When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
He had the wrong tires on the car from the get go. A 245 square setup on C5Z is way way undertired in the first place and the Z isn't set up from the factory with a square setup, it's tuned to have more tire on the back which is why the car oversteered horribly with the stock tuning and a square setup. The stock Z fronts are 265's and the backs are 295's. Putting 4 245's on the car you'd expect it to be a mess, and it was.. Probably a video for the Mustang crowd...
With the stock setup and the correct tire offset the car doesn't oversteer like their car did.
So what they should be saying is that a stock C5Z is about as fast as a stock GT 350 on equal tires (and in my experience it's a bit faster).
So then they put a set of properly sized tires on the car and it was balanced (surprise, surprise), and on old heat cycled 888's the car was about as fast a GT350 that was on new Pilots... That pretty much means nothing..
If you're going to do it, do it right, get tires that are the correct size for the car in the first place.
Video is a waste of time, both theirs in doing it and yours in watching it...
What a strange way to compare a couple of cars. Putting 245's on the ZO6 makes no sense whatsoever. It didn't come from the factory that way. They intentionally handicapped the car...and they think that makes it a fair comparison due to some silly tire/weight analysis data? It's completely irrelevant information and testing.
Last edited by Quickshift_C5; 12-02-2016 at 09:56 AM.
He had the wrong tires on the car from the get go. A 245 square setup on C5Z is way way undertired in the first place and the Z isn't set up from the factory with a square setup, it's tuned to have more tire on the back which is why the car oversteered horribly with the stock tuning and a square setup. The stock Z fronts are 265's and the backs are 295's. Putting 4 245's on the car you'd expect it to be a mess, and it was.. Probably a video for the Mustang crowd...
With the stock setup and the correct tire offset the car doesn't oversteer like their car did.
So what they should be saying is that a stock C5Z is about as fast as a stock GT 350 on equal tires (and in my experience it's a bit faster).
So then they put a set of properly sized tires on the car and it was balanced (surprise, surprise), and on old heat cycled 888's the car was about as fast a GT350 that was on new Pilots... That pretty much means nothing..
If you're going to do it, do it right, get tires that are the correct size for the car in the first place.
Video is a waste of time, both theirs in doing it and yours in watching it...
I appreciate the honest feedback, but...
It's was hardly a waste of time. This was one of the most fun road trips I've ever done, and I've driven from the Nurburgring to Monaco for the grand prix in convoy with a GT500, Boss 302, and a Track prepped GT, and then on to Romania, with two weeks of driving the Alps in the middle.
The Z is not "a mess" on the 245's, the car is an absolute blast to drive, way more fun than the R888's!
This was a 2 week road/track test, you want to see a "mess"? try the Z06 on the R888's on the road for a 4.5k mile road trip. Utterly miserable.
We were out to have fun, not racing for money. If you watch our previous videos, you'll see why I'm broke and had to use the old tires. (If you want to see better tests, write your congressman and get us a raise)
Originally Posted by Quickshift_C5
What a strange way to compare a couple of cars. Putting 245's on the ZO6 makes no sense whatsoever. It didn't come from the factory that way. They intentionally handicapped the car...and they think that makes it a fair comparison due to some silly tire/weight analysis data? It's completely irrelevant information and testing.
You say handicapped, but the Z06 is lower, lighter, more aerodynamic and it has much better suspension geometry. On bigger tires it'd be a foregone conclusion.
We wanted the cars to be as close as possible because we believe two equal drivers, in two equal cars is as much fun as you can have on a track.
Originally Posted by Kubs
I read this, and I still watched it.... You were right!
Also, I find a C5 to be very balanced on a square tire setup, if done correctly.
When you say done correctly what do you mean? I've run 295 and 285 square as well, and found the car has more oversteer than what I would consider a "fast setup".
Sure when the car is on maintenance throttle it's balanced, but make any input with you right foot, and it's going to oversteer. The balance was about the same on 245, 285, or 295.
Are you're saying it's balanced with the right suspension mods? that's true of every car ever built...
You took a factory stock car and put narrower wheels/tires on it which decreased the available grip, balance, and performance. How in the world is that not a handicap? It's the very definition of it.
The cars are what they are in stock form, and that's how they should be compared. Not some strange idea of trying to equalize the exact pressure on the tires with some goofy pound per millimeter of rubber formula. How bored are you guys?
