• 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.

For the LOVE OF GOD (2013 GT500 content inside)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
overst33r said:
The stock F1 runflats. It was the only available tire in 2006/7.
Click to expand...

Pretty impressive, then.

Those tires do hold back the Z06 a bit. With the PS2's the Z06 achieves a whole new level of performance almost comparable to the ZR1. I'd say the Z06 is a better sports car than the ZR1 because of its lower weight and higher displacement NA engine. I just don't see how Chevy hasn't updated the interior because it's pretty ghastly.

I wonder how the GT-R would do on the track with the PS2s and 100kg less weight...
 
Hal's real problem isn't performance or price. Its the lack of Mercedes/BMW badge and the frustration that this car will destroy anything that does have one of those badges.
 
Kadarin said:
And on the '12 GT500 they're extra shitty, especially when cold.
Click to expand...


Not extra..... They're all that way. All versions turn in to slippery hockey pucks when cold (I have some). They're not bad when warm, but cold, you may as well give up.

They aren't bad tires per se, but they have no life at all, and you can't run them in the cold (but they're marketed as 3-season/summer tires anyway). They aren't very good either though.
 
overst33r said:
So does a Z06 :sneaky:

Jamie_Furman.1098_1.jpg
Click to expand...

1.7 second 60' footer on street tires sounds a bit iffy at best, that's drag radial territory.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
LOL at you claiming a car is faster because of its top speed. So what you're saying is that a Buggati Veyron is faster than a Formula 1 car?

The new GT500 is a damn good car, but it's not faster than a GT-R. A GT-R can do 0-60 in 2.8s, and the 1/4 mile in 11.1 seconds. In a track, the GT-R will cream it. But then again, it should, because the GT500 costs almost $40K less yet is the most capable car at that price range.
Click to expand...

All true...!
 
SolMiester said:
All true...!
Click to expand...


let's just wait till people get these cars in the hands of real drivers and can put a set of ET streets/slicks.

this car will run 10 sec 1/4 mile at about 130mph


faster is all relative. GTR is faster around a track or from a stop, but the GT500 would walk a GTR in a rolling straight line.
 
j&j said:
let's just wait till people get these cars in the hands of real drivers and can put a set of ET streets/slicks.

this car will run 10 sec 1/4 mile at about 130mph


faster is all relative. GTR is faster around a track or from a stop, but the GT500 would walk a GTR in a rolling straight line.
Click to expand...

Not really. The GT-R is definitely faster overall, but there's no denying the GT500 is extremely impressive given the fact it only costs ~$60K.
 
shabby said:
1.7 second 60' footer on street tires sounds a bit iffy at best, that's drag radial territory.
Click to expand...

You can imagine the skepticism, but there's many witnesses in the thread on Corvette Forums confirming they were stock tires. Take it how you want to.
 
exdeath said:
Hal's real problem isn't performance or price. Its the lack of Mercedes/BMW badge and the frustration that this car will destroy anything that does have one of those badges.
Click to expand...

I hate Mercedes (except the SLS and a couple of the "Black" range)

I'm also not a huge BMW fan.

You fail.
 
Or just a really clean fresh sticky track on a hot day.

I've had plenty of shitty street tires that mysteriously hooked for no reason during a random wot romp when they shouldnt have.

That said, a single freak non reproducible incident or two doesn't mean all stock X's run Y.
 
Last edited:
HAL9000 said:
I hate Mercedes (except the SLS and a couple of the "Black" range)

I'm also not a huge BMW fan.

You fail.
Click to expand...

So basically youre a typical internet 12yr old "car enthusiast" that drools and masterbates over cars you'll never afford in 15 lifetimes while bashing and hating everything else?
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Not really. The GT-R is definitely faster overall, but there's no denying the GT500 is extremely impressive given the fact it only costs ~$60K.
Click to expand...


Yes, really. It can do 200mph stock and will trap higher in the 1/4 mile. the GTR can just get it done faster stock due to AWD.


Here is a good for instance, by an act of god a 2013 gt500 and 2013 gtr meet on the highway, both decide to race from 60mph-160mph on a clear open road.

GT500 will win, every time, as it has more power and traction won't be an issue.

