[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

It seems like GSJ's departure left a spot open...

They pull this shit all the time. The Mustang has tested faster for what it's worth which we all have acknowledged. The fact that it took them all that time and R&D and an entirely new setup just to be ahead in testing by only 1 tenth and only when optioned right is a joke. Like Thanos said, "all that for a drop of blood", lol!! Ford would have been better off just eating the loss and building something strong for the S650. But as it is the S650 might not be here until 2025, the GTPP2 was a flop, the GT350 is a joke that can't beat cars that cost half it's price, the GT350R is an even bigger joke with an even bigger price tag, the GT500 can't go faster than 180 MPH because it is unstable at those speeds, and the Bullitt can't get out of it's own way. But they're cheering over 1 tenth in the quarter mile. Shit I pity them soo badly that I say let them have it. They need something to cheer.

I think it's a little heavy handed to say that PP2 is a flop or that GT350 / 350R are "a joke". They're all very good cars, especially for the price point. This isn't Game of Thrones where "you win or you die". Yes, Ford made a VERY questionable decision when it came down to coolers vs tires for a "non-track car" PP2, but it's still a pretty solid value.

And if by "cars that cost half its price" of the GT350 you are talking about Stinger GT, that is a car that can embarrass a lot of pricey cars on acceleration. And that alone. GT350 is still a track beast. If by "cars that cost half its price" you mean SS 1LE, you may have a point, but only if you factor ADM into the pricing equation. From an "as tested" standpoint, that is not apples to apples. From the pov of a buyer deciding on a purchase, yeah that's a thing, but it's a dealer thing, not a Ford thing. I think testing shows the GT350 besting the 1LE in most track competitions, though maybe not by enough to warrant the price differential if track performance is the primary consideration for how you spend your $$. There is a lot more to GT350 than track monster. It's a beautiful car. 1LE is certainly not a toad, but GT350 is a beautiful car and does a lot of things well. I'd have no problem buying one except for my nervousness around the oil consumption issue.


At the end of the day, Mustang and Camaro both punch above their weight class when it comes to performance per dollar spent. Neither car sucks. Neither car is a joke. Should Ford have delivered a definitive beatdown with the 2018 mid-cycle? Yeah, but they didn't. So it makes sense for them to do whatever it takes to score marginal wins where they can. GT* does that. I think if Chevy introduced a "1LE*" that took down 350R we would all applaud the effort.

Now, having said that, Ford really needs for GT500 to outperform both ZL1 and ZLE. Time will tell.

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

And if by "cars that cost half its price" of the GT350 you are talking about Stinger GT, that is a car that can embarrass a lot of pricey cars on acceleration. And that alone. GT350 is still a track beast. If by "cars that cost half its price" you mean SS 1LE, you may have a point, but only if you factor ADM into the pricing equation. From an "as tested" standpoint, that is not apples to apples. From the pov of a buyer deciding on a purchase, yeah that's a thing, but it's a dealer thing, not a Ford thing. I think testing shows the GT350 besting the 1LE in most track competitions, though maybe not by enough to warrant the price differential if track performance is the primary consideration for how you spend your $$. There is a lot more to GT350 than track monster. It's a beautiful car. 1LE is certainly not a toad, but GT350 is a beautiful car and does a lot of things well. I'd have no problem buying one except for my nervousness around the oil consumption issue.


At the end of the day, Mustang and Camaro both punch above their weight class when it comes to performance per dollar spent. Neither car sucks. Neither car is a joke. Should Ford have delivered a definitive beatdown with the 2018 mid-cycle? Yeah, but they didn't. So it makes sense for them to do whatever it takes to score marginal wins where they can. GT* does that. I think if Chevy introduced a "1LE*" that took down 350R we would all applaud the effort.

Great summary.

This is the kind of objective analysis the Mustang shills are completely incapable of...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Another topic that is interesting and that goes along with sales is how come the Mustang and Challenger don't seem to be doing too well despite their stellar sales? I can say with 100% certainty that in 5 years I will be able to walk into a dealership and buy a 7th Gen Camaro. In 5 years will there be a 7th Gen Mustang or will there still be the S550? In 5 years will there even be a Hellcat or Challenger anymore? Will it be the same ole body and almost 20 years without a change? Will there be a GT500? GT350? The Camaro is the only one that has a steady future right now. I don't think even Ford knows what they're going to do for the next 5 years at this point. So maybe the Camaro isn't doing as bad as the sales numbers would have one think.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

It doesn't matter what you tell some people or how many times you tell them because they'll just believe whatever conveniently fits their opinions.

