Production Camaro revealed

[Pacfanweb]

Chevy sure missed the retro boat on this one.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Pariah

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

It's all relative. Compared to their contemporaries, they were heavyweights. The classic muscle cars, Charger, Challenger, GTO, Road Runner, etc, were not light and nimble track cars, they were large unwieldy tanks in their day.

That's incorrect. What contemporaries are you comparing a Charger, GTO, etc, to? They were the lightest cars in their class.

What was lighter than a Mustang or Camaro? Certainly not today's Mustangs and Camaros.


Sorry, but the Muscle Cars of the 60's WERE the smaller, lighter cars of the day, for the most part.

Large and unwieldy? Compared to today's cars, yes, at least the unwieldy part. The new Challenger is bigger than the original, though.

But for their day, they handled okay.

 

[Pariah]

The simple fact is that, in all practical applications, both cars offer performance on par with contemporary models that have IRS. Stop focusing on the suspension and start focusing on the resultant handling. Come out of your theoretical world and into practical applications.

A sampling of reviews:

"A small bump in the road traversed at the slightest discernible angle on dry pavement at 50mph will send the Shelby GT500?s rear end sideways with enough violence to engage the traction control...Second, it requires a suspension that's several orders of magnitude better than the one fitted to a 1972 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. While the GT500 has sufficient stoppers for a nose-heavy, morbidly obese, 500hp two-door? provided you don?t mind standing on the brake pedal? it serves-up less chassis control than a [very] Flexible Flyer."

"It's crazy because, with all that power flowing through the back wheels, Ford has chosen to keep the suspension beam bolted square to the chassis, which means that, every so often, you're going to feel every spin and slide of those 18? rims when you gun the power pedal. The back end will jump and hop around on the road like a yearling in foaling season."

"The ride is stiff but was never too firm for a highway cruise. The solid rear axle does cause slight panic on any turn where you try to accelerate and touch a seam or bump. The whole back end jumps and then powers through it."

"The ride gets harsh over rough surfaces, and the rear will dance on rippled surfaces, but it's all in the game."

"This Bullitt -- with a 4.6-liter, 315-hp V8 and a five-speed shifter between the seats -- is way better than the axle-winding lunatic I drove a few months ago, the 500-hp Shelby GT500. You know, sometimes more horsepower is not the answer, particularly when the question is an obsolete chassis with a live rear axle."

"One complaint we have with the Shelby in urban driving is the tendency of its back wheels to break traction when driving over the slightest of road imperfections. When this happens, the rear wheels undergo severe axle-hop, making the whole car judder and shake before regaining its balance."

"But while the previous SVT had a specially-designed independent rear suspension, the GT500 sticks with the standard Mustang's live (solid) rear axle....The GT500's steering lacks feedback, the live rear axle can be thrown into a tizzy by mid-corner bumps, and the car builds up speed with alarming rapidity (those big Brembo brakes saved my bacon more than once)."

"On straight, smooth surfaces the GT500 feels fine, and that's the only reason I'm handing out two stars. But if the road ahead should wind even slightly, the Shelby begins its rocking and bobbing. There's too much weight up front and too little technology out back in the live-axle setup for any other result. Rough surfaces are a nightmare of jolting and banging."



My theoretical world? I think not. Both 5th gear and Top Gear also trashed the GT500's handling and its stone age rear axle.

I like how you quoted the Ford provided stats of the GT500KR, which we know are always models of integrity and truth. The only other test drive I could find of the GT500KR was provided by Edmunds, who didn't have any number either, but they did note:

"Ford claims the KR has churned around the skid pad with a 1.00g result and has run the slalom in 71.7 mph in its preliminary testing. Perhaps Miller's track is less sticky than Ford's skid pad, or our seat-of-the-pants g-meter has lost its calibration, but the KR didn't feel as though it was generating quite as much grip through the turns at MMP as Ford thought. It was certainly cornering faster than the GT500, though."

Regardless, we aren't going to agree, and this has been beaten to death at this point.

What was lighter than a Mustang or Camaro? Certainly not today's Mustangs and Camaros.

Both are pony cars which fall in the compact category.

Sorry, but the Muscle Cars of the 60's WERE the smaller, lighter cars of the day, for the most part.

With many of them exceeding 200" in length, they were not considered smaller cars by any standard.

old (206.4") vs new (189.8")

And the recent GTO itself isn't considered a compact, but a mid sized coupe with true 2+2 seating.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah

The simple fact is that, in all practical applications, both cars offer performance on par with contemporary models that have IRS. Stop focusing on the suspension and start focusing on the resultant handling. Come out of your theoretical world and into practical applications.

