set them straight."

GM's been handing Ford its own ass for over 10 yrs through various itterations of the LT1, LT4, LS1 and LS6. Ford finally comes out kinda on top with the '03 Cobra which sometimes is faster than the Z06 in a straight line, and all the sudden Ford is the GOD of everything Horsepower.

GM's pockets are deeper and their powertrain engineers have always been among the best in the world. The GT is impressive, but not for the price. With the C6 ZO6 be able to match the Ford GT? Doesn't look like it in terms of acceleration, but it won't be too far behind either. Plus I bet the Z06 is still the better track car. And the Z06 will be half the price.

You can go as fast as you want if you are willing to pay enough. Its doing it within the constraints of an approved budget window that is impressive. GM has always been the best in the world at pulling out a world-class corvette on a shoestring budget. Now that they've been given more resources, do not underestimate them.

Point is this is all speculation. When the cars hit the streets and the drag strip and we start getting real world numbers then we can brag and talk trash. Until then I think everybody, Ford GM or DC, should keep their egos in check.

Z284ever

12-01-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Snorman
After 4 years of domination with the LS1, GM is now lagging. Guessing what GM might build and comparing it to what Ford is building is pointless.
S. [/B]
Kudos to Ford on the GT.

But except for the hard numbers generated by the GT for this road test ...we've pretty much been spending most of our time comparing what GM might build to what Ford might build.

I'm with fastdog on the GT......anyone planning on buying one?

RiceEating5.0

12-01-2003, 11:56 AM

GM can NEVVVUH LOOOSSSSEEEEE!!!!! :D.

OMG, we're all living in fantasy land (can't blame anyone though since this is the future/rumor forum). Just let the cars hit the streets and the facts get seperated from the myths. Everyone's speaking as if they've driven/seen/or have the facts of both cars on hand. Guys talking about the c6 z06 outhandling the GT, a TT ZL1 demolishing it, etc..... Ohh boy:rolleyes: . let's not get ahead of ourselves.

RiceEating5.0

12-01-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Z284ever
I'm with fastdog on the GT......anyone planning on buying one?

Yeah, but bastards won't accept monoply money or an IOU slip though:mad:.

Z28Marcus

12-01-2003, 12:04 PM

I am really glad this car worked out for Ford. They need something to cheer about!

Damn that thing is bad to the bone. Would have been interesting if they'd been able to include the new Viper in that test too.

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

12-01-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Yeah, but bastards won't accept monoply money or an IOU slip though:mad:.

Great! There goes my retirement plan!! LOL!! ;)

Snorman

12-01-2003, 12:17 PM

posted by Darth Xed
Actually it was 5 years of dominating with the LS1, and another 5 with the LT1...Wrong. '93-'95 Cobras were pretty much on equal footing with the LT1 cars at practically the same price. '96-'97 Cobras also were easily equal to the LT1's performance envelope. In '98 GM pulled ahead with the LS1, even over the Cobras. GM held that lead until last year...that's 4-5 years. From '85-'92, the boring 'ole 9:1 302 E7TE's headed 5.0 held it's ground successfully against GM contenders.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. And GM faithful are having fits that they'd have to pony (pun intended) up nearly $50k to get into the game (unless a mid-high 14-second Grand Prix fits their bill).
S.

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by 1fastdog
What make you think it doesn't already exist and is being validated as we speak?

It might already exist. If it does, please point me to the specs and performance figures, and their source. No, speculation on this message forum will not suffice.

I hope you see my point. The C6 Zxx might end up being the end all of all performance vehicles. Then again, it may not. However, I'm not going to take the word of idiots like PacerX on it. Are you?

Originally posted by Z284ever
I'm with fastdog on the GT......anyone planning on buying one?

I seriously doubt it. Most of the posters here are 17-24 year olds that can barely afford a 10 year old $8,000 car- to say nothing of the insurance. Figure that's the audience Ford is targeting with the GT?

No offense intended to anyone (I went through your group and remember the days) - but it is a silly question, and deserved an equally silly answer.

Z28x

12-01-2003, 12:55 PM

For those that think Ford is beating GM in the HP war

sure the battle of 2003 and 2004 go to ford after over 10 years of getting beat by Chevy. But on the luxury side Caddy is kicking Lincon a$$

Lincoln LS V6 = 232HP
CTS V6 = 255HP

Lincoln LS V8 = 280HP
CTSv V8 = 400HP

Navigator = 300HP
Escalade = 345HP

Aviator = 302HP
SRX V8 = 320HP

Town Car = 239HP
Deville = 300HP

ced8

12-01-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby

I hope you see my point. The C6 Zxx might end up being the end all of all performance vehicles. Then again, it may not. However, I'm not going to take the word of idiots like PacerX on it. Are you?

I seriously doubt it. Most of the posters here are 17-24 year olds that can barely afford a 10 year old $8,000 car- to say nothing of the insurance. Figure that's the audience Ford is targeting with the GT?

No offense intended to anyone (I went through your group and remember the days) - but it is a silly question, and deserved an equally silly answer.

Ok Bob... first off since you think that PacerX is an idiot I'll reserve my judgement on you. :)
I don't claim that anyone is 100% correct 100% of the time however Pacer is always right on the money especially with tidbits of information! ;)

FYI I'm 23 and own a slightly modded 2002 Camaro SS so don't pass judgement on the people that post... you don't know anyone ( I pay all the bills so don't even bother stating it's a gift from mom and dad) and NO i'm not in the target audience that will/can buy a Ford GT and I doubt you are either! (being that people that want a GT will BUY a GT nothing more nothing less PERIOD) The GT sells itself! It is a powerhouse no doubt about it

like others have said let's all just wait for the cars to ACTUALLY hit the streets before we mouth off about HP figures

muckz

12-01-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Snorman
Wrong. '93-'95 Cobras were pretty much on equal footing with the LT1 cars at practically the same price. '96-'97 Cobras also were easily equal to the LT1's performance envelope. In '98 GM pulled ahead with the LS1, even over the Cobras. GM held that lead until last year...that's 4-5 years. From '85-'92, the boring 'ole 9:1 302 E7TE's headed 5.0 held it's ground successfully against GM contenders.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. And GM faithful are having fits that they'd have to pony (pun intended) up nearly $50k to get into the game (unless a mid-high 14-second Grand Prix fits their bill).
S. [/B]

Again, apples and oranges. 93-95 Cobras were equivalent to LT1, true. What motor did they have? Not the GT motor. Hence bring up LT4, which walked the Cobra. Then you're saying LS1 was good for 4 years until .... until what, 2003 Cobra? Bring out LS6 again, and you'll see there was straight domination of GM over Ford for entire 10 years.

Z284ever

12-01-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby

I seriously doubt it. Most of the posters here are 17-24 year olds that can barely afford a 10 year old $8,000 car- to say nothing of the insurance. Figure that's the audience Ford is targeting with the GT?

No offense intended to anyone (I went through your group and remember the days) - but it is a silly question, and deserved an equally silly answer.

As a halo car the GT is targeting everyone. Even the 17-24 yo that can barely afford a 10 year old $8,000 car. It's something to aspire to...even if it'll always be beyond your grasp. The GT however...may be sooo far beyond many people's grasp, that I'm not even sure how successful it's effect as "halo" car will be.

I'm in a completely different demographic that the one which you describe. I am substantially older and a self-employed professional. I find reading about and seeing the GT very interesting. I'm glad the GT outperformed it's competitors in the C&D comparo. But even if the GT had 1,500 hp.....I wouldn't be interested...especially for ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Z28x

12-01-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by muckz
Again, apples and oranges. 93-95 Cobras were equivalent to LT1, true. What motor did they have? Not the GT motor. Hence bring up LT4, which walked the Cobra. Then you're saying LS1 was good for 4 years until .... until what, 2003 Cobra? Bring out LS6 again, and you'll see there was straight domination of GM over Ford for entire 10 years.

The 96 Cobra and 96 SS both had 305HP but the Camaro SS had 35 more torque

The 95 Cobra had 240HP vs 285HP in the Z28

PacerX

12-01-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Snorman
ROTFLMAO! Who are you, Bob Lutz? Another Fantasyland candidate!
What 5th-gen F-body...the one that is thus far not even officially confirmed? It's so far off you have no idea what it looks like, what the drivetrain will be or how it will perform. :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.
The C6 Z06 is targeted "squarely at the GT"? Can you prove that? Unsubstantiated blathering.
What ZL1? The Fantasyland ZL1? GM hasn't commited to building it. You have no idea about what this Fantasyland C6 variant would possibly be powered by, nor how it would perform.
Little hint, GM is already losing the horsepower war with Ford. Deal with it. The Z06 is their last standing effort, as well as the upcoming C6. Bravo. They're building a car pushing $50k for the masses? Gimme' a break.
Ford has a 300hp GT that will be unveiled in January. Ford is currently building a 260hp Mustang, a 300+hp Mustang, a 400+hp Mustang, a 400hp truck, a 300hp 4-door luxo-barge (Marauder), has an entry to compete with the imports in the SVT Focus (soon to be defunct, I hear), and a 600hp Ferrari/Lambo-killing GT.
What's GM done lately? Released an underpowered SSR and Silverado SS, discontinued the F-body and redone the upmarket Corvette for those willing to spend $50k?
After 4 years of domination with the LS1, GM is now lagging. Guessing what GM might build and comparing it to what Ford is building is pointless.
S. [/B]

Some of us may know much more than we can let on here. I've told you as much as I can, and can't go any further. I do not blather, and you had better measure your words a little bit more carefully in the future or you will run the risk of being exposed as the fool you apparently are.

