[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

in red , enjoy

I don't bother with "in red". I didn't read any of what you wrote "in red". Either quote it so I can quote back or don't bother and be ignored.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Yes! Just as you did!

So what.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

How about Hot Rod magazine?

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/drag-...rd-mustang-gt/

IDGAF bro!

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

You have some serious trust issues.

1 - Trust is good. None is better.

2 - You put too much faith in what people tell you. Keep running behind Evans.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

There you go making stuff up again. Go ahead, find where where I declared the GT would be faster. You'll be a while...and will come up empty.

Ok. So the SS is faster.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Ditto with comparing the 11.8 to SS mag runs. Never happened.

Again, the SS is faster. Thanks.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

In M6 form, everyone (myself included) thought it would go mid 12's when tested by the popular magazines. Low 12's will be had with the A10. You're just pulling things out of every orifice now aren't you?

Bullshit. You and others thought it wuld do low 12s. You never once stated it would go mid 12s. I did. Several times. And I was met with opposition by many a troll. Just for it to run mid 12s. High in the mid 12s at that. LOL!!

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

And again, no one is arguing this. Evans runs absolutely should be compared to the fast list here....they are both dragstrip runs. Why are you even arguing this?

You and the other trolls made every attempt to compare Evans to the mag times.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Total BS. Myself and nearly everyone on M6G was expecting mid 12's from the M6, as the horsepower alone wasn't going to be enough to drop it past that. Again, I don't know where you're getting your info, but you're dead wrong.

Then why did every troll on here come at me when I said it would do mid to high 12s at best? Answer that.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Dude, stop using BS comparisons of car and driver 1/4 mile times to 18 GT times when motortrend did an actual same day test of the two. M6 vs M6 they are 0.1 apart...get over it already.

A10 GT to M6 SS and the GT STILL lost. And even the dumbest most Mustangest trollboy on the planet knows that the A8 is faster than the M6. Which thru obvious intelligence means that the A8 SS has the advantage over the A10 GT since the A10 GT lost to even the M6 SS. You'd have to be stupid AF to not see that.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

WTF dude lol, motortrend already tested the M6 GT to mid 12's. A stock 15-17 did high 12's. Too funny.

What? 12.9? Post it bro.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

And still you don't fundamentally understand the difference. And you still have yet to pony up that a tire and tune 18GT can run Zl1 times.

Because the only way a GT can beat ANY V8 Camaro is if it is modified and the Camaro is stock. Yea. COngrats on that bro.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

None are ignore them, they are ALL data points. Some suck at driver, others have bad days, bad track prep etc. As for Lund's run, they were perhaps the most documented 1/4 runs I have ever seen. Why would I doubt the most reputable tuner in the mustang community? What does he have to gain by running a fantastic stock 1/4 mile? If anything else, he would sandbag and make his tune look better.

Not worth a reply.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Funny, all magazines sole purpose is to sell more magazines. You conveniently discredit what you want to in a vein attempt to argue.

How many years did you hold a subscription? Everything out of that mag was for the sole purpose of selling magazines. I was heavy in my Mustang phase at that point. Thank GOD I broke out of it. That magazine is garbage. I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. Show me a PI 99-04 GT on stock internals running high boost and making over 550 to the wheels while being flogged daily on pump gas with no E85 or meth injection. That was just one of the bullshit articles I read. And trust me, there are plenty more of that caliper. I wouldn't believe MM&FF at midnight if they told me it was dark outside. They are FOS to a degree that I never witnessed before. Take every YT comment promoting a Mustang, exaggerate it to the 10th degree, and then make up a complete BS story around it and that is every article you'll read in that mag.

[HeaterMan]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

I don't get the obsession that this website has with branding runs as being on a closed track,etc, rentals, etc.

At my local track (Woodburn, Oregon) on an average Friday Night Drags/open track event they prep the track very well and you can get 5-6 runs in with at least 30 minutes of cooldown between each run. There's no pressure, you're not bracket racing or in for cash..you're just running test and tunes or grudge races.

All this noise about closed tracks, pro drivers, etc..it's bullshit. It's just noise to distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running three Honda Civics with Spoon Engines. And on top of that he just went into Harry's and ordered 3 T66 turbos, with NOS, and a Motek System Exhaust.

Woodburn is my home track as well and they do a fabulous job with track prep even on street legal Friday night drags. I'll Gladly race any stock 6th Gen Camaro SS with my 18 GT at that track, all ya gotta do is show up and be bone stock..