So, yes, faster is a relative term...
 
j&j said:
Yes, really. It can do 200mph stock and will trap higher in the 1/4 mile. the GTR can just get it done faster stock due to AWD.


Here is a good for instance, by an act of god a 2013 gt500 and 2013 gtr meet on the highway, both decide to race from 60mph-160mph on a clear open road.

GT500 will win, every time, as it has more power and traction won't be an issue.

So, yes, faster is a relative term...
Click to expand...

So where's your proof for this claim again? And why would anyone go to 160MPH on a highway? Unless you're clinically retarded or just don't care about putting other drivers and yourself at risk...

Also, your argument about higher trap speed is rather exaggerated. The GT-R traps at 124.8 at the 1/4 mile, and the GT500 at 125.7MPH. Big whoop.

Also funny how you mention the GT-R is only as good as it is because of AWD, yet you completely forget about the fact the GT500 has needed 100HP more than before to get to where it is. So could I use the excuse of the GT-R having more than 100HP less as to why it was less than 1MPH slower on the traps? "It can do 200mph stock and will trap higher in the 1/4 mile, but only because it has 100HP more than the GT-R and weighs a lot less". Oh, you don't think that's fair now?

In the end, a Z06 with the Track and Carbon Package and a GT-R will bitch slap the GT500 at a track, which is where it matters. But they also cost nearly $40K more, so the GT500 is undeniably good at its price.

But a GT-R or Z06 it is not, especially since it needs 100HP and 150HP more respectively than what the GT-R and Z06 have to post comparable straight line speed and it will still be left in the dust when it gets twisty.
 
j&j said:
let's just wait till people get these cars in the hands of real drivers and can put a set of ET streets/slicks.

this car will run 10 sec 1/4 mile at about 130mph


faster is all relative. GTR is faster around a track or from a stop, but the GT500 would walk a GTR in a rolling straight line.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you guys do have enough straight roads over there....
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
So where's your proof for this claim again? And why would anyone go to 160MPH on a highway? Unless you're clinically retarded or just don't care about putting other drivers and yourself at risk...

Also, your argument about higher trap speed is rather exaggerated. The GT-R traps at 124.8 at the 1/4 mile, and the GT500 at 125.7MPH. Big whoop.

Also funny how you mention the GT-R is only as good as it is because of AWD, yet you completely forget about the fact the GT500 has needed 100HP more than before to get to where it is. So could I use the excuse of the GT-R having more than 100HP less as to why it was less than 1MPH slower on the traps? "It can do 200mph stock and will trap higher in the 1/4 mile, but only because it has 100HP more than the GT-R and weighs a lot less". Oh, you don't think that's fair now?

In the end, a Z06 with the Track and Carbon Package and a GT-R will bitch slap the GT500 at a track, which is where it matters. But they also cost nearly $40K more, so the GT500 is undeniably good at its price.

But a GT-R or Z06 it is not, especially since it needs 100HP and 150HP more respectively than what the GT-R and Z06 have to post comparable straight line speed and it will still be left in the dust when it gets twisty.
Click to expand...


All that said, what I find amusing is the fact that the GTR is considered heavy and it weighs basically the same as the GT500. And it does so with the additional weight of the AWD system.

I like the GT500, and I like the GTR. to me it just seems like the mustang should weigh 300#, or more, less.
 
Zivic said:
All that said, what I find amusing is the fact that the GTR is considered heavy and it weighs basically the same as the GT500. And it does so with the additional weight of the AWD system.

I like the GT500, and I like the GTR. to me it just seems like the mustang should weigh 300#, or more, less.
Click to expand...

You're right, actually. Why did the car gain so much weight in comparison to the Mustang GT? It's supposed to be more track-focused and therefore weigh less, not more. They should've gone more for a Boss 302 approach. In any case, it's still an amazing car for $60K, but it does need those extra 100-150HP to match the straight line speed of the Z06 and GT-R. Perhaps it's the chassis?
 
Pretty impressive that for less than $60k, you can have a 650hp Mustang, 580 Camaro or 475 Challenger. Just hope everyone enjoys these cars as they may be too expensive to fuel in the next 5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top