Tattoo that one on your eyelids, bub.

Camaros will have no issues whatsoever with any Cobra F*rd decides to build. Dead stock, run-of-the-mill C6's will have nothing to fear from Cobras. The Z06 will match the GT step-for-step, and the ZL1 is quite literally going to blow everything else on the market away short of $600,000 Ferraris.

I know from whence I speak.

I'm not even going to grace Cosby's nonsense with a reply.

1fastdog

12-01-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
It might already exist. If it does, please point me to the specs and performance figures, and their source. No, speculation on this message forum will not suffice.

Wish I could help you out, think I'll keep my job instead.:)

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

12-01-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Some of us may know much more than we can let on here. I've told you as much as I can, and can't go any further. I do not blather, and you had better measure your words a little bit more carefully in the future or you will run the risk of being exposed as the fool you apparently are.

Tattoo that one on your eyelids, bub.

Camaros will have no issues whatsoever with any Cobra F*rd decides to build. Dead stock, run-of-the-mill C6's will have nothing to fear from Cobras. The Z06 will match the GT step-for-step, and the ZL1 is quite literally going to blow everything else on the market away short of $600,000 Ferraris.

I know from whence I speak.

Please note....this is PacerX being polite and restrained.

I'd dare say that most posters here are actually older than 24 and can afford a more than a 10 year old car for $8,000. Not that it should matter how much money you intend to spend on your next car. Keep in mind you aren't in the Lounge Forum here.

1fastdog

12-01-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Snorman
Wrong. '93-'95 Cobras were pretty much on equal footing with the LT1 cars at practically the same price. '96-'97 Cobras also were easily equal to the LT1's performance envelope. In '98 GM pulled ahead with the LS1, even over the Cobras. GM held that lead until last year...that's 4-5 years. From '85-'92, the boring 'ole 9:1 302 E7TE's headed 5.0 held it's ground successfully against GM contenders.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. And GM faithful are having fits that they'd have to pony (pun intended) up nearly $50k to get into the game (unless a mid-high 14-second Grand Prix fits their bill).
S. [/B]

Depends on what sport applies when you feel keeping up is the deal. The Mustang is a brick on a roadcourse. It would be nice if Ford made a great complete performance at an affordable number.

I didn't opt for a Z06 to "keep up".

Mustangs qualify for T-1 in SCCA but they haven't been competitive. Camaros certainly have been. Corvettes hold their own in T2. These are classes where the resemblance to stock is valid.

I hope there is a market for cars over $100K. I'd like to see the Cien produced.

Burmite

12-01-2003, 02:01 PM

If some of you guys (Bob Cosby, Snorman) read this forum regularly and collect in your mind all the tidbits of information out there, you'll see a pattern that guys like PacerX and guionM are almost ALWAYS right. They're some of the insiders on this board. And Pacer's claim about the C6 is not too unfounded from the information known. We already know the approximate power and weight of each car and YES the GT will be in trouble.

SNEAKY NEIL

12-01-2003, 02:59 PM

Ole' Bob and Snorman only like to post if it has to do with a Cobra or the GT. As far as the 93'-95' Cobra being equal to LT1 cars, what are you thinking? LT1's will have multiple car lengths on any of those Cobras.

Snorman

12-01-2003, 03:10 PM

posted by PacerX
Some of us may know much more than we can let on here. I've told you as much as I can, and can't go any further. I do not blather, and you had better measure your words a little bit more carefully in the future or you will run the risk of being exposed as the fool you apparently are./Golfclap. LOL...I'll take your word for it.
Camaros will have no issues whatsoever with any Cobra F*rd decides to build. Drop me a line when GM has even a working prototype from which to draw a comparison to what you don't even know Ford will be building in 3 years.
Dead stock, run-of-the-mill C6's will have nothing to fear from Cobras.Gee...why should they? Considering they MSRP over $15k more than a Cobra have 2 fewer seats and are a purpose-built sports car, I'd hope they would outperform one
I know from whence I speak.I'm sure you do. You prop up GM like a billboard. I'm sure 99% of those here support whatever you have to say, regardless of the impending accuracy of your statements.

posted by 1fastdog
Mustangs qualify for T-1 in SCCA but they haven't been competitive. Camaros certainly have been. Corvettes hold their own in T2. These are classes where the resemblance to stock is valid.You have it backwards. Mustang qualifies for Touring-2 and American Sedan club racing, Corvette is Touring-1, not 2. Incidentally, Mustang dominates AS class racing, but those cars are more modified than touring class entries.
Also, Mazda Miatas and Nissan 200SX's are more successful in SCCA club racing than F-bodies...does that make them a better car?
S.

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 03:43 PM

LOL. I see this one might get fun. :)

As we used to say a long time ago....line-item-style time....

Originally posted by ced8
Ok Bob... first off since you think that PacerX is an idiot I'll reserve my judgement on you. :)
I don't claim that anyone is 100% correct 100% of the time however Pacer is always right on the money especially with tidbits of information! ;)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. However, when he/she/it makes blanket statements such as he/she/it did, then its hard to come to any other conclusion. At least from my perspective.

Yours may be different, and that's ok with me. :)

FYI I'm 23 and own a slightly modded 2002 Camaro SS so don't pass judgement on the people that post...
Hmmmm....I went back and read what I wrote, and I could not figure out where it was that I was passing judgement. I made an observation that I believe to be an accurate description of ***most*** of the folks that post on CZ28.com. The same could be said of any number of similar websites, such as the Corral, Stangnet, ThirdGen.org, etc.

you don't know anyone ( I pay all the bills so don't even bother stating it's a gift from mom and dad)
Good - I'm happy for you.

and NO i'm not in the target audience that will/can buy a Ford GT and I doubt you are either!
Very much correct. I'll go further and state that it will be very unlikely to have anybody on this Forum/Site buy one. I could be wrong, but if so, it will be very, very few...for more reasons than one.

(being that people that want a GT will BUY a GT nothing more nothing less PERIOD) The GT sells itself! It is a powerhouse no doubt about it

like others have said let's all just wait for the cars to ACTUALLY hit the streets before we mouth off about HP figures
We can agree! :) If you took offense to my previous post, it was not intentional, and I apologize.

Originally posted by Z284ever
As a halo car the GT is targeting everyone. Even the 17-24 yo that can barely afford a 10 year old $8,000 car. It's something to aspire to...even if it'll always be beyond your grasp. The GT however...may be sooo far beyond many people's grasp, that I'm not even sure how successful it's effect as "halo" car will be.
Other than the part about it being a "halo car", I disagree with your assumptions and premise. Whether it is 100k or 150k, being beyond ones grasp is beyond ones grasp. Simple.

I'm in a completely different demographic that the one which you describe.
Hence the reason for saying "most" vice "all" or something similar. I am also in a significantly different demographic - as are many others. However, I believe my statement, as written, to be accurate.

I am substantially older and a self-employed professional. I find reading about and seeing the GT very interesting.
Ditto, though I enjoy reading about Camaros, Mustangs, etc more - believe it or not.

I'm glad the GT outperformed it's competitors in the C&D comparo. But even if the GT had 1,500 hp.....I wouldn't be interested...especially for ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!
I'd be very interested....if it was $35k. But that ain't gonna happen, so as you stated, my only interest is reading about it. :)

Originally posted by Z28x
The 96 Cobra and 96 SS both had 305HP but the Camaro SS had 35 more torque
Ok. So tell me why this is important? Also please state the relationship between power, torque, rpm, gearing, and weight, and how they affect the ability of a car to accelerate (leaving other variables, such as traction and wind resistance out of the equation).

BTW....my car in modified form makes ~290 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels. Check the sig for recent performance numbers.

The 95 Cobra had 240HP vs 285HP in the Z28
Actually, I believe the 95 Z28 had 275, but your point is valid. :)

Originally posted by PacerX
I'm not even going to grace Cosby's nonsense with a reply.
Nonsense? Am I supposed to be hurt by that remark or something? You may indeed know "more than you can let on", but so long as you continue to express your opinions/facts/assumptions in such a manner as you have in this thread, expect these sorts of replies to continue whenever the urge hits. If you don't care, then don't respond. :)

Originally posted by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
Please note....this is PacerX being polite and restrained.
Well, ok, should we thus kiss his/her/its ass out of fear of seeing him not be polite and restrained?

