2008 ZO6 vs 2008 GT500KR

12.8 1/4 mile time? I'm running that with bolt ons ....

NastyStang113 said:

12.8 1/4 mile time? I'm running that with bolt ons ....

Click to expand...

Yeah, I had to watch that twice, and was like HUH??????

A GT with bolt ons can do that, and most of the GT500KR's that I've seen are running mid 11's or better.

Also, 4.9 second 0-60 MPH? A bone stock GT has a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds........

bradleyem said:

Also, 4.9 second 0-60 MPH? A bone stock GT has a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds........

Click to expand...

True, but the KR is heavy as all get out. Its all about power to weight ratio, and the ratio on a KR is really not that much better than a GT.

My reaction to video was... "Well Duh!" Sometimes these car review mags/videos are just trying to kill time. Everyone knew what the outcome was going to be, the KR is a collectable Muscle Car, and the Corvette is a sport car. They started the video and said, there is no history of a rivalry, because there is no rivalry, because they are in different market niches.

These auto review sites are stuck in a bit of a rut. They always run the same tests, it is formulaic. I am not saying that is all bad, but you have to see when the tests are somewhat irrelevant, like sending a 4x4 on a quarter mile. Its sorta cool, but you'd better not buy a 4x4 based on quarter mile performance. A KR for example, does not do so well in the solemn. That would be important if you were buying a KR as a track car, but no one does. People buy the KR to keep as a collectable, or, to do burnouts around town. That is why it has 500+ hp attached to skinnier tires. It is a burnout machine, pure and simple. Look good and smoke the tires. Solemn runs are irrelevant.

They should have done a test where they did burnout in font of some hot models and seen which driver the models then wanted to hang out with. That is a test I would like to see. I dont know the outcome already. The corvette might win, but my money is on the KR.

I could start the video with a corvette and a escalade as well. "There is no historical basis for the rivalry, but when you compare the two, they are both 80k and have V8s... etc."

the vette will outperform the mustang, no question. but i would still get the mustang. why? bc i'm a mustang guy. i dont need all that performance. if anything i would mod it for the 1/4 mile, but i dont care about auto cross or road racing, going straight is all that matters to me.

stangzilla100 said:

the vette will outperform the mustang, no question. but i would still get the mustang. why? bc i'm a mustang guy. i dont need all that performance. if anything i would mod it for the 1/4 mile, but i dont care about auto cross or road racing, going straight is all that matters to me.

Click to expand...

I agree. The Z06 is a far superior car. It would kick any production Mustang's ass. It doesn't make me feel so bad considering it can whoop up on a lot of foreign cars, too. The numbers are still skewed, bad. 0-60 mph, wrong. 1/4 mile time, wrong.

hmmm....

12.8? I guess Ms. Daisy must have been driving herself around that day.

GreyDiesel said:

True, but the KR is heavy as all get out. Its all about power to weight ratio, and the ratio on a KR is really not that much better than a GT.

My reaction to video was... "Well Duh!" Sometimes these car review mags/videos are just trying to kill time. Everyone knew what the outcome was going to be, the KR is a collectable Muscle Car, and the Corvette is a sport car. They started the video and said, there is no history of a rivalry, because there is no rivalry, because they are in different market niches.

These auto review sites are stuck in a bit of a rut. They always run the same tests, it is formulaic. I am not saying that is all bad, but you have to see when the tests are somewhat irrelevant, like sending a 4x4 on a quarter mile. Its sorta cool, but you'd better not buy a 4x4 based on quarter mile performance. A KR for example, does not do so well in the solemn. That would be important if you were buying a KR as a track car, but no one does. People buy the KR to keep as a collectable, or, to do burnouts around town. That is why it has 500+ hp attached to skinnier tires. It is a burnout machine, pure and simple. Look good and smoke the tires. Solemn runs are irrelevant.

They should have done a test where they did burnout in font of some hot models and seen which driver the models then wanted to hang out with. That is a test I would like to see. I dont know the outcome already. The corvette might win, but my money is on the KR.

