[ULTRAZLS1]

119.68. Close enough

Seen 121 stock with a tire

Crazy that even atco in -1500 DA couldn’t produce 120 stock over several tries for some people. But a car mag hits it.

Then again 118 for a stock ss m6 is very abnormal too. They must have a fast testing area idk

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Well I wouldn't exactly look at it that way. The GT was a high 12 sec car. Adding the A10 and Drag Mode and the new PP1 along with the extra HP all helped to make it faster. The SS is only changing to the A10 from the A8. So it might do exactly what it did for the GT. We just won't know because the GT had like 10 thousand additional things changed to help it. Plus the SS is already starting out faster than the GT was and at this point it is a driver's race. Adding the A10 might be enough to make the SS more than a driver's race over the GT when both are tested side by side. The difference is that we'll se exactly what the A10 is good for in the SS whereas we'll have to speculate what it did for the GT.

I think the A10 in the Camaro will help it, but not as much as the GT. the 6 speed in the Mustang wasn't bad, but not as good as the A8 in the camaro.

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.

Well to be fair that was a fully loaded magazine test car. you can get a GT Auto, 301A and PP1 for MSRP 43,680.( I did leave out magneride, I don't know if it really helps out that much or not if you want to add it in then it brings it to 45,375) The other $ in options were premium technology goodies. So that argument you made there is like when people were complaining about a fully loaded 2SS.

As far as same day same driver same track yeah those are normally the best ways to compare I will give you that. But that also doesn't stop people here from using it to say the 1LE is faster/as fast as a non R 350. So I guess this one works both ways.

I do sense some hypocrite in your posts since your ragging on the Mustang for needing 5 months for this to happen, but in other posts about ZL1's and Hellcats you say give them some time? Those were your exact words, lets give them some time. So why do you give those guys time, but not the mustang is it because you own both of those vehicles currently?

Also some of the things you are ragging on the GT apply to the SS just as well specifically optioning them up over 50K the tanking values and what not.

And all this is all in good fun

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Was also just thinking....

Looks like the gap in performance from the a10 gt to m6 and a8 ss to m6 is not the same. The gap is larger in the mustang.

To me this is also proof that the a10 will improve the SS.

We’ll see. Im not trading either way. Not a fan of the refresh and I’m too invested in mine

I think the A10 will improve the Camaro. I just don't know if it will be as drastic as it was in the Mustang.

[torqueaddict]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

whose tested them same day besides MT 12.5@115 vs 12.6@115 for M6 cars? Is that dominating?

Has any "unbiased, official" source gone 11.98 in a Camaro in any conditions in the 3yrs they have been testing it?

Has Anyone gone 120mph in a stock SS in any conditions in the 3yrs they have been out?

Unless you doubt the timeslips posted on the C6 leaderboards are stock, the SS A8 and the GT A10 in drag mode are pretty much even in the quarter. The GT does have a better trap but that only occurs towards the very end and might be temporary as we don't know what the A10 will do for the 2019s.

As for the M6, I'm having a hard time finding a single 2018 Mustang GT posting times 12.3 and under in the quarter (mag or owner timeslips). We have at least 10 SSs on the leaderboards. The MT test did show them being basically even, no argument there, however was it because the SS wasn't driven to its full potential? I would ask the same question regarding the GT's time when I see proof it can do low 12s stock.

If anyone has seen low 12s in the stock 2018 manual GT and can post the link, please do so.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Well to be fair that was a fully loaded magazine test car. you can get a GT Auto, 301A and PP1 for MSRP 43,680.( I did leave out magneride, I don't know if it really helps out that much or not if you want to add it in then it brings it to 45,375) The other $ in options were premium technology goodies. So that argument you made there is like when people were complaining about a fully loaded 2SS.

That was why I used the words "as tested". I also said in the past that I myself did a GT build and the MSRP was well over $50K. And my statements do not include the SS because like I said, the GT is only good for one thing, racing in a straight line. For the same amount of money you can get a SS which does everything well. And that price is on the doorsteps of a GT350 MSRP which also does everything better. Also at that price you aren't far from a stripped down ZL1 or a used HC. In each instance there are cars in the same price range that all are better in performance, better optioned, and will retain their value better than a GT. And the point of bringing up the price was also to mention that the GT350 was basically at the same price and offered soo much more. Now the GT is up there but you get much less.

Originally Posted by shaffe

As far as same day same driver same track yeah those are normally the best ways to compare I will give you that. But that also doesn't stop people here from using it to say the 1LE is faster/as fast as a non R 350. So I guess this one works both ways.