I think not.

I'd dare say that most posters here are actually older than 24 and can afford a more than a 10 year old car for $8,000. Not that it should matter how much money you intend to spend on your next car. Keep in mind you aren't in the Lounge Forum here.
In this particular Forum, you may indeed be correct. I should have qualified my statement - it was meant for the site in general.

Originally posted by Burmite
If some of you guys (Bob Cosby, Snorman) read this forum regularly and collect in your mind all the tidbits of information out there, you'll see a pattern that guys like PacerX and guionM are almost ALWAYS right. They're some of the insiders on this board.
I do read the Forum regularly, and pay close attention to what folks like guionM post - no kidding. However, I've never paid much attention to Pacer X....and it should be obvious why. If he/she/it is "almost ALWAYS right", then good for him/her/it.

And Pacer's claim about the C6 is not too unfounded from the information known.
Ok. He/she/it is still talking about something that all but the "well informed" can only read about on sites like this. You'll pardon me if I don't trust someone that talks in such silly absolutes as he/she/it does.

We already know the approximate power and weight of each car and YES the GT will be in trouble.
Unlike the GT, what you "know" is still conjecture. You may indeed end up being right. Time will tell. I'll wait for that time, thank you very much.

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Ole' Bob and Snorman only like to post if it has to do with a Cobra or the GT.
LOL. Truth be known, this is my first post concerning the GT. :) I do pay more attention to the Ford stuff than others.

Antz97ZNJ

12-01-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Snorman
What C6 ZL1? The one being built in Fantasyland?
I doubt the Fantasyland C6 ZL1 will do very well against the Real World Ford GT. :D
Sorta' like the 13-second Silverado SS, the 12-second GTO and the Lightning-killer SSR. :bow:
S. LOL sarcasm at its finest :D

Z28x

12-01-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Ok. So tell me why this is important? Also please state the relationship between power, torque, rpm, gearing, and weight, and how they affect the ability of a car to accelerate (leaving other variables, such as traction and wind resistance out of the equation).

BTW....my car in modified form makes ~290 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels. Check the sig for recent performance numbers.

Actually, I believe the 95 Z28 had 275, but your point is valid. :)

Most 95s had 275HP but the west coast cars had 285HP (only difference was the cats) 1996 cars got the WC cats.

THe point about the 96 Cobra and SS was that the Chevy still had a slightly more powerful engine although both had the same peak HP rating, Ford almost won that year.

Z284ever

12-01-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
LOL. I see this one might get fun. :)

I believe that you are correct! ;)

Other than the part about it being a "halo car", I disagree with your assumptions and premise. Whether it is 100k or 150k, being beyond ones grasp is beyond ones grasp. Simple.

What you're suggesting is that the GT was developed...at great expense and urgency to Ford....in order for Ford to gain financial profit from a handful of exotic cars over a 2-3 year period.

At 150 thou per, I'd be shocked if Ford didn't make a per unit profit on the GT. But all that is peanuts to a company the size of Ford.

When the Ford board signed off on this project, they knew full well it's purpose....it was all about image.

If Chevy ever releases a 625 hp, $100,000, ZL1....no one at GM will sign off on it because of the incremental profits such a program would generate. No siree Bob. It'll be to create excitement and buzz for the rest of the line-up.

Just like GT was envisioned to do...even for the lowliest Ford.

1fastdog

12-01-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Snorman

You have it backwards. Mustang qualifies for Touring-2 and American Sedan club racing, Corvette is Touring-1, not 2. Incidentally, Mustang dominates AS class racing, but those cars are more modified than touring class entries.
Also, Mazda Miatas and Nissan 200SX's are more successful in SCCA club racing than F-bodies...does that make them a better car?
S. [/B]

Right you are on the transposition and I appreciate the correction.
Typing too quick for my own good...

Club Racing is a wide area and I'm not sure what point the Miata thing is supposed to mean. Fast Miata lap at Mid Ohio was a 1:45 in SSB. AS winning Firebird ran 1:38's. T2 Camaros and Firebirds were in the 1:40's. T1 Corvettes in the 1:35's... Where Mustangs run with Camaros in T2, the stangs come up short, at least on the national level.

AS at the Valvoline was Camaro so the dominance is not total, one might think.

http://www.scca.org/amateur/club_racing/runoffs/03results/

Drag racing is a valid sport and great hobby for many folks. It's not the sum total performance yardstick for many folks.

We'll have to see how untouchable the GT will prove to be.

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

12-01-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby

Well, ok, should we thus kiss his/her/its ass out of fear of seeing him not be polite and restrained?

I think not.

Bob...it was a joke. If you'd seen some earleir posts you'd understand....I remember a certain F-150 thread in particular! ;)

The one's who are in the know seem to be excited and that's a good thing! But till good info can be released most of us will have to sit and wait. Either way, we've got plenty to look forward to.

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 05:05 PM

Z28x...my point (one of them anyways) is that peak HP numbers do not come close to telling the entire tale. :)

Z284ever....I agree with you 100% that Ford is doing this primarily for the "image" it creates. But like a $100k Vette, it will be beyond that grasp of most of us mere mortals....though it is a given that $100k is far less than $150k. :)

Joe....jokes on me I guess. ;) And I agree that it appears we'll have plenty to look forward to....though most of us will only look forward to reading about it.

:cool:

SFireGT98

12-01-2003, 05:05 PM

Well boys looks like we've landed ourselves into the timeless FordvsChevy debate in which there are never any winners. The facts are out there in whose been better in which time period so I wont add any fuel to the fire.

One thing to remember, its a good thing to actually HAVE A FordvsChevy debate similar to those raged in the muscle car era and not a domesticvsimport debate. I have a feeling soon the Big 3 are gonna send earthquakes through the automotive world with these future vehicles coming out and the imports are gonna be running for cover. Wanna bring over a Supra, Skyline, etc.? Ford and GM will have enough firepower in their lineups finally to hand these Japanese halo cars their a__. So while there are differences out there between the two camps, I say kudos to Ford :bow: and General Motors :bow:.

And one thing here Mr. Cosby. No flame intended here at all but if you have read the board often you know that 99% of the time, PacerX knows what hes talking about and hes a very, very reliable source. If he says "wait and see" in response to the Cobra and GT arguments then damnit you better believe that I'm gonna do just that!

PacerX

12-01-2003, 05:52 PM

For those of you that have provided a vote of confidence, I thank you.

To the rest...

Wellll.... you'll find out in due time.

:)

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
To the rest...

Wellll.... you'll find out in due time.

:)

Or not. :shock:

95 Z/28 LT1

12-01-2003, 06:25 PM

Another vote of confidence for PacerX.

I've met the guy and he's no bull-sh1tter. :) :)

stars1010

12-01-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Z28x
The 96 Cobra and 96 SS both had 305HP but the Camaro SS had 35 more torque

Originally posted by Z28x
Ok. So tell me why this is important? Also please state the relationship between power, torque, rpm, gearing, and weight, and how they affect the ability of a car to accelerate (leaving other variables, such as traction and wind resistance out of the equation).

BTW....my car in modified form makes ~290 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels. Check the sig for recent performance numbers.

1996 Camaro SS
Horsepower: 310hp @5200RPM <--more power@ a lower RPM than Cobra
(I’m pretty sure there was a 310 hp version this year, not 305 hp?)
Torque: 325lb.-ft. @2400RPM<--more power@ a lower RPM than Cobra
Weight: 3466 <--weighs more (only +100lbs difference)
Gear Ratios:
1st Gear: 2.66 <--loses
2nd Gear: 1.78 <--loses
3rd Gear: 1.3 <--bout the same
4th Gear: 1 <--same
5th Gear: 0.74
6th Gear: 0.5
Final Drive: 3.42 <--better

1996 Camaro SS, CARS.com (http://modelreports.cars.com/modeldata/trim_report.jsp?makeid=9&modelid=78&year=1996&myid=2175&acode=USA60CHC021C0&grp=specs&dtl=W&aff=national)
&
1996 Camaro SS, Autotrader.com (http://www.autotrader.com/research/model_info/modelinfo_technicalspecs.jtmpl?vehicle_number=U135 15&x=67&make=170&model=Camaro&year=1996&restype=used&y=10&ac_afflt=MAOL)

1996 Cobra
Horsepower: 305-hp @ 5800rpm <--less power @ a higher RPM than SS
Torque: 300 @ 4800rpm <--less power @ a higher RPM than SS
Weight: 3355 <--weighs less
Gear Ratios:
1st Gear: 3.37 <--better
2nd Gear: 1.99 <--better
3rd Gear: 1.33 <--bout the same
4th Gear: 1 <--same
5th Gear: 0.67
Final Drive: 3.08 <--loses

1996 Cobra, Autotrader.com (http://www.autotrader.com/research/model_info/modelinfo_technicalspecs.jtmpl?vehicle_number=U137 37&x=60&make=240&model=Mustang&year=1996&restype=used&y=13&ac_afflt=MAOL)

¼ mile times:

1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS

13.8
random ¼ mile times list (http://web.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html#Chevrolet)

13.46@106.48
MUSCLECARCLUB.com (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml)

1996 Ford Mustang Cobra

14.0
random ¼ mile times list (http://web.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html#Ford)

Overall the Camaro weighs a bit more but beats the Cobra in overall gearing and power. I couldn’t find more ¼ mile times but it looks to me like the 1996 Camaro SS was a better ¼ mile car than the 1996 Cobra. And if you want to bring “traction issues into this, The ‘96 SS had P275/40ZR17 while the Cobra had a skinnier tire at only a P245/45ZR17.