The Camaro is selling the worst but guess what, it is the only one of the three that will have a new Gen by 2022. Which means new engines, new options, better performance, etc. So the point is that they can't be doing all that bad when we know we have new engines and designs coming up while the other two don't.

There's a few things that go into that. Camaro is tied to Cadillac and vice versa. Cadillac will need Camaro to continue on to take up volume for AlphaII cars. AlphaII will be ready fairly soon so it makes sense that a new gen Camaro is horizon as it would make no sense to keep the Camaro soldiering on the "outdated" alpha platform.

Challenger has no new platform that looks like it would be suitable and I agree with you 100% what the hell is Dodge doing. They are living in the now and it is a very dangerous thing for a company.

Ford from the rumors we have seen will shift the Mustang to be on the same platform as the Explorer and Aviator. Ford typically has had mustang generations around for a long time so it doesn't shock me that S550 might be around longer than we thought. S197 was around from 2005 to 2014. Who knows maybe they are just trying to get it right the first time around lol.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

DO NOT expect the magnitude of change / improvement from Gen 6 to Gen 7 that was delivered going from Gen 5 to Gen 6. Going from Alpha to Alpha2 is evolutionary. Going from Zeta to Alpha was revolutionary. Meanwhile, Dodge and Ford have more room for improvement, especially if Dodge ever implements the Giulia's Giorgio platform. Think of how much Mustang gained going from 6AT to 10AT compared to what Camaro gained going from 8AT to 10AT. Similar potentials for improvement on a chassis basis with evolutionary improvements.

This ^ I am sure the 7th gen Camaro will perform better than the 6th gen but I seriously doubt it will be as drastic as 6th to 5th for the reasons Martin listed.

Originally Posted by 13vertss

Why does it take companies that deal with Mustangs on prepped tracks the only ones that get these times?

That argument I see on here all the time and to me it makes no sense. If anything a speed shop would benefit from sandbagging the stock car/baseline to make their packages look better. And the rented prepped track also to me doesn't make much of a difference. From my own personal experience a rented track puts in the minimum amount of effort to track prep.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I think it's a little heavy handed to say that PP2 is a flop or that GT350 / 350R are "a joke". They're all very good cars, especially for the price point. This isn't Game of Thrones where "you win or you die". Yes, Ford made a VERY questionable decision when it came down to coolers vs tires for a "non-track car" PP2, but it's still a pretty solid value.

And if by "cars that cost half its price" of the GT350 you are talking about Stinger GT, that is a car that can embarrass a lot of pricey cars on acceleration. And that alone. GT350 is still a track beast. If by "cars that cost half its price" you mean SS 1LE, you may have a point, but only if you factor ADM into the pricing equation. From an "as tested" standpoint, that is not apples to apples. From the pov of a buyer deciding on a purchase, yeah that's a thing, but it's a dealer thing, not a Ford thing. I think testing shows the GT350 besting the 1LE in most track competitions, though maybe not by enough to warrant the price differential if track performance is the primary consideration for how you spend your $$. There is a lot more to GT350 than track monster. It's a beautiful car. 1LE is certainly not a toad, but GT350 is a beautiful car and does a lot of things well. I'd have no problem buying one except for my nervousness around the oil consumption issue.


At the end of the day, Mustang and Camaro both punch above their weight class when it comes to performance per dollar spent. Neither car sucks. Neither car is a joke. Should Ford have delivered a definitive beatdown with the 2018 mid-cycle? Yeah, but they didn't. So it makes sense for them to do whatever it takes to score marginal wins where they can. GT* does that. I think if Chevy introduced a "1LE*" that took down 350R we would all applaud the effort.

Now, having said that, Ford really needs for GT500 to outperform both ZL1 and ZLE. Time will tell.

What he said ^

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

11.83. But they don't count that time because it was some guy named Evan who they think tried harder with the Mustang, or something.

Okay, but aside from the day 1 release of the 6th gen...no one bothered to really do ANY testing with the Camaro SS until they released the newly released A10 on the SS.

More to the point, Evan spent an entire day on a track, in quality conditions, to get that time. No one has EVER done that with the Camaro.

It's an impressive run, but it has to be considered an outlier compared to the rest. Just as no one wants to accept that many SS's have run 11.9 times in the hands of regular owners...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

Okay, but aside from the day 1 release of the 6th gen...no one bothered to really do ANY testing with the Camaro SS until they released the newly released A10 on the SS.