I personally don't care about same day same track. I don't think it will vary much of anything. But I am pointing out that many of you refused to admit that the SS was faster and that was the argument used. The thing about me is I am consistent. Every time I discounted something on the GT, I used the same reasoning with the SS, ZL1, and any other car out there. And any argument I used in favor of the SS, I extended that same argument to the GT. But the funny thing is you never once gave me credit for that yet you sit here even now desperately trying to find contradiction in my words.

Originally Posted by shaffe

I do sense some hypocrite in your posts since your ragging on the Mustang for needing 5 months for this to happen, but in other posts about ZL1's and Hellcats you say give them some time? Those were your exact words, lets give them some time. So why do you give those guys time, but not the mustang is it because you own both of those vehicles currently?

There was a huge difference in the Demon videos and the Mustang runs. The Demon videos were suspect as hell and looked staged. They featured normal amateurish (at best) guys roll racing. The GT times were all runs done by professionals for the sake of testing the vehicle's capabilities. The GT times I mentioned would be considered official while guitarmeggedon roll racing a Demon in his tuned and modded ZL1 on a public road can hardly be taken seriously. So yes, I did give the Demon the benefit of the doubt in that case which did not extend to the GT for those obvious reasons. I never gave the SS that same consideration either but you didn't notice that because it doesn't fit your agenda of trying to find fault with the things I say.

Plus, going off what we have seen in the past, what car do you know of has shown a difference of over half a second in testing in any given time period? At best there has been variances of about 2-3 tenths when the same trans is used. This test the GT was faster by 6 tenths than it was before. Even looing at different trans, with the ZL1 the M6 has done 11.8 while the A10 has done 11.4 which is a difference of 4 tenths. The M6 SS has done 12.4-12.6 while the A8 SS has gone 12.3 at it's fastest to about 12.5 which is 1-3 tenths difference at the most. So how is there such a huge difference in the GT's times between the A10 and the M6 and even between the A10 tested now vs a few months ago when it did 12.5 (or 12.6, can't remember exactly). There should not be a margin that wide. I'm waiting and curious to see if this time can be duplicated.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Also some of the things you are ragging on the GT apply to the SS just as well specifically optioning them up over 50K the tanking values and what not.

But again, the point was that with the GT you are getting much less. The SS will tank in value too. All cars tank equally so let's throw that out the window. But the GT is on the heels of GT350 and base/stripped down ZL1 pricing while being right at SS prices but you get much more with any of those other vehicles than you get with the GT. Heck, at $52K you're even getting a sunroof or a convertible SS. Option a convertible in on a GT and you're even further into the $50K range using pricing from earlier. It isn't about how much the cars cost or the value they retain. It's about what you're getting out of these cars for that money and you're getting less out of the GT for the same money.

[torqueaddict]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

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.

Ford should have one-upped Chevy both in acceleration and handling. That would have made the 2018s more impressive IMO. Sure, you can option out a GT to improve handling, but the price becomes ridiculous at that point unless you go used.

Ford would love to sell you everything in bits and pieces for big bucks whereas Chevy gave us the whole package even in base form. Just for that reason alone they'll get my business and my respect.

I laugh when I read mag articles claiming the Mustang GT is cheaper. I usually stop reading that point.





I

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

whose tested them same day besides MT 12.5@115 vs 12.6@115 for M6 cars? Is that dominating?

Has any "unbiased, official" source gone 11.98 in a Camaro in any conditions in the 3yrs they have been testing it?

Has Anyone gone 120mph in a stock SS in any conditions in the 3yrs they have been out?

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

119.68. Close enough

Seen 121 stock with a tire

Crazy that even atco in -1500 DA couldn’t produce 120 stock over several tries for some people. But a car mag hits it.

Then again 118 for a stock ss m6 is very abnormal too. They must have a fast testing area idk

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

Unless you doubt the timeslips posted on the C6 leaderboards are stock, the SS A8 and the GT A10 in drag mode are pretty much even in the quarter. The GT does have a better trap but that only occurs towards the very end and might be temporary as we don't know what the A10 will do for the 2019s.

As for the M6, I'm having a hard time finding a single 2018 Mustang GT posting times 12.3 and under in the quarter (mag or owner timeslips). We have at least 10 SSs on the leaderboards. The MT test did show them being basically even, no argument there, however was it because the SS wasn't driven to its full potential? I would ask the same question regarding the GT's time when I see proof it can do low 12s stock.

If anyone has seen low 12s in the stock 2018 manual GT and can post the link, please do so.