I could start the video with a corvette and a escalade as well. "There is no historical basis for the rivalry, but when you compare the two, they are both 80k and have V8s... etc."

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree. Its an apples to oranges match up. The corvette is a 2 seat, composite body, IRS purpose built sports car with much wider rear tires. Changing the tires alone would do leaps & bounds to even up the odds.

I just get sick of these Mustang vs XXX comparisons that are obviously skewed. Just like the comparison between the Challenger SRT8 vs a Mustang Bullitt. 425 HP vs 315 hp...DUH!!!! If they are going to do comparisons then they should match the vehicles up as closely as possible to make it a fair race. BUT obviously, that isn't the point. Like you said, Its all about making up something to write about..........

One thing that I do tend to side with alot of these writers about though is the fact that with all of the technology available, Mustangs are still a ~300HP car, and in order to get past that barrier, you need to add boost or nitrous. There are so many new offerings with 400+ naturally aspirated horsepower out there, and there are so many boosted 4 and 6 cylinder cars that the mustang has become easy prey for these writers. NOW is the time to bring back the BOSS and show the competition a thing or two, but unfortunately, in these hard economic times, and with the ever strictening emission laws, that not likely. I always have been and always will be a Mustang guy, but its somewhat disheartening to see Ford announce that they are "cranking up the rated horsepower of the 2010 Mustang to 315HP" and the Challenger RT (rough equivelent of a Mustang GT) cranks out 376HP wheras the SRT8 (rough equivelant of a Shelby makes 425 HP on all motor.

Most people criticize the mustang for archaic suspension and an underpowered v8. I read the reviews, listened to the critics, and then I drove one after considering a GTi (turbo 4), a WRX (turbo 4), and a Mazdaspeed 3 (turbo 4). There is something about the mustang that these other cars don't have. The v8 sound is visceral and connects with you. 300 horsepower with with rear wheel drive is a great way to do a proper sports car. I wouldn't trade the live axle, rough ride, choppy shifter and noise for anything else on the road. I hate to get all philosophical and ****, but its true. If you don't understand the mustang after driving one maybe you're a ricer (just kidding), the car isn't for you and we get it.

Ford's been an easy target for years with the mustang too, always under-powering it compared to the latest offerings. My argument is that a true enthusiast will make the car perform. The aftermarket on these cars is awesome, no two mustangs are alike because they are built for modders like everyone on this board. I can't help but think that some of these lop-sided reviews are written by guys that have had their ass handed to them by a cobra or two.

my .02

gashog said:

Most people criticize the mustang for archaic suspension and an underpowered v8. I read the reviews, listened to the critics, and then I drove one after considering a GTi (turbo 4), a WRX (turbo 4), and a Mazdaspeed 3 (turbo 4). There is something about the mustang that these other cars don't have. The v8 sound is visceral and connects with you. 300 horsepower with with rear wheel drive is a great way to do a proper sports car. I wouldn't trade the live axle, rough ride, choppy shifter and noise for anything else on the road. I hate to get all philosophical and ****, but its true. If you don't understand the mustang after driving one maybe you're a ricer (just kidding), the car isn't for you and we get it.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not a ricer, at least by my definition of it ( a young punk who's idea of modding a car is to put every cheap non-functional piece of crap part on it that they can, then try to race a REAL car that's built for performance ) I do however give credit to a PROPERLY BUILT import. There are plenty of Supras, WRX's and EVOs that could smoke a Terminator too. But a Mustang is a Mustang....with a long heritage. And people (myself included) drive mustangs because we like the raw unrefined power and the feel of a real muscle car. I've had 3 Mustangs.....an '89 LX 5.0 Hatch, a '96 GT and now an '05 GT. I'v also had a '71 Challenger, a '69 SS Nova, an '86 Buick Grand National, an '84 Supra and a '91 Eagle Talon Tsi. Of all of the vehicles that I've had, I enjoyed driving the 89 LX the most. It handled like a brick, It was loud, had no stereo, no AC, and the typical fox body driver seat lean. But it was fast, it would smoke the tires right off the rims, and it could be modded to hell without breaking the bank.

gashog said:

Ford's been an easy target for years with the mustang too, always under-powering it compared to the latest offerings. My argument is that a true enthusiast will make the car perform. The aftermarket on these cars is awesome, no two mustangs are alike because they are built for modders like everyone on this board. I can't help but think that some of these lop-sided reviews are written by guys that have had their ass handed to them by a cobra or two.

my .02

Click to expand...

