[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

You seem to be living in your own little world over here. Get out and look at the numbers. Yes, with rediculius air, and car can trap 3 mph higher than average. That doesn't mean squat compared to the average joe that is running mid 13s because he can't drive worth a hill of beans. The reason the gt350 isn't posting faster numbers is due to traction. It is a high dollar road car and no one wants to throw slicks on it to see what it can do.

It's not geared for the 1/4 mile. It has no low end torque. A feminine powerband some might say. It's ET is going to suffer.
Someone did throw slicks on it when it came out. A reputable shop at that. It's not faster than an SS in the 1/4. You are behind the times or conveniently ignorant for being a mustang fan.

Everything I stated was true. Accept it or not I don't care. GT and SS trap speeds are compared same day several times now. ~4 mph difference on average. Nothing to argue.

As was stated an average run in 2000-3000 DA in an SS is equal to a hero time for an s550. Not even close. And the data is only going to pile on this coming fall. Just wait my friend.

Btw the SS has been 11s stock in positive DA with several others very close that only needed a better 60. At sea level in good conditions it's a 116 trap car no doubt. GM even rates the car at 116 trap.

[Richard0nee]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

It's not geared for the 1/4 mile. It has no low end torque. A feminine powerband some might say. It's ET is going to suffer.
Someone did throw slicks on it when it came out. A reputable shop at that. It's not faster than an SS in the 1/4. You are behind the times or conveniently ignorant for being a mustang fan.

Everything I stated was true. Accept it or not I don't care. GT and SS trap speeds are compared same day several times now. ~4 mph difference on average. Nothing to argue.

As was stated an average run in 2000-3000 DA in an SS is equal to a hero time for an s550. Not even close. And the data is only going to pile on this coming fall. Just wait my friend.

Btw the SS has been 11s stock in positive DA with several others very close that only needed a better 60. At sea level in good conditions it's a 116 trap car no doubt. GM even rates the car at 116 trap.

Couldn't have said it any better

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Gearing multiplies available torque. At zero rpm there is none and the Voodoo needs time to get into its power band. The C&D article I referenced said it plainly and you can see it in the curves. Below 4000 rpm the Voodoo bogs against the load. There "is no debate" but no shame either. It's not a drag engine.

Both cars fast list and all the reviews show a minimum 0.5 second gap between the GT and SS. With a zero reaction time and a SS driver sleeping at the light, you would have a chance of getting the win but the SS et will still be 0.5 sec better. The best ever GT et can be easily replicated by an average SS driver in positive DA

Not to "attack" mustang fans, but most have convinced themselves it is only a tenth or two difference and the GT getting a 10 speed auto will make the GT as fast, possibly faster. Statistics have shown us it's about 4 tenths for the manual, 5-6 tenths for the automatic.

I'm sure they will turn up the GT for 2018, but right now there is a large gap in all aspects of performance.

If rumors are true, the 1le outperforms the GT350. Sounds like that puts the SS with a wheel and tire upgrade right on par with the GT350 as the wheels are tires are the biggest performance advantage of the 1le over the SS.

This is where the rise in Camaro hate from Ford fans come from.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Snowblind

That's a good video. It may get yanked for street racing but the lesson here is play to the strengths of your SS, the low end torque puts him away before he gets moving.

That is not a fair comparison, the white car has stripes, if fact looks exactly like mine, I can tell you right now from first hand experience, the stripes are worth 75 HP.

[Mustang Fanboy]

I will concede. The ¼ mph difference between the GT and the SS I was referencing seemed to be the exception, not the rule. From everything I have seen, it’s a good 3-4 mph average….comparing the same trim (M6 vs M6). The autos of each variety will trap quicker.

Even so, everything I have seen seems to point to the GT350 being 3-4 mph on average faster. The M6 SS seems to trap a good 114mph while the GT350 (non R) seems to trap a good 117mph (again, on average). Again, the delta between each is comparable. While the GT350’s may not be geared for the ¼ mile, don’t think for a second they aren’t capable of ET’s far better than an SS. You’ll see it as soon as someone has the balls to throw slicks on one and side step the clutch at 6500+ RPM. If you don’t think there is enough kinetic energy in the flywheel at that speed to launch, you are sorely mistaken.

It’s also my understanding that while the 1le may be great at the track, there are no times yet confirming how it fared against the GT350…and everything hint’s that it is marginally slower, not quicker. Let’s not play the….I’ll change my tire game, as this is stock VS stock. As soon as you change your tires, I’ll change my suspension and intake. We all know how quickly the GT catches up with bolt-ons.

We all are spoiled. To say that the current base GT handles like a boat is akin to saying the previous gen M3 handles like a boat. Yes, the comparison I posted compared the base 2011 track pack against the M3…however, the current base GT is a better performer.

