• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Around the 'ring in 7:29.60 seconds

Saw the video yesterday.

What's impressive is that it's an auto, and he's not paddle shifting. As in, it's in full auto mode.
 
10 speeds man... when's the cvt?

I don't know if it's the angle of the camera or what but that run felt super sketchy in that car. Seen quite a few runs and that one just did not look like it was going to make the corners every time it was going in. I think it was the angle of the video.
 
That's a really quick shifting 10-speed. Maybe more-geared transmissions have a future, after seeing chryslers 9-speed issues I kinda doubted them.
 
Funny how the time comes out before the car is publicly available, but we don't have an official Z06 time.
 
A supercharged 6.2L that costs around $7k more can only beat a naturally aspirated 5.2L but a couple seconds over 7 minutes. I'm not terribly impressed, considering what you could still do to the naturally aspirated Ford pretty cheaply.

The interior of the Camaro is horrible and the view out the back window is totally nonexistent. Feels like Chevy is totally phoning it in right now.
 
Pulsar said:
A supercharged 6.2L that costs around $7k more can only beat a naturally aspirated 5.2L but a couple seconds over 7 minutes. I'm not terribly impressed, considering what you could still do to the naturally aspirated Ford pretty cheaply.

The interior of the Camaro is horrible and the view out the back window is totally nonexistent. Feels like Chevy is totally phoning it in right now.
Click to expand...

Same old bs argument. Engine displacement is not comparable across valve and cam setups. We already know how well the N/A Camaro stacks up against the regular GT350. It takes nearly 3k more RPM, 16 more valves, 1 more cam, carbon fiber wheels, stripped interior, Sport Cup 2 tires and 300lbs less to come within 3 seconds of the non-track specific Camaro. The Mustang interior is horrible as well for a car that has a base of $55k and an astronomical markup. Top that off with a limited production making it nearly unobtainable for buyers. Sounds like Ford is phoning it in as well?
 
KentState said:
Same old bs argument. Engine displacement is not comparable across valve and cam setups. We already know how well the N/A Camaro stacks up against the regular GT350. It takes nearly 3k more RPM, 16 more valves, 1 more cam, carbon fiber wheels, stripped interior, Sport Cup 2 tires and 300lbs less to come within 3 seconds of the non-track specific Camaro. The Mustang interior is horrible as well for a car that has a base of $55k and an astronomical markup. Top that off with a limited production making it nearly unobtainable for buyers. Sounds like Ford is phoning it in as well?
Click to expand...

Did I strike a nerve or something? I've seen a number of reviews saying that the interior of the Mustang is actually quite good. In addition, most of your comments are made in a vacuum. An astronomical markup compared to what? The Camaro? Which will end up having the same markup and already costs significantly more? And why do you call it non-track specific? It's got 650 horsepower for gods sake. Pretty sure that's not your average street car.
 
Pulsar said:
Did I strike a nerve or something? I've seen a number of reviews saying that the interior of the Mustang is actually quite good. In addition, most of your comments are made in a vacuum. An astronomical markup compared to what? The Camaro? Which will end up having the same markup and already costs significantly more? And why do you call it non-track specific? It's got 650 horsepower for gods sake. Pretty sure that's not your average street car.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have struck anyone's nerves.

Video needs The Stog music 🙂
 
Last edited:
Pulsar said:
A supercharged 6.2L that costs around $7k more can only beat a naturally aspirated 5.2L but a couple seconds over 7 minutes. I'm not terribly impressed, considering what you could still do to the naturally aspirated Ford pretty cheaply.

The interior of the Camaro is horrible and the view out the back window is totally nonexistent. Feels like Chevy is totally phoning it in right now.
Click to expand...

The gt350"r" has a higher msrp than the zl1.
 
MixMasterTang said:
The gt350"r" has a higher msrp than the zl1.
Click to expand...

Ya know, I didn't catch the "R" in the original post. But I did look it up and it looks like the MSRP for the GT350R and the ZL1 are even. In which case, I'm afraid I'm going to have to retract some of statements. But the interior of the Camaro and the view out the rear window still sucks 🙂.
 
TridenT said:
10 speeds man... when's the cvt?

I don't know if it's the angle of the camera or what but that run felt super sketchy in that car. Seen quite a few runs and that one just did not look like it was going to make the corners every time it was going in. I think it was the angle of the video.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense because CVT's can't handle high torque demands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top