Another fact which makes it an unfair comparo is according to the article the SS was a long term tester(12 month/20K miles) from 8/09, while the 5.0 was fresh off the production line. That means the engine and drivetrain on the SS was already broken in, while the 5.0 was still tight which can slow it by 1-2 tenths in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile tests vs. being broken in.
To make it a fair comparison, they should have tested these 2 cars either both fresh off the production line, or both broken in.

 

I think any way you slice it, the performance of these 2 cars at the track or on the street is going to be pretty close. It really would be a driver's race in any circumstance I think. I have a feeling we're about to see a comparison done by every auto magazine in existence, and I suspect all of them will have these 2 vehicles within 3/10 of a second of each other either way.

 

+1
I ran my GT at Fontana when I first bought it(had around 1200 miles at the time) and the best I could do(with crappy 60ft times, 2.3-2.4 range) was a 14.3@99.7. With nearly bald tires and 35,000 miles I recently ran, with another lame 2.3 60ft, a 14.09@102.2. Two tenths quicker and 2.5 mph better. To run well at Fontana, DRs are a must, the track isn't prepped(as evidence by very little residue of my lower rear quarters after a day of racing).
The sticky summer tires and 3.73s will allow the '11 GT to put a car length or two on a SS with all else being equal IMO..........