The SS is without a doubt quicker than the mustang. That point is irrefutable. A driver mod in the mustang is more than capable however of surpassing that gap. Stoplight to stoplight I used to beat up LS1’s with my stock foxbody…that just so happened to run high 13’s (driver mod). It’s not all about the car. See the link to the BMW vs Mustang I posted previously. While Randy Pobst was .09 seconds quicker in the BMW vs the GT, the writer was .55 seconds quicker in the GT vs the BMW. It took a pro driver to really show that the BMW was so very slightly quicker. The .55 second gap that the average Joe threw down with the GT is significant.

A few more comments…I chose the Mustang over the Camaro in spite of the performance gap. Many here obviously chose the Camaro due to the performance gap. I like my trunk and rear seat space, ya’ll don’t seem to care about that.

I’m starting to ramble. I’ll leave this thread alone, I’ve said my peace.

[khell86]

From a roll the GT350 walks the SS and if supposedly the 1LE is 1.5 to 2 secs behind the GT350R, it goes to show you how well that track package is for the 1LE since the 350 will definitely have the speed advantage. Hell of a bargain.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by IOMike

If rumors are true, the 1le outperforms the GT350. Sounds like that puts the SS with a wheel and tire upgrade right on par with the GT350 as the wheels are tires are the biggest performance advantage of the 1le over the SS.

Not quite just that, the E-LSD and other suspension upgrades help as well.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

The autos of each variety will trap quicker.

Not from my experience. I have had both manual and automatic Coyotes, the manual easily trapped higher. Same goes for the new SS Camaros. It's just that we have seen many more automatics hit the track. My friend constantly traps in the high 116 range in crap 3000 DA in his stock manual, and Car and Driver hit 118 in their manual tester. Takes good drivers...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-driver-page-2

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

It’s also my understanding that while the 1le may be great at the track, there are no times yet confirming how it fared against the GT350…and everything hint’s that it is marginally slower, not quicker.

Be prepared to be disappointed if that is what you think. Once the Motor Trend Laguna Seca times are officially released, there is going to be lots of butt hurt going around...and not just from GT350 owners...

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

To say that the current base GT handles like a boat is akin to saying the previous gen M3 handles like a boat.

Not really, as the base GT suspension/wheel/tire package is terrible. .83g skidpad, braking from 70 mph, 175'. Those are pretty bad numbers for a performance car.

"The basic Mustang GT is a floater. Ford has chosen a relatively mushy suspension tune that makes the GT a serene choice for long highway trips but a slightly squishier steed on the twisty sections. At times, such as when crossing onto the varied surfaces of bridge overpasses at 70 mph, the nose develops a distinctly vintage circular bob as the circa-3800-pound car does a slight shimmy and porpoise at the same time. Undulations can really work over the base GT’s springs, while the all-season tires can ruin a good switchback with some squealing understeer."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

I will concede. The ¼ mph difference between the GT and the SS I was referencing seemed to be the exception, not the rule. From everything I have seen, it’s a good 3-4 mph average….comparing the same trim (M6 vs M6). The autos of each variety will trap quicker.

Even so, everything I have seen seems to point to the GT350 being 3-4 mph on average faster. The M6 SS seems to trap a good 114mph while the GT350 (non R) seems to trap a good 117mph (again, on average). Again, the delta between each is comparable. While the GT350’s may not be geared for the ¼ mile, don’t think for a second they aren’t capable of ET’s far better than an SS. You’ll see it as soon as someone has the balls to throw slicks on one and side step the clutch at 6500+ RPM. If you don’t think there is enough kinetic energy in the flywheel at that speed to launch, you are sorely mistaken.

It’s also my understanding that while the 1le may be great at the track, there are no times yet confirming how it fared against the GT350…and everything hint’s that it is marginally slower, not quicker. Let’s not play the….I’ll change my tire game, as this is stock VS stock. As soon as you change your tires, I’ll change my suspension and intake. We all know how quickly the GT catches up with bolt-ons.

We all are spoiled. To say that the current base GT handles like a boat is akin to saying the previous gen M3 handles like a boat. Yes, the comparison I posted compared the base 2011 track pack against the M3…however, the current base GT is a better performer.

The SS is without a doubt quicker than the mustang. That point is irrefutable. A driver mod in the mustang is more than capable however of surpassing that gap. Stoplight to stoplight I used to beat up LS1’s with my stock foxbody…that just so happened to run high 13’s (driver mod). It’s not all about the car. See the link to the BMW vs Mustang I posted previously. While Randy Pobst was .09 seconds quicker in the BMW vs the GT, the writer was .55 seconds quicker in the GT vs the BMW. It took a pro driver to really show that the BMW was so very slightly quicker. The .55 second gap that the average Joe threw down with the GT is significant.