I think your wrong about this Cosby.And you cant say I have a GM bias because I own and love both of the Cars in my Sig. You have an obvious bias towards Ford.

And I also going to chime in in PacerX’s defense. This guy knows his $hit. Respect that he might know something you don’t. He hasn’t lead anyone here wrong before. Plus he has a pretty funny sense of humor.

jg95z28

12-01-2003, 07:35 PM

Any first year mechanical engineering student knows that torque is more important than horsepower for flat out accelleration... especially at a lower rpm range.

I'll take 325 lbf-ft @ 2400 rpm versus 300 lbf-ft @ 4800 rpm any day of the week. (How many of you frequently drive at 4800 rpm anyway??? ... ok maybe a few of you closet tuners with high reving four bangers, but for us American V8 owners... :no: )

This Ford v. Chevy battle is freaking hilarious though. My kid has a modified '96 Mustang GT with an S-1 Vortec supercharger. I'll admit that thing is a blast to drive and accellerates hard, however even with all its mods it still has less RWHP than my bone stock '95 Z/28. :D

But then my son is now 17-1/2 and has "grown-up". We're currently building up a '67 Camaro to replace his Mustang. :rolleyes: It brings a tear to my eye seeing how much he's matured. :D

BTW... I'm well over 24... and I drive a CAMARO! :p

stars1010

12-01-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by jg95z28
Any first year mechanical engineering student knows that torque is more important than horsepower for flat out accelleration... especially at a lower rpm range.

I'll take 325 lbf-ft @ 2400 rpm versus 300 lbf-ft @ 4800 rpm any day of the week. (How many of you frequently drive at 4800 rpm anyway??? ... ok maybe a few of you closet tuners with high reving four bangers, but for us American V8 owners... :no: )

Exactly!

And I'm a second year ME student.:D

jg95z28

12-01-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by stars1010
Exactly!

And I'm a second year ME student.:D I knew that! :D I'm a CE grad, but I took just enough ME courses to keep me in trouble. :p

coldasice

12-01-2003, 08:52 PM

A stock 96-98 Cobra will beat a stock LT1 for sure. Especially top end.

WERM

12-01-2003, 09:05 PM

Who would have thought - even five years ago - that we would be in a "MY 600 HP FORD IS BETTER THAN YOUR 600 HP CHEVY" pissing match interlaced with the supposed "weaknesses" of 390HP Cobra Mustangs compared to 410HP Corvettes? We haven't even thrown 150MPH turbocharged Neons into the fire. These are glory days, indeed.

I'm still throughly enjoying my ~290 HP.

Z28x

12-01-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by coldasice
A stock 96-98 Cobra will beat a stock LT1 for sure. Especially top end.

You do know that the LT1 cars ranged from 275HP to 310HP right?

Z28Wilson

12-01-2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by coldasice
A stock 96-98 Cobra will beat a stock LT1 for sure. Especially top end.

For sure? I took out a paper-plated GT about a year ago with over 90,000 miles on the clock of my Z (man did he feel dumb throwing revvs at me with his new baby :) )...and the newer 4.6s are definitely stouter than those of the mid-90's...I'm not saying it isn't possible but the LT1 in its day was certainly no slouch.

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 09:38 PM

Oh my - some of ya'll took the bait. Oh well...

BTW, are then any real drag racers here?

stars1010...your post is too long to quote in pieces, so I'll take the main parts out and go through where I believe you to be in error.

Horsepower: 310hp @5200RPM <--more power@ a lower RPM than Cobra
Kindly tell me how and why having power at a lower rpm is beneficial? Perhaps because it *feels* better on the street? If that is your metric, then ok. If accelerating as quickly as possible from point a to point b is your metric, then you are mistaken and/or misguided. Got gearing?

Torque: 325lb.-ft. @2400RPM<--more power@ a lower RPM than Cobra
See above.

The (rated) HP difference between the cars is a whopping 5 HP. A 100 lb difference in weight will EASILY make up for that. If you want to get back on the torque issue, I suggest first reading this LINK (http://mclements.net/mrc-PowerTorque.html).

Gearing. First, the Cobra had 3.27s, not 3.08s. However, that difference is minor. Second, to get the effective gearing, you should multiply the tranny gear by the rear gear (then factor in tire diameter - which is mute in this discussion, as both cars you similar height tires). Thus, you come up with the following:

Read columns as Cobra gearing / F-body gearing

1st - 11.02 / 9.10
2nd - 6.51 / 6.09
3rd - 4.35 / 4.45
4th - 3.27 / 3.42

So what's the point? 2 points, actually. First, the DOHC car will only use the first 3 gears going through the 1/4 mile. The F-body *might* get into 4th, but it will be rather irrelevant (the last 100 ft of the 1/4 mile is basically pointless as far as ET reduction). As such, the gearing comparison now shows a definate advantage for the Cobra.

Second, you spend far more time in the first half of a 1/4 mile than in the last half. As such, improvements here will show up much more pronounced than improvements elsewhere in the track. This is where the 1st gear advantage (and to a lesser extent, the 2nd gear advantage) really helps the Cobra.

The 1/4 mile times you listed are nice, but I can use my own 98 (same mechanically as a 96) Cobra (sold 3 years ago) for the comparison. Bone stock, it ran 13.6 @ 104 mph with a horid 2.18 60 ft. I think that compares pretty well to just about any bone stock LT1 you'll ever find.

It should be noted that I am not a magazine racer.

And you cant say I have a GM bias because I own and love both of the Cars in my Sig. You have an obvious bias towards Ford.
LOL. And you know this because it is the Ford threads that I normally get involved with? Sure. BTW, I've owned almost as many F-bodys as Mustangs. Shock? 74 Formula, 85 Z28 (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/z28.jpg), 99 T/A (http://members.cox.net/rdcosby1/ta/images/mir-ta2.jpg). Also, if you must know, I think the LS1 is just about the best mass-produced performance engine ever built. In fact, I've said many times in other Forums that my Cobra would be damned near perfect if it came from the factory with a live axle and an LS1.

Yup. Biased. That's me.

(PS....you're welcome to believe as you wish)

And I also going to chime in in PacerX’s defense. This guy knows his $hit. Respect that he might know something you don’t. He hasn’t lead anyone here wrong before. Plus he has a pretty funny sense of humor.
Once again, if he knows his stuff then good for him. If you like it, then good for you and everybody else that says the same. And he likely knows a LOT more about many of these subject than I do - I never claimed otherwise. However, that alone will not earn my respect.

Any first year mechanical engineering student knows that torque is more important than horsepower for flat out accelleration... especially at a lower rpm range.
Ok. And please tell me the definition of torque and then the definition of HP. Also, tell me how they relate to each other. Finally, answer this simple question:

2 cars weigh the same, but use 2 different engines. Both have optimum gearing for those engines (Typical street-style tranny....ie....T56, T5, T45, etc). Both have similar appearing torque curves, but the peak numbers are significantly different. Car #1 makes a peak of 350 lb/ft torque @ 2500 rpm. Car #2 makes a peak of 325 lb/ft torque @ 5000 rpm. Torque drops off at the same rate past the peak.

Given what you know, which car has the potential to cover the 1/4 mile quicker?

BTW, did you pass your first year of mechanical engineering?

I'll take 325 lbf-ft @ 2400 rpm versus 300 lbf-ft @ 4800 rpm any day of the week. (How many of you frequently drive at 4800 rpm anyway??? ... ok maybe a few of you closet tuners with high reving four bangers, but for us American V8 owners... )
Depends on the purpose. If you just want a fun car that feels good at low rpm, then you are 100% correct. If you want to accelerate quickly, then you want that torque at a higher rpm. For a great explanation why, apply those numbers to the formula for HP and see how much power your making.

And I'm a second year ME student.
Please see my quote about passing the first year of ME school.

stars1010

12-01-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Please see my quote about passing the first year of ME school.

Yeah dumba$$, how do you think I made it to my second year?

Your not worth arguing with...this wont go anywhere.

Bob Cosby

12-01-2003, 10:09 PM

Sorry you took offense. I'll edit that silly comment out if it will make you feel better. I'd like to hear your response, please.

stars1010

12-01-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Sorry you took offense. I'll edit that silly comment out if it will make you feel better. I'd like to hear your response, please.