More to the point, Evan spent an entire day on a track, in quality conditions, to get that time. No one has EVER done that with the Camaro.

It's an impressive run, but it has to be considered an outlier compared to the rest. Just as no one wants to accept that many SS's have run 11.9 times in the hands of regular owners...

That is true. The whole point of the Evans run was to get the best time possible. That was the entire point of the test. Had someone ever done that with the Camaro I am sure they would also get better than the published results.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That is true. The whole point of the Evans run was to get the best time possible. That was the entire point of the test. Had someone ever done that with the Camaro I am sure they would also get better than the published results.

I’d go further. The whole point of Evan’s run was to do better than 11.9 (the top of Camaro6’s fast list).

He went out there to specificity run 11.8 so Ford could stand silently in the background.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That is true. The whole point of the Evans run was to get the best time possible. That was the entire point of the test. Had someone ever done that with the Camaro I am sure they would also get better than the published results.

I will also go one step further...

Both Dodge and Chevy (and GM as a whole) will publish times. 0-60, 1/4 mile with trap speeds, breaking, etc...

Ford generally doesn't. They don't give lap times, and they don't go to the N-ring.

The issue with a company giving performance metrics, is what numbers should they use from a company perspective. Let's assume for arguments sake, no one lies. Do you use an average solid run in the 1/4 or a hero run? In other words, would it best benifit Chevy to use the 12.3 1/4 mile, which seems very doable, or a 11.9 number, which while has occured, is more rare.

If you use some average numbers, they will sound average, and perhaps not as good if some other company uses hero runs for comparison. So, it would sound like the company would want to use hero runs. Put down the best number anyone can ever get, and that makes for great advertising. But then, they run the risk of dissapointing owners who buy the car and expect to run that number. Folks will say the company lies, etc...

So, which numbers do you use?

It seems to me like Chevy uses an average solid run, not any hero run type data, so the numbers bear out in the real world, and they have more credibility. Dodge seems to use more hero run type numbers, which impress initially, but leave buyers struggling to replicate.

Then comes Ford... What they do, is not publish any numbers. That way they get the best of both worlds. No one can claim they are exagerating a number they never publish, but there will always be some dude that gets a hero run in, and Ford just lets everyone think they can get that number. Ford's strategy is probably the best of the three from a company standpoint, but as a consumer, I just want A number, AND whether I can expect that number to be a hero run (and I will never duplicate) or an average solid run, that I should be able to replicate, if I'm good enough. Either way, I'm good...

For the record, Evan's run with the Mustang is clearly a hero run, so I believe the number. But, I also believe, I will never replicate that number if I were to buy one and try. But, I pretty sure I can do the 12.3 that Chevy claims if I go out and try.

Lesson here is that numbers without context are just a bunch of numbers.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I’d go further. The whole point of Evan’s run was to do better than 11.9 (the top of Camaro6’s fast list).

He went out there to specificity run 11.8 so Ford could stand silently in the background.

Either way I think it was pretty clear in the article that the goal was to get the fastest time possible.

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I will also go one step further...

Both Dodge and Chevy (and GM as a whole) will publish times. 0-60, 1/4 mile with trap speeds, breaking, etc...

Ford generally doesn't. They don't give lap times, and they don't go to the N-ring.

The issue with a company giving performance metrics, is what numbers should they use from a company perspective. Let's assume for arguments sake, no one lies. Do you use an average solid run in the 1/4 or a hero run? In other words, would it best benifit Chevy to use the 12.3 1/4 mile, which seems very doable, or a 11.9 number, which while has occured, is more rare.

If you use some average numbers, they will sound average, and perhaps not as good if some other company uses hero runs for comparison. So, it would sound like the company would want to use hero runs. Put down the best number anyone can ever get, and that makes for great advertising. But then, they run the risk of dissapointing owners who buy the car and expect to run that number. Folks will say the company lies, etc...

So, which numbers do you use?

It seems to me like Chevy uses an average solid run, not any hero run type data, so the numbers bear out in the real world, and they have more credibility. Dodge seems to use more hero run type numbers, which impress initially, but leave buyers struggling to replicate.

Then comes Ford... What they do, is not publish any numbers. That way they get the best of both worlds. No one can claim they are exagerating a number they never publish, but there will always be some dude that gets a hero run in, and Ford just lets everyone think they can get that number. Ford's strategy is probably the best of the three from a company standpoint, but as a consumer, I just want A number, AND whether I can expect that number to be a hero run (and I will never duplicate) or an average solid run, that I should be able to replicate, if I'm good enough. Either way, I'm good...

