[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Everyone was all "The 18 wont' run 11's no way" and they were proved wrong. then they said it couldn't run low 12's with base tires and now they are proved wrong yet again, so we resort back to old talk grasping for straws. This thread has been very comical with people putting their foot in their mouth over and over lol

You still here? Why are you leghumping the Mustang boys in your V6 Camaro soo hard bro? LOL! THAT'S the only comical thing I've seen.

For the record, there is a huge discrepancy if they went from 12.6 to 11s with the same year, same options, Drag Mode, etc. You can call it "grasping for straws" all you want. But if you've ever gone to the track, which you haven't, then you'd know that 2-3 tenths max is a normal difference between runs. It takes a lot to improve by 6 tenths. So since you know soo much and since you're such a Mustang enthusiast/advocate, then please explain to me how the GT 5 months ago was at best a mid 12 and now all of a sudden its a high 11.

And for the record, where was all your shit talking back when the GT did 12.6? Or when they couldn't get it to the 11s on DRs? Or when one of them snapped a driveshaft stock? LOL! Or where were you when the A10 GT couldn't go faster than the M6 SS in a side-by-side comparison? Or when it lost soo bad around a track that they're not even in the same category at this point? You were nowhere to be found. At least a few of the Mustang guys here stuck around and kept commenting on this thread even thru all that. You just all of a sudden show up with vaseline in your palms after the GT does what you think is a legit 11?? LOL! You get ONE point which is still questionable and you're jumping around professing your love for Mustangs. What a joke.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Everyone was all "The 18 wont' run 11's no way" and they were proved wrong. then they said it couldn't run low 12's with base tires and now they are proved wrong yet again, so we resort back to old talk grasping for straws. This thread has been very comical with people putting their foot in their mouth over and over lol

Hey!! It's Mustangmatt....where you been man?

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

Hate to be blunt, but from the issues that's plaguing the 2018 GTs, I can't say Ford is improving, they're merely polishing a turd. I'd rather have a car I can count on.

Threads like these should not exist on a car just released.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=102509

This is true. They tweaked enough to have numbers to brag about, should have fixed the A/C, MT82 issues etc instead.

That said, I just want to know if this turd can turn yet? When will the PP2 comparo's and reviews start coming in dang it. I am excited to see what Ford's work did to improve the S550. I dont like the look of the PP2, too much wheel gap, but that is just cosmetic BS...I really want to know how much better it is. I am guessing it is miles better than the PP1.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You still here? Why are you leghumping the Mustang boys in your V6 Camaro soo hard bro? LOL! THAT'S the only comical thing I've seen.

For the record, there is a huge discrepancy if they went from 12.6 to 11s with the same year, same options, Drag Mode, etc. You can call it "grasping for straws" all you want. But if you've ever gone to the track, which you haven't, then you'd know that 2-3 tenths max is a normal difference between runs. It takes a lot to improve by 6 tenths. So since you know soo much and since you're such a Mustang enthusiast/advocate, then please explain to me how the GT 5 months ago was at best a mid 12 and now all of a sudden its a high 11.

And for the record, where was all your shit talking back when the GT did 12.6? Or when they couldn't get it to the 11s on DRs? Or when one of them snapped a driveshaft stock? LOL! Or where were you when the A10 GT couldn't go faster than the M6 SS in a side-by-side comparison? Or when it lost soo bad around a track that they're not even in the same category at this point? You were nowhere to be found. At least a few of the Mustang guys here stuck around and kept commenting on this thread even thru all that. You just all of a sudden show up with vaseline in your palms after the GT does what you think is a legit 11?? LOL! You get ONE point which is still questionable and you're jumping around professing your love for Mustangs. What a joke.

