Asymmetric Warfare

[ccap41]

Had to get some attention grabbing title in there . 

 

"Chairman Mao Zedong, a fan of the red but not so much of the white or the blue, once said, “I got more hoes than the ozone.” Oh wait, it might have been Abraham Lincoln who said that.

 

The quote we were Google-searching for from Chairman Mao was something about asymmetric warfare, about how a fighter must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea, which is way more poetic and stuff. And what we have here is a classic asymmetric fight; a battle in which one side is conventionally powerful and established and the other is a fish.

 

All of this brings us inextricably to the showdown that neither Chevrolet nor Ford probably had in mind: the one between the Corvette and the new Shelby GT350. We set out to find the best American sports car that a successful, but not necessarily rich, person could attain. We would want road-course competence from our winner, but not at the expense of real-world drivability, since it is sadly the real world in which we spend most of our time. Our winner should look fast, sound fast, and be fast. But most important, it should be thrilling to drive."

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2016-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-vs-2016-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-comparison-test

 

Fun read. You can't take it too serious, as the title states and they elude to right away they aren't really competitors to each other which makes it for an enjoyable read. Don't take it too serious fanboys  

 

Enjoy. 

[Suaviloquent]

You know, I never expected for the GT350 to even be close to a Corvette Z51 in anything, and they didn't even have an R model.

 

The car has a soul 'na mean?

 

And I would agree, if a car is thrilling to drive, then the numbers get lost to the surge of adrenaline.

 

Remember, sometimes the fastest way isn't always in a straight line.

[ccap41]

You know, I never expected for the GT350 to even be close to a Corvette Z51 in anything, and they didn't even have an R model.

 

The car has a soul 'na mean?

 

And I would agree, if a car is thrilling to drive, then the numbers get lost to the surge of adrenaline.

 

Remember, sometimes the fastest way isn't always in a straight line.

I completely agree. 

 

Cars these days are just getting close and closer to each other performance-wise. 

 

That's one reason I love the GT350 and the outgoing Z28 is they're cars that are just meant to be driven. None of that infotainment system crap in a GT style car. Ford won't let you get that stuff if you get the track pack on the GT350! A car with soul is a car that can be driven without a stereo even being installed. Just driver and car. 

[surreal1272]

Great read. However, I find the complaints about the Vette's 7 speed amusing. If you can't find the gears, go back to an auto slushbbox and remedial driving school.

[cp-the-nerd]

I wasn't a fan of this article. The score sheet REEKS of C&D's classic habit of twisting the numbers to generate controversy.

 

Somehow the Mustang gets 2 points for better interior and exterior styling than the Stingray (seriously..?), 2 points for steering, 2 points for brakes, and 3 points for the "fun to drive" factor. I'm almost surprised they didn't demerit the Corvette for not having rear seats!

 

Maybe the most ridiculous factor in this comparison is that Chevy already makes a pony car that matches this shelby in performance for less than 40 grand. Maybe next time they'll compare a Focus ST to a Regal GS.

[ccap41]

The "fun to drive" was kind of all the article was really about. The performance number are definitely in the corvette's hands and they knew it going into it, everybody knows.

[cp-the-nerd]

If they wanted controversy, they should have brought in the Camaro SS against the GT350, which is a comparo many are actually clamoring for. Instead they came up with this weird underdog narrative where the cheaper, slower Mustang beat a $70,000 Corvette, and blatantly wrote a script to fit their goal.

 

Chevy actually HAS a car for this, but no, let's use the Corvette, a sports car with nothing to gain by winning (and the article would have been a dud).

[ccap41]

Sometimes it's enjoyable to read a comparison on cars that aren't direct competitors but could possible be cross shopped because they're "similar" yet.

I actually think a Hellcat could have been a fun 3rd car in the mix. Dodge's take on a 60-70k performance toy. Yeah it would have lacked the track prowess but this wasn't just a track comparo.

[El Kabong]

I read this article weeks ago in my subscription copy. It's just clickbait.

[Suaviloquent]

There's quantitative aspects to performance and qualitative.