On this I definately agree. Half (or more) of the fun is modding. A true sports car is not bought, its built. How many bone stock, fresh off the showroom floor Mustangs do you see at car shows and drag strips vs the big group of Corvettes with not a single mod done to them (a lot of those guys don't even change their own oil ) And OMG if it rains...WATCH OUT! They'll run you over trying to get their baby back in the garage......LOL I just think that it would be nice to see a bigger cubed offering from Ford available to give a better starting point. ~300HP isn't a bad start, but the stock internals will only handle ~500HP. I'd love to see a forged internal block preferrably in the 5.4L or larger variety as an option. Looks like I'll have to start saving my pennies for that John Kasse BOSS motor

I've never paid much attention to the columnists anyway. It just seems like lately they are all bashing Ford. Next BMW will come out with its next great car, and car & driver, road & track, and edmunds will be bashing Dodge and Chevy saying how much better the german cars are........Like GreyDiesel said, its like putting a Corvette against an Escalade........

rugedraw said:

12.8? I guess Ms. Daisy must have been driving herself around that day.

Click to expand...

No doubt. 114.6mph tells me that 1/4 run should be a LOT lower. Methinks this test was skewed. And 4.9 0-60? no way.

114 mph is low as hell, regular GT500's trap about 118 or better.

If you listen to the video you notice that in almost every clip the driver of the KR is just laying into the rev limiter like it is a video game. Not sure he had a clue how to manage traction. Probably the reason for the terrible 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Just a thought I had.

Anyone see the STI vs. Shelby GT.
The sole factor was they were both $30k "sport cars"

Of course the STI won because it was all wheel drive. and lets face it the shelby GT was built for collectors not performance. They were on road tracks and every test ALL WHEEL DRIVE woudl benefit.

I think to many automag people are just trying to slow the Hype the retro version mustang started. Last time i checked i have never autocrossed my cars or found myself in the high mountains of Europe on some twisties.

actually, I did see that review and it was one of the reasons I bought my Mustang. I was not really considering an STi, because they are ugly as sin, but I wanted to see what the reviewers said. The general theme of the review was that the STi is by far the superior car, and then in the end they said, "Get the STi, unless your the type of person who needs a couple major power slides to get through your day." And I thought, yes, I am the type of person who needs a good burnout at least once a day, and the deal was sealed for the Mustang.

Rear Wheel Drive + V8 =

I am sure the STi is great, but I would rather do donuts, and burnouts, and power slides, with an awesome V8 soundtrack. Its way safer too. I dont push my Mustang while on twisty mountain roads, because I can get plenty of enjoyment out of it in safe parking lots. With an STi, you would have to go up on a twisty mountain road and push it to its limit to know you are driving a performance machine, and then you might spin out, and then you might die... in a hatchback.

Steel Horse said:

If you listen to the video you notice that in almost every clip the driver of the KR is just laying into the rev limiter like it is a video game. Not sure he had a clue how to manage traction. Probably the reason for the terrible 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Just a thought I had.

Click to expand...

Good point. I had noticed that too. Those guys SUCK!

I found an official listing for the KR's 0-60 at 4.0 seconds. Hey, if these car review sites are going to suck so bad, maybe we should start another site with actual helpful information.

Here is a list of 0-60 times:

0-60 Times & 0-60 Comparisons

Our cars are probably the most hated vehicles on the road, which I love! I've had three mustangs an 03, and two 97's. I just love the sound of them and the performance that they give you for being a dd which is what i've used them for. Plus the sound just can't be duplicated especially if you have a four valve.

Those are some interesting 0-60 time comparisons...same times as a Ferrari F430 Spider and a Lamborghini Gallardo...only $100,000 cheaper

The one that really surprized me though was that it was also the same as a Tesla Roadster