They are reasonably close in ET, given that the GT500 is simply hard to get moving (due to a number of factors - all of which have been discussed ad naseum). However, and keeping in mind that you conveniently left off the trap speeds (which shows POWER, which seems to be what you're harping on), then 108-109 compared to 113-115 mph is NOT a close race.

I knew if I kept reading, I'd find something we agreed on.

Bob

PS....the GXP is indeed a very nice, very fast car. Not trying to take anything away from it.

 

i wasnt conveniently leaving it off i actually just didnt see it in what i was reading.so the gxp got the the 1/4 mile point however many miliseconds slower than the gt500 supercharged race car and had a slower trap speed. imagine if the gxp had bigger tires on it and if the gt500 had better hook up. yeah yeah yeah. theres alot of what ifs. but the facts dont lie. its close. plus, its 1/4 mile times. not 1/4 mile........ plus whatever else so you can beat the competition worse. 1/4 mile is 1/4 mile. yes it beats it. ok it got a bad jump off the line or whatever you may call it. then they needto change some things to the launch to get it to grab. throw bigger tires on, beef up the rear end suspension.

 

The GT500 would probably run quicker (ET wise) with less power. But that would be rather counter to your assertion that it is "underpowered", wouldn't it?

The GT500 is a race car? From the factory? Really? What sanctioning body/class are they designed to run in?

Have you ever ridden in one? Driven one? Raced one? How about the GXP? The 2010 Camaro? You seem to be an expert on such things, and I'm just hoping its not all from magazine racing.

Facts are facts....no doubt about that. And boomer had it right above.

 

yes.yes.yes.yes scca,gt,gs class.no.no.no.no.and no.
and yeah im going off of magazine articles because i havent had the chance to drive one myself. but dont we all base majority of our judgement from the facts that are writen in magazine and articles.like web sights?

 

Uncle (again).

Have a nice day.

 

Hello! You accused me of loving Mustangs and I showed you my history of owning GM vehicles and never owning a Mustang, or any Ford for that matter. I even drive a 95' Olds Cutlass Cierra back and forth to work (was my grandmas).

The point in all this is that I can put any bias I may or may not have aside and recognize a good performance car when I see one. I am pretty good at judging a car purely on its merits. You are obviously bias beyond belief, which is fine if it makes you happy, but don't expect too many people to take you seriously unless they share the same passionate bias.

 

erm...first...I'm not a mustang guy visiting these forums. I'm getting a 2010 (or 2011) V6 camaro.

Second....I was responding to what he said, which was that it took them till 2009 to get to 300hp. (which is, like 90% of what he's said, not correct)

And lastly, try reading my post. I said it blows the crap out of the muscle cars from the ORIGINAL ERA. You take a current gen mustang up against the stock version of almost anything from the 60's and 70's and it's going to stomp it. Take it on a road course and it'll KILL it. I never said anything about current vehicles.

With all that said, the mustang GT is not by any means a slow car. It's good competition for the camaro, and when they put that 365hp TT V-6 in it, it's going to be VERY good competition.

Critical reading skills people. Jesus. And UHG at fanboys!

 

Thats not entirely true. There were quite a few cars from the muscle car era that were capable of mid 13 second passes. Especially on modern day radials.

I would say the GT would compete with the best of the muscle car era but certainly not "stomp" them or "blow them away".

 

Must Use Supercharger or Turbo Against Naturally aspirated Gm. (MUSTANG)

 

Accually the best time ever recorded for a 1969 copo camaro was 12.5 (stock)

 

Wow! I did not know that. I know some of the Mustangs and Camaros from the 60's and early 70's have run low and mid 13's on modern radials. I saw this in a show on Speed channel way back when.

 

ZL-1 or just the "garden" variety iron block 427 cars?

 

Yes, I'm aware there are acceptions, but for the most part it would put more than a second on the muscle cars from the original era. It IS a fast car. (and yes, on a track it WOULD blow them away. it's not a bad handler, especially when you put decent shoes on it)

I'm just pointing out...it's making more power than most of the cars from the original era, simply due to how they measured power back then. It's not underpowered. We just suffer from "mines bigger" syndrome.

 

oh my bad ZL-1 aluminum block

 

So basically what you are saying is that it is a fast car because it is faster than cars built 30-40 years ago? What kind of lame *** arguement is that? My friends 1972 Mach 1 got smoked by a stock 2002 F-150. Does that mean a stock F-150 is a race truck???