 

As for the comparison, it was probably done before the Camaro was available.

 

As for the victory - it only won by two points. Which mean's it didn't win and it tied. Which in of itself is still pretty rad.

 

You can get a Mustang which can come close to Corvette performance, but with the soul of something a little more. About even.

 

Now the price is something else... but people are paying that amount. Or even more. Which says something about the allure of the car...

 

I'd get a GT350. It's production numbers are super low compared to a Corvette Z51 even. 

 

It's a special car. And no, it's not the engine. No the entire package. It's special, the whole thing. And so is the Z51. But they are different in their flavours. 

[El Kabong]

Sorry to the haters... but the reason for the article was quite simple: they wanted to give the GT350 some props before the Camaro 1LE arrived. And the only way to do that was to give it a touchy-feely victory over a car that outran it but cost 15 grand more.

Particularly amusing were C/D's gripes about the Corvette having one gear too many and steering that (aside from being a three year-old setup now) wasn't as nice as the Mustang's. Well... if that's all you could whine about, just relax, because the Camaro has both of those covered, at a starting price roughly TWENTY GRAND LOWER.

That's the problem with being a generation behind the competition: you either take your lumps at the track, or you take them at the salesman's desk. But sure 'nuff you're gonna take them.

[Suaviloquent]

So you're again going to be that guy? Dismiss anything that isn't self-consistent? That's again, shockingly, a trait you despise in others.

 

Well then throw every kind of subjective category out of the window, even how a car feels out and let's make every contest one about performance - namely your fixation on straight-line speed.

 

The wise crack about sales desk, is that for reasons beyond belief, people pay usually very close to if not more for the GT350/R than a similar Corvette.

 

Some cars are just special man. That's all the article is saying. I'm not sure if a ILE will feel as special. I really don't, because this GT350/R also won before in the sister magazine car and driver against the Z06 and a whole slew of competitors at Road and Track.

 

And if the Camaro ILE is better than a Z06 then that's a pretty interesting problem to be had. 

 

Price isn't a factor when you get up there - certainly not for Ford (in the case of dealer markup) or Chevy even, otherwise why would Porsche ever hope to exist against the Corvette? And then you realize, oh $h!, this car is legit.

 

Gripes for all. And being a generation behind? It's a matter of engines and chassis tuning. Last I checked the Alpha Camaro only weighs within 100 lbs lighter that of an equivalent Mustang. Not that much lighter.

[El Kabong]

Sorry man. But it's not just me, or my fixation on one or two things. Don't believe me? Consider:

-Screw straight line speed. The SS also brakes better and goes around a skid pad roughly as good as the Shelby. Starting at 37 large and 3,650 pounds!

-R&T gave the GT350 their best drivers car award, then the guy who wrote up their initial Camaro drive said they may have been premature in doing that.

-Your belief that the 1LE will outdo a Z06 is absurd. Perhaps you meant Z51. But again, it goes to the crux of their test: nobody is seriously going to cross-shop a Corvette with a pony car-any pony car. They exist for different clientele.

-Price is definitely a factor. When you sit across from the sales guy and he slides that offer sheet across to you, you WILL clear your throat. Trust me.

-The only objective thinking that justifies the Shelby's price is if the buyer regards it as an investment. But anyone who buys a Shelby as an investment is daft. Ford is going to build as many as it can, and if the residuals of the old GT500 are anything to go by then they'd be as well off buying a Zeta ZL1 (in Canada at least-I checked out a Black Book a while back). Therefore, it comes down to what I said a long time ago about this car: you really, REALLY gotta love this engine in order to buy this car. Because that redline is all it has that's really distinctive.

Also (for those who read the article), it was interesting to note the NVH issues C/D observed.

All objective, man. And yes, still a generation behind. That's not me being some kind of whatever you think it is I am. That's just me looking at the facts and wondering "where's the beef?"

Edited February 10, 2016 by El Kabong

[ccap41]

37k does not get you the super duper magnet shocks in an SS. I believe that starts at 42k, with the 2SS? Either way, it is not 37k for a car that "comes close" to a GT350 and even then it is lacking about 75hp. 