So mad still. Typing those keys so hard. So funny seeing you all worked up

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The Mustang doesn't offer it because it would drive the price of the Mustang sky high and then nobody would be able to brag about how a local dealership was selling a GT at MSRP for $32K but they talked them down to $28K OTD. Along with the fact that Ford has yet to find a way to offer bits and pieces of a package that can compete as they nickel and dime their customers to death a little at a time. Want the comparable package for the 1LE? Well you have to opt in the PP1 and then this option and that feature. And then to be competitive you also need this mode and this tire and all of that is in this package too. But then you lose X package because it can't be combined. And end of the day you still spent over $50K while the SS comes with everything and no hassle.

Along with hood vibrations, oil consumption, clutch engagement/disengagement issues, torque converter shudder, tramline, axles that snap under stock power levels...

Or it doesn't offer it because black wrap looks like poo lol.

Hopefully the PP2 should be competitive with the 1LE. That is the way M/T made it seem, might not be as fast but should be at least competitive with the 1LE. GT PP2 MSRP is 44,590(45485 if you include the active exhaust) and the 1LE 44,995 MSRP that is about as close as you can get price wise. SS offers a bit more features I believe, but performance wise that puts them right there next to each other(edge still to SS I believe, but not the ass whooping that the PP1 got)

But Ford is for sure the worst at lumping stuff together. All the auto makers do it, but from what I have seen while looking for a new vehicle it does seem that ford is the worst at lumping packages together, or requiring one package before you can get what looks like a stand alone option.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You still here? Why are you leghumping the Mustang boys in your V6 Camaro soo hard bro? LOL! THAT'S the only comical thing I've seen.

For the record, there is a huge discrepancy if they went from 12.6 to 11s with the same year, same options, Drag Mode, etc. You can call it "grasping for straws" all you want. But if you've ever gone to the track, which you haven't, then you'd know that 2-3 tenths max is a normal difference between runs. It takes a lot to improve by 6 tenths. So since you know soo much and since you're such a Mustang enthusiast/advocate, then please explain to me how the GT 5 months ago was at best a mid 12 and now all of a sudden its a high 11.

And for the record, where was all your shit talking back when the GT did 12.6? Or when they couldn't get it to the 11s on DRs? Or when one of them snapped a driveshaft stock? LOL! Or where were you when the A10 GT couldn't go faster than the M6 SS in a side-by-side comparison? Or when it lost soo bad around a track that they're not even in the same category at this point? You were nowhere to be found. At least a few of the Mustang guys here stuck around and kept commenting on this thread even thru all that. You just all of a sudden show up with vaseline in your palms after the GT does what you think is a legit 11?? LOL! You get ONE point which is still questionable and you're jumping around professing your love for Mustangs. What a joke.

Well there have been 3 third party tests of the A10GT not done by Evan Smith since everyone wants to discount that run.

One of them, got the 12.5/6. The others
C&D 12.1
Cars.com 11.9

If anything those two reviews make the edmunds one the outlier. All other reviews of the car from 3rd party testing has been the 6M car.

What makes the cars.com run not legit? The only thing I can say for the cars.com was that it was done at an actual drag strip, and based on the weather here in the midwest they probably had killer air. Had they done the test in June or in the summer montsh I bet they would have gotten a 12.1 or 12.2

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So then when the Camaro was kicking the GT's ass...I guess it wasn't all due to the tires right? I mean, that was the big excuse back then..."give it wider tires and the Mustang will keep up". But now they're equaling the SS with 235s...??

You are the one who insists that reviewed times are all that counts. I am showing you a reviewed time of a base GT equaling the best reviewed times put up by a SS. I'm sorry the results do not work into your theory that the GT requires every option out there to run. But please continue your rant how unless the GT has x,y,z options it can't compete. Or better yet prove me wrong with a review of the SS which beats 12:20s regardless of how it is optioned.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by newmoon

You are the one who insists that reviewed times are all that counts. I am showing you a reviewed time of a base GT equaling the best reviewed times put up by a SS. I'm sorry the results do not work into your theory that the GT requires every option out there to run. But please continue your rant how unless the GT has x,y,z options it can't compete. Or better yet prove me wrong with a review of the SS which beats 12:20s regardless of how it is optioned.