I'll take that as a no.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

Ford should have one-upped Chevy both in acceleration and handling. That would have made the 2018s more impressive IMO. Sure, you can option out a GT to improve handling, but the price becomes ridiculous at that point unless you go used.

Ford would love to sell you everything in bits and pieces for big bucks whereas Chevy gave us the whole package even in base form. Just for that reason alone they'll get my business and my respect.

I laugh when I read mag articles claiming the Mustang GT is cheaper. I usually stop reading that point.

All very good points. But to a buyer coming in without history, looking for a great looking, great performing coupe or convertible, both models can raise their hands and say “Yo, over here”. For the most part buyers will select based on appearance, price, and option availability. Some will get a GT for less than an SS, but it won’t come near a low 12. Still a fun car, though.

Being able to claim that a Mustang CAN achieve sub-12s quarter puts the Pony in the game, without highlighting the qualifier that to configure it to achieve sub-12 under the right conditions prices it beyond a 1LE and just under GT350. Actually, way under when you factor in ADM.

Most new buyers will miss that qualification. Just like the Challenger Hemi guys I run into on a near daily basis who strongly believe their car can outrun my SS. Please understand I am not talking Scat Packs, which could make it interesting since I have a convertible. Basic sub-400 horse Challengers. Because a Hellcat or Demon could crush my car, they think any Challenger can.

For all the controversy around the Cars.com test, what it does is legitimize the GT as a more credible alternative to SS. Nothing wrong with that.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That was why I used the words "as tested". I also said in the past that I myself did a GT build and the MSRP was well over $50K. And my statements do not include the SS because like I said, the GT is only good for one thing, racing in a straight line. For the same amount of money you can get a SS which does everything well. And that price is on the doorsteps of a GT350 MSRP which also does everything better. Also at that price you aren't far from a stripped down ZL1 or a used HC. In each instance there are cars in the same price range that all are better in performance, better optioned, and will retain their value better than a GT. And the point of bringing up the price was also to mention that the GT350 was basically at the same price and offered soo much more. Now the GT is up there but you get much less.


I personally don't care about same day same track. I don't think it will vary much of anything. But I am pointing out that many of you refused to admit that the SS was faster and that was the argument used. The thing about me is I am consistent. Every time I discounted something on the GT, I used the same reasoning with the SS, ZL1, and any other car out there. And any argument I used in favor of the SS, I extended that same argument to the GT. But the funny thing is you never once gave me credit for that yet you sit here even now desperately trying to find contradiction in my words.

There was a huge difference in the Demon videos and the Mustang runs. The Demon videos were suspect as hell and looked staged. They featured normal amateurish (at best) guys roll racing. The GT times were all runs done by professionals for the sake of testing the vehicle's capabilities. The GT times I mentioned would be considered official while guitarmeggedon roll racing a Demon in his tuned and modded ZL1 on a public road can hardly be taken seriously. So yes, I did give the Demon the benefit of the doubt in that case which did not extend to the GT for those obvious reasons. I never gave the SS that same consideration either but you didn't notice that because it doesn't fit your agenda of trying to find fault with the things I say.

Plus, going off what we have seen in the past, what car do you know of has shown a difference of over half a second in testing in any given time period? At best there has been variances of about 2-3 tenths when the same trans is used. This test the GT was faster by 6 tenths than it was before. Even looing at different trans, with the ZL1 the M6 has done 11.8 while the A10 has done 11.4 which is a difference of 4 tenths. The M6 SS has done 12.4-12.6 while the A8 SS has gone 12.3 at it's fastest to about 12.5 which is 1-3 tenths difference at the most. So how is there such a huge difference in the GT's times between the A10 and the M6 and even between the A10 tested now vs a few months ago when it did 12.5 (or 12.6, can't remember exactly). There should not be a margin that wide. I'm waiting and curious to see if this time can be duplicated.

.

You know what Blaq, you're right. I'm gonna man up and eat some crow here. I just remember you discounting those early runs like there was no way it was gonna happen then in a matter of days we had 2 3rd party sources verify those early owner runs and shop runs. Guess I just got excited and wanted to see your reaction. And then I remembered when you said it wouldn't beat the 350 so again just wanted to see your opinion on that and I let the keyboard warrior in me just get to arguing for the sake of arguing. Looking back at other posts I had ready to go of yours have been pretty consistent in dishing stuff back and forth to just about everyone/make and model.

