[Zeke.Malvo]

The various dynos still have not shown a 60 rwtq discrepancy when compared with similar transmissions. Funny you didn't ask to show the dyno with the 60 rwtq difference but chose to focus on something entirely different LOL

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

The various dynos still have not shown a 60 rwtq discrepancy when compared with similar transmissions. Funny you didn't ask to show the dyno with the 60 rwtq difference but chose to focus on something entirely different LOL

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I never agreed on a 60 difference. PLain as day what I said in my post.

Just pointing out your wishful thinking comparing different dynos on different days skewed toward the mustang

[1slowssm6]

the best part about these dyno threads on m6g claiming ford "underrated" the car,it makes them look even worse,so the car makes 500 crank hp but runs 12.0-12.3 stock? runs 11.9-12.3 modded with the a10 depending on gears? thats pathetic.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by 1slowssm6

the best part about these dyno threads on m6g claiming ford "underrated" the car,it makes them look even worse,so the car makes 500 crank hp but runs 12.0-12.3 stock? runs 11.9-12.3 modded with the a10 depending on gears? thats pathetic.

I agree the 500 hp talk is silly. It makes about 415-420 rwhp through the auto, just leave it at that.

As for the track times, it's only been a couple weeks. Simmer down now.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[1slowssm6]

its only been a couple week but 2 well known shops couldnt muster better than a 12.0 stock an 11.8 modded and a 12.3 modded n/a,the cars not impressing me one bit with these dyno numbers floating around,ford guys shooting themselves in the foot with this talk of 500hp,unless a whole bunch of negative da driver mods pull 11.6 bone stock on stock tires,and its done by multiple guys,then the car looks like poo or you just admit its not underrated,and the dynos are happy.

[Quinten_33]

The new mustang GT has 2 problems when it comes to outperforming the Camaro SS: It needs more torque and less weight. Everyone forgets that the Camaro got lighter than the Mustang for gen 6, and it still has more torque. That’s why the Camaro is better at the strip and on paper. The shops that were getting drag Times with the new GT were running “stock” ones with low tire pressure, near empty fuel tanks, and I’m certain the tracks were prepped well. It’s amazing how much people care about those times anyway as they’re record bone stock runs that nobody will match with their own stock cars. And it’s even more amazing that people are bragging over their Mustang having 5 more horsepower when the engine has to rev to 7500rpm to make it. When are they going to use that 5 extra horsepower, or even the 25hp it gained over 2017? When will ZL1 and ZL1 1LE owners beat Ferraris around the Nürburgring or pull 1.1g? The numbers are just a bunch of nonsense, solely marketing tools and bragging rights. I doubt many Mustang owners or Camaro owners can even match the performance measures and lap times themselves. The refresh for the Camaro just needs to look good, sound good, and fund future Camaro R&D. Simple as that.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by Quinten_33

The new mustang GT has 2 problems when it comes to outperforming the Camaro SS: It needs more torque and less weight.

The Mustang has superior gearing due to the rpm advantages the Coyote allows, meaning it's getting about 36% more torque multiplication off the bat in first gear. It's 7400 rpm capabilities is an advantage. It's putting down more torque than the camaro due to torque multiplication, a lack of torque is not the problem. The Mustang has a lack of grip and the extra weight doesn't help either.

Originally Posted by Quinten_33

The shops that were getting drag Times with the new GT were running “stock” ones with low tire pressure, near empty fuel tanks, and I’m certain the tracks were prepped well.

That's how all fast list times work. That's all assumed actually. And that's if they're being honest. I'm assuming this isn't new to you.

I agree, I don't really care for their importance. I remember when I was new to the track and reading about how LS1 camaro's were running high 12's @109ish. Well, I was surprised when they were all in the 13.8-14.0 range running at about 102-104. And that was sea level in good air. My 97 LT1 camaro (auto with cai) went 14.0 @ 99-101. I didn't talk crap to them about their cars or their driving capabilities or anything. It was just fun being out there running my car and being around other car enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by Quinten_33

When are they going to use that 5 extra horsepower, or even the 25hp it gained over 2017? When will ZL1 and ZL1 1LE owners beat Ferraris around the Nürburgring or pull 1.1g? The numbers are just a bunch of nonsense, solely marketing tools and bragging rights. I doubt many Mustang owners or Camaro owners can even match the performance measures and lap times themselves. The refresh for the Camaro just needs to look good, sound good, and fund future Camaro R&D. Simple as that.

I agree with all of that. But then you also have posters who are saying the Mustang's current known 12.0 @ 119 is "pathetic" blah blah blah.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

The Mustang has superior gearing due to the rpm advantages the Coyote allows, meaning it's getting about 36% more torque multiplication off the bat in first gear. It's 7400 rpm capabilities is an advantage. It's putting down more torque than the camaro due to torque multiplication, a lack of torque is not the problem. The Mustang has a lack of grip and the extra weight doesn't help either.



That's how all fast list times work. That's all assumed actually. And that's if they're being honest. I'm assuming this isn't new to you.

I agree, I don't really care for their importance. I remember when I was new to the track and reading about how LS1 camaro's were running high 12's @109ish. Well, I was surprised when they were all in the 13.8-14.0 range running at about 102-104. And that was sea level in good air. My 97 LT1 camaro (auto with cai) went 14.0 @ 99-101. I didn't talk crap to them about their cars or their driving capabilities or anything. It was just fun being out there running my car and being around other car enthusiasts.




I agree with all of that. But then you also have posters who are saying the Mustang's current known 12.0 @ 119 is "pathetic" blah blah blah.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Even on drag packs they are not 60 footing like the Camaro. Torque multiplication or not they are not getting out as hard. Nothing to do with traction. The low end doesnt come in as quickly nor as much. A couple shops have made several passes on very effective drag setups and they are just not getting out as hard.

Its gearing is a necessity because it lacks low end torque. its rpm advantage is also a low end disadvantage.

[1slowssm6]

it puts down more torque with torque multiplication thanks to gearing....i always love hearing that from the modular crowd.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Even on drag packs they are not 60 footing like the Camaro. Torque multiplication or not they are not getting out as hard. Nothing to do with traction. The low end doesnt come in as quickly nor as much. A couple shops have made several passes on very effective drag setups and they are just not getting out as hard.

Its gearing is a necessity because it lacks low end torque. its rpm advantage is also a low end disadvantage.

The Mustang doesn't have a drag pack.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[1slowssm6]

hes referring to lmr car,its 60ft was garbage on the dragpack,beefcakes 60ft was also garbage on the dragpack.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by 1slowssm6

hes referring to lmr car,its 60ft was garbage on the dragpack,beefcakes 60ft was also garbage on the dragpack.

Yep.

I was hitting high 1.6s near stock on a stock tune. They are in the 1.8s on a drag pack. That's pretty soft.

In the 1.5s now. Near full weight and no converter. Bolt ons

Who needs torque right.....its over rated lol

[Quinten_33]

I think it’s impressive for the Mustang to be running a 12 flat, but it’s almost irrelevant In today’s world of drag radials and bolt-on power. How many people go to the drag strip more than once and without drag radials? Not many. And out of the ones with drag radials, how many cars have voided warranties? A lot of them. The mustangs just can’t put power down like Camaros, and that’s an advantage of the alpha platform. Weight transfer might also play a part in that.

[Quinten_33]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

The Mustang doesn't have a drag pack.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

“Drag pack” means Drag radials and lighter wheels.