For the record, Evan's run with the Mustang is clearly a hero run, so I believe the number. But, I also believe, I will never replicate that number if I were to buy one and try. But, I pretty sure I can do the 12.3 that Chevy claims if I go out and try.

Lesson here is that numbers without context are just a bunch of numbers.

True.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I will also go one step further...

Both Dodge and Chevy (and GM as a whole) will publish times. 0-60, 1/4 mile with trap speeds, breaking, etc...

Ford generally doesn't. They don't give lap times, and they don't go to the N-ring.

The issue with a company giving performance metrics, is what numbers should they use from a company perspective. Let's assume for arguments sake, no one lies. Do you use an average solid run in the 1/4 or a hero run? In other words, would it best benifit Chevy to use the 12.3 1/4 mile, which seems very doable, or a 11.9 number, which while has occured, is more rare.

If you use some average numbers, they will sound average, and perhaps not as good if some other company uses hero runs for comparison. So, it would sound like the company would want to use hero runs. Put down the best number anyone can ever get, and that makes for great advertising. But then, they run the risk of dissapointing owners who buy the car and expect to run that number. Folks will say the company lies, etc...

So, which numbers do you use?

It seems to me like Chevy uses an average solid run, not any hero run type data, so the numbers bear out in the real world, and they have more credibility. Dodge seems to use more hero run type numbers, which impress initially, but leave buyers struggling to replicate.

Then comes Ford... What they do, is not publish any numbers. That way they get the best of both worlds. No one can claim they are exagerating a number they never publish, but there will always be some dude that gets a hero run in, and Ford just lets everyone think they can get that number. Ford's strategy is probably the best of the three from a company standpoint, but as a consumer, I just want A number, AND whether I can expect that number to be a hero run (and I will never duplicate) or an average solid run, that I should be able to replicate, if I'm good enough. Either way, I'm good...

For the record, Evan's run with the Mustang is clearly a hero run, so I believe the number. But, I also believe, I will never replicate that number if I were to buy one and try. But, I pretty sure I can do the 12.3 that Chevy claims if I go out and try.

Lesson here is that numbers without context are just a bunch of numbers.

We actually know this for a fact, see the salient part of Al Oppenheiser's response to the M6 ZL1 bog question:

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I think it's a little heavy handed to say that PP2 is a flop or that GT350 / 350R are "a joke". They're all very good cars, especially for the price point. This isn't Game of Thrones where "you win or you die". Yes, Ford made a VERY questionable decision when it came down to coolers vs tires for a "non-track car" PP2, but it's still a pretty solid value.

And if by "cars that cost half its price" of the GT350 you are talking about Stinger GT, that is a car that can embarrass a lot of pricey cars on acceleration. And that alone. GT350 is still a track beast. If by "cars that cost half its price" you mean SS 1LE, you may have a point, but only if you factor ADM into the pricing equation. From an "as tested" standpoint, that is not apples to apples. From the pov of a buyer deciding on a purchase, yeah that's a thing, but it's a dealer thing, not a Ford thing. I think testing shows the GT350 besting the 1LE in most track competitions, though maybe not by enough to warrant the price differential if track performance is the primary consideration for how you spend your $$. There is a lot more to GT350 than track monster. It's a beautiful car. 1LE is certainly not a toad, but GT350 is a beautiful car and does a lot of things well. I'd have no problem buying one except for my nervousness around the oil consumption issue.


At the end of the day, Mustang and Camaro both punch above their weight class when it comes to performance per dollar spent. Neither car sucks. Neither car is a joke. Should Ford have delivered a definitive beatdown with the 2018 mid-cycle? Yeah, but they didn't. So it makes sense for them to do whatever it takes to score marginal wins where they can. GT* does that. I think if Chevy introduced a "1LE*" that took down 350R we would all applaud the effort.

Now, having said that, Ford really needs for GT500 to outperform both ZL1 and ZLE. Time will tell.

The PP2 did flop. It got held back from being able to do the best it could for starters. As a result it overheated. So all that fanfare just to go out on the track and be able to do just one run? That is a major disappointment.

The GT350 R and non-R are a joke. At least to me and others. What can either of them beat that are in their price range? And then factor in all the issues with the car. If it was just that they can't beat any competitor's cars then that is one thing. But then to have major engine issues and recalls and reliability problems is another thing.

