[AJL13]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

My favorite comment so far is: "The Edmunds tester is a crap driver!" Because crap drivers are faster in manuals than automatics according to Mustang guys.

The butthurt is strong, that's for sure. Being as parsimonious as I can here, that's what happens when reality doesn't meet your expectations.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by AJL13

The butthurt is strong, that's for sure. Being as parsimonious as I can here, that's what happens when reality doesn't meet your expectations.

Very true. I expect MT H2H to be even worse for the Mustang since it will be manual vs manual. And the excuse there will be the 1LE has WAY BETTER TIRES THAN THE MPSS! And WAIT UNTIL OUR PP2! IT WILL SMOKE THE 1LE.

[Fox9350]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Remember how unfair it was when a SS A8 was compared to a GT PP M6? Yeah...the A8 destroyed the GT...like it should. In this case the SS was the one at a disadvantage and it won.

Reliving great moments in Mustang history. Enjoy.
Attachment 912260

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the 15-17 Mustang GT was a slight step backwards performance wise (straight line), because due to the IRS which was a radical change and weight bumps, it is actually slower in a straight line than the 11-14 GT was, probably closer to the Gen 5 Camaro ......The Gen 6 Camaro was a massive leap performance wise and so Ford responded with this 18 GT which hasn't been tested enough yet. Anecdotally on early reports the traps are notably higher and the 1/4 is easily similar or better to the C6 best posted runs. The very best mag tests are never quite as fast the best fast lists, but if you don't think the 2018 will rip off a better time than 12.6 you're in denial. Also the 0-60 4.6 is downright laughable. Ford wouldn't claim sub 4 with a 0-60 that poor on the new car. The driver clearly sucked to get that time. Also there are a bunch of drive modes and you can lock the RPM in for a launch, all these are variables that can change things, they don't test these cars more than a few runs and call it a day for these reviews.

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

How funny. Because some time back when I said the 18 GT was the same platform and wasn't anything completely new all the Mustang fanboys said the exact opposite of what you're saying right now. You guys will change your statements to whatever suits you at the moment. SMH.

I've never said the Mustang was all new. I don't even own a Mustang, I drive a Malibu because I went through a divorce and my ex-wife fought me for the Camaro, so I had to sell it and give her half the assets from the sale.

Just because I deal honestly with the Mustang doesn't make me a Mustang guy. I also defend the Challenger against crap when people aren't honest or fair with it either.

[Fox9350]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You mad bro?

Either you're claiming they're lying or you're lying. Watch their videos, BONE STOCK 12.0x and 12.1 on factory tires. Where do you keep getting 12.3s on drag radials from whilst ignoring these 2 runs I just posted?

[AJL13]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Very true. I expect MT H2H to be even worse for the Mustang since it will be manual vs manual. And the excuse there will be the 1LE has WAY BETTER TIRES THAN THE MPSS! And WAIT UNTIL OUR PP2! IT WILL SMOKE THE 1LE.

The simple solution for Ford here is to better equip the entry-level GT. However, that wouldn't be as profitable for Ford as having a list of options that can run the GT up another $15K, as I mentioned earlier. The nice thing about the SS is even the entry level model has proper tires and suspension bits. The 1LE package is just an incredibly attractive package that makes your already track-capable SS even better dynamically on the track. If you want to make the GT track capable, you need to start checking off boxes on the options list ($$$).

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Remember how unfair it was when a SS A8 was compared to a GT PP M6? Yeah...the A8 destroyed the GT...like it should. In this case the SS was the one at a disadvantage... and it won!

Reliving great moments in Mustang history. Enjoy.
Attachment 912260

I see those hacks at R&T chose a a non-PP GT also fully bloated with tech as well... Oh wait.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by grampa_ss

I've seen it too. Just saying...drag mode must really be meant for DR's. If your tires are chirping, you're not getting 100% traction and it'll cost you time.

A chirp on the 1-2 is faster than a slushbox lag shift. The (extremely brief) loss of traction is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Fox9350

Either you're claiming they're lying or you're lying. Watch their videos, BONE STOCK 12.0x and 12.1 on factory tires. Where do you keep getting 12.3s on drag radials from whilst ignoring these 2 runs I just posted?

That's because he rejects everything that doesn't fit his narrative. Remember, the mustang is a mid 12 second car at best.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Fox9350

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the 15-17 Mustang GT was a slight step backwards performance wise (straight line), because due to the IRS which was a radical change and weight bumps, it is actually slower in a straight line than the 11-14 GT was, probably closer to the Gen 5 Camaro ......The Gen 6 Camaro was a massive leap performance wise and so Ford responded with this 18 GT which hasn't been tested enough yet. Anecdotally on early reports the traps are notably higher and the 1/4 is easily similar or better to the C6 best posted runs. The very best mag tests are never quite as fast the best fast lists, but if you don't think the 2018 will rip off a better time than 12.6 you're in denial. Also the 0-60 4.6 is downright laughable. Ford wouldn't claim sub 4 with a 0-60 that poor on the new car. The driver clearly sucked to get that time. Also there are a bunch of drive modes and you can lock the RPM in for a launch, all these are variables that can change things, they don't test these cars more than a few runs and call it a day for these reviews.

