Quote:
Originally Posted by shaffe
Just answer me this then. Why did you give the ZL1 and now Demon the benefit of the doubt but not the Mustang?
The ZL1 and Demon in this case, deserved time. Owners deserved seat time, time to get used to driving them and then let's see what they can do. Why do you afford time to those cars but the Mustang's early owner runs, shop runs that are in line now with the cars.com and C&D time you discounted them?
Just answer me that lol.
|
The case with the ZL1 and Demon was much different. When the Zl1 came out, GM made their claims. And then the magazines ran 11.4 with the A10 and 11.8 with the M6. Around this time last year there were only a few who had these cars, fewer who planned to go tot he track, fewer who planned to go to the track AND were out of the break-in period, and of that small percentage you have to figure that most of them were average at best. So the car had already proven what it could do. It was the drivers who needed to get in the cars and get the times down. Which eventually happened.
Same with the Demon. We see Dodge's claims. We have yet to see anything official as far as how fast it'll go. There are only 3300 of them being made. Of that 3300, not all of them are accounted for. Of the ones that are, the same thing goes...few of them are in capable hands, broken in, and hitting the tracks. Most people buying them and aren't even planning on going to the track. So since there is nothing official for us to go by, and since not many of them have been to the track, then you have to give it time for people to get in these cars and get some results...and for the mags to test them so we can at least have a benchmark.
With the GT we already saw what the magazines ran way back in December. Ford made it a point to get these cars in the hands of vendors and shops before anyone else. Even before the mags could test them. So we already had info on what these cars were doing. Under the criteria I listed, it ran a 12.5 which is what I said it would do. So it wasn't a matter of giving it time. We used the first tests on the ZL1 as the basis of what it officially does. We did the same with the GT350, Hellcat, Viper, and other cars. When any car ran faster under the same criteria, then we used the updated info. And that is exactly what we all did with the 18 GT. And it appears that we'll have to update the info on what the GT runs now. But it's been 5 months man. 5 months. You can barely call me out five months later when we ALL used that same info. Several of the testing sources even declared that the SS was still the faster of the 2. And even the Mustang guys gave up. So throwing all this up in my face 5 months later is hardly fair. I mean, if someone 5 months from now pilots an 18 SS under the same criteria to an 11.7, then would that make you or anyone else wrong? Or what if from this point out nobody can get a GT with the same options and modes under the same criteria to duplicate those times? Then what? Would we be able to say that it is no longer a low 12 sec car?