Mr.E.G.

All you have to do is ask for clarification & not sound like a cock by saying I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be confusing in that you say that you "never even addressing the issue of cornering, or using the power on a track" but then you ask "In what way specifically can the Vette chassis handle the power better than the Mustang chassis? In what way specifically can the Vette suspension handle the hp better?" So if it's not cornering, or power on the track, then I'm not sure what you mean other then maybe a straight line.

For clarity sake I will address why IMO & what I mean that the ZR1 is certainly built to handle 600+hp far better than the GT500 in a straightline as well as cornering & track.

For one thing 285's in the rear vs. 335's. That's a full 10 cm's/100 mm's more of rubber for traction to handle the launch & help in the cornering of a 600+ hp car. Not to mention 255's up front for the GT500 vs. 285's in the front for the ZR1 for cornering.

Second, double wishbone suspension vs. solid axle. Tuned MRSC vs. traditional Mustang tuned suspension

Third, 3350 lbs. vs. 3800 lbs.

Fourth, you have 56/44 Front/Rear balance on the GT500 vs. 52/48 for the ZR1 to help the handling when pushing the 600+hp car in the corners

Fifth, brakes on the GT500 are 14" front & 11.8" on the rear vs. 15.5" front & 15" rears ceramic on the ZR1 to haul down a 600+ hp car.

Finally, ride height on the GT500 = 54.5" vs. 48.7" for the ZR1.

The GT500 is a phenomenal car for the value, but even in the most recent Road & Track article it was clearly outclassed (by the far more expensive) by the Z06 & GTR. Hope that is clear enough for you on why the ZR1 is built to handle 600+ hp than the GT500.
[/quote]


No, no, that's precisely my point. My original comment was in regard to all of the people saying that 600 hp is useless on the the street. Their implication was twofold: 1. you can't actually use that power in the sense that all you'll get is wheel spin, and/ or 2. that much power is useless in a practical sense because you'll easily exceed the speed limit and therefore never be able to take advantage of it. I then said that it struck me as odd that neither of these concerns were mentioned in all of the ZR1 threads. Once again, I never said one car was better than the other (though I think I have since made it abundantly clear that I feel the ZR1 is a the superior car in every way that matters to me. Guess what, that doesn't have much to do with accelerating)and I was referring SPECIFICALLY to the claim that much power was useless in terms of accelerating on the street.

So from my perspective, the conversation went like this:

other posters: 600 hp is useless on the street

me: It's funny you guys mention that but never brought it up in regard to the ZR1.

you: nah ahh because the ZR1 handles better on a racetrack.

Great. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You follow me here? I was responding to the clams that 600 hp is useless on the street. So naturally, when you chime in with your rebuttal about how the ZR1 can make better use of that 600 hp, I am thinking that you're talking about using that power in the context that I was originally discussing (read: street driving or accelerating/ launching). Not being a dick here, but isn't that obvious? If I state that A is true based on B, why would you bring up C? Thus I asked you to explain how the ZR1 is better at putting power to the ground. I thought you mentioned handling as an aside and that you were referring to the Corvette's suspension as being superior to the Mustang in terms of actually using 600 hp on the street, since that is what I was talking about. I didn't realize we were talking about handling. You see what I mean?

Again, I am completely aware of and in complete agreement about the ZR1's superiority in handling matters and/ or making use of that power on a track. I never said anything to the contrary. But I was clearly addressing the street driving concerns and said nothing about handling. When I asked you to clarify, I wanted you to explain how the ZR1's superior chassis and wishbone suspension was going to somehow bless it with the ability to be practical for street driving while the Mustang was useless. I will note that the long swing axle length of the Corvette's rear suspension results in what is arguably one of the best all purpose rear suspension configurations in that the camber change is minimal during squat (compared to say the short swing axle length of my Miata which makes it prone to wheel hop under launch due to the wide variance of camber relative to suspension movement) but it is still less than ideal than a solid rear axle in the context of hooking up during launch. As you aware there are many factors that come into play that will determine the net acceleration properties of a vehicle but the suspension configuration is arguably one of the most relevant single element in the equation (a distant second behind the choice of tires of course), and while the Corvette represents a damn good compromise of all of them all, it is still at a theoretical disadvantage relative to a solid rear axle. But when I think we're talking about the point I made in regard to hooking up and then read your comments, call me crazy but I can't help but think that you are saying that the Corvette's suspension makes it better at hooking up (making use of all that power on the street). Just so we're crystal clear, I drew no comparisons between both of the vehicles and I never said that the Mustang will definitely hook up better than the Corvette. But when your rebutting a point that I never made, how am I supposed to read your comment as anything but "the Corvette can accelerate better because of its inherently better suspension setup"...? Thus, I asked you to explain.