A sampling of reviews:

"A small bump in the road traversed at the slightest discernible angle on dry pavement at 50mph will send the Shelby GT500?s rear end sideways with enough violence to engage the traction control...Second, it requires a suspension that's several orders of magnitude better than the one fitted to a 1972 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. While the GT500 has sufficient stoppers for a nose-heavy, morbidly obese, 500hp two-door? provided you don?t mind standing on the brake pedal? it serves-up less chassis control than a [very] Flexible Flyer."

"It's crazy because, with all that power flowing through the back wheels, Ford has chosen to keep the suspension beam bolted square to the chassis, which means that, every so often, you're going to feel every spin and slide of those 18? rims when you gun the power pedal. The back end will jump and hop around on the road like a yearling in foaling season."

"The ride is stiff but was never too firm for a highway cruise. The solid rear axle does cause slight panic on any turn where you try to accelerate and touch a seam or bump. The whole back end jumps and then powers through it."

"The ride gets harsh over rough surfaces, and the rear will dance on rippled surfaces, but it's all in the game."

"This Bullitt -- with a 4.6-liter, 315-hp V8 and a five-speed shifter between the seats -- is way better than the axle-winding lunatic I drove a few months ago, the 500-hp Shelby GT500. You know, sometimes more horsepower is not the answer, particularly when the question is an obsolete chassis with a live rear axle."

"One complaint we have with the Shelby in urban driving is the tendency of its back wheels to break traction when driving over the slightest of road imperfections. When this happens, the rear wheels undergo severe axle-hop, making the whole car judder and shake before regaining its balance."

"But while the previous SVT had a specially-designed independent rear suspension, the GT500 sticks with the standard Mustang's live (solid) rear axle....The GT500's steering lacks feedback, the live rear axle can be thrown into a tizzy by mid-corner bumps, and the car builds up speed with alarming rapidity (those big Brembo brakes saved my bacon more than once)."

"On straight, smooth surfaces the GT500 feels fine, and that's the only reason I'm handing out two stars. But if the road ahead should wind even slightly, the Shelby begins its rocking and bobbing. There's too much weight up front and too little technology out back in the live-axle setup for any other result. Rough surfaces are a nightmare of jolting and banging."



My theoretical world? I think not. Both 5th gear and Top Gear also trashed the GT500's handling and its stone age rear axle.

I like how you quoted the Ford provided stats of the GT500KR, which we know are always models of integrity and truth. The only other test drive I could find of the GT500KR was provided by Edmunds, who didn't have any number either, but they did note:

"Ford claims the KR has churned around the skid pad with a 1.00g result and has run the slalom in 71.7 mph in its preliminary testing. Perhaps Miller's track is less sticky than Ford's skid pad, or our seat-of-the-pants g-meter has lost its calibration, but the KR didn't feel as though it was generating quite as much grip through the turns at MMP as Ford thought. It was certainly cornering faster than the GT500, though."

Regardless, we aren't going to agree, and this has been beaten to death at this point.

What was lighter than a Mustang or Camaro? Certainly not today's Mustangs and Camaros.

Both are pony cars which fall in the compact category.

Sorry, but the Muscle Cars of the 60's WERE the smaller, lighter cars of the day, for the most part.

With many of them exceeding 200" in length, they were not considered smaller cars by any standard.

old (206.4") vs new (189.8")

And the recent GTO itself isn't considered a compact, but a mid sized coupe with true 2+2 seating.

GT500 != GT500KR.

I've covered that several times already, now you're just sticking your head in the sand by quoting reviews of the GT500, which I've already stated had handling issues rather than looking at numbers posted by the GT500KR which has a completely re-calibrated suspension when compared to the GT500. You also quote someone's seat-of-the-pants feel, which is, frankly, ridiculous. It's simply not possible for any person to accurately evaluate total numbers by just driving the car. That's why we have instrumented testing. Get back to me when some instrumented testing shows hard numbers.

ZV

 

[Pariah]

The fundamental problem of the solid rear axel getting unsettled cannot be eliminated unless Ford worked some incredible magic with the GT500KR. You post a seat-of-the-pants feel from Road & Track as evidence, I post an opposing one, and mine is ridiculous? Whatever, stop wasting people's time. End of thread.