Also, the R888's ride perfectly fine on the street. I've been using them for 3 years and a friend of mine has as well on Power Tours that are thousands of miles long. It's not an 80's Cadillac or Buick.
I'm sure everyone appreciates the video like a good popcorn flick for some entertainment. But the whole comparison thing was just weird.
Last edited by Quickshift_C5; 12-02-2016 at 01:32 PM.
You took a factory stock car and put narrower wheels/tires on it which decreased the available grip, balance, and performance. How in the world is that not a handicap? It's the very definition of it.
The cars are what they are in stock form, and that's how they should be compared. Not some strange idea of trying to equalize the exact pressure on the tires with some goofy pound per millimeter of rubber formula. How bored are you guys?
Also, the R888's ride perfectly fine on the street. I've been using them for 3 years and a friend of mine has as well on Power Tours that are thousands of miles long. It's not an 80's Cadillac or Buick.
I'm sure everyone appreciates the video like a good popcorn flick for some entertainment. But the whole comparison thing was just weird.
I didn't say it's wasn't a handicap, but I did explain why we handicapped the Z06.
The r888's are loud, they ride horribly, they're dangerous in the rain, and in those widths and 0 toe they chase chambers like my dog chases rabbits.
I did as much as 15.5 hours in a single stint(MN-AL), your forearms would look like popeye's if you tried that on the R888's.
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13
I'll say it....I like both cars........ but never would I compare a Pony car to a sports car. I don't see the need to compare the Mustang to the Vette, just not the same kind of car.
Either way...was a fun video to watch and hear. The GT350 is a very awesome sounding car in person that is for sure.
The r888's are loud, they ride horribly, they're dangerous in the rain, and in those widths and 0 toe they chase chambers like my dog chases rabbits.
I did as much as 15.5 hours in a single stint(MN-AL), your forearms would look like popeye's if you tried that on the R888's.
Yes, I've used them in downpours with out a problem and in freezing weather. Right along with 2* of camber trying to pull it all over the road. It's not bad at all.
Last edited by Quickshift_C5; 12-02-2016 at 09:11 PM.
I like that you think out of the boxm drive your cars on the track and provide a technical narrative with a decent voice. And huge bonus points for not playing some **** music the ***** -up what you are trying to show.
This particular comparo was sad. It was sad to see my old car ('04 Z) drive like **** as if it was broken. If you look at the racing programs, to make cars equal they use techniques like restrictor plates, adding weight etc.
The takeaway for a guy with a good running C5Z, with good tires, is that we will keep these GT350 drivers honest, or will go by them. Might need headers, intake and a tune for the R--good excuse to get the mods. The C5Z is amazing.
It's was hardly a waste of time. This was one of the most fun road trips I've ever done, and I've driven from the Nurburgring to Monaco for the grand prix in convoy with a GT500, Boss 302, and a Track prepped GT, and then on to Romania, with two weeks of driving the Alps in the middle.
The Z is not "a mess" on the 245's, the car is an absolute blast to drive, way more fun than the R888's! We were out to have fun, not racing for money. If you watch our previous videos, you'll see why I'm broke and had to use the old tires. (If you want to see better tests, write your congressman and get us a raise)..
Say what you will, but the C5Z was never intended to have such small tires on it. The fact that you couldn't put down any power on corner exit and were overall slower than the GT350 pretty much says it all. You say it was a "blast" to drive, but I don't find it fun not to be able to power out of corners like the folks who tuned the car in the first place intended.
There is absolutely no reason to put the wrong tires on the car and then go to a track with it. The correct tires aren't any more expensive so why handicap the car with tires that are almost in inch narrower in the front and almost two inches narrower in the back. That's just silly. I'm sure your cornering speeds were down relative to a properly tired car since the 245's are so narrow, and you can't put down any power with the skinny back tires without the tail coming out like a swinging door...
Originally Posted by Phoenix64
You say handicapped, but the Z06 is lower, lighter, more aerodynamic and it has much better suspension geometry. On bigger tires it'd be a foregone conclusion. We wanted the cars to be as close as possible because we believe two equal drivers, in two equal cars is as much fun as you can have on a track. ..