A few more comments…I chose the Mustang over the Camaro in spite of the performance gap. Many here obviously chose the Camaro due to the performance gap. I like my trunk and rear seat space, ya’ll don’t seem to care about that.

I’m starting to ramble. I’ll leave this thread alone, I’ve said my peace.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/20...eo-102054.html

And this can't even be considered stock at that. It had suspension mods.

Again it bogs. It's not geared for the 1/4. It's has a feminine powerband. An SS has bested that et and trap with stock tires. With DR it has gone 11.7.

Sidestep at 6500? Lol... I guess if the stock axles can take it.

So on a magical day with a 6500 rpm clutch dump if it doesn't break it can possibly match an SS a8 in the 1/4. I can agree with that. Any 350 owner is going to get owned at a stoplight by an SS.

It's not made for the 1/4 so no big deal in these respects. The 1le will take care of it on the road course for 13k less.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

Not from my experience. I have had both manual and automatic Coyotes, the manual easily trapped higher. Same goes for the new SS Camaros. It's just that we have seen many more automatics hit the track. My friend constantly traps in the high 116 range in crap 3000 DA in his stock manual, and Car and Driver hit 118 in their manual tester. Takes good drivers...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-driver-page-2



Be prepared to be disappointed if that is what you think. Once the Motor Trend Laguna Seca times are officially released, there is going to be lots of butt hurt going around...and not just from GT350 owners...


Not really, as the base GT suspension/wheel/tire package is terrible. .83g skidpad, braking from 70 mph, 175'. Those are pretty bad numbers for a performance car.

"The basic Mustang GT is a floater. Ford has chosen a relatively mushy suspension tune that makes the GT a serene choice for long highway trips but a slightly squishier steed on the twisty sections. At times, such as when crossing onto the varied surfaces of bridge overpasses at 70 mph, the nose develops a distinctly vintage circular bob as the circa-3800-pound car does a slight shimmy and porpoise at the same time. Undulations can really work over the base GT’s springs, while the all-season tires can ruin a good switchback with some squealing understeer."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

Normally I'd agree. But GM rates the auto 1mph higher trap. I think they know the cars pretty well. The hot rod drag test same day showed identical traps. After 100s of passes with professional drivers same day.

[KenH.]

This thread is fantastic. Fanboi keeping the mustang dream alive! You are just going to have to wait until Ford changes things up and, hopefully, builds a GT that can compete because right now it does not. It's not an opinion it's just the way it is current day.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Normally I'd agree. But GM rates the auto 1mph higher trap. I think they know the cars pretty well. The hot rod drag test same day showed identical traps. After 100s of passes with professional drivers same day.

They know their cars yet rate the 0-60 for the manual at 4.3...and nearly every test has gotten 4.0...

I spend lots of time at the drag strip and have seen more 6th gens then I can count. Overall the manuals are trapping slightly higher from what I have seen in the real world. There are just many more automatic guys running their cars so far, so it looks different at times.

As for the Hot Rod test, Jeff Lutz (the professional driver) has said himself he was rusty at driving a manual as his race cars are manual valve body automatics with transbrakes...and their best trap to best trap was slightly higher for the manual, even with the crappier 60 foots.

But overall, yes they are very close.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

They know their cars yet rate the 0-60 for the manual at 4.3...and nearly every test has gotten 4.0...

I spend lots of time at the drag strip and have seen more 6th gens then I can count. overall the manuals are trapping slightly higher.

As for the Hot Rod test, Jeff Lutz (the professional driver) has said himself he was rusty at driving a manual as his race cars are manual valve body automatics with transbrakes...and there best trap to best trap was slightly higher for the manual, even with the crappier 60 foots.

I guess if you think you know better than GM... they only designed and built the car lol.

Crappier 60ft can actually produce higher trap.

Our fast list looks looks like the auto traps higher. Well besides the one that's not on the list that's a freaky anomaly. Probably modded.

Good luck getting better 0-60 with a manual on average.

I like manuals too but it's not looking much if any faster from a roll and for sure slower in the 1/4.

I'll concede a higher speed roll with a good driver the manual should win.

[Jkfsu]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I guess if you think you know better than GM... they only designed and built the car lol.

Crappier 60ft can actually produce higher trap.

Our fast list looks looks like the auto traps higher. Well besides the one that's not on the list that's a freaky anomaly. Probably modded.

Good luck getting better 0-60 with a manual on average.

I like manuals too but it's not looking much if any faster from a roll and for sure slower in the 1/4.

I'll concede a higher speed roll with a good driver the manual should win.

I will be able to answer this with certainty this week. Buddy got a 2016 6spd SS and I have the A8. We're going to do roll runs to see which one is quicker. Although geared different so different rolls will have different advantages to each car