[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Point proven yet again. So the only time it is acceptable to manipulate the data is when you do it or only when it makes the GT look better eh? Well the SS ran a 12.3 which is 1 tenth off from the 12.2 that the GT350R did. How bout dat? And it matched the WS times of the GT350R too. Since we're using Mustang math. Or does it not count when the Mustang looks bad?The 350R has been tested at 12.1@119.5...at least cherry pick the right stats.


Right. And a SS 1LE has never lined up against a GT350R. So we have to go by the times at WS which the SS 1LE matched the GT350R. And they never lined up on the track. So we have to go by the times and say they are within 1 tenth of each other. And the A8 SS has not been lined up against the A10 GT. So we have to go by the 12.3 SS against the 12.6 GT which is more than a driver's race.



Why are you conveniently ignoring that 2 testers on DRs could not do better than a low 12? Why are you ignoring that something is fishy as hell with the Evans run and the rest of the runs? Why are you ignoring that even Lund's run was suspect? Because what other testers were unable to do has no bearing on what has been done. It would be like me saying that because you could not do better than an 11.86 in a ZL1 then people claiming they have gone low 11's are full of shit. We even have people claiming 10.8's now in stock ZL1's which is what .7 faster than any magazine was able to get and according to you those kind differences in stock cars is unprecedented. C&D who corrects to zero d/a could only muster an 11.5 from the ZL1.

in red , enjoy