[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Look at it this way. You really need to option the C8 to the mid 70k range to get the Corvette you would want, there is a reason most will purchase this car in the 75-80k range and not 59k. This puts it right in the Base 500 ballpark. Do you want a 2 seater sports car or a 4 seater muscle/sports car, Do you want a sc 760hp or a na 495hp. The C8 will need the alignment track adjustment to run with a base 500 track package (not really pratical imo) then depending on track and driver will likely determine which is faster. The C8 will be quicker on the street and easier to drive on the strip but the 500 is clearly the faster car by nearly 10 mph, get it right and you will be deep into the 10s.

I can see the appeal for both with no wrong answer despite all the smoke from both sides. Neither is ideal the C8 will run great at the track but requires track adjustment, 500 runs great at the strip but requires good track prep and conditions.

You can spin it however you want, you can get a c8 z51 for 65k. If you're going to add options to the c8, add adm's to the 500.

The corvette needs it's track alignment for best results, and the gt500 needs plenty of straight aways for best results.

Don't forget to add that track roll cage to the gt500 as well.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by minn19

That makes no sense. Your (and my previous GT350s) were sold to us with a street alignment. Anyone who has seriously tracked them gets a track alignment for the day/weekend. And usually mods them with camber bolt/plates. My ZL1 1LE was sold to me with a street alignment, I'm not going to track it like that.

MT also dynoed the Vette claiming the LT2 made 600 plus HP/TQ and then retracted it saying they set the test up wrong.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ults-followup/

You can believe that Ford came to them in complete street alignment, which is fine, but I and most neutral observers (I'm nobody's fanboy) will not believe it without more explanation from MT etc. Either way the Vette will tear up tires on the street in track alignment prematurely and heavy 4k car will tear up tires in street alignment differently on the track. As most know, there is no free lunch in tracking a car. You will pay for something somewhere depending how it is setup.

In the end they should of verified both were in street alignment since that is the way they are sold to the customers and test them that way.

Edit: Also one is a fully in production car, one is not.

Did MT make any mention of the gt500s factory roll cage?

[RobbyBeefcake87]

https://youtu.be/NqQ9186gk-I

Fun gt500 vs ford GT on the streets video. Not much to take away except a little bit of entertainment from a youtuber who isn't an idiot.

Also after seeing some of these 0 to 60 times on the street I don't feel too bad about some of my 0 to 60s on the GS or 1le lol.

The 500 did 60 to 130 in under 8 seconds, roll racing monster.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Did MT make any mention of the gt500s factory roll cage?

I haven't read the whole thing, but I didn't see any mention of it. It has come up in the M6G discussions though.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by newmoon

It matters because it is not the way MT reviews it's vehicles as stated below from the MT article.

I'd also paused during my lapping to mention the understeer to a Corvette engineer who was watching track-side—and he looked slightly frustrated. "That's easy to adjust" he sighed. Easy, that is, if you have a lift handy (as well as the know-how). Of course, we're always fiddling with a test car's driver-accessible software settings during testing (and tire pressures during lapping). But that's as far as we go in altering things; after all, we want our numbers to reflect how the car is sold to customers.

Really? You saw the roll cage, and you take this statement seriously? LOL....okay man, carry on.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Really? You saw the roll cage, and you take this statement seriously? LOL....okay man, carry on.

I just read it and MT does not mention it, but yes you can clearly see it in pics.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Really? You saw the roll cage, and you take this statement seriously? LOL....okay man, carry on.

Business as usual for some for these guys.

[joe944]

The fanboys are out in full force over there. The amount of conspiracy BS is kind of entertaining.

MT/Pobst sandbag the fords and cheat with gm vehicles. Oh but then they also love pointing out how they chose the GT350 over the ZL1. Can't have it both ways, morons.

*looks at newmoon*

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

It matters because it is not the way MT reviews it's vehicles as stated below from the MT article.