Just answer me this then. Why did you give the ZL1 and now Demon the benefit of the doubt but not the Mustang?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The ZL1 was out barely a year and they had already started talking shit. The Demon hasn't been out for more than a few months and people are already criticizing it much like the ZL1 got criticized. Give it some time to prove itself. For all we know they are in break-in period and probably have the ECU limiting the performance until a certain mileage. Once these cars are out there and have been broken in and people are used to driving them I think we'll start seeing some really impressive performance out of them.

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 GT testing variance, here is my theory. The first A10 test was the 12.5/6 by Edmunds, since then we have had an 11.9, 11.8 and 12.1. So if you want to throw out the evan smith run, fine by me go ahead. That leaves the 11.9, 12.1 and 12.5. That would make the 12.5 the outlier of that group. I guess we can continue this discussion if MT or R&T ever test the A10.

As far as variance from A10 to 6M

The MT82 must just be terrible for a 1/4 application or the A10 really is that good and is that much better than the A6

[BlaqWhole]

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?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

You know what Blaq, you're right. I'm gonna man up and eat some crow here. I just remember you discounting those early runs like there was no way it was gonna happen then in a matter of days we had 2 3rd party sources verify those early owner runs and shop runs. Guess I just got excited and wanted to see your reaction. And then I remembered when you said it wouldn't beat the 350 so again just wanted to see your opinion on that and I let the keyboard warrior in me just get to arguing for the sake of arguing. Looking back at other posts I had ready to go of yours have been pretty consistent in dishing stuff back and forth to just about everyone/make and model.

Honestly, I'm not looking for you to eat crow or anything like that. I was just taken aback since you and I for the most part have had pleasant interchanges and on several times have agreed with each other. In fact, you are one of the more well-rounded and level-headed people on here. I could see you throwing it in my face a bit because I was adamant that the GT would not be faster than the Shelby and that it wouldn't do better than a mid 12. I think my reasoning behind my opinion was pretty logical. So I said I would admit if I was wrong and after 5 months it appears that the GT has gotten into the low 12s and has gone faster than the Shelby. I would like to see all 6 of these cars (GT as optioned in this test, GT PP2, SS, SS 1LE, GT350, and GT350R) lined up for a complete H2H tho so we can rule out anything that could cause any doubts.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Honestly, I'm not looking for you to eat crow or anything like that. I was just taken aback since you and I for the most part have had pleasant interchanges and on several times have agreed with each other. In fact, you are one of the more well-rounded and level-headed people on here. I could see you throwing it in my face a bit because I was adamant that the GT would not be faster than the Shelby and that it wouldn't do better than a mid 12. I think my reasoning behind my opinion was pretty logical. So I said I would admit if I was wrong and after 5 months it appears that the GT has gotten into the low 12s and has gone faster than the Shelby. I would like to see all 6 of these cars (GT as optioned in this test, GT PP2, SS, SS 1LE, GT350, and GT350R) lined up for a complete H2H tho so we can rule out anything that could cause any doubts.

Can I drive the GT350R? I've always wanted to...

[HeaterMan]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

All very good points. But to a buyer coming in without history, looking for a great looking, great performing coupe or convertible, both models can raise their hands and say “Yo, over here”. For the most part buyers will select based on appearance, price, and option availability. Some will get a GT for less than an SS, but it won’t come near a low 12. Still a fun car, though.

Being able to claim that a Mustang CAN achieve sub-12s quarter puts the Pony in the game, without highlighting the qualifier that to configure it to achieve sub-12 under the right conditions prices it beyond a 1LE and just under GT350. Actually, way under when you factor in ADM.


For all the controversy around the Cars.com test, what it does is legitimize the GT as a more credible alternative to SS. Nothing wrong with that.

A base PP GT with A10 and 301A package( which includes drive modes) gets you all the stuff to run the magazine times for right around 39k before haggling. I have the identical car as the Evan Smith test car Minus the Magnetic suspension and paid nowhere close to a GT350 or 1LE Camaro

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by HeaterMan

A base PP GT with A10 and 301A package( which includes drive modes) gets you all the stuff to run the magazine times for right around 39k before haggling. I have the identical car as the Evan Smith test car Minus the Magnetic suspension and paid nowhere close to a GT350 or 1LE Camaro

39k is a fair price and I know dealers are dropping atleast a couple thousand off list. But anyone who is paying 50k or over is nuts, it's just a GT.

[HeaterMan]

Originally Posted by newmoon

39k is a fair price and I know dealers are dropping atleast a couple thousand off list. But anyone who is paying 50k or over is nuts, it's just a GT.

I agree. there is now a $3000 cash rebate on 2018's so after haggling and rebate a new PP A10 equipped Mustang can be had for about 35K or less