Ford said you HAVE TO HAVE PP1, MRC, A10, and Drag Mode to hit the sub 4 60. And this identical car was seen running a 12.1 by Ecobeast in - DA at ATCO. The A10 Mustang was just matched by a base 2SS manual. Embarrassing really. Manual SS cars have been in the low 12s as well. Basically this is a drivers race now with PP1 A10 cars and the 6M AS. Which is a big step forward for Ford albeit a bit disappointing since you guys were expecting 11.8s

[grampa_ss]

DR's do not come into play if the track prep is good (not talking about high HP cars here). Tires either hook or they don't. If the street tires hooks....then it hooks. A DR won't buy you anything. Sure, they may be lighter...but that's not the main reason they're being used

My local track sucks. I can spin 1st-3rd. So, in my case at my track I need a DR. Otherwise it's just flat out dangerous.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Fox9350

You seem to be ignorant of LMR getting a 12.0x @116 or something and ecobeast getting a 12.1 @119 in BONE STOCK cars (their claims)

Biggest problem with Evan's run is that he simply destroyed all the previous times that were out, including cars that were lightened and on DR's....

If it was a Camaro that did the same, I'd be skeptical of it as well. If it was a Corvette, I'd be skeptical of it too...

Point is... you have 1 car bone stock outrunning tuned/DR cars.... seems off...

Originally Posted by Fox9350

Thanks for actually looking into it objectively. These magazines are idiots. They never test apples to apples. I'm sure the navigation and blinking mirrors and adaptive cruise and all that other nonsense really helped the mustang move faster. These idiots shrieking about one test on one day from one site that isn't known for being a performance outlet should be worried. Because those who actually know how to drive the car are going to hit 0-60 in 3.9 or 4.0 not 4.6 and will trap at 120 MPH and that is far higher than the camaro has trapped despite being out for 2 years. They will also be driving a Mustang packged out for performance only and not with 20" rims and other things that only hurt performance. Anyone drawing a conclusion from a single test on a single day is an idiot. Also I didn't read the article yet, was it at least the same driver? Tell me it was at least the same driver.

Both cars, minus the transmissions (why I have no clue), were compared as basically the same setup. Both had the top trim, both had the appearance package, both had leather seats, etc...The cars were comparable in setup.

The Mustang, regardless of the extra options, had the better transmission, had drag mode, and should have outrun the Camaro in a straight line. It didn't. It actually let the M6 stay in the race all the way down the strip.

Now, you want to complain because the Mustang had extra crap on it? GUESS WHAT???!?!?!?!? The Camaro did TOO!!!! In fact, the Camaro run's a 20" wheel STANDARD... and still spanks that ass on the PP1 cars that Ford has run.

So let's go up a notch...

2018 GT with PP2
2018 SS with 1LE

Both get a different gearing, both get 6 piston brakes, the Mustang gets bigger rotors, the Camaro is manual trans only, the Camaro runs on 20" wheels, the Mustang will get 19" wheels, both have a better suspension over their base counterparts....

So seriously, enough with this nonsense about performance.....Edmunds tested the base V8 models that it feels would represent the general public's buying habits....which is a fair test. They viewed the Mustang as the better daily while the Camaro was the better track car.

[grampa_ss]

[QUOTE=SSfriendly;10018246]A chirp on the 1-2 is faster than a slushbox lag shift. The (extremely brief) loss of traction is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

True...BUT, it could be the difference in an 11.00 and a 10.99. just saying.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Fox9350

Thanks for actually looking into it objectively. These magazines are idiots. They never test apples to apples. I'm sure the navigation and blinking mirrors and adaptive cruise and all that other nonsense really helped the mustang move faster. These idiots shrieking about one test on one day from one site that isn't known for being a performance outlet should be worried. Because those who actually know how to drive the car are going to hit 0-60 in 3.9 or 4.0 not 4.6 and will trap at 120 MPH and that is far higher than the camaro has trapped despite being out for 2 years. They will also be driving a Mustang packged out for performance only and not with 20" rims and other things that only hurt performance. Anyone drawing a conclusion from a single test on a single day is an idiot. Also I didn't read the article yet, was it at least the same driver? Tell me it was at least the same driver.

It’s trapping 115-119. In -1300 DA at atco still didn’t hit 120

Camaro has hit 119 stock as well. But it’s not common. The Camaro is more a 113-117 car.

Trap does not win a race and it’s not as simple as saying it should for sure beat the SS because of that. For one after the SS shifts into 5th after 110 it’s gearing starts to hinder it.

The GT does look to have a roughly 2 mph trap advantage. But it does not 60 as hard. With drag mode and better tires (sound familiar?) than the Camaro it may beat it especially on the street. But so far every shop and rental that has run in good air and good prep hasnt even hit below a 1.8 60 stock or with a tire and no tuning . I’m not sure how all the ford racing experts have missed this. It’s lacking low end power to the SS. People have hit high 1.6s on a tire(me included) no tuning.

[SSfriendly]

[QUOTE=grampa_ss;10018259]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

A chirp on the 1-2 is faster than a slushbox lag shift. The (extremely brief) loss of traction is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

True...BUT, it could be the difference in an 11.00 and a 10.99. just saying.

And the difference between an aggressive shifting transmission and soft could easily be the difference between a 10.99 and 11.39.

Basically, the firmness of the 1-2 shift far outweighs and chirping of the tires.