[HeaterMan]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

if 2 or 3 other cars have gone 12.00-12.1X how is an 11.85 so far removed that there had to be something suspect about the run?

never heard of that logic before now

These guys are acting like 2 tenths is an eternity.. lol

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Just go to YouTube and FB and you'll see hundreds, if not thousands of comments. I think it's comical is all. See, we've had 3 yrs on this SS platform to know what it can. So, when we see a 11.8 run, we know it's an outlier. We don't claim it's the norm.

What happened was real simple. Ford took forever to come out with this refresh. Which led the heard to think what they want. The FIRST............The very first run that came out was Lund ripping off a what? 12.0, 11.9? Tuned. I don't care what he says, it was tuned. It wasn't stock. So, that started it. Everyone said, hell yea. Ford finally built us a 11 sec GT. Well, then the real world happened. Mag test shows it 12.6, 12,5 at best with the A10 which ties the SS M6. So, that hurt the feelings a little bit. Then the excuses came out. Tire, who was driving, blah blah blah. All the while, forgetting their new platform is up against a 3 yr old platform now that is about to get a refresh. Eh, anyways. Both sides have them. I don't give a rats ass. I have 10.46 Zl1 that I'm pleased with. But, I won't go claim that as a hero run, then run off to the McLaren forums to blast off that I can run with a 720S.

Anyhow, I'm just waiting on that 500 to drop so I can check it out. Hopefully it is what I want it to be so I can buy one. Yea, blasphemy. I know. I'd get rid of my Zl1 for a 500 any day if it's as advertised.

EXACTLY!!

Originally Posted by kttxz06

If they would of put the Bullitt HP bump in the GT, Ford could of squashed all the Camaro vs Mustang comparisons. At least for now. But, they didn't. Now, they have to sell a $60k Bullitt to just run heads up with a SS. And to me, that's unfortunate.

Ford could have done this back in 2015. But they settled for a 435 hp (15 hp bump) GT. Then for 18 they gave it another 25 hp bump when they clearly had the tech to make it 475 instead of 460. That alone might have given them the 1/4 mile win. But Ford being Ford figured that their fans are dumbasses who will pay for bits and pieces. So here is your 460 hp GT that is slower than the SS. And a few weeks later here is your 475 HP debadged GT that we'll call a "Bullitt" and milk even more money out of you and that one still won't match even the standard 2-3 year old platform SS on a track. And guess what. We'll then put out a PP2 that more than likely STILL won't touch the SS 1LE and won't beat the SS in a quarter mile. All because the fanboys are utter idiots who will buy up anything that FOrd throws at them.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Ford gave Evan a car that he tested as a freelance writer associated with Mustang rags. He then sold the story to HotRod

HotRod didn’t do shit except print it.

Writer for MM&FF. Says it all right there. Hotrod knew it was BS but they probably printed it to make sales.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Bullshit. You and others thought it wuld do low 12s. You never once stated it would go mid 12s. I did. Several times. And I was met with opposition by many a troll. Just for it to run mid 12s. High in the mid 12s at that. LOL!!

Haha, man you're great at lying. Prove it. Find a single example of me claiming a MY18 M6 would run low 12's. Good luck chief. Put your money where your mouth is and prove where I said a stock MY18 M6 would run low 12's. If you do, I'll quit this forum. Good luck Bro.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You and the other trolls made every attempt to compare Evans to the mag times.

Likewise, prove (that I) did and I'll leave this forum.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

A10 GT to M6 SS and the GT STILL lost.

Come back to me when motortrend or car and driver test the auto's together.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

What? 12.9? Post it bro.

How about a 12.8

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...gt-first-test/

How's that crow taste bro?

[BlaqWhole]

To go further. GM had the tech to go DFI for the 16 MY. You think Ford didn't have it for the year earlier (2015 Mustangs) when it was in the EBs? WHy didn't Ford go ahead and put it in the GT? Because they milked the fans and figured they'd give them a slight boost so they could say "ooh, my heavier 2015 GT has an extra 15 HP which is 9 HP more than the 15 SS". Although it was the same performance in the quarter mile despite the magical bump. And also because they wanted to keep costs down so cheap ass MFers could buy lackluster GTs after being turned down for the better performing SS. So now they finally decide to throw DFI and up the CR and other things (which costs money) to the GT because sales alone aren't going to matter when the GT keeps getting slain by the SS. And the price goes up. And it still loses. So here comes the Bullitt a few months after the GT. Because they knew good and well that the GT would not beat the SS in the quarter mile. They had that Bullitt engine for a while now. But. Milk more money out of the idiots. Make them pay for that extra 15 hp on a PP1 platform. So now to get a GT that matches the SS you gotta pay Bullitt money and that is just for straight line performance. The Bullitt will get destroyed on a track. And then take 2 years to come up with something to answer to the ZL1 and the fanboys will hoot and holler instead of wondering WTF they didn't do this sooner. They had DFI and boost tech down already. Why not do this in 2015 or 2016 instead of the GT350 and GT350R which both got their asseskicked spectacularly? Because they continue to milk these guys out of their money. GT. Then the GT PP. Then the Bullit. Then the GT PP2. And then the GT500. All years late. WTF?

