[MikeNoun]

Dodge is debuting the Charger Redline later this year. There are 3 levels, the first being a cosmetic upgrade, the second has a cat-back exhaust and suspension tweaks, the third has a 590 hp Gen III 426 aluminum Hemi crate engine, knocking 100 lbs off the nose.

Unfortunately, they say the Stage Three option is off-road (race) only. Stage Three was on display at the Detroit Auto Show, with the hood sitting up on 4 poles over the engine, like the old Super Bee's

[MikeNoun]

Originally Posted by Ron Landis

"Never say never.". Were you around in the early '70's? What Corvette could touch a 455 SD? What 1973-4 ANYTHING could? Just asking. Ron

Absolutely! The 1973-1974 SD455 Trans Am was ahead of the Corvette in a 1/4 mile and on a road course. In fact, I believe the Formula and Trans Am may have outdone the Corvette again in 1977-1979.

And then the 1987 Buick GNX, in stock form, was faster than the 1987 Corvette.

The 1989 Turbo Trans Am was faster than the 1989 Corvette (not the ZR1).

And I wouldn't count out the GMC Syclone and Typhoon. 1/4 mile shootout, they were as tough as the Corvette.

GM has allowed quite a few cars to surpass Corvette performance, just not too much recently.

[KS circutguy]

That Charger Redline is Fugly!

[455Grandville]

Mustang vs Camaro battle has been around for 40 + yrs. Chevy makes more hp and wins, Ford goes back and does the same thing. Back and forth.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Mustang vs Camaro battle has been around for 40 + yrs. Chevy makes more hp and wins, Ford goes back and does the same thing. Back and forth.

For some years, yes.

But there was that rebodied Pinto era Mustang that from 1974 - 1981 that the HiPo engine option was less than 140 HP or less. The majority of Mustangs built in this era were under 105 HP - and in 1974 that was the best you could get...

Over the same time period, the HiPo Camaro had at least 155HP and as much as 245HP.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

People are so quick to return to partisan support here. ZL1 - looks like a killer car. 2013 Shelby GT500 will benefit from much of the Boss suspension development plus killer power. Comparing the Boss 302 (444 HP NA 5.0 vs a 580 HP Supercharged 6.2) is dumb. They are not built for the same purpose. The HP diff alone should give the ZL1 a much larger advantage than it showed.

Remember, the Shelby will have a 5.8 aluminum engine now, much lighter and it will be a formidable performer in the corners too. Chevy borrowed Holden's car and rebodied it. Impressive? Yes. King Kong? We'll have to wait to see. Remember, Chevy built this car and equipped it to poke at Ford. Perhaps Ford will up the game (called response to competition) with standard track stuff.

I'm still thinking that the Ford will lap faster...

Actually 68gtoMN, I think that the Ford 5.0L NA Mustang did VERY WELL!

You have a Camaro with a supercharged & larger engine with 136 more horsepower available and you can only run 2.45 seconds faster vs the Mustang on a road course?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Tom Vaught

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Actually 68gtoMN, I think that the Ford 5.0L NA Mustang did VERY WELL!

You have a Camaro with a supercharged & larger engine with 136 more horsepower available and you can only run 2.45 seconds faster vs the Mustang on a road course?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Tom Vaught

Oh come on Tom, it's only a mere 80 cubic inches -

Originally Posted by The Champ

For some years, yes.

But there was that rebodied Pinto era Mustang that from 1974 - 1981 that the HiPo engine option was less than 140 HP or less. The majority of Mustangs built in this era were under 105 HP - and in 1974 that was the best you could get...

Over the same time period, the HiPo Camaro had at least 155HP and as much as 245HP.

Mustang IIs were a low point. I never cared for 'em. But, they sold very well.
Once the Fox body Mustangs came in 1979 with 5.0s the 350 Camaros were slower until the 1993 body came out.
Why does GM always need so many more cubes to compete ?