To be fair, the 3rd party auto magazine independent test cars have all had A10, PP1. Not sure if magneride or not.

Cars.com car had 301A for sure because it had drag mode. Not sure about the C&D

so that is more than just ticking the box for Auto trans

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

So mad still. Typing those keys so hard. So funny seeing you all worked up

If it makes your day to think that I'm "all worked up" by anything you have to say then go right ahead skippy.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Well there have been 3 third party tests of the A10GT not done by Evan Smith since everyone wants to discount that run.

One of them, got the 12.5/6. The others
C&D 12.1
Cars.com 11.9

If anything those two reviews make the edmunds one the outlier. All other reviews of the car from 3rd party testing has been the 6M car.

What makes the cars.com run not legit? The only thing I can say for the cars.com was that it was done at an actual drag strip, and based on the weather here in the midwest they probably had killer air. Had they done the test in June or in the summer montsh I bet they would have gotten a 12.1 or 12.2

I gave the GT credit back a few days ago. But if someone is gonna show up here trying to talk shit, then I can go all day. But no matter how you slice it, 6 tenths is a huge discrepancy. So either something was really wrong with the GT that was tested first and Ford had to make some revisions to some of them (could explain why there hasn't been any other tests in these past 5 months until recently and could also explain why Evans had to travel so far to get the one he tested), or that car in particular had a serious issue, or the testers did a horrible job with it. Because the DA between these tests are not enough to explain such a wide margin. And like I said, no other car that I've ever seen get tested has had such a wide margin. You have to admit that 6 tenths of a second is enough to rouse suspicion or at least is questionable. The S197 Coyotes ranged from 12.7/8 to 13 flat which is 2-3 tenths. The 15-17 GTs ranged from 12.8 to 13.0/1 which is the same at about 2-3 tenths. The 18 is twice that amount at least. Something is up. If Ford had to tweak something or if the testers screwed up or if that car was screwed up then fair enough. But it at least deserves some questioning.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

You are the one who insists that reviewed times are all that counts.

Yet again I have to explain to you because you don't seem capable of understanding. I never once said that is all that counts. I said that it is what is considered official. AND I said that you can't count YT and other tests against the Camaro's magazine times. Now I have explained this to you in particular several times. Yet you still are not capable of understanding what this means. I will explain it again for you so that will be twice in one reply...

First. If you compare Mustang and Camaro times, then you can't compare YT and other private owner runs to the magazine times of the Camaro. I said this because that is exactly what some of you Mustang guys tried to do. It isn't a fair comparison. It is either YT times to YT times or magazine times to magazine times. FOr that sake of keeping things legit and official, I chose to predict what the GT would do in a magazine test. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Second. I said that magazine times are official. Why? Because it is more trustworthy than someone somewhere posting a video and making a claim. Now if you wanna believe random strangers then go right ahead. But I made all of my assertions and claims based off of specific criteria that I have stuck to and have not changed since last Summer. Understood? So that is two more times that I explained this to you.

Originally Posted by newmoon

I am showing you a reviewed time of a base GT equaling the best reviewed times put up by a SS. I'm sorry the results do not work into your theory that the GT requires every option out there to run. But please continue your rant how unless the GT has x,y,z options it can't compete. Or better yet prove me wrong with a review of the SS which beats 12:20s regardless of how it is optioned.

Then explain how with DRs on 2 separate occasions by 2 separate shops the GT could not do 11s. And explain how the first testing of the GT showed a 12.6 and it being slower than the M6 SS. And don't say it was DA or any other bullshit excuse because we all know that those runs were in some pretty incredible conditions.

[torqueaddict]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

This is true. They tweaked enough to have numbers to brag about, should have fixed the A/C, MT82 issues etc instead.

