[GreaseMonkey83]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

I doubt you'll see any better 1/4 times between the 8 and 10 speed.. Not much difference. The upgrade to the 10 for the mustang was a needed upgrade. It's surely not going to add 5mph of trap speed to the Camaro either.

Hopefully the A10 will allow the autos a little better rear gear than a 2.77... could see a decent increase in trap speed then

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

It's not our fault that none of the magazines tested the A10 car till this month.

And yes I did say you were right when stuff popped up that you called.

And here I am now calling you out on things you got wrong lol. Especially the GT350 thing, I remember you be quite adamant that the GT would not be faster in the 1/4 because it was just a GT lol.

And it's not my fault that it took 5 months for someone to finally option out a GT properly to get a decent time. And let me ask you, is the argument that they were not tested on the same day and same track not valid anymore? Because the Mustang guys were clinging to that argument. I'm not a hypocrite so I'm not even using it as a defense. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy we're seeing all of a sudden.

If this test is legit, then yes as of right now the GT has tested faster than the SS and the GT350. But the sad part is, you have to option it this particular way. This GT as tested had a MSRP of $52K. For a few thousand more you can get a GT350. And the GT350 was already overpriced and it was not only fast in a straight line but it corners better than the GT. So you're paying virtually the same money, getting a lesser performing car, and getting a car that will lose much more of it's value than a GT350. So what exactly are you getting when you buy a GT or Shelby for that matter?

At $52K you are knocking on the door of base model C7 and stripped down M6 ZL1 prices...as well as used Hellcat prices which has way more potential and options and value retention than a GT. And each of those cars will eat up a GT350 not to mention the GT. This is why I am not impressed with Ford. They just charged people the same price for a better car. It's like paying $50 for a steak dinner with wine or paying $45 for the wine by itself. It makes no sense. And again, even at that, you can buy any GT350 and they'll all perform virtually the same. Any SS will perform similar to the rest. But here is the GT that can only do this or that if you option the hell out of it and then use Drag Mode. Hey man, I'm glad you guys are happy with the GT but everything I see with it just reaffirms my thoughts about it.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey83

Hopefully the A10 will allow the autos a little better rear gear than a 2.77... could see a decent increase in trap speed then

Those 2 extra gears spread out over a smaller RPM range than the GT and with the extra torque the pushrod LT1 engine has should be enough to improve it's performance. The GT has to get into it's power range while the SS will have already been there. Then with the trans keeping it in it's sweet spot we should see the SS staying ahead of the GT. And we won't need special options and a Drag Mode to do it.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And it's not my fault that it took 5 months for someone to finally option out a GT properly to get a decent time. And let me ask you, is the argument that they were not tested on the same day and same track not valid anymore? Because the Mustang guys were clinging to that argument. I'm not a hypocrite so I'm not even using it as a defense. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy we're seeing all of a sudden.

If this test is legit, then yes as of right now the GT has tested faster than the SS and the GT350. But the sad part is, you have to option it this particular way. This GT as tested had a MSRP of $52K. For a few thousand more you can get a GT350. And the GT350 was already overpriced and it was not only fast in a straight line but it corners better than the GT. So you're paying virtually the same money, getting a lesser performing car, and getting a car that will lose much more of it's value than a GT350. So what exactly are you getting when you buy a GT or Shelby for that matter?

At $52K you are knocking on the door of base model C7 and stripped down M6 ZL1 prices...as well as used Hellcat prices which has way more potential and options and value retention than a GT. And each of those cars will eat up a GT350 not to mention the GT. This is why I am not impressed with Ford. They just charged people the same price for a better car. It's like paying $50 for a steak dinner with wine or paying $45 for the wine by itself. It makes no sense. And again, even at that, you can buy any GT350 and they'll all perform virtually the same. Any SS will perform similar to the rest. But here is the GT that can only do this or that if you option the hell out of it and then use Drag Mode. Hey man, I'm glad you guys are happy with the GT but everything I see with it just reaffirms my thoughts about it.

Excuse excuse.... Drag mode is not this end all magical thing to give the times. Take a base GT add the 10 speed and no other options and it's still a low 12 second car and reasonably priced. You keep using every excuse to down the mustang, first by saying there is no way they could run an 11 pages ago to now using the price of the car with options as being higher than the Camaro as an excuse. You're grasping for straws now. You already put your foot in your mouth saying one thing after another that's been disproved now you're desperate.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Excuse excuse.... Drag mode is not this end all magical thing to give the times. Take a base GT add the 10 speed and no other options and it's still a low 12 second car and reasonably priced. You keep using every excuse to down the mustang, first by saying there is no way they could run an 11 pages ago to now using the price of the car with options as being higher than the Camaro as an excuse. You're grasping for straws now. You already put your foot in your mouth saying one thing after another that's been disproved now you're desperate.

A base A10 GT comes with 245 all seasons. No it won't run low 12s that way lol.

[glenB]

PP2 http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...AE16BE94AA8861

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Excuse excuse.... Drag mode is not this end all magical thing to give the times. Take a base GT add the 10 speed and no other options and it's still a low 12 second car and reasonably priced. You keep using every excuse to down the mustang, first by saying there is no way they could run an 11 pages ago to now using the price of the car with options as being higher than the Camaro as an excuse. You're grasping for straws now. You already put your foot in your mouth saying one thing after another that's been disproved now you're desperate.

You really like to exaggerate and make shit up don't you? Pretty vivid imagination you got going there.

