200 additional horsepower for a .3-.4 gain is laughable. Again, it's the very definition of a dyno queen.

 

Well they are planning lighter cars, but its anybody's guess as to how much lighter or if thats a relative term in light of ever increasing safety standards.

IMO I also hope they dont trim the size to much, the current car seems just about right for a coupe with a trunk that has some usable space there and in the back seat.

Yes, its the largest Mustang ever, but this isn't nessecarily a bad thing since prices seem to be largely outpacing incomes and for alot of people that means having only one vehicle.

Anyways, we'll see about the 1/4 times for the GT500 - ideally with a driver of medium weight, it should run low 11's. Given that I supose mid 11's in most magazines (C&D, R&T, MT, et al) would be pretty good.

 

A "dyno queen" is a car that is only built for and only puts up the numbers on a dyno, but isn't a functional enough car to apply that power in the real world (street/road course/drag strip). IMO...

These cars absolutely will be functional on the street, road course, and 1/4-mile strip.

Not "dyno queens" by any stretch, quite the opposite. And more fully functional real-world cars than "drag queens".

Also, it has not been established that the GT500 is "only" 0.3 - 0.4 quicker than the Boss...

 

These cars aren't overweight because of safety standards. They're overweight because they are a 2-door version of a mid-size luxury sedan (Mustang) and a 2-door version of a MASSIVE full-size sedan (Camaro).

Improvements in design/analysis, materials, construction techniques allow meeting new safety standards without adding weight or cost.
Consider that the FR-S/BRZ twins are coming in at 2700 lb. EXACTLY the same weight as the S13 240SX was in 1989, for cars in the same niche (small, inexpensive rwd/irs 2+2 coupe). ZERO weight gain for precisely the same type of car, 24 years later.

The Camaro is OBSCENELY overweight because it is really a gigantic, massive sedan.

It can be a lot smaller while still offering usable space, but IMO "pony cars" should be allowed to give up some utility in the name of being smaller and LIGHTER.

They've set a very bad precedent with the 5th gen IMO...

 

I dunno guys. I kinda get it. After driving a 2012 2LT RS I get it. These cars are no longer a hot engine packed in a beer can.

 

I know, I get wound up, but generalizations like that bother me!

And for the record, the only reason I haven't decided for sure to get one is that I would have to drive it winters - it has nothing to do with cost. If I get the $40,000 2SS convertible that I am eying, I am budgeting for an $800 per month payment for three years ($15k down). So for another year or maybe two (depending on downpayment) I get the ZL1. plus, it looks like they are starting to lease Camaro's, so that might be an option too.

If every winter was guaranteed to be like the previous one, then I might dump my truck early and already have a ZL1 on order. C'mon global warming!

-Geoff

 

Truth! Not your dad's Camaro!

-Geoff

 

It all goes back to a series of posts I made some months ago. Cars today are at the point of diminishing returns in horsepower. We already have more power than tires can handle, which is the 1st problem. The other problem is that the lower your times get, the more proportional horsepower you're going to need to get petter results. For instance, it might take X more horsepower and X torque to get a car to 60 from say 5.5 seconds down to 5 seconds, but it's going to X+Y more hp and torque to get another half second to 4.5, then not just X+Y, but also the addition of Z more ponys to get another half second.

The final problem is that horsepower equals weight, and more horsepower equals more weight. Heavier duty parts, bigger cooling systems, tougher (and heaiver drivetrains and differentials. Then you're needing bigger brakes and suspensions to get the same performance.

Pretty soon, you get exactly what you point out: 200 more horsepower with just a 0.3 or 0.4 gain.

However, I don't believe that's the definition of a dyno queen.

A dyno queen to me is something that puts out tons of horsepower, but is unable to use it (weak drivetrain, too much power for any set of tires known to man, etc...). ZL1s and GT500 will do just fine with a set of racing slicks, and then there's computer programs to control wheelspin.

But, just because it takes a disproportional amount of power to achieve the same results as less power on a less powerful engine I wouldn't call a dyno queen.

I call that the point of diminishing return.

 

Yup, diminishing returns is a fact.

In the best of circumstances, improvements in 1/4-mile ET and trap speed will go up with with the *cube root* of increase in power. I.e., 20% more power will only theoretically result in (1.2)^1/3 = 1.06 => 6% quicker/faster.

For weight-distribution-challenged rwd cars (Mustang more so than Camaro), the trap speed and particularly the ET improvement will be a bit less than the cube root of relative increase in power.

 

Which is why some people are speculating that the GT500 may not have as easy a time dispatching the ZL1 as some seem to expect...

 

650hp/3850 lb. GT500 is going to murder the 580hp/4050 lb. ZL1, no way around it.

6.23 lb/hp vs. 7.33 lb/hp.

Diminishing returns, yes, but that's a BIG difference in power/weight.

Better weight distribution should give 0-30 to the Camaro. Beyond that, see-ya-bye...

 

I started thinking about the times and realized that my Camaro which made 450 to the ground (on a Mustang dyno) managed to pull off high 11's all day (on street tires with the traction control beeping on launch and on the 1-2 shift) - and I have zero driving skill other than stomping the gas and holding on tight!

So when it comes to the strip, maybe they are both dyno queens?

-Geoff

 

High 11s with 450rwhp in an automatic equipped 4th gen on street tires isn't that good. Then again, if all you trapped was 118, you weren't making 450 at the wheels - unless you live a mile high.

 

Considering the car slammed on the brakes twice during the run I thought that was pretty good. So you have special track time conversion formulas that take traction activation into account? I would love to see them. In fact, why don't you start a new thread so this one can stay ON TOPIC.

The point that went sailing over your head is that both the cars that are in fact ON TOPIC in this thread make considerably more horsepower and run about the same 1/4 mile time.

-Geoff

 

The more these cars get designed for road courses and ring time touting it's no surprise they will not perform on the drag strip well. The setups are completely different. Large diameter wheels/low profile tires, stiffer suspension, gearing for top speed, etc...all hurt 1/4 mi times. The weight of both these babies hurts them on road course and 1/4 mile; but we are stuck with that.

What will be interesting is if somebody stripped down a GT500, or a ZL1 (ZL1 would probably require a conversion to a live axle to perform reliably at < 11s 1/4mi times). But I HIGHLY doubt we will be seeing any of that soon.

Nobody is going to drop 50-60k and strip it down, gut the interior, to see what these things can really do; unfortunately.