All of that stuff you mentioned about the Corvette's brakes and the weight distribution, etc. (aside from being completely obvious) I agree with. But again, I never said anything to the contrary.

One more time, I read people saying that the Mustang is pointless at that power level IN REGARD TO DRIVING ON THE STREET and I commented on how it's odd that no one seemed to feel that way about Corvette ZR1 (again, I was mostly addressing the issue of that much power being practical in terms of ever actually needing to go super fast on the street, which I think is painfully obvious from my comment about how that much power isn't needed on the street but is available for the rare occasion that you can cut loss. Please not how I didn't say word one about handling or lap times or walking on the moon.) You then said that the ZR1 is better because of its suspension, etc. and I was dying to hear how you thought that was the case in terms of what I was talking about, since that's generally how rebuttals work. You then fired back about how the ZR1 is a better track car and how it handles better (no shit?) and I didn't realize that until your last post that you're talking about something altogether different.

I swear to go I'm going to punch an old lady if you start debating with me about which vehicle handles better.

This whole thing has devolved into a semantic clusterfvkk. Can we be friends now and share an ice cream cone?

Mr.E.G.

Again, I was never comparing the two. I agree with your comments just about entirely. Lastly, I suspected you could fit wider tires in the rear with no trouble. As I stated, I was speculating but I found it hard to imagine that you couldn't.

Fanman

All you have to do is ask for clarification & not sound like a cock by saying I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be confusing in that you say that you "never even addressing the issue of cornering, or using the power on a track" but then you ask "In what way specifically can the Vette chassis handle the power better than the Mustang chassis? In what way specifically can the Vette suspension handle the hp better?" So if it's not cornering, or power on the track, then I'm not sure what you mean other then maybe a straight line.

For clarity sake I will address why IMO & what I mean that the ZR1 is certainly built to handle 600+hp far better than the GT500 in a straightline as well as cornering & track.

For one thing 285's in the rear vs. 335's. That's a full 10 cm's/100 mm's more of rubber for traction to handle the launch & help in the cornering of a 600+ hp car. Not to mention 255's up front for the GT500 vs. 285's in the front for the ZR1 for cornering.

Second, double wishbone suspension vs. solid axle. Tuned MRSC vs. traditional Mustang tuned suspension

Third, 3350 lbs. vs. 3800 lbs.

Fourth, you have 56/44 Front/Rear balance on the GT500 vs. 52/48 for the ZR1 to help the handling when pushing the 600+hp car in the corners

Fifth, brakes on the GT500 are 14" front & 11.8" on the rear vs. 15.5" front & 15" rears ceramic on the ZR1 to haul down a 600+ hp car.

Finally, ride height on the GT500 = 54.5" vs. 48.7" for the ZR1.

The GT500 is a phenomenal car for the value, but even in the most recent Road & Track article it was clearly outclassed (by the far more expensive) by the Z06 & GTR. Hope that is clear enough for you on why the ZR1 is built to handle 600+ hp than the GT500.
[/quote]


No, no, that's precisely my point. My original comment was in regard to all of the people saying that 600 hp is useless on the the street. Their implication was twofold: 1. you can't actually use that power in the sense that all you'll get is wheel spin, and/ or 2. that much power is useless in a practical sense because you'll easily exceed the speed limit and therefore never be able to take advantage of it. I then said that it struck me as odd that neither of these concerns were mentioned in all of the ZR1 threads. Once again, I never said one car was better than the other (though I think I have since made it abundantly clear that I feel the ZR1 is a the superior car in every way that matters to me. Guess what, that doesn't have much to do with accelerating)and I was referring SPECIFICALLY to the claim that much power was useless in terms of accelerating on the street.

So from my perspective, the conversation went like this:

other posters: 600 hp is useless on the street

me: It's funny you guys mention that but never brought it up in regard to the ZR1.

you: nah ahh because the ZR1 handles better on a racetrack.

Great. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You follow me here? I was responding to the clams that 600 hp is useless on the street. So naturally, when you chime in with your rebuttal about how the ZR1 can make better use of that 600 hp, I am thinking that you're talking about using that power in the context that I was originally discussing (read: street driving or accelerating/ launching). Not being a dick here, but isn't that obvious? If I state that A is true based on B, why would you bring up C? Thus I asked you to explain how the ZR1 is better at putting power to the ground. I thought you mentioned handling as an aside and that you were referring to the Corvette's suspension as being superior to the Mustang in terms of actually using 600 hp on the street, since that is what I was talking about. I didn't realize we were talking about handling. You see what I mean?

