[MisterF80M3]

BMW needs to step up. 70k car with 760HP. I paid 80k for a F80 and it only came with 425HP.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by MisterF80M3

BMW needs to step up. 70k car with 760HP. I paid 80k for a F80 and it only came with 425HP.

Well, dynoing 425, yours probably has around 500 at the crank and the shelby is most definitely measured at the crank. Still not 760, but when you do the math with the dynos the crank HP should be significantly more. Also, you have a flat torque curve, which the shelby most certainly does not. Torque below the curve is what wins races and gives you the seat-of-the-pants experience. Putting down 760hp is another matter and on a road course, it's damn near impossible without radical mclaren-like engineering. The ZL1 has less HP, but beats it around a track because of these two factors, torque and handling (to put down the power). And it's not that the GT500 sucks around a track, it doesn't, but going that high with the HP increases the requirements for everything else if you are going to put down the power and take full advantage of it. It's an impressive machine, but I don't think it's much more than an M3 or M4, they are simply different machines.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Well, dynoing 425, yours probably has around 500 at the crank and the shelby is most definitely measured at the crank. Still not 760, but when you do the math with the dynos the crank HP should be significantly more. Also, you have a flat torque curve, which the shelby most certainly does not. Torque below the curve is what wins races and gives you the seat-of-the-pants experience. Putting down 760hp is another matter and on a road course, it's damn near impossible without radical mclaren-like engineering. The ZL1 has less HP, but beats it around a track because of these two factors, torque and handling (to put down the power). And it's not that the GT500 sucks around a track, it doesn't, but going that high with the HP increases the requirements for everything else if you are going to put down the power and take full advantage of it. It's an impressive machine, but I don't think it's much more than an M3 or M4, they are simply different machines.

Uh, no? The GT500 most certainly is underrated and also certainly has a flat torque curve. I'm not sure why you'd think a larger motor with more cylinders would be inferior to the S58, but here's a dyno, just to give you a glimpse of what's going on with the GT500.

Of note, I do think you're talking about the GT350, which is naturally aspirated, would have a more traditional torque curve, does get out lapped by a ZL1, but most certainly does not have 760 hp. The GT500 will not be outpaced by a ZL1 on probably any track.

[IMG]https://www.racepagesdigital.com/wp-...0-tuning-2.jpg[/IMG]

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Uh, no? The GT500 most certainly is underrated and also certainly has a flat torque curve. I'm not sure why you'd think a larger motor with more cylinders would be inferior to the S58, but here's a dyno, just to give you a glimpse of what's going on with the GT500.

Of note, I do think you're talking about the GT350, which is naturally aspirated, would have a more traditional torque curve, does get out lapped by a ZL1, but most certainly does not have 760 hp. The GT500 will not be outpaced by a ZL1 on probably any track.

[IMG]https://www.racepagesdigital.com/wp-...0-tuning-2.jpg[/IMG]

GT500 already beat by a ZL1:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30540966/2020-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-vs-2019-chevy-camaro-zl1-1le/

The non-1LE is the same or faster to 60 and in the quarter and it’s no slouch on the track either. ZL1 faster to 60, a wash at the quarter and faster on the track.

Underrated?

[gonzo]

I'm trying to find one. I've owned one Ford in my life which was an old f150 beater on the ranch and it was indestructible.

Every test I've watched on the GT500 ends with praise for the car. Manageability, brakes, handling and ride comfort off track are all there.
Manageability was my biggest concern.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

GT500 already beat by a ZL1:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...amaro-zl1-1le/

The non-1LE is the same or faster to 60 and in the quarter and it's no slouch on the track either. ZL1 faster to 60, a wash at the quarter and faster on the track.

Underrated?

Where does that say it's faster on the track? I just saw max grip numbers, no lap times.

It was still 8 mph behind at the quarter, they were clearly having an easier time hooking up the Camaro.

Why can't someone build one of these two in 5/8's scale, and 500-600 pounds lighter?

[5.M0NSTER]

Or is it?

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Or is it?

Same 8 mph advantage as C&D had, just with the Mustang having the favorable launch this time. There's no denying that the Mustang is pulling away at the end.

[gonzo]

Good golly.

