[LesserO2Evils]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Then they were unrealistic idiots. It's no different that some who think the Gen6 SS is going to run low 12's in the quarter in factory stock trim.

MUSTANG6G.COM.... "Idiots" can be safely assumed, simply by default.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Then they were unrealistic idiots. It's no different that some who think the Gen6 SS is going to run low 12's in the quarter in factory stock trim.

But a 4300lb Charger can do it with only 35hp and smaller tires. Not sure how that is as unrealistic as hoping for 400lbs in weight reduction on the same platform.


Also an ATS sedan bested Scat Pack times with only 14hp more and similar weight to the 6th gen. Low 12's are very likely.

[EE7]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Then they were unrealistic idiots. It's no different that some who think the Gen6 SS is going to run low 12's in the quarter in factory stock trim.

Low 12's will most definitely happen.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Iroc_Z28

Just found this over at M6g http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28285..... looks like the gt350r will weigh in at 3650 lbs.... they claimed a 130 lb weight saving from gt350 track pack to gt350r, so the lightest the gt350 TP will be is 3780 lbs

Ouch. Well now I'm going to have to weasel over there and see what Pill has to say about that. Should be entertaining.

So basically the Z/28 only weighs maybe 50ish pounds more than the GT350 will weigh. I really don't think the GT350 will out handle Z/28, so its going to have to outmuscle it with its higher HP and longer RPM range.

I think the GT350TP might be able to topple the Z/28, but not by a big margin at all. Might take the 'R' version to do it. But in my mind, its safe to say that on the track the base 350 isn't going to be a better car than z/28.

[Curr]

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

MUSTANG6G.COM.... "Idiots" can be safely assumed, simply by default.

I'm sure anyone could cherry pick just as many "idiots" from the Camaro (or Challenger) forums to make the same point over there.

Some people are idiots, don't paint all Mustang/Camaro/Challenger owners with the same brush to try and prove *you* picked the *right/best* make and model. That's just lame.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Then they were unrealistic idiots. It's no different that some who think the Gen6 SS is going to run low 12's in the quarter in factory stock trim.

Are you willing to place a bet on that statement? ATS-V in auto has been tested at 12.1

So why don't you think an SS Camaro (which will likely be as light or lighter in base 1SS trim) with automatic transmission, and very similar power, won't run numbers very similar to that? I'm going to say 12.4 tops or less for the auto version.

[LesserO2Evils]

Originally Posted by Curr

I'm sure anyone could cherry pick just as many "idiots" from the Camaro (or Challenger) forums to make the same point over there.

Some people are idiots, don't paint all Mustang/Camaro/Challenger owners with the same brush to try and prove *you* picked the *right/best* make and model. That's just lame.

Sorry dude. That forum is epic. Never seen ANY other like it. I call'em like I see'em.

[Iroc_Z28]

Car and driver has some comments on the gt350r's weight as well.... http://blog.caranddriver.com/ford-re...ctually-weigh/

[airjonny]

I'm on M6G too. For the most part, we were bummed. Only the crazies like the Pill were spouting off unrealistic numbers. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised. Ford has been tight lipped on weight these couple years because they knew they were nothing to write home about.

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by EE7

Low 12's will most definitely happen.

Not on the stock tires and any magazine tests. Private drivers on a drag strip, yes, but highly unlikely with instrumented testing. I hope I am wrong, but I just don't see it.

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Are you willing to place a bet on that statement? ATS-V in auto has been tested at 12.1

So why don't you think an SS Camaro (which will likely be as light or lighter in base 1SS trim) with automatic transmission, and very similar power, won't run numbers very similar to that? I'm going to say 12.4 tops or less for the auto version.

I say 12.4-12.5, at best. The 6thGen Camaro is not an ATS-V. While it is on the Alpha platform, it is closer to the CTS series than the ATS series of Cadillacs.

Originally Posted by airjonny

I'm on M6G too. For the most part, we were bummed. Only the crazies like the Pill were spouting off unrealistic numbers. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised. Ford has been tight lipped on weight these couple years because they knew they were nothing to write home about.

I don't get the disappointment on the part of the Mustang guys. Even if that ends up being the actual curb weight, it's still significantly lighter than the 3860lb z/28. Assuming a 6thGen z/28 is produced and comes in 200lbs lighter than the 5thGen version, it would still tip the scales at 3660lbs.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by airjonny

I'm on M6G too. For the most part, we were bummed. Only the crazies like the Pill were spouting off unrealistic numbers. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised. Ford has been tight lipped on weight these couple years because they knew they were nothing to write home about.

It still is light with a lot of HP. Don't think that is anything to be bummed at. How the suspension helps it on the track is the bigger question. Being lighter just makes everything else easier.

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

I say 12.4-12.5, at best. The 6thGen Camaro is not an ATS-V. While it is on the Alpha platform, it is closer to the CTS series than the ATS series of Cadillacs.

So similar weight, similar power, same trans equals widely different results? Not seeing it. I'm not saying it will run the 12.1 that MT got for the sedan auto, but hell things would have to be screwed up on aero or gearing to make that big a difference to cost it half a sec in the 1/4. It's just a question of numbers. And there is no reason the ATS will launch harder in the 1/4 than the 6th gen with the LT1 having more torque down low.

[bdavies11]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

I say 12.4-12.5, at best. The 6thGen Camaro is not an ATS-V. While it is on the Alpha platform, it is closer to the CTS series than the ATS series of Cadillacs.

Um what? The Twin turbo CTS runs 12.9 1/4 mile @ 4,000 lbs.

The SS is supposed to weigh the same as an ATS (roughly 3700lbs) with virtually the same power so how is it closer to CTS that weights in at 4,000lbs and is also down 25hp and and 35lb-ft.

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by bdavies11

Um what? The Twin turbo CTS runs 12.9 1/4 mile @ 4,000 lbs.

The SS is supposed to weigh the same as an ATS (roughly 3700lbs) with virtually the same power so how is it closer to CTS that weights in at 4,000lbs and is also down 25hp and and 35lb-ft.

We're all speculating at this point, because the weight of the 6thGen Camaro is still an unknown. Without knowing that number and other key factors, using the ATS-V as a baseline fr what the Camaro will do is going to be a best guess. Again, I HOPE the Camaro is able to see low 12's in magazine tests, but it is my opinion that it will not. If I am wrong, I'll have to problem admitting it.

The current 1SS manages a 12.9-13 second quarter making 426 horsepower (average magazine runs). If we see a 200lb reduction in weight, that alone would put the 16 1SS around .2 faster in the quarter. Now, add the extra 29 horsepower the new car also gets, and you can reduce that time another .2-.3 seconds. That would put the new SS right I the range I'm calling. Of course, there are so many variables to a quarter-mile time that this math is sketchy, at best.