[goatwgn]

I can appreciate everyone here having their favorite of this bunch. I really don't (nor ever have) cared for any of them. Only "ponycar" I ever cared for was Pontiac's. It is nice to have one little corner of the car market "fighting it out" for higher powered vehicles one last time before they go off the deep end again with "2016 CAFE mobiles".

[68gtoMN]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Actually 68gtoMN, I think that the Ford 5.0L NA Mustang did VERY WELL!

You have a Camaro with a supercharged & larger engine with 136 more horsepower available and you can only run 2.45 seconds faster vs the Mustang on a road course?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Tom Vaught

Tom I'm with you; hence, my comment about how the ZL1 should have lapped much faster than the 2.45 second differential, being that it is such a "track star" I think the Boss 302 is an AMAZING car and for the displacement and NA status, it is unparalleled. Nice going Ford!

The other comment I found funny was that only the Ford offering would see premium pricing, not the ZL1? Really? How does anyone know if either will? If one will, the other will too... This is truly a silly comment.

[David Holmberg]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

Absolutely! The 1973-1974 SD455 Trans Am was ahead of the Corvette in a 1/4 mile and on a road course. In fact, I believe the Formula and Trans Am may have outdone the Corvette again in 1977-1979.

Yes, I've told the story many times about my stock 78 WS6 GSE TA beating a stock L82 Vette, over and over much to the dismay of the Vettes owner.

[Mr_GTO]

2.45 seconds on that course is big. the difference on a track like the 'ring would be enormous.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Mustang IIs were a low point. I never cared for 'em. But, they sold very well.
Once the Fox body Mustangs came in 1979 with 5.0s the 350 Camaros were slower until the 1993 body came out.
Why does GM always need so many more cubes to compete ?

GM, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota all run the same engine sizes in NASCAR.

Remind me who has won the most Championships...

Ford has always sold a lot of Mustangs - because the vast majority of them were cheap low powered cars (more 4 and 6 cylinders sold than V8's).

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Actually 68gtoMN, I think that the Ford 5.0L NA Mustang did VERY WELL!

You have a Camaro with a supercharged & larger engine with 136 more horsepower available and you can only run 2.45 seconds faster vs the Mustang on a road course?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Tom Vaught

Tom

You seem to forget the part about the Mustang weighing over 400 pounds less.

Being that much lighter, one would expect the difference to be much closer than 2.45 seconds on a short 2.2 mile road course where the extra power isn't able to show it's superiority.

But of course, you were hoping no one would point out that fact...

There is a reason that Ford won't take their Mustangs to the Nurburgring to compete head to head with the Camaro.

[The Boss]

In the late 80's the Mustang was lighter, faster & cheaper.....but I still bought an IROC.

All things being the same, I'd buy a Camaro again over a Mustang.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

The other comment I found funny was that only the Ford offering would see premium pricing, not the ZL1? Really? How does anyone know if either will? If one will, the other will too... This is truly a silly comment.

Price on the new ZL1 is about $55,000, or about the cost of a base Corvette.

Price on the current Shelby GT500 Super Snake is about $83,000 (that's without the 800HP supercharger option), or about the cost of a Z06 Vette.

Will the 2013 come in at that $80,000ish price point? We'll have to see, but based on the current GT500 price point....

The base price for a 2012 Shelby Mustang GT500 Super Snake is $82,894 according to Shelby American’s Web site, including the cost of a donor Ford Mustang GT. The 800-horsepower supercharger option is an extra $1500 on its own, but we suspect you’ll want to budget a total of closer to $100,000 for a few more Shelby-optional cooling and suspension modifications with that kind of power. Customers (and dreamers) can build their own Super Snake at http://shelbyamerican.com/buildhome.asp.



Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/2012-shelb...#ixzz1kf3achdC

[Old Goat Racer]

I think it's cool to see cubic inches (302 & 392) instead of litres on the side of cars these days.

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Old Goat Racer

I think it's cool to see cubic inches (302 & 392) instead of litres on the side of cars these days.