*2.50 griptech pulley from Lethal Performance
*Race pipes from Lethal Performance
*ID1050x injectors from Lethal Performance
*R888R tires
*Palmbeachdyno E85 tune

9.7s @ 144 mph.

[TXSTYLE]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Good golly.

*2.50 griptech pulley from Lethal Performance
*Race pipes from Lethal Performance
*ID1050x injectors from Lethal Performance
*R888R tires
*Palmbeachdyno E85 tune

9.7s @ 144 mph.

That's foking bananas! Basically a trailer car for the road.

[See5]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Well, dynoing 425, yours probably has around 500 at the crank and the shelby is most definitely measured at the crank. Still not 760, but when you do the math with the dynos the crank HP should be significantly more. Also, you have a flat torque curve, which the shelby most certainly does not. Torque below the curve is what wins races and gives you the seat-of-the-pants experience. Putting down 760hp is another matter and on a road course, it's damn near impossible without radical mclaren-like engineering. The ZL1 has less HP, but beats it around a track because of these two factors, torque and handling (to put down the power). And it's not that the GT500 sucks around a track, it doesn't, but going that high with the HP increases the requirements for everything else if you are going to put down the power and take full advantage of it. It's an impressive machine, but I don't think it's much more than an M3 or M4, they are simply different machines.

Lol at this whole post.

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by See5

Lol at this whole post.

I started to say something, but stopped.

Incidentally and you probably already know this since you have owned some, my MT C6 has averaged about 16% loss through the drive-train stock and through each mod. Tested with numerous dynos and it's almost the same every time.

My old C6Z was the same. Stock rwhp accounting for 16% loss came out at around 507hp at the crank.

That's pretty good considering some of the cars I have owned. Advertised HP can be all over the board. My E46 M3 MT had around a 21% loss.

I once had a new 2004 Terminator that was advertised at 390/390 at the crank. Within a week I had it tested on a dyno and it almost put that exact number down to the rear wheel. So it was underrated big time.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by pennsiveguy

Did you arrive at that 16% loss factor by comparing engine dyno vs. chassis dyno? Just curious.

Further it seems like 15% still applies to manuals, but the two pedal set is seeing something in the 8-10% range these days.

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Further it seems like 15% still applies to manuals, but the two pedal set is seeing something in the 8-10% range these days.

That is crazy how efficient they have become. I don't see pennsiveguy response except in your quote....but all my dynos were on chassis dynos to answer his question.

My stock C6 put down ~ 375 if I recall correctly. So pretty close to the advertised 430 Crank HP.

And as mentioned, my previous stock C6Z was almost 440 at the wheels....so again close to the advertised crank hp.

In retrospect, that car had plenty of hp stock but I did H/C/I like everyone else. Really a lot of unusable power and just bragging rights. My wife would not ride in this car with me at all after that work.

That's why with my current one, I stopped where I did. For a car that is as light as it is, it's plenty as a weekend fun car and enough to get me into trouble or even worse...."bite me" if I'm not paying attention. Plus my wife will go along for the ride now.

I plan at some point to move to a C7, but I probably won't do any modifications to it. I guess I have mellowed out as I have aged!

Don't get me wrong as I love seeing the crazy HP numbers again. And I love the fact that they are making them more capable of putting it all down to the road.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by MisterF80M3

BMW needs to step up. 70k car with 760HP. I paid 80k for a F80 and it only came with 425HP.

Sucker born every minute

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Well, dynoing 425, yours probably has around 500 at the crank and the shelby is most definitely measured at the crank. Still not 760, but when you do the math with the dynos the crank HP should be significantly more. Also, you have a flat torque curve, which the shelby most certainly does not. Torque below the curve is what wins races and gives you the seat-of-the-pants experience. Putting down 760hp is another matter and on a road course, it's damn near impossible without radical mclaren-like engineering. The ZL1 has less HP, but beats it around a track because of these two factors, torque and handling (to put down the power). And it's not that the GT500 sucks around a track, it doesn't, but going that high with the HP increases the requirements for everything else if you are going to put down the power and take full advantage of it. It's an impressive machine, but I don't think it's much more than an M3 or M4, they are simply different machines.

The weight is the problem more than it having more HP.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by Rmtt

That is crazy how efficient they have become. I don't see pennsiveguy response except in your quote....but all my dynos were on chassis dynos to answer his question.