Ok let me finish my movie...

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by BigDarknFast
Huh? Tell me, which current production Ford has more HP and performance value than the current Z06? Perhaps... it's this FantasyLand GT :D

I just hope I will be able to tell the new GT apart from its many kit-car clones already out and about....

With the new GT already in limited production, the war is over. I will believe it when GM has the balls to build such a car.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
That depends on how "recent" is recent. Do you mean within the past year or most of the 90's through 2002? :)

If a Fantasyland GT-killing C6 model helps GM fans cope, let us indulge for a few. What difference does it make. I'm taking the wait and see approach with this one.

Until it's in production and can outrun the GT, GM doesn't have anything. Ford is using this car as an image tool, they want to make it faster than anything in or below it's class. The Z06 is a great car as is, but off the showroom floor it can't compete with the GT.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by IZ28
I wouldn't base your opinion on GM right now, it's gonna look quite different around 06/07 F*rd guys, I wouldn't get too confident just yet. ;) Enjoy whatever while you can. :)

Yeah, we will just have a 500+ hp Lightning and Cobra around by then;) I'm waiting for GM to drop the ball and say "to hell with it" like they did with the F-body and the Caprice leaving Ford to have both markets. If they don't then great, competition breeds ecxcellence.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by muckz
Yes, it does seem Ford is getting ahead of not just GM but also Chrysler. We'll see what happens in 06/07, but as of 2004 I agree, Ford does take top performance and HP (including fantasyland GT).

I made that statement to see if any hardcore GM loytalists would bite, some did. I like GM vehicles and have had quite a few more of them over the years than any other make. I would like to see a successful return of the F-car, not a screwed up version that I worry GM might come back with.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
You mean like the 06' Cobra. :rolleyes: I believe it is Mayor of Fantasyland.

SVT has already announced that it will suspend all production after '04 to concentrate on the '06 Models with the Focus SVT being dropped alltogether.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Here we go again...

Listen to me very carefully... I'll say it again...

GM WILL NOT lose a horsepower war with F*rd.

Ain't gonna happen. The next Camaro is going to send the Cobra home with it's tail between it's legs. GT will be no match whatsoever for the top-gun Corvette, and C6 Z06's are targeted squarely at the GT. NOT the top-gun ZL1. The Z06. The ZL1 will be head and shoulders above anything F*rd can do with the GT.

Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale. Economy of scale.

And exactly what proof do you have of this? GM has already shown a willingness to give up in the past, the F-body is an example of them leaving the pony car market and the Caprice is an example of them letting Ford have the Taxi and Police market. With their current focus on SUV's and trucks, what makes you think that they care? Look at the underpowered truck they gave to compete with the Lightning ,which GM enthusiasts now claim is not made to compete with it after all the hub-bub before production started about it being a Lightning killer. I was a GM and a Corvette fan long before I was a Ford fan, but I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. With the market share that they have right now and great sales I just don't see an incintive for them to do it.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Snorman
ROTFLMAO! Who are you, Bob Lutz? Another Fantasyland candidate!
What 5th-gen F-body...the one that is thus far not even officially confirmed? It's so far off you have no idea what it looks like, what the drivetrain will be or how it will perform. :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.
The C6 Z06 is targeted "squarely at the GT"? Can you prove that? Unsubstantiated blathering.
What ZL1? The Fantasyland ZL1? GM hasn't commited to building it. You have no idea about what this Fantasyland C6 variant would possibly be powered by, nor how it would perform.
Little hint, GM is already losing the horsepower war with Ford. Deal with it. The Z06 is their last standing effort, as well as the upcoming C6. Bravo. They're building a car pushing $50k for the masses? Gimme' a break.
Ford has a 300hp GT that will be unveiled in January. Ford is currently building a 260hp Mustang, a 300+hp Mustang, a 400+hp Mustang, a 400hp truck, a 300hp 4-door luxo-barge (Marauder), has an entry to compete with the imports in the SVT Focus (soon to be defunct, I hear), and a 600hp Ferrari/Lambo-killing GT.
What's GM done lately? Released an underpowered SSR and Silverado SS, discontinued the F-body and redone the upmarket Corvette for those willing to spend $50k?
After 4 years of domination with the LS1, GM is now lagging. Guessing what GM might build and comparing it to what Ford is building is pointless.
S. [/B]

I seem to remember Johnny Hunkins listing about 15 reasons about a year ago why the F-car is not coming back, and no one responded to him atthat time. What has changed? Anyone remember that post? Again, I will believe it when I see it.

Darth Xed

12-01-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by scott9050
I seem to remember Johnny Hunkins listing about 15 reasons about a year ago why the F-car is not coming back, and no one responded to him atthat time. What has changed? Anyone remember that post? Again, I will believe it when I see it.

Been over that countless times here...

Contracts (with unions and governments) , and more importantly... the lack of a suitable RWD platform... the contract will expire, and we now have a few RWD platforms available...

Camaro is on track, though I won't compare numbers yet... we fon't know them.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
I love the unmitigated hubris of Mustang guys that come to this board and mouth off because they read some thread somewhere about "hey guys, these idiots at Camaroz28.com think the GT won't be the greatest car ever, lets set them straight."

I will give you a little hint here son, look at my registration date. I've been here about 11 months LONGER than you, so come off the misguided attitude that I came across this thread from some other site to badmouth anyone here.

GM's been handing Ford its own ass for over 10 yrs through various itterations of the LT1, LT4, LS1 and LS6. Ford finally comes out kinda on top with the '03 Cobra which sometimes is faster than the Z06 in a straight line, and all the sudden Ford is the GOD of everything Horsepower.

BS. The f-body was slower than the Cobra when equal drivers were used stock, the Saleen S-351 was sold new through dealerships with a Ford warranty (120+ traps stock). GM has moved their market to Trucks and SUV's, and their recent performance dictates that they don't give a rats ass about true performance except with the Z06. Ford and Chrysler have a large stake in their vehicles bringing new buyers into the showroom, GM does not have that stake with such a large share of the market.

GM's pockets are deeper and their powertrain engineers have always been among the best in the world. The GT is impressive, but not for the price. With the C6 ZO6 be able to match the Ford GT? Doesn't look like it in terms of acceleration, but it won't be too far behind either. Plus I bet the Z06 is still the better track car. And the Z06 will be half the price.

Not impressive for the price? It blows everything away in it's category and below. What the hell does it take to impress you then? Z06 a better track car? I doubt it, but time will tell.

You can go as fast as you want if you are willing to pay enough. Its doing it within the constraints of an approved budget window that is impressive. GM has always been the best in the world at pulling out a world-class corvette on a shoestring budget. Now that they've been given more resources, do not underestimate them.

Look what Ford was able to do for $35,000 with the Cobra. It may be a tad slower stock than the Z06, but it costs about $16,000 less. The new one should be much better than the current one is.

Point is this is all speculation. When the cars hit the streets and the drag strip and we start getting real world numbers then we can brag and talk trash. Until then I think everybody, Ford GM or DC, should keep their egos in check.

How about taking some of your own advice?

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Yeah, but bastards won't accept monoply money or an IOU slip though:mad:.

Tell me about it:D :mad: ;)

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by muckz
Again, apples and oranges. 93-95 Cobras were equivalent to LT1, true. What motor did they have? Not the GT motor. Hence bring up LT4, which walked the Cobra. Then you're saying LS1 was good for 4 years until .... until what, 2003 Cobra? Bring out LS6 again, and you'll see there was straight domination of GM over Ford for entire 10 years.

LT-4 was a one year only deal in limited numbers and was not produced in 94-95 when the 5.0 Cobra was around, which means your point is entirely wrong.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Z28x
The 96 Cobra and 96 SS both had 305HP but the Camaro SS had 35 more torque

The 95 Cobra had 240HP vs 285HP in the Z28

The 94-95 Cobra was actually under rated (I've seen a few putting 230-235 to the wheels stock) and the computer was the biggest shortfalll in them. The computer removed timing if you tried to powershift to save the frail tranny. The LT-1 was often a tad quicker though, especially on the top end.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Some of us may know much more than we can let on here. I've told you as much as I can, and can't go any further. I do not blather, and you had better measure your words a little bit more carefully in the future or you will run the risk of being exposed as the fool you apparently are.

Tattoo that one on your eyelids, bub.

Camaros will have no issues whatsoever with any Cobra F*rd decides to build. Dead stock, run-of-the-mill C6's will have nothing to fear from Cobras. The Z06 will match the GT step-for-step, and the ZL1 is quite literally going to blow everything else on the market away short of $600,000 Ferraris.

I know from whence I speak.

I'm not even going to grace Cosby's nonsense with a reply.

Yeah, Bob is only a respected racer and Navy man who has been in many different car magazines since the late 80's. Who are you again?