This is exactly the point. The C5Z is lower, more aerodynamic, has better suspension geometry, has essentially the same power to weight ratio, and on the correct tires it pretty much is a forgone conclusion that it is probably going to be faster around most tracks than the Mustang. So why didn't you use the proper tires for the car and make it a valid comparison??? I don't think anybody who would track the car would bother to ever put a set of 245's on C5Z for any reason.
I guess that if the intent of the video is to go out and have fun, you probably did, but to title it as a comparison of the two cars is a bit of an overstatement to say the least.
Originally Posted by Phoenix64
When you say done correctly what do you mean? I've run 295 and 285 square as well, and found the car has more oversteer than what I would consider a "fast setup". Sure when the car is on maintenance throttle it's balanced, but make any input with you right foot, and it's going to oversteer. The balance was about the same on 245, 285, or 295. Are you're saying it's balanced with the right suspension mods? that's true of every car ever built..
What he is basically saying is that if you're going to go to a square setup in order to keep the car balanced you need to get some more front bar. No magic there, you've upset the balance by putting the same size tire all around an if you want to return it to a proper balance you need to make a change to the suspension.
Maybe a better title would be "We took a Corvette and made it as slow as a Mustang GT 350"....
Say what you will, but the C5Z was never intended to have such small tires on it. The fact that you couldn't put down any power on corner exit and were overall slower than the GT350 pretty much says it all. You say it was a "blast" to drive, but I don't find it fun not to be able to power out of corners like the folks who tuned the car in the first place intended.
There is absolutely no reason to put the wrong tires on the car and then go to a track with it. The correct tires aren't any more expensive so why handicap the car with tires that are almost in inch narrower in the front and almost two inches narrower in the back. That's just silly. I'm sure your cornering speeds were down relative to a properly tired car since the 245's are so narrow, and you can't put down any power with the skinny back tires without the tail coming out like a swinging door...
This is exactly the point. The C5Z is lower, more aerodynamic, has better suspension geometry, has essentially the same power to weight ratio, and on the correct tires it pretty much is a forgone conclusion that it is probably going to be faster around most tracks than the Mustang. So why didn't you use the proper tires for the car and make it a valid comparison??? I don't think anybody who would track the car would bother to ever put a set of 245's on C5Z for any reason.
I guess that if the intent of the video is to go out and have fun, you probably did, but to title it as a comparison of the two cars is a bit of an overstatement to say the least.
What he is basically saying is that if you're going to go to a square setup in order to keep the car balanced you need to get some more front bar. No magic there, you've upset the balance by putting the same size tire all around an if you want to return it to a proper balance you need to make a change to the suspension.
Maybe a better title would be "We took a Corvette and made it as slow as a Mustang GT 350"....
Ha, I agree that was the idea.
Again the idea was to match the cars, if I had the chance to do it again, I'd run 265/35-18(smaller diameter, and tiny rain grooves like the gT350's tires) on all 4 corners.
These MPSS were $695 so they're a lot cheaper, and they last forever. The only other tires available in our time frame were a set of Eagle F1 supercar tires that were $1600.
Originally Posted by STANG KILLA SS
ive beat several GT350s with my fbody on track. (with video)
a proper C5Z should have no issues.
I passed a Bugatti veyron in my stock LS1 F-body at the nurburgring, and more GTR's than I can count.
I didn't realize my 305hp firebird was faster than a 1.7 million dollar 1200hp supercar, I thought maybe it had to do with the drivers?
When you say done correctly what do you mean? I've run 295 and 285 square as well, and found the car has more oversteer than what I would consider a "fast setup".
Sure when the car is on maintenance throttle it's balanced, but make any input with you right foot, and it's going to oversteer. The balance was about the same on 245, 285, or 295.
Are you're saying it's balanced with the right suspension mods? that's true of every car ever built...
When you went to a smaller tire did you change alignment? Rake? Tire pressure? Corner balance? I have driven several C5s with square tire setups on all stock suspension as well as slightly modified suspensions. Set up correctly that are all very neutral. In certain situations I have even been able to shift mid corner in those setups without upsetting the balance of the car. Perhaps you're just not that smooth on throttle transition, but I dont know. Could just be driver preference as well.
12-02-2016, 12:33 AM
What would it take to beat a GT350 with a C5 Z06? Updated with cost comparison!
You were right! 