 

LOL at your salesman assumption as if that means anything. 

 

Yeah, they had no issues with the additional NVH of the GT350. They liked it because it made the car what it is, a driver's car.

 

"And it is glorious. True, it doesn’t really come alive and pull in earnest until 4000 rpm. But even then, it’s barely halfway through the tachometer. Its 526 horsepower arrives at 7500 rpm, and by the time you get there, you’re also at peak titillation—your nerve endings buzzing in concert with the engine’s zing. It’s not a pretty-sounding thing. Instead, its blare is of a machine that seems to care only about the beauty of power. Its creators think burbling exhaust notes are, at best, cute.

 

Owing to its crankshaft design and lack of balance shafts, this is not the smoothest V-8. It is, in fact, one of the least smooth. Shoot through to the far side of the tach and the engine sends a mighty vibration through the pedals and the dash and your seat bottom. Perhaps this is why Quiroga described the GT350 as a “Sybian.” We wouldn’t know. But we do know that, in this case, the vibration is exhilarating, even if the instrument-panel pieces might not like it in the long run."

 

Nice to see the "what if/wait till" excuse on the "it's a generation behind". Ya know the only people that use that excuse..? Fanboys.  

[Frisky Dingo]

I'd personally rather have the Shelby.

[cp-the-nerd]

@ccap - MT ran their test of the Camaro SS with the standard conventional suspension and pulled 1g. However, if you want magnetic ride control, it's a $1,695 option on any SS, for a total of $38,990 to start.

[Frisky Dingo]

The SS doesn't need MRC.

[oldshurst442]

I'd personally rather have the Shelby.

Count me in on that thought as well.

Money be damned on this level.

 

 

CCAP and maybe even you have said this before...

 

The 5.2 liter flat plane crank V8 is worth more than the price of admission for this car.

 

Oh...Hellcat Challenger too...I would take over the Camaro...

And he Hellcat is a beast on wheels. Not a light ballerina like the Camaro...

 

Oh...and DAT straight line speed, the Hellcat just kills it!

Edited February 11, 2016 by oldshurst442

[El Kabong]

In any event, I believe that this is going to be a much more suitable comparo contestant. I still like the standard SS's chances, but the 1LE appears to have the goods to do the deed:

http://m.caranddriver.com/news/2017-chevrolet-camaro-1le-v-6-v-8-photos-and-info-news

[ccap41]

@ccap - MT ran their test of the Camaro SS with the standard conventional suspension and pulled 1g. However, if you want magnetic ride control, it's a $1,695 option on any SS, for a total of $38,990 to start.

Okay, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if it was a standard feature on the 2SS or a stand alone option. But if we're talking about competing with the Shelby it would probably need the brake package as well bringing it up to 42k(while the Shelby with its track pack is like 55k). Still at 42k it is a "bargain" performer.

[ccap41]

 

I'd personally rather have the Shelby.

Count me in on that thought as well.

Money be damned on this level.

 

 

CCAP and maybe even you have said this before...

 

The 5.2 liter flat plane crank V8 is worth more than the price of admission for this car.

 

Oh...Hellcat Challenger too...I would take over the Camaro...

And he Hellcat is a beast on wheels. Not a light ballerina like the Camaro...

 

Oh...and DAT straight line speed, the Hellcat just kills it!

 

Personally, I completely agree on the 5.2 front. It's a special engine and most likely it'll go down as a "classic" because I doubt it will be used long term. 

 

To me, there's nothing special about a regular Corvette. Great car? Absolutely. Special? Not unless it is a Z06. 

 

Hellcat is one NASTY freakin' car.. but that's been rehashed a few times. Everybody already knows that. lol

Edited February 11, 2016 by ccap41

[oldshurst442]

Yeah...Im guilty as "HELL" in rehashing the merits and the praises of the Hellcat.

 

Im spellbound by her charms.

She has got me in her sights and she simply wont let go of me. Im a prisoner of her love!

[Frisky Dingo]

Cost no object, if I had a proper back road carver, I'd take the Hellcat over the Camaro as well.