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Burmite
If some of you guys (Bob Cosby, Snorman) read this forum regularly and collect in your mind all the tidbits of information out there, you'll see a pattern that guys like PacerX and guionM are almost ALWAYS right. They're some of the insiders on this board. And Pacer's claim about the C6 is not too unfounded from the information known. We already know the approximate power and weight of each car and YES the GT will be in trouble.

Pacer X may be right some of the time, but he comes across like a 14 year old kid in this post. Keep all of this "I will lose my job crap" off the board, no one at GM knows you here, so if you are worried, use a fake username from a computer than can not be traced and spill your guts.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
LOL. I see this one might get fun. :)

As we used to say a long time ago....line-item-style time....

Ok, I'll take your word for it. However, when he/she/it makes blanket statements such as he/she/it did, then its hard to come to any other conclusion. At least from my perspective.

Yours may be different, and that's ok with me. :)

Hmmmm....I went back and read what I wrote, and I could not figure out where it was that I was passing judgement. I made an observation that I believe to be an accurate description of ***most*** of the folks that post on CZ28.com. The same could be said of any number of similar websites, such as the Corral, Stangnet, ThirdGen.org, etc.

Good - I'm happy for you.

Very much correct. I'll go further and state that it will be very unlikely to have anybody on this Forum/Site buy one. I could be wrong, but if so, it will be very, very few...for more reasons than one.

We can agree! :) If you took offense to my previous post, it was not intentional, and I apologize.

Other than the part about it being a "halo car", I disagree with your assumptions and premise. Whether it is 100k or 150k, being beyond ones grasp is beyond ones grasp. Simple.

Hence the reason for saying "most" vice "all" or something similar. I am also in a significantly different demographic - as are many others. However, I believe my statement, as written, to be accurate.

Ditto, though I enjoy reading about Camaros, Mustangs, etc more - believe it or not.

I'd be very interested....if it was $35k. But that ain't gonna happen, so as you stated, my only interest is reading about it. :)

Ok. So tell me why this is important? Also please state the relationship between power, torque, rpm, gearing, and weight, and how they affect the ability of a car to accelerate (leaving other variables, such as traction and wind resistance out of the equation).

BTW....my car in modified form makes ~290 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels. Check the sig for recent performance numbers.

Actually, I believe the 95 Z28 had 275, but your point is valid. :)

Nonsense? Am I supposed to be hurt by that remark or something? You may indeed know "more than you can let on", but so long as you continue to express your opinions/facts/assumptions in such a manner as you have in this thread, expect these sorts of replies to continue whenever the urge hits. If you don't care, then don't respond. :)

Well, ok, should we thus kiss his/her/its ass out of fear of seeing him not be polite and restrained?

I think not.

In this particular Forum, you may indeed be correct. I should have qualified my statement - it was meant for the site in general.

I do read the Forum regularly, and pay close attention to what folks like guionM post - no kidding. However, I've never paid much attention to Pacer X....and it should be obvious why. If he/she/it is "almost ALWAYS right", then good for him/her/it.

Ok. He/she/it is still talking about something that all but the "well informed" can only read about on sites like this. You'll pardon me if I don't trust someone that talks in such silly absolutes as he/she/it does.

Unlike the GT, what you "know" is still conjecture. You may indeed end up being right. Time will tell. I'll wait for that time, thank you very much.

LOL. Truth be known, this is my first post concerning the GT. :) I do pay more attention to the Ford stuff than others. :Owned:

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever
I believe that you are correct! ;)

When the Ford board signed off on this project, they knew full well it's purpose....it was [b]all about image.

If Chevy ever releases a 625 hp, $100,000, ZL1....no one at GM will sign off on it because of the incremental profits such a program would generate. No siree Bob. It'll be to create excitement and buzz for the rest of the line-up.

Just like GT was envisioned to do...even for the lowliest Ford.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. And I don't see the beancounters signing off on it with their sales so high. Ford and Chrysler have ground to make up, hence cars like this coming out.

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Or not. :shock:

LMAO at Bob:D :D :D

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by WERM
Who would have thought - even five years ago - that we would be in a "MY 600 HP FORD IS BETTER THAN YOUR 600 HP CHEVY" pissing match interlaced with the supposed "weaknesses" of 390HP Cobra Mustangs compared to 410HP Corvettes? We haven't even thrown 150MPH turbocharged Neons into the fire. These are glory days, indeed.

I'm still throughly enjoying my ~290 HP.

Damn ain't that the truth. Makes my Fox body look sad, even if I add a 150 shot and run 120+ traps:( :( :(

unvc92camarors

12-01-2003, 11:25 PM

jeez scott, don't have to make a reply to every post:rolleyes:

but, just to check you here, the camaro wasn't dropped because gm didn't want to just say "the he** with the pony car market"
do a search and you'll find the valid reasons for its demise, like darth zed said somewhere in that long line of posts you had:p

no offense intended scott, keep the thread going:)

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by stars1010
Yeah dumba$$, how do you think I made it to my second year?

Your not worth arguing with...this wont go anywhere.

Sorry, Bob owned your ass with hard facts:owned:

scott9050

12-01-2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Darth Xed
Been over that countless times here...

Contracts (with unions and governments) , and more importantly... the lack of a suitable RWD platform... the contract will expire, and we now have a few RWD platforms available...

Camaro is on track, though I won't compare numbers yet... we fon't know them.

I hope you are right, I am an f-body fan but I don't trust GM worth a damn. If and when they come out I might just buy one, my wife wants an LS-1 Camaro at present, but if a new one is just a few years away I might just save for one. I don't like the next generation stang, too damn ugly with that retro thing going on....:cry:

PacerX

12-01-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by scott9050
Yeah, Bob is only a respected racer and Navy man who has been in many different car magazines since the late 80's. Who are you again?

***EDITED OUT THE FLAMES***

Not worth the time.

stars1010

12-02-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by scott9050
Pacer X may be right some of the time, but he comes across like a 14 year old kid in this post. Keep all of this "I will lose my job crap" off the board, no one at GM knows you here, so if you are worried, use a fake username from a computer than can not be traced and spill your guts.

You are wrong here. Its a well know fact people from GM surf these boards.

And about the 96 Cobra, maybe I am a bit bias. My friend owned one for two weeks. He sold his 95 Trans AM, picked up the Cobra and was so discussed with he performance that he sold it for a 98 Trans Am. In the end he ended up with a pretty good deal. But I've only seen one 4.6L in person that ran hard. Had everything (125shot) except a rotating assembly and was in the 11s. Cool car looked like a stock GT.

Its funny sitting here writing this because this argument could on and on for days. I keep thinking of comebacks for my own arguments and so on.

These arguments on the board just tire me out. I'm just going to walk away from this. You can have the victory Bob. I sat there watching my movie thinking of many different comebacks. Some were pretty good, but I don’t see a point. You win, whatever:rolleyes: I'm going to sleep and dream about how fast ‘96 SS are. :cool: :o

Originally posted by scott9050
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stars1010
Yeah dumba$$, how do you think I made it to my second year?

Your not worth arguing with...this wont go anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Bob owned your ass with hard factswned:

And how did he "own" me with this statement?

30thZ286speed

12-02-2003, 02:06 AM

Yet another thread that has turned completely redicuous, Thanks alot Ford guys.:rolleyes:

My thoughts on the Ford GT: Kudos for Ford on making an impressive fast car. Too bad its butt ugly IMO they could have done better with the 40 year old styling. :barf:

After seeing the SF pics. of the C6 I'll take it any day over a GT

Steve0

12-02-2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by stars1010
And how did he "own" me with this statement?

I think it has to do with yours and JG's misconceptions dealing with engine powercurves, gearing and their relation to acceleration.

BTW, I'm a 2nd year ME student too. ;)

Steve0

12-02-2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
Yet another thread that has turned completely redicuous, Thanks alot Ford guys.:rolleyes:

I dont think the Ford guys ruined the thread... I think it started with the GM guys bashing the Ford. Especially those who did so with imaginary cars that no one has seen yet. :o

30thZ286speed

12-02-2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Steve0
I dont think the Ford guys ruined the thread... I think it started with the GM guys bashing the Ford. Especially those who did so with imaginary cars that no one has seen yet. :o

No...... I think the Ford guys did with there "Ford vs. GM horsepower war(Yah might be a redneck if......) that got turned into another one of those Camaro vs. Cobra threads"

jg95z28

12-02-2003, 03:00 AM

Any first year mechanical engineering student knows that torque is more important than horsepower for flat out accelleration... especially at a lower rpm range.

I'll take 325 lbf-ft @ 2400 rpm versus 300 lbf-ft @ 4800 rpm any day of the week. (How many of you frequently drive at 4800 rpm anyway??? ... ok maybe a few of you closet tuners with high reving four bangers, but for us American V8 owners... :no: )
Of course I was talking about real-life street cars and not a drag only application.

In plain english, no one is going to be constantly driving at 4800 rpm on the street. Most street V8's are running between 2000-4000 rpm tops. For a drag racing application 4800 rpm wouldn't be a handicap, and in that circumstance Bob is correct. However no where was it ever implied that we were talking about drag only applications, and in fact everyone was bragging about street car performance.

