Evan Smith on 2013 GT500 traction....

[tooslow]

Apparently Evan Smith had an opportunity to check out the 2013 GT500 and wrote the following about it...

While the '07-'12 GT500's are fast machines, launching one can be a challenge, especially with stock tires. For the '13, Ford solved this problem with the introduction of of a launch control and traction system that maximize acceleration with minimal or, in most cases, no spin. And believe me, the acceleration will quench even the thirstiest horsepower junkies. Sweetening the pot is an adjustable rev limiter (i.e. two-step) to help dial in your launch.

While time will tell if it actually translates into the new GT500 getting it's power to the ground, it sure sounds like the new suspension/electronic controls Ford is putting in place are going to make a significant difference.

[huggercamaro21]

It will probably be a better performer. As is the 5.0 to the SS. However, the Camaro does look a whole lot better

[Black GT]

Better than a GT500? I don't think so.

[DaBears]

GT500 is the best looking muscle car that can be bought hands down. Not saying Camaro looks bad, but GT500 is simply bad azz.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by DaBears

GT500 is the best looking muscle car that can be bought hands down. Not saying Camaro looks bad, but GT500 is simply bad ass.

Oh, I'd beg to differ, some of the SL65 AMG Blacks, Aston Martins, and others KILL the mustang. The mustang doesn't look like a serious muscle car or agressive, it just looks like a "mustang". The Ford GT...now THAT looked like a serious car, a supercar, but it actually looked the part.

Ford is always trying to make up for the fact that they do NOT have a super-car type like the ZR1/CTS-V (yes, I realize the CTS-V is more ZL1 territory and not quite AMG) so they have to spice up their Mustang and try to make it span what is best served by more than one model (like something higher end with IRS, more chassi technology, etc). The main way that american automakers keep shooting themselves in the foot is they always think that they have to make these retro-models and they they have to "carry over" heritage from the models before. Yes, it can be a little shocking to see a design that has changed, but IF the car is adequately designed and performs as expected, it does NOT have to look like or have the same name as the previous car. I'm not saying they should just "throw away" a name of a line like "mustang" or "camaro", but they also constrain themselves way too much, which in the end is where you get all the "WTF were they thinking?" and "why on earth did they do that?". Again, it's not that they can't keep some of the same lines and ideas, but it's so easy to go astray. The ZR1 looks like crap with all the "extra vents", it's not a bad car, but a basic vette looks better.

The camaro may have the Cd of a brick, but at least it's low-slung and looks like a sportscar. I don't care for the stupid fish-gills in the rear, smooth panels would be more to my taste, but I think it stands on it's own much better otherwise as it's own design.

[huggercamaro21]

Originally Posted by Black GT

Better than a GT500? I don't think so.

Well that's cuz you like mustangs. I don't. And judging by the amount of Camaros sold, most people think the same now days.

[Black GT]

Originally Posted by huggercamaro21

I was saying the GT500 will be a better performer.

I was saying the Camaro doesn't come close to the looks of a GT500.

[huggercamaro21]

Originally Posted by Black GT

I was saying the Camaro doesn't come close to the looks of a GT500.

That's why I changed my previous statement, I read your comment out of context.
I thought that you were implying that I said the ZL1 would be a better performer. And I don't. The gt500 will undoubtedly be a much better performer.

[Blownhotrodder]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Oh, I'd beg to differ, some of the SL65 AMG Blacks, Aston Martins, and others KILL the mustang. The mustang doesn't look like a serious muscle car or agressive, it just looks like a "mustang". The Ford GT...now THAT looked like a serious car, a supercar, but it actually looked the part.

Ford is always trying to make up for the fact that they do NOT have a super-car type like the ZR1/CTS-V (yes, I realize the CTS-V is more ZL1 territory and not quite AMG) so they have to spice up their Mustang and try to make it span what is best served by more than one model (like something higher end with IRS, more chassi technology, etc). The main way that american automakers keep shooting themselves in the foot is they always think that they have to make these retro-models and they they have to "carry over" heritage from the models before. Yes, it can be a little shocking to see a design that has changed, but IF the car is adequately designed and performs as expected, it does NOT have to look like or have the same name as the previous car. I'm not saying they should just "throw away" a name of a line like "mustang" or "camaro", but they also constrain themselves way too much, which in the end is where you get all the "WTF were they thinking?" and "why on earth did they do that?". Again, it's not that they can't keep some of the same lines and ideas, but it's so easy to go astray. The ZR1 looks like crap with all the "extra vents", it's not a bad car, but a basic vette looks better.

The camaro may have the Cd of a brick, but at least it's low-slung and looks like a sportscar. I don't care for the stupid fish-gills in the rear, smooth panels would be more to my taste, but I think it stands on it's own much better otherwise as it's own design.

None of those are muscle cars.

[eolson]

I don't think any current Corvette looks like crap, nor any tastefully fit out Mustang or Camaro, or Challenger for that matter.

I mean come on guys, I'm 47 and I had to watch all the beautiful American cars after 1973 go from style legends to horrible, badly designed, ugly to look at, slow compromises. These current cars from 2004 to now are really great looking again, and are in a performance league unimagined 10 years ago, and continue to amaze in the last 2 months.

The Corvette finally looks like a refined sports car instead of a penis car, the Mustang was a cross between japanese and bad european styling car, and the Camaro looked like a soap dish or a electric razor. Sorry...

With all the current high performance parts and options, I can't even consider American cars before 2004(except the Viper) to be in the same league at all with these current cars(except the 2010 mustang's diaper butt rear facia/diffuser hick up, now solved).

The Camaro I think is a great looking car, and looked great along with the Saleen Extreme cop car in Transformers. Both cars to people 10 years ago would have been like a wet dream. IMO...... Erik

[hypurone]

Originally Posted by Black GT

I was saying the Camaro doesn't come close to the looks of a GT500.

And like he said, just cuz you like it doesn't mean the majority of Chevy guys will! And why is it you feel the need to be a troll on a Chevy forum.

huggercamaro21 Quote:
Originally Posted by Black GT
Better than a GT500? I don't think so.

Well that's cuz you like mustangs. I don't. And judging by the amount of Camaros sold, most people think the same now days.

True. But even if it were the other way around (sales wise). Myself and most other Chevy guys would still think it looks like azz

[JoshBobGuptaMarley]

Originally Posted by Black GT

Better than a GT500? I don't think so.

Yes, better!

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by Black GT

I was saying the Camaro doesn't come close to the looks of a GT500.

The GT500 doesn't come close to the looks of the Camaro. And by the way, welcome to Camaro5. How's your MUSTANG forums doing these days? Slow, I take it?

[8cd03gro]

I think his point was looks are subjective. . . something that is apparently lost on most of the crowd here. Opinion =/= quantitative.

Brunettes are hotter than blondes, that's a fact