I exaggerated when I mentioned cars that are half the price. But then again the GT beats it. And there is the excuse that the Shelby is not a quarter mile car. Ok neither is the M6 ZL1 with all the TM thrown in but I don't see cars costing half it's price beating it at anything. And regardless if you buy a $50K or $60K car and then lose to a $30K nobody is going to rationalize that "oh well your car wasn't made for blah blah blah blah". Mention that excuse and people will laugh at you even more. People are simply going to look at you like a fool for spending twice as much money on a slower car. How many times do we compare the ZL1 and Z06 and even the SS in a newly opened thread on here to cars that cost way more? If my $40K SS beats an $80 Audi, nobody out there is going to hear an excuse about how luxury items are factored into the price and resale value and all that. They're gonna see one thing...an $80K sports car getting it's ass kicked by a $40K sports car. And if it was once or even twice with Ford then I could look past it. But when their top vehicles constantly get beat by the GT which is their entry level V8 then that really says something.

[BlaqWhole]

As far as Evans run at the track...if it was a MT or C&D or some other reputable outlet that was at the track and hired him to run the car then I absolutely would acknowledge it. But the circumstances surrounding that track outing as well as the publication and articles that he is associated with kinda takes away all his validity. Like I said MM&FF is hardly an official source to quote quarter mile times from. And I've seen too many articles of them instructing people how to cheat. I get it that they're an enthusiast mag. But that to me makes them more story tellers to me. I've seen many people back in my Stang days who tried to copy their cars or the results they claim to have gotten and I don't know of anyone who actually had the same success they report. Especially on the cars they claim are DD. So the fact that he just so happens to be the one who got the best time out of the 18+ GT raises all kinds of red flags. Like I said, you kinda lose all credibility when you write an article on how to fool track officials, how to hide nitrous, all the mods you can hide, etc.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

As far as Evans run at the track...if it was a MT or C&D or some other reputable outlet that was at the track and hired him to run the car then I absolutely would acknowledge it. But the circumstances surrounding that track outing as well as the publication and articles that he is associated with kinda takes away all his validity. Like I said MM&FF is hardly an official source to quote quarter mile times from. And I've seen too many articles of them instructing people how to cheat. I get it that they're an enthusiast mag. But that to me makes them more story tellers to me. I've seen many people back in my Stang days who tried to copy their cars or the results they claim to have gotten and I don't know of anyone who actually had the same success they report. Especially on the cars they claim are DD. So the fact that he just so happens to be the one who got the best time out of the 18+ GT raises all kinds of red flags. Like I said, you kinda lose all credibility when you write an article on how to fool track officials, how to hide nitrous, all the mods you can hide, etc.

Well, I thought it was published for Hot Rod because it's on that site. I am not familiar with Evan. Never heard of him until I read that article. Quote:

"Our plan was to run the Mustang in 100-percent stock trim, the only thing we manipulated was tire pressure and launch rpm."

11.83@119.5 mph

It was December so they couldn't track it up north. You're basically saying he lied. I don't know one way or or another.

American muscle ran 11.97 @ 118 mph on all seasons so not a bad consolation.

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

It's an impressive run, but it has to be considered an outlier compared to the rest. Just as no one wants to accept that many SS's have run 11.9 times in the hands of regular owners...

Accept nobody is disputing the Camaro ran X in private owners hands , but private owners are known to lie, so we use automobile journalist testing because they have no skin in the game and they use regimented testing for all vehicles. In those tests the GT has been tested .3 faster than the SS at 11.9 or do we have to throw those results out too?

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Well, I thought it was published for Hot Rod because it's on that site. I am not familiar with Evan. Never heard of him until I read that article. Quote:

"Our plan was to run the Mustang in 100-percent stock trim, the only thing we manipulated was tire pressure and launch rpm."

11.83@119.5 mph

It was December so they couldn't track it up north. You're basically saying he lied. I don't know one way or or another.

American muscle ran 11.97 @ 118 mph on all seasons so not a bad consolation.

There are a lot of mod companies that work specific with Camaro, yet you don’t see them out getting track times for the Camaro for magazines or you tube videos . They don’t need to as the Camaro speaks for themselves. Yet all the mustangs companies all come out of the woodwork to be the first, or fastest in the latest mustang. I think a lot of that is because Ford doesn’t publish numbers, so they want to be first at it. IMHO I would not be surprised if Ford didn’t ask them to do it as it was mentioned earlier. But these have been hero runs, yet everyone feels this is the norm. If it was, there would be much more talk in the drag racing section on m6 of others getting these times, yet these have been out for quite awhile now, and not much talk over there. So just shows these times are RARE.