My stock C6 put down ~ 375 if I recall correctly. So pretty close to the advertised 430 Crank HP.

And as mentioned, my previous stock C6Z was almost 440 at the wheels....so again close to the advertised crank hp.

In retrospect, that car had plenty of hp stock but I did H/C/I like everyone else. Really a lot of unusable power and just bragging rights. My wife would not ride in this car with me at all after that work.

That's why with my current one, I stopped where I did. For a car that is as light as it is, it's plenty as a weekend fun car and enough to get me into trouble or even worse...."bite me" if I'm not paying attention. Plus my wife will go along for the ride now.

I plan at some point to move to a C7, but I probably won't do any modifications to it. I guess I have mellowed out as I have aged!

Don't get me wrong as I love seeing the crazy HP numbers again. And I love the fact that they are making them more capable of putting it all down to the road.

Unusable? You wasted the car LOL. My C6Z had exhaust, intake, cam, blah blah 535 WHP & it was not wasted in my hands.

The LS2 C6 I had before that put down 384 WHP with exhaust, intake & tune.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Same 8 mph advantage as C&D had, just with the Mustang having the favorable launch this time. There's no denying that the Mustang is pulling away at the end.

Aero. If the RE driver did not use the useless launch control, it would have been winning, and likely won, provided it got traction of course.

The Challenger is a brick so not surprised a GT500 would maybe pull away at high speeds, but the RE would be way ahead by then from a dig.

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by FuriouslyFast

Unusable? You wasted the car LOL. My C6Z had exhaust, intake, cam, blah blah 535 WHP & it was not wasted in my hands.

The LS2 C6 I had before that put down 384 WHP with exhaust, intake & tune.

My LS3 in my sig with exhaust, intake, and tune put down almost 420 WHP. The cam added the rest.

Now that was longtubes, a ported FAST from one of the best guys in the country, and tuned.

Most of the LS2's I seen with full exhaust, FAST, and tune were knocking at 400/400 to the wheels.

That's the allure of these cars. It's cheap and easy to add more power!

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by Rmtt

My LS3 in my sig with exhaust, intake, and tune put down almost 420 WHP. The cam added the rest.

Now that was longtubes, a ported FAST from one of the best guys in the country, and tuned.

Most of the LS2's I seen with full exhaust, FAST, and tune were knocking at 400/400 to the wheels.

That's the allure of these cars. It's cheap and easy to add more power!

The LS3 really is much better than the LS2 that's for sure. Especially now, a base C6 is stupid cheap for what you get. Even a C6Z can be had for low to mid 30s or less if you want high mileage.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by FuriouslyFast

The LS3 really is much better than the LS2 that's for sure. Especially now, a base C6 is stupid cheap for what you get. Even a C6Z can be had for low to mid 30s or less if you want high mileage.

A friend at work has an old C6, the first engine in it was not the LS3, that came for the next year's model. He kept offering me a ride because I took him in the 1LE. I must say, I was not impressed, not only was there miles of hard plastic, but it felt like I was sitting way up high and at 5'11", my head was at the top of the roof. It pulled nicely, but I think the C7 is the first generation that I'd seriously consider (in fact I did during shopping). Compared to that first year C6, the first C7s are at least 2-3x the quality, materials, seats, etc. Agree the LS3 was a good engine though, I had it and it was smooth and sweet. The torque curve was great.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

A friend at work has an old C6, the first engine in it was not the LS3, that came for the next year's model. He kept offering me a ride because I took him in the 1LE. I must say, I was not impressed, not only was there miles of hard plastic, but it felt like I was sitting way up high and at 5'11", my head was at the top of the roof. It pulled nicely, but I think the C7 is the first generation that I'd seriously consider (in fact I did during shopping). Compared to that first year C6, the first C7s are at least 2-3x the quality, materials, seats, etc. Agree the LS3 was a good engine though, I had it and it was smooth and sweet. The torque curve was great.

That's why I said LS3 > LS2. I know the LS3 came in the C6 after the LS2.

Sitting way high in a C6? LOL it's a super low sports car. Go drive a modded C6Z or C6 ZR1. You'll change your tune. Obviously, the C7 is a world better than the C6 with the interior.