Its easy to sound like a damn genius half the time if you slant everyone else's opinions to feed your own one-sided arguments.

But then I really could care less what some narrow-minded Ford guys think. Come to think of it, why is it Ford guys are always on GM sites yet you don't see as many Chevy guys on Ford sites? Hmmmmm.

:lol:

hp_nut

12-02-2003, 03:19 AM

Pretty impressive on the GT performance. Ford hit a home run on this one. That trap speed means the GT is around a 10.8@130+ car with a half decent driver.

Now on to the dissenters.

Originally posted by BigDarknFast
Huh? Tell me, which current production Ford has more HP and performance value than the current Z06? Perhaps... it's this FantasyLand GT :D

I just hope I will be able to tell the new GT apart from its many kit-car clones already out and about....

Huh? I'll take Modern Musclecars for $500 Alex.

Answer:This car makes 425hp even though factory rated at 390 compared to the Z06 which makes its rated 405hp.

Ding! What is the the '03 Cobra?

Correct!

Originally posted by Snorman
ROTFLMAO! Who are you, Bob Lutz? Another Fantasyland candidate!

I believe our strident loud mouth insider is a seat engineer at a supplier to the general, judging from an earlier thread on the intracacies of welding and frames. Yup. From that commanding position he KNOWS all the developments at GM powertrain before even Fritz Indra.:eek:

Originally posted by PacerX
Camaros will have no issues whatsoever with any Cobra F*rd decides to build. Dead stock, run-of-the-mill C6's will have nothing to fear from Cobras. The Z06 will match the GT step-for-step, and the ZL1 is quite literally going to blow everything else on the market away short of $600,000 Ferraris.

I know from whence I speak.

A $60K Z06 that traps 130mph in the 1/4 mile? Only six months to go before this one gets eaten. And what's this other ridiculous stuff? Hypothetical Camaros having nothing to fear from 500+hp Cobras? 400hp Vettes romping on 500+hp Cobras? You're losing it, friend.

The GT basically romps over everything this side of the Enzo. I highly doubt the ZL1 will get built. But on paper it should run at least as fast as the GT. 625hp <3100lbs. But don't forget area under the curve of the torque chart. The twin screw SC mod motors make huge fat torque bands from stop to top, an edge they will continue to have over everything else.

As for the Z06, it's gonna be great car. It will most probably outrun the '06 Cobra and be the best sports car for the money, again. And that's good. But forget this going after and beating the GT crap. Seriously.

Z28Wilson

12-02-2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by hp_nut
A $60K Z06

$60k? Where did you get that number from? I've heard of new Z06's being had for $15k less (shop around!), but whatever.....

But forget this going after and beating the GT crap. Seriously.

GT is very impressive as anyone can see. But you are forgetting the #1 rule about the performance car world....repeat after me....

No matter what you have, there is something out there that is faster. Period. I know of some street-driven F-body owners in this area who must be frothing at the mouth to roll up on a snobby unsuspecting GT owner. :D

So after listening to ProudPony wisely telling me not to say Ford can't do something, don't sit there and say with all of GM's resources and history for building some wicked stuff (usually more economically than anyone else mind you) they can't pull something off either.

Bob Cosby

12-02-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by PacerX
***EDITED OUT THE FLAMES***

Not worth the time.
So you wrote a "flaming response", then decided it wasn't worth your time - after you had already taken that time to do it. Interesting logic.

Originally posted by stars1010
But I've only seen one 4.6L in person that ran hard. Had everything (125shot) except a rotating assembly and was in the 11s.
Why is that just because you've "only seen one in person" that this makes it a rare event? I can point you to at least two (2) bolt-on mods only 96-98 Cobras running 11.6's. I know both of the guys personally, and have seen them run at the track.

Its funny sitting here writing this because this argument could on and on for days. I keep thinking of comebacks for my own arguments and so on.
No doubt about that. When you reply to something, this outcome is one possibility.

These arguments on the board just tire me out. I'm just going to walk away from this.
You'll pardon me if I make the rash assumption that you have no answer to the questions I asked. Obviously this is your choice, and that's ok with me.

You can have the victory Bob.
Well thank you, but "victory" was not my goal.

I sat there watching my movie thinking of many different comebacks. Some were pretty good, but I don’t see a point. You win, whatever:rolleyes:
Good comebacks? Meaningful data, or slams? Engineering stuff, perhaps?

I'm going to sleep and dream about how fast ‘96 SS are. :cool: :o
An occasional fantasy is good....pleasant dreams. ;)

(psst...that was a joke)

Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
Thanks alot Ford guys.:rolleyes:
Neat. Blind stereotyping. Kindly see my post from yesterday about the demographics of this site - I'm curious why you don't fit the age group, yet your comment is a wonderful verification of my assumptions. Interesting.

Originally posted by jg95z28
Of course I was talking about real-life street cars and not a drag only application.
I was not referring to "drag only" either. Please do not try and pretend I did. I was referring to maximum acceleration - assuming traction is not an issue, the physics of such remain the same on the street or the track.

In plain english
Thank God for plain english.

no one is going to be constantly driving at 4800 rpm on the street.
In just as plain english, who said they were? Then again, if you're trying to accelerate as fast as possible, are you going to stay between 2000 and 4000 rpm? Not even your LT1 is going to do that, and certianly no LS1 or 4.6 DOHC will. No, they are going to to do there best to optimize their HP through the RPM range in each gear.

Most street V8's are running between 2000-4000 rpm tops.
Driving around town? Sure. Under hard accleration? Not. And lets be clear....were we talking about normal driving of the car, or were we talking about accelerating as fast as possible?

For a drag racing application 4800 rpm wouldn't be a handicap, and in that circumstance Bob is correct.
Please see above comments.

However no where was it ever implied that we were talking about drag only applications, and in fact everyone was bragging about street car performance.
I agree - but we weren't talking about goofing off on the street - for the 3rd (or 4th) time, we were talking about maximum acceleration from these street cars - be it on the street or on the track. They will accelerate hardest at the higher rpm.

Its easy to sound like a damn genius half the time if you slant everyone else's opinions to feed your own one-sided arguments.
Indeed. Perhaps you should grab that mirror.

But then I really could care less what some narrow-minded Ford guys think.
Could you please define who the "narrow-minded Ford guys" are? Kindly state your reasoning and evidence, too. And if you could "care less", why do you continue to reply?

Come to think of it, why is it Ford guys are always on GM sites yet you don't see as many Chevy guys on Ford sites? Hmmmmm.
Without realizing it, you just contridicted your previous statement. Let me know if you'd like for me to tell you how.

And BTW, not only am I an "enthusiast" vice any single-brand car guy, I've also been around here quite a bit longer than the majority of the people in this thread - including the time I owned my 99 T/A. Draw whatever conclusions you wish to.....or not.

Originally posted by FlyBono24
The Super-Corvette will blow it away, and it will do it with a $100,000 LOWER price tag!!
Is this more inside data? Pacer, better listen to this guy. He's saying that the "Super-Corvette" will run 130 mph in the 1/4 mile (stock) and be priced about the same as the current Z06!

You heard it here first. Note this on your calender.

Mark....I agree totally with your comments. Kudos to you. One exception....I think the reference to the $60k Z06 was for future models, not the current version. :)

I'm off to the airport...ya'll have fun today. :cool:

IZ28

12-02-2003, 09:24 AM

Can we get a lock already?

Z284ever

12-02-2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by PacerX
***EDITED OUT THE FLAMES***

Not worth the time.

Did anyone ever see that Clint Eastwood movie..."UNFORGIVEN".

It's about a former gunfighter who is doing his best to avoid gunfights.....until the end when he literally runs amok in a gunfight kill-a-thon.

Good movie.

Chris 96 WS6

12-02-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by scott9050

I will give you a little hint here son, look at my registration date. I've been here about 11 months LONGER than you, so come off the misguided attitude that I came across this thread from some other site to badmouth anyone here.

[/b]

BS. The f-body was slower than the Cobra when equal drivers were used stock, the Saleen S-351 was sold new through dealerships with a Ford warranty (120+ traps stock). GM has moved their market to Trucks and SUV's, and their recent performance dictates that they don't give a rats ass about true performance except with the Z06. Ford and Chrysler have a large stake in their vehicles bringing new buyers into the showroom, GM does not have that stake with such a large share of the market.

[/b]

Not impressive for the price? It blows everything away in it's category and below. What the hell does it take to impress you then? Z06 a better track car? I doubt it, but time will tell.

[/b]

Look what Ford was able to do for $35,000 with the Cobra. It may be a tad slower stock than the Z06, but it costs about $16,000 less. The new one should be much better than the current one is.

[/b]

How about taking some of your own advice? [/B]

Yes, you got me. I was specifically attacking YOU because I don't like the way your username looks on my screne....WTF? What makes you think I was specifically singling you out? Yes it was a generalization but it is your fault and your fault alone for taking offense and taking it so personally.