That said, I just want to know if this turd can turn yet? When will the PP2 comparo's and reviews start coming in dang it. I am excited to see what Ford's work did to improve the S550. I dont like the look of the PP2, too much wheel gap, but that is just cosmetic BS...I really want to know how much better it is. I am guessing it is miles better than the PP1.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...pack-2-review/

Well if the above preview is any indication, it will close the gap between it and the 1LE but not enough to come out on top which is pretty sad if true.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I gave the GT credit back a few days ago. But if someone is gonna show up here trying to talk shit, then I can go all day.

"I finally gave the GT credit after crying for 70 pages but don't remind me of it or i'll cry for another 70"

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

If it makes your day to think that I'm "all worked up" by anything you have to say then go right ahead skippy.

I gave the GT credit back a few days ago. But if someone is gonna show up here trying to talk shit, then I can go all day. But no matter how you slice it, 6 tenths is a huge discrepancy. So either something was really wrong with the GT that was tested first and Ford had to make some revisions to some of them (could explain why there hasn't been any other tests in these past 5 months until recently and could also explain why Evans had to travel so far to get the one he tested), or that car in particular had a serious issue, or the testers did a horrible job with it. Because the DA between these tests are not enough to explain such a wide margin. And like I said, no other car that I've ever seen get tested has had such a wide margin. You have to admit that 6 tenths of a second is enough to rouse suspicion or at least is questionable. The S197 Coyotes ranged from 12.7/8 to 13 flat which is 2-3 tenths. The 15-17 GTs ranged from 12.8 to 13.0/1 which is the same at about 2-3 tenths. The 18 is twice that amount at least. Something is up. If Ford had to tweak something or if the testers screwed up or if that car was screwed up then fair enough. But it at least deserves some questioning.

Ok so we will just toss the Evans run out going forward to make it easier. And yes you did give it credit.

why were there no tests of A10 cars besides the edmunds one, I have no idea. Maybe all the press cars were 6m cars to start I don't know. But we have 3 third party tests of the A10 car. 2 of them show the car is low 12s with one being the 11.9 from cars.com and the 12.1 from C&D. Maybe edmunds estimated their numbers, maybe they ran them on a closed road and not on a prepped surface? The one thing we know for sure is the cars.com was run at a dragstrip. Where does C&D do their testing does any one know? That is maybe the only thing I can think of. It is a wide variance, but as of now its the slower edmunds run that is the outlier.

I just want to know what makes the cars.com run not legit in your mind? Is it because they didn't show the lights or a slip? MT, C&D, R&T normally just print the numbers as well.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...pack-2-review/

Well if the above preview is any indication, it will close the gap between it and the 1LE but not enough to come out on top which is pretty sad if true.

I don't know if I would say it's sad. the 1LE really is an incredible package. I really don't think anyone expected it to be as good as it is. I mean be honest, did you expect to be near 5th gen Z/28 performance? I sure as hell didn't. And yeah Ford had time to play catch up so I guess you can say that's the sad part but it sounds like they have at least made it a competitive package

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...pack-2-review/

Well if the above preview is any indication, it will close the gap between it and the 1LE but not enough to come out on top which is pretty sad if true.

Thanks. I did read that article earlier this week. Nothing definitive, but it really does seem like it will close the gap and make it a driver's race.

Originally Posted by shaffe

I don't know if I would say it's sad. the 1LE really is an incredible package. I really don't think anyone expected it to be as good as it is. I mean be honest, did you expect to be near 5th gen Z/28 performance? I sure as hell didn't. And yeah Ford had time to play catch up so I guess you can say that's the sad part but it sounds like they have at least made it a competitive package

Yeah, I sorta think it is sad due to the fact they had all the time in the world to make it better but also agree with you that making it competitive is enough.

Additionally, they could have made it better than the 1LE, but they would never do that because it would poo all over their flagship GT350 and be priced too high.

IF the PP2 can run laps and not go in to limp mode, then I think Ford offered a excellent package and answer to the 1LE. If it limps all over the place, then it is a fail and nothing more. I say that because Ford knows better, this is not their first rodeo with limp mode issues, as you and I discussed yesterday.