Agree 100%!!!
Hey wait! Our '67 GTO has '6.5 litre' and our '78 & '79 Trans Ams' say 'T/A 6.6'! What the...!!!??? LOL!

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by The Boss

In the late 80's the Mustang was lighter, faster & cheaper.....but I still bought an IROC.

All things being the same, I'd buy a Camaro again over a Mustang.

I had an 84 Z-28 , bought to get a family member out of debt. (Good price)

Those had alot of design flaws I didnt like; the body intregity was horrible, it leaked , rattled, and you sat too damn low. Damn thing felt like it was going to fall apart !

Threw a For Sale sign on it the next day, made a profit & gave the profit back to the family member.

Never owned a Mustang, my main like of Fords is the trucks, and the full size Galaxys & Thunderbolts.

That was an era when the big three all made nice looking, well styled cars instead of these look alike plastic jellybeans.

Originally Posted by The Champ

GM, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota all run the same engine sizes in NASCAR.

Remind me who has won the most Championships...

Ford has always sold a lot of Mustangs - because the vast majority of them were cheap low powered cars (more 4 and 6 cylinders sold than V8's).

They have to run the same sizes Champ.

If you know your racing history Im trying to think who ran a smaller 320 ci something Ford and won. That changed the rules; he had heads that would breathe well on a 350 + cid engine, but those heads on a smaller engine gave it more top end power. NASCAR has too many barriers and rules and that sucks.

Chevy sold 4 banger Camaros also. Camaros were never high dollar elite cars. It's not like they can pull up and fit in with the Porsche or Jaguar crowd.

Again, for street use, why does GM need anywhere from 48 - 80 + cubes to either stay with,slightly outrun, or even get beat by a Ford ?

Wasn't Toyota allowed a bigger bore spacing like a special card ? (Hence: bigger bore/larger valves)

The Chevy/Ford is about the same 4.40" & 4.38"

[68gtoMN]

Originally Posted by The Champ

Price on the new ZL1 is about $55,000, or about the cost of a base Corvette.

Price on the current Shelby GT500 Super Snake is about $83,000 (that's without the 800HP supercharger option), or about the cost of a Z06 Vette.

Will the 2013 come in at that $80,000ish price point? We'll have to see, but based on the current GT500 price point....

Mr. Champ...I have come to expect the one-sided slant from you and I am not disappointed. Here you make a comparison between cars that are not alike. Instead of posting the base price for the Shelby GT500, you post a price for the upmarket edition (super snake). The current base price for a Shelby GT500 is, according to Ford's website (http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/models/) is $48,810, a good $7,000 less than the ZL1. It is already stated by Ford that the new model will have 650 HP as the base model. We can only imagine the other upgrades for the 2013 model, so we'll have to wait. For starters, here's an article detailing a few of the improvements we can expect to see, including bilstein electronically adjustable shocks, a track pack with oil/diff/trans coolers and brembo brakes. Perhaps this will bring the two prices on par with each other. From a capability standpoint, it would appear that Ford was laying in wait for this...
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/15/2...straight-from/

Here's the thing...when trying to make a point it is important to include context as a FACT without proper context is merely data. Your bias is clear, but that's ok - we expect it. Don't worry, I am here to counter your incomplete or misleading information.

Now that I have provided the appropriate information, you will have more time to post oil company pricing conspiracy posts...you're welcome

[GTO Dan]

How many buyers are going to drive either of those cars to the limit on a track? Certainly can't take advantage of that performance on the street for long and stay out of trouble.

I looked at them all in 2010 (less performance at the time) and went with a new Challenger - liked the looks better and handles, brakes and accelerates well while being extremely comfortable. It's my daily driver so it is not going to see the track anyway.

Now if I want to go racing at the track (drag racing is my preference), I will bring my GTO and run my Pontiac. Of course there is no longer a single part manufactured by Pontiac or GM in the entire drivetrain, suspension or braking system...but that is a different brand loyalty dilemma.