My point about the GT not being impressive for the price is quite simple and I am suprised you don't get it. For $150,000 per car, a large multinational like Ford with the R&D facilities and economies of scale that they have....hell yes it should be at least as fast as it is if not quite a bit faster. A Ferrari at that price should be a lot less of a car because they do not have the corporate support and buying power to produce X car for Y cost...its going to be more expensive, thus the price will be higher to me or you. All I am saying is that of course for $150K the GT can perform, but at that price I'd hardly consider it mind boggling or a particularly good performance per dollar value. It is not sufficiently more capable than a Viper, for example, for me to consider spending 2x as much money on one.

I'm out of here...like talking to brick walls. You guys jumping all over our GM insiders like Pacer X like he's just some 17 yr old troll spouting off. Some Mustang guys have been around here, others are more trollish (if it doesn't apply to you, do not take offense...sheesh)....but you guys need to realize some of these people have insider info and sources inside GM and they are trusted here. If Pacer X or GuionM say such a thing is in the pipe, its in the pipe.

PacerX

12-02-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
So you wrote a "flaming response", then decided it wasn't worth your time - after you had already taken that time to do it. Interesting logic.

Given my past history with flame wars, I made a decision not to engage in this one after gassing up the flamethrower... Imagine that... ME the picture-boy for decorum. I hope the regulars appreciate the level of restraint I am displaying at this point.

Simply put, you are so ignorant as to not be worth my time. I have nothing to prove to you, and you can take what I say as valid information or not. I really don't care either way.

One day, when you leave the Navy, maybe you can get a job in the automobile industry and start learning the way things are actually done, how programs progress from concept to completion, and who knows what when. Right now, you simply have no clue whatsoever, and educating you as to the process and what information is available when is a complete waste of time.

I'm sure I could find a job you're qualified for...

stars1010

12-02-2003, 11:33 AM

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

12-02-2003, 11:52 AM

Stick a fork in this thread already....it's done.

jg95z28

12-02-2003, 12:03 PM

Gentlemen and Ford owners: :p

I don't believe I originally said anyone was flat out wrong. What I said is I'd personally rather have low-end torque vs. high-end torque. That statement I still stand by.

Take two cars cruising at 50 mph on the highway when they decide to punch it. By the time high-end car winds up to its peak torque, the low-end car should already have it by at least car length. At least in theory anyway. ;)

Anyway I also said earlier my bone stock '95 Z/28 has more RWHP than my '96 Mustang GT which is supercharged and has a not-so-stock exhaust. The doesn't mean I actually think my Camaro would beat my Mustang off the line. :D

1fastdog

12-02-2003, 07:33 PM

There's no point in argument on this. What will be coming will be coming.

Ford will put the GT back in restricted showrooms for a specific purpose. Plain a simple it's a Halo car deal and they feel it's necessary and feel it appropriate to reach back 37+ years to assist in doing it.

It's a smart move sales wise and press wise. A total new car would be risky to try to sell @ $150K. Original GT40's and GT 40 MarkII's bring large money at auction and there's enough demand to move a select number of new one's and get back out into some spotlight.

No manufacturer sells to the public directly. They sell to dealers. Ford will sell all they build and getting them to end users is far less the point than just plain building them. The car press will definately front page them for road tests and comparos... I don't know if there have been any actual final production cars done or if Mr. Ford's personal car is making the round to the mag tests or another mule. It doesn't actually matter in the long run.

Ford is hitting on the retro thing with regularity. Ford particularly has a hi-performance "fued" with Chrysler... maybe because both are short on cash. The retro thing failed miserably on a T-Bird comeback. I'm sure they learned a lesson.

Always watch the money, regardless of the business. Future product insists on cash. SVT is going through reorganization... but the Ford fans know that. . . right?

I hope Ford sells their bid for $100K+ cars... the Cien might go back to a front burner.

I would never underestimate my opponent. Every car company, including Ford, is in my opinion, GM's opponent; make no mistake about it. GM won't show up at a gunfight with a dull knife.

In the mean time may we enjoy what we have the keys to.

Burmite

12-02-2003, 07:38 PM

Lock this one moderators.

stars1010

12-02-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Burmite
Lock this one moderators.

Why? The Z28 v. SS debates went on for weeks, they were much worse than this and never got locked.

IZ28

12-02-2003, 08:02 PM

Active Mods are needed here. :)

Chris 96 WS6

12-02-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by jg95z28
Gentlemen and Ford owners: :p

I don't believe I originally said anyone was flat out wrong. What I said is I'd personally rather have low-end torque vs. high-end torque. That statement I still stand by.

Take two cars cruising at 50 mph on the highway when they decide to punch it. By the time high-end car winds up to its peak torque, the low-end car should already have it by at least car length. At least in theory anyway. ;)

Anyway I also said earlier my bone stock '95 Z/28 has more RWHP than my '96 Mustang GT which is supercharged and has a not-so-stock exhaust. The doesn't mean I actually think my Camaro would beat my Mustang off the line. :D

A lot of that would be controlled with proper gear selection, but I'd take the high end torque personally. 4 billion ft lbs at 2500 rpm doesn't do squat for you after the .002 seconds you're at that RPM when you go WOT. Since horsepower is a function of RPM and torque, the higher the fat part of your tq curve, the more HP you should have. I'd rather have the meat of my tq at the mid and upper end. Low end torque is overrated really, because if you have more tq than traction you technically have too much to be useful. Ultimately you want the torque in the RPM range you plan on using because that's where the most work will be performed.

Bob Cosby

12-02-2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Given my past history with flame wars, I made a decision not to engage in this one after gassing up the flamethrower... Imagine that... ME the picture-boy for decorum. I hope the regulars appreciate the level of restraint I am displaying at this point.
Interesting. I have no idea what kind of "history" you have, but it sounds like you go off on people - for good reason or otherwise. Whatever floats your boat dude. Rest assured, nothing you can say will do much more than make me grin and do more typing. :D

Simply put, you are so ignorant as to not be worth my time.
Ignorant means you lack knowledge - either in general terms or specifics. It is quite likely that I am ignorant of many of the things you have knowledge of. It is just as likely - or even certain - that you are quite ignorant of things I have knowledge of.

But I don't care if you last name is Lutz - you don't know if this "super corvette" will run circles around a 2006 GT (if there is one) or not - or even the 2005 GT. You obviously think you do, and the faithful here will certainly believe it.

Ignorance defined.

One day, when you leave the Navy, maybe you can get a job in the automobile industry
Why on earth would I want to do that? Besides, when I retire in about 3 years, I'd much prefer to spend my time racing cars vice playing know-it-all super-informer on an internet forum.

You do what you wish.

and start learning the way things are actually done, how programs progress from concept to completion, and who knows what when.
This would assume that I care - which I do not. My only precept in this - if you'll go back and look at my original post - is the humor I found in people like you talking in absolutes. And again, I don't care if your name is Lutz. My conclusions remain the same.

Right now, you simply have no clue whatsoever, and educating you as to the process and what information is available when is a complete waste of time.
Ah....such a great feeling when self-described know-it-alls try to put down us "ignorant" folk. Let me tell you something, jr, with your piss poor attitude towards anything you don't like, I have no desire to even allow you to even attempt to "teach" me what you assume I do not know.

That thought is pretty funny just thinking about it.

I have nothing to prove to you
Well that's a relief. There for a minute I thought I was going to get a 6 hour lecture.

and you can take what I say as valid information or not. I really don't care either way.
LOL. I doubt it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't even respond. Nice try though. :)

I'm sure I could find a job you're qualified for...

ROFLOL. No doubt in your mind this would be in the janitorial arts. Thinking about it, I'm just as sure I could find a job you're qualified for. Whanna know what it is? Go ahead....ask.

But hey, Oct 2006 is my planned retirement. I'll let you know if I get hard up. Deal?

Originally posted by jg95z28
Gentlemen and Ford owners: :p
I'm certainly glad we have that one straight. :D

I don't believe I originally said anyone was flat out wrong. What I said is I'd personally rather have low-end torque vs. high-end torque. That statement I still stand by.
If that is a personal preference, then I have not an issue in the world with it. You decide what you like best - more power to you. I will, however, say that we weren't discussing personal preferences - at least I wasn't.

Take two cars cruising at 50 mph on the highway when they decide to punch it. By the time high-end car winds up to its peak torque, the low-end car should already have it by at least car length. At least in theory anyway. ;)
Chris 96 WS6 covered this pretty well in his response. Again, personal preference is a seperate issue.

Anyway I also said earlier my bone stock '95 Z/28 has more RWHP than my '96 Mustang GT which is supercharged and has a not-so-stock exhaust. The doesn't mean I actually think my Camaro would beat my Mustang off the line. :D
I missed that, but I have no issue with your statement. I have a lot less HP than a lot of cars....but I still outrun a fair number of them...from the line or otherwise. :)