Again, I am completely aware of and in complete agreement about the ZR1's superiority in handling matters and/ or making use of that power on a track. I never said anything to the contrary. But I was clearly addressing the street driving concerns and said nothing about handling. When I asked you to clarify, I wanted you to explain how the ZR1's superior chassis and wishbone suspension was going to somehow bless it with the ability to be practical for street driving while the Mustang was useless. I will note that the long swing axle length of the Corvette's rear suspension results in what is arguably one of the best all purpose rear suspension configurations in that the camber change is minimal during squat (compared to say the short swing axle length of my Miata which makes it prone to wheel hop under launch due to the wide variance of camber relative to suspension movement) but it is still less than ideal than a solid rear axle in the context of hooking up during launch. As you aware there are many factors that come into play that will determine the net acceleration properties of a vehicle but the suspension configuration is arguably one of the most relevant single element in the equation (a distant second behind the choice of tires of course), and while the Corvette represents a damn good compromise of all of them all, it is still at a theoretical disadvantage relative to a solid rear axle. But when I think we're talking about the point I made in regard to hooking up and then read your comments, call me crazy but I can't help but think that you are saying that the Corvette's suspension makes it better at hooking up (making use of all that power on the street). Just so we're crystal clear, I drew no comparisons between both of the vehicles and I never said that the Mustang will definitely hook up better than the Corvette. But when your rebutting a point that I never made, how am I supposed to read your comment as anything but "the Corvette can accelerate better because of its inherently better suspension setup"...? Thus, I asked you to explain.

All of that stuff you mentioned about the Corvette's brakes and the weight distribution, etc. (aside from being completely obvious) I agree with. But again, I never said anything to the contrary.

One more time, I read people saying that the Mustang is pointless at that power level IN REGARD TO DRIVING ON THE STREET and I commented on how it's odd that no one seemed to feel that way about Corvette ZR1 (again, I was mostly addressing the issue of that much power being practical in terms of ever actually needing to go super fast on the street, which I think is painfully obvious from my comment about how that much power isn't needed on the street but is available for the rare occasion that you can cut loss. Please not how I didn't say word one about handling or lap times or walking on the moon.) You then said that the ZR1 is better because of its suspension, etc. and I was dying to hear how you thought that was the case in terms of what I was talking about, since that's generally how rebuttals work. You then fired back about how the ZR1 is a better track car and how it handles better (no shit?) and I didn't realize that until your last post that you're talking about something altogether different.

I swear to go I'm going to punch an old lady if you start debating with me about which vehicle handles better.

This whole thing has devolved into a semantic clusterfvkk. Can we be friends now and share an ice cream cone?
[/quote]

That you are talking about just the street wasn't clear from your original post. This thread has been muddled a bit as most on here have talked about the GT500 as an overall car, & another poster has talked about it on the street. If you are just talking about a car from stoplight to stoplight, maybe 0-60, then I agree hardly anyone would notice whether you have a 412 hp or a 600 hp GT500, or a 430 hp Corvette or a 638 hp ZR1. I would disagree in that everyone here would pretty much agree that a ZR1 is you are just talking street driving is pretty much useless as well. That is a given. Unless you do some serious canyon carving & take it to the track you will never find the advantages of one platform vs. the other. AS I pointed out in my original post, the GT500, Z06 & GTR in the article in MT were run on a track. And the solid beam axle vs. double wishbone is a handling issue, not a hooking up issue (prior to you clarifying your point). The extra rubber helping the car hook up stands though. Both cars ARE basically useless if you are strictly talking about driving on the street, unless you live where there are some seriously long roads & no speed limits.

RaDZio

I daily drive 500hp(400 whp on dyno dynamics dyno, 452 whp on regular dynojet) car that weights 2200lb, I have ZERO problems driving it. First gear when turbo spools is ridiculous, but 2nd is fine with just a bit of wheel-spin, enough to make it fun. After changing wastegate spring it will have about 100whp more, I don't think I will have any problems then either.
Mustang weights about 4000 pounds? I really don't see 600hp being that much of a deal in car that heavy.

Mr.E.G.

A few weekends ago I took my buddy's 478whp (as measured on dyno dynamics) Civic out for a joy ride. Needless to say, hooking up was a bit of a challenge under full throttle in, well, every gear. I was never in any danger of losing control in the car, it just required some additional attention to the steering wheel. So I agree with you that you can drive such a vehicle without incident, particularly when you take into consideration that your right foot is the gatekeeper of acceleration and any 600hpo car also is a 100hp if you don't give it all of the throttle.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how impractical it is for a person to have a car that is capable of going 100mph in the blink of an eye for street driving. The idea being that no one needs to have a car that is that fast on the street. This goes back to my original point whereby I suggested that there are other stupid fast cars that we have no problems with.