WTF did I just say in my reply to your nonsense? The GT got a HP bump, drag mode, the A10, upgraded tires, and the PP1 with upgraded components. So how the hell can you with any common sense say that the A10 gets sole credit? That makes no sense. Everything I'm saying now is something I have said in the past. And I dare your ass to challenge that because I will go back and post everything just to shut your big mouth the hell up. Challenge me.

And for the record, I didn't say anything about the price of the GT being higher than the Camaro as an excuse. WTF are you even reading that you drew that conclusion? And why are you handjobbing the Mustang soo hard. You're just really bro-ing it up to the Mustang crowd real hard ain't ya? Take your nuthumping over there dude. You wanna be a fanboy for them, go on ahead. Matter of fact...

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

I’m done here, continue on your juvenile rant.

...why are you still even here??

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

M6 to m6, the SS seems to dominate, no questions.

Ok fine but if 12.3@115 vs 12.4@115 is dominating than 12.1@120 vs 12.3@116 is a straight up beat down... no questions.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Ok fine but if 12.3@115 vs 12.4@115 is dominating than 12.1@120 vs 12.3@116 is a straight up beat down... no questions.

So I guess that now it doesn't matter if the testing is done on the same day and same track or not...right??

[ShowNGo]

I never understood the stock vs stock claims. does anyone stay stock? i could see a "basic 3 comparison" which is what i think most people do at minimum. take both add intake, tune, and maybe a catback and see if one performs better. N/A i think chevy and dodge 392 had the win. with the 18 the mustang it should be able to compete NA now. the mustang/coyote benefit is boost.easily making 600-650hp with a base kit even roush put them out with 580+whp. and the 18 seems to be slightly better hanging near 700 with a basic kit.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

A base A10 GT comes with 245 all seasons. No it won't run low 12s that way lol.

Yes it will. Mustangs have run 245's since 1999 and many guys on spray ran low 12's high 11's on the stock tires. I ran 12's in a FWD civic on 195 series all seasons over 15 years ago.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

From what I'm seeing, the only real advantage the 2018 Mustangs seem to have is a slightly higher trap speed. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and admit they can dip into the 11s, but so does the SS. It's just that the SS has been doing it since late 2015.

M6 to m6, the SS seems to dominate, no questions.

Yeah sure, Ford brought the fight, but I can't say it's impressive. They've really only caught up. I see some on the 'other' site bragging about the fact that the Coyote matches the Lt1 with only 5 liters. True, but it needs to rev to 7500 rpms to do it. Some see that as an advantage, I don't, especially for daily driving. And I'm not even going to get deep into the gen 3s 'rattle of death':

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/sho...102509&page=15


That's just Ford and their crappy engineering. How many has to drop like flies before they admit there's a problem? And what about that mt82 which we all can agree is straight-up crap. They said it's the new 'improved' version, lol. I guess the improvement is that it grinds higher up in the RPM range.

Before worrying about who's the better performer, Ford should at least try to build a car that can survive a couple hard launches without the owner thinking it's going to break.

Only responding to the bold stuff.....

I guess I would say that the improvements Ford made from ‘17 to ‘18 are impressive. They came from way behind to making it a driver’s race. They did not score an unconditional win, but matching the performance of an SS is certainly not failing. The SS is an awesome car. Now the GT is on the same page, at least in acceleration. Throw in handling and there’s need for another discussion. Every SS handles like a champ. Certain optioned up GTs can handle almost as well and can be modded to handle as well. I prefer mine out of the box.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Anyone who uses the argument "the Mustang only needs 5 liters" is a complete idiot who has no idea how engines work in the first place.

I tend to facepalm when people compare displacement of OHV and OHC engines. It’s almost as if they suddenly fail to realize that displacement is the size of the holes, not the size of the metal. Because of the extra hardware needed to house the extra camshafts, chains and other smaller components, OHC engines are typically physically LARGER than OHV engines of similar displacement. It is pretty much common knowledge that for non-boosted OHV engines, hp/l ranges in the 65 - 75 area (LT1 is 74) and OHC engines tend to be in the 80 - 95 range. GT is 92, Bullit is 96, GT350 is a really impressive 108. To get to those numbers the engine has to be spun pretty fast, so now it becomes a question of where you want (and can use) the hp.

If an LT1 and a Coyote were placed side by side on pallets, the Coyote would be the physically larger engine (not by much) and they would be pretty close to the same on weight.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Yes it will. Mustangs have run 245's since 1999 and many guys on spray ran low 12's high 11's on the stock tires. I ran 12's in a FWD civic on 195 series all seasons over 15 years ago.

So your Civic (LOL BTW) running 12s (LOL again) on 195s somehow backs up your ridiculous-ass statement that a Mustang can run low 12s on the 245 tires?? Dude, first off, "Civic" tells me everything I need to know about you. You lost. Second off, there is no logical connection between those two by the largest stretch of the imagination...ever. LOL!! And third, you really don't know what TF you're talking about. Did you get lost on your way from Civic world to M6G??

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So your Civic (LOL BTW) running 12s (LOL again) on 195s somehow backs up your ridiculous-ass statement that a Mustang can run low 12s on the 245 tires?? Dude, first off, "Civic" tells me everything I need to know about you. You lost. Second off, there is no logical connection between those two by the largest stretch of the imagination...ever. LOL!! And third, you really don't know what TF you're talking about. Did you get lost on your way from Civic world to M6G??

I really cant take someone serious that types like a 13yo girl on snapchat. Regroup and try again.