I'd also paused during my lapping to mention the understeer to a Corvette engineer who was watching track-side—and he looked slightly frustrated. "That's easy to adjust" he sighed. Easy, that is, if you have a lift handy (as well as the know-how). Of course, we're always fiddling with a test car's driver-accessible software settings during testing (and tire pressures during lapping). But that's as far as we go in altering things; after all, we want our numbers to reflect how the car is sold to customers.

Funny coming from the first guy to wave a copy of REVan Evan’s 11.8 GT* or 10.6 GT500 preproduction runs when no SS or ZL1 was tested using the same method

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Business as usual for some for these guys.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Funny coming from the first guy to wave a copy of REVan Evan’s 11.8 GT* or 10.6 GT500 preproduction runs when no SS or ZL1 was tested using the same method

Yeah, same old BS. Hard to take some people seriously.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by newmoon

It matters because it is not the way MT reviews it's vehicles as stated below from the MT article.

I'd also paused during my lapping to mention the understeer to a Corvette engineer who was watching track-side—and he looked slightly frustrated. "That's easy to adjust" he sighed. Easy, that is, if you have a lift handy (as well as the know-how). Of course, we're always fiddling with a test car's driver-accessible software settings during testing (and tire pressures during lapping). But that's as far as we go in altering things; after all, we want our numbers to reflect how the car is sold to customers.

So GT500's now come with roll cages and 5 point harnesses with street alignment.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by joe944

The fanboys are out in full force over there. The amount of conspiracy BS is kind of entertaining.

MT/Pobst sandbag the fords and cheat with gm vehicles. Oh but then they also love pointing out how they chose the GT350 over the ZL1. Can't have it both ways, morons.

*looks at newmoon*

They were also all to happy to overlook that the ZL1 ran 1.74 seconds slower than it did only weeks earlier.

The exact same car, on the exact same track driven by the exact same driver.

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by minn19

That makes no sense. Your (and my previous GT350s) were sold to us with a street alignment. Anyone who has seriously tracked them gets a track alignment for the day/weekend. And usually mods them with camber bolt/plates. My ZL1 1LE was sold to me with a street alignment, I'm not going to track it like that.

MT also dynoed the Vette claiming the LT2 made 600 plus HP/TQ and then retracted it saying they set the test up wrong.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ults-followup/

You can believe that Ford came to them in complete street alignment, which is fine, but I and most neutral observers (I'm nobody's fanboy) will not believe it without more explanation from MT etc. Either way the Vette will tear up tires on the street in track alignment prematurely and heavy 4k car will tear up tires in street alignment differently on the track. As most know, there is no free lunch in tracking a car. You will pay for something somewhere depending how it is setup.

In the end they should of verified both were in street alignment since that is the way they are sold to the customers and test them that way.

Edit: Also one is a fully in production car, one is not.

The only reason I can figure that the alignment is such a big deal to the Mustang guys is that only the handling pack 350/500 and R's have adjustment from the factory via camber plates. Any other Mustang you either have to slot the struts, install camber bolts or plates. So they act like it's some big bad voodoo magic that's incomprehensible to the common car guy. GM was nice enough to give us a good range of adjustment from the factory.

I'd argue that running a mild track alignment on the street (-2.5* camber or around there and 0 toe) is much less detrimental to tire life than running a street alignment on the track. These are heavy cars and you can blow the outer shoulder off a tire pretty quick with too little negative camber, unless your 'track day' consists of 1 or 2 parade laps. And if you're running more than -3* camber and messing around with toe to get the car to turn in how you like, there's a pretty good chance you trailered it to the track.

Oh, and the roll cage actually hurt the GT500 times because it added weight.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

You can spin it however you want, you can get a c8 z51 for 65k. If you're going to add options to the c8, add adm's to the 500.

The corvette needs it's track alignment for best results, and the gt500 needs plenty of straight aways for best results.

Add in the disappointing Ring times and you get the idea.

Don't forget to add that track roll cage to the gt500 as well.

I can spin it like this had the Mustang gotten this unusual advantage as stated by MT this forum would be loosing its mind. Funny thing even with this advantage it still lost in the category it was designed to excel in to a 4 seat 4100 lb Mustang. Add in the disappointment with Ring times and the C8s shine is quickly fading.