Just when we thought they actually did things right with the GT500.....
View attachment 464626
There's always something
View attachment 464626
There's always something
DocG2828 said:Although its already been said......a company that cares about building high quality performance cars understands the weight of the performance mods (s/c, etc.) and builds the rest of the car around that theme....lightens it up with advanced materials, loses stupid **** like a backseat, etc.
DocG2828 said:Although its already been said......a company that cares about building high quality performance cars understands the weight of the performance mods (s/c, etc.) and builds the rest of the car around that theme....lightens it up with advanced materials, loses stupid **** like a backseat, etc. The 500 is just a muscle car. Just like the 10,000# 64 GTO.
mity2 said:Read recent issue of car and driver. GT500 got its ass kicked by 100hp less, but almost 500lb lighter C6 Vette(Non-Z06). Mainly due to its porky weight
CatmanJJ said:Brad who used to be on here ran a 14.4 (I think) bone stock.
CatmanJJ said:F C&D (or was it R&T lol), they're a bunch of non-mustang driving retards...remember a few years ago when they tested a PI 4.6 vert to a tune of 15.1.
Exactly. The driver probably hasn't spent more time in either car. I imagine Evan Smith will run some crazy time, but it would be good if he would get some seat time in a 'Vette too -- for comparison.DocG2828 said:I can buy into magazines not always getting max performance out of their stand-alone tests....but when comparing two cars in a shoot-out, I highly doubt they bias the results. Honestly I'd trust their results more than SVT's publications. Now SVT has a reason to be biased.