[metros11]

I've been gone for a couple of days, what did I miss?

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

I don't pay attention to youtube in any capacity, it's nowhere near what I would consider an automotive enthusiasts website.

Huh? Pretty much every major publication uses YouTube to publish video content. Are you referring specifically to YouTube 'professionals'?

Originally Posted by shaffe

First impressions can go a long way. That was my first impressions first time I got to sit in a 6th gen was damn it's tight in here and how the hell do you see out of it. I'll admit, I would probably need to drive one for a day or so to really give a 100% honest opinion but from just sitting in one my personal opinion as a 5'10 slightly round fellow, its small on the inside.

also

How's that saying go, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck quacks like a duck it must be a duck?" People on this forum admit the car has bad/poor visibility, most of the automotive forum community says it has bad visibility and every review mentions the visibility is bad. Hell AL O himself even acknowleged its bad, but when designing the car didn't want to sacrifice styling to improve it

I heard about the visibility issues before I test drove the car. I found it to be a non-factor... for me. The side windows are long enough for me to look back at blind spots, the a-pillars are thinner than my Volt's, the rear window is only good for a peak (which is all you would really do anyways). The biggest drawbacks would be backing up (if the car didn't come with a backup camera) and the rear b-c pillars.

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

Again, there is negligible difference in height/width of the car vs. the Mustang. The main difference in the two vehicles is the belt line, which the Camaro does run higher.

And as someone who has owned two of them and driven plenty others, there really isn't issues seeing out of this car. However, if you are used to SUVs, big spacious sedans, or even a touring coupe, its going to feel very confined/jetlike..... which is really the point of a sports coupe anyways.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one does all the talking. I cross shopped the Mustang vs the Camaro. I tend to agree with your opinion. In the Mustang you sit as if you would in almost any other car, higher, more upright, which isn't necessarily bad. In the Camaro, the seating position is lower, and gives it more of a sport car feel. And to your point, part of the reason I liked the Camaro, is because of the cockpit. I've even commented to my wife that I feel like I'm sitting in a space ship when I'm in the Camaro. However, that is specifically what I was looking for. Most people will find the Mustang more livable because it's easier to get in and out of, and has somewhat more space. I just valued the performance metrics more in my search, others may not.

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Ill take that one step further. What a car runs stock means little to me. As long as it has the potential to go as fast and handle as well as I need it too without becoming a basket case thats all I need. It also has to be a car I am going to enjoy looking at and living with for the next several years.

That's understandable. Then what are you doing on a Camaro forum?

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Haha, man you're great at lying. Prove it. Find a single example of me claiming a MY18 M6 would run low 12's. Good luck chief. Put your money where your mouth is and prove where I said a stock MY18 M6 would run low 12's. If you do, I'll quit this forum. Good luck Bro.

Close enough ?

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=656

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

Close enough ?

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=656

Nope, keep trying. I’ve always said the M6 would be a mid 12 car and the auto a low.

[Gunkk]

Once is enough to see the integrity level.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Nope, keep trying. I’ve always said the M6 would be a mid 12 car and the auto a low.

You lied then and are still lying now.

[Razzaa]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Nope, keep trying. I’ve always said the M6 would be a mid 12 car and the auto a low.

Uh bye bye!! Please quit the forum now!!

[SSfriendly]

Because some of you seem to have a reading comprehension issue, see in bold below.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Haha, man you're great at lying. Prove it. Find a single example of me claiming a MY18 M6 would run low 12's. Good luck chief. Put your money where your mouth is and prove where I said a stock MY18 M6 would run low 12's. If you do, I'll quit this forum.

The quote that was referenced was in response to Lund’s A10 run. It’s crazy some of you don’t understand the difference between a manual and auto transmission.