[ccap41]

Cost no object, if I had a proper back road carver, I'd take the Hellcat over the Camaro as well.

Pride and cost were no object, I'd be in a BR-Z or Miata or 99-04 gen Mustang(Terminator preferred - or Cobra R). This is STRICTLY because I'm more comfortable in smaller vehicles, especially if I'm "gettin' after it". 

 

The sight lines completely kill the Camaro to me when it comes to sitting in it. That is still the one gripe I have about the Camaro. Aesthetically, everybody has different opinions on the car, that's whatever. But id I can't see out of the dang thing it doesn't matter how good or bad it looks I can't comfortably drive it.

Yeah...Im guilty as "HELL" in rehashing the merits and the praises of the Hellcat.

 

Im spellbound by her charms.

She has got me in her sights and she simply wont let go of me. Im a prisoner of her love!

Hahaha and I don't even care. It's one badass car. 

 

Do you have an extra place to put a 3rd car? 

[El Kabong]

Cost no object, if I had a proper back road carver, I'd take the Hellcat over the Camaro as well.

The thing about the Hellcat is that it's got 700+hp in a (somewhat) affordable package, and it's able to use it really well in a straight line. Even around a typical track it's still about as good as an STi (based on a vid MT did a while back). So yeah, right now I can see where someone could say that.

But if GM decides to put a 640hp LT4 in the Camaro then things could get shaken up again.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

@ccap - MT ran their test of the Camaro SS with the standard conventional suspension and pulled 1g. However, if you want magnetic ride control, it's a $1,695 option on any SS, for a total of $38,990 to start.

Okay, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if it was a standard feature on the 2SS or a stand alone option. But if we're talking about competing with the Shelby it would probably need the brake package as well bringing it up to 42k(while the Shelby with its track pack is like 55k). Still at 42k it is a "bargain" performer.

 

 

I suppose the upgraded 6 piston brakes would help longevity at the track, but keep in mind during MT's testing the 4 piston standard brembos on the SS stopped shorter than the 6 piston upgraded brakes on the GT performance pkg during a comparo, and only 2 feet shy of the GT350 track pack they tested at another time.

 

But that's all a moot point (not sure if you were implying this with the end of your comment) because a base GT350 lacks magnetic ride, some handling equipment (under hood bracing, springs), and all the track cooling systems.

[ccap41]

 

 

@ccap - MT ran their test of the Camaro SS with the standard conventional suspension and pulled 1g. However, if you want magnetic ride control, it's a $1,695 option on any SS, for a total of $38,990 to start.

Okay, that makes sense. I wasn't sure if it was a standard feature on the 2SS or a stand alone option. But if we're talking about competing with the Shelby it would probably need the brake package as well bringing it up to 42k(while the Shelby with its track pack is like 55k). Still at 42k it is a "bargain" performer.

 

 

I suppose the upgraded 6 piston brakes would help longevity at the track, but keep in mind during MT's testing the 4 piston standard brembos on the SS stopped shorter than the 6 piston upgraded brakes on the GT performance pkg during a comparo, and only 2 feet shy of the GT350 track pack they tested at another time.

 

But that's all a moot point (not sure if you were implying this with the end of your comment) because a base GT350 lacks magnetic ride, some handling equipment (under hood bracing, springs), and all the track cooling systems.

 

I think a lot of the benefit of the upgraded brakes would be the repeat-ability. Yes, they will stop harder and better but packages like that tend to be "track packages" and I would assume they are all steel braided brake lines, better cooling, better heat dissipating materials. 

 

Yeah that was what I was getting at in my last point. While adding the brakes and MRC to the SS may bring it to 42k and the base GT350 is 49k, or something like that, you need the track package the brings it to 55k anyway. so it isn't just a 7k difference.. it's basically the difference between a base SS and base GT350.. 37-49 again or 42-55. Close enough. 

 

I put "bargain" performer because in my eyes 42k is a lot of money on something I couldn't drive every day but at the same time for 42k and all OEM it does some kick ass things.