[LSLT_Powered26]

Man that thing sounds good. It got up to 142 pretty easy and seemed to be begging for more.

Also I've been looking on mushang6G and the pill an gang are just praying their gt350 to be able to break into the 12s 1/4 mile

also this again

[Chad0311]

Originally Posted by titanfan

Hell sounds good? Are you complementing or condemning the Gen6?

I hope you're joking.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by LSLT_Powered26

Also I've been looking on mushang6G and the pill an gang are just praying their gt350 to be able to break into the 12s 1/4 mile

Break into the 12's? That car should be close to 11's if anything...

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by LSLT_Powered26

Man that thing sounds good. It got up to 142 pretty easy and seemed to be begging for more.

Also I've been looking on mushang6G and the pill an gang are just praying their gt350 to be able to break into the 12s 1/4 mile

also this again

Not true...they are hoping for high 11s / low 12s.

[AzItaliaSS]

Sounds decent, not better then the stingray though(whoever said that lol). video wise, it put me to sleep like a subway ride.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by LSLT_Powered26

Man that thing sounds good. It got up to 142 pretty easy and seemed to be begging for more.

Also I've been looking on mushang6G and the pill an gang are just praying their gt350 to be able to break into the 12s 1/4 mile

also this again

The GT350R while not designed for drag racing weighs in at 3,650 pounds and packs 526BHP. This gives it a power to weight ratio of 6.9 pounds per horsepower, it falls short of the 2006 Z06 Corvette for example while had a best in the hands of car magazines that I could find of 11.6. I expect low 12s high 11s for the GT350 and GT350R models of the Mustang......

The 2016 Camaro SS with 8 speed auto stands a good chance of being an upset for the ATS V showing what that car could have been if they opted for the LT1 over the TT V-6 engine.

With that being said it will be interesting to see how car mags compare the non V-8 versions of the Mustang and Camaro. Seeing as for the Mustang the base engine is a V-6 with the upgrade being the ecoboost 2.3L, for the Camaro obviously it is 2.0T base.

Base weight power to weight ratios for the cars are as follows....

Camaro:

2.0T auto: 12.1 pounds per horsepower
3.6L auto: 10.3 pounds per horsepower
6.2L man: 8.1 pounds per horsepower

Mustang

3.7L auto: 11.8 pounds per horsepower
2.3T auto: 11.4 pounds per horsepower
5.0L man: 8.5 pounds per horsepower

As you can see on the power to weight front the Mustang in base form has an advantage with the Camaro gaining an advantage above the standard engine.

[Z28sr2fast4yall]

The weight/power ratio may be off a bit for the mustang.

Now while I've looked up the weight and the performance tests... I have conflicting numbers. Here's what I've found:

Mustang

3.7 - 3526mt (11.75 rounded to 11.8)
3530at (11.76 rounded to 11.8) pretty much the same

2.3t - 3532mt (11.39 rounded 11.4)
3524at (11.36 round 11.4) BUT found a test that had this to say:
2.3t - 3657 (11.79 round to 11.8) screen shot below

5.0 - 3705mt (8.51 rounded 8.5)
3729at (8.57 rounded 8.6) BUT found a test that had this to say:
5.0 - 3814 (8.76 rounded 8.8)



Now while most are close... The tests seem to show different numbers on over-base models... And I've found this on more than just one site... Thoughts?

[LSLT_Powered26]

I was joking guys, not serious one bit. I just said that because guys over on mooshang6 we're talking a lot of crap. Sorry

[RLHMARINES]

I'm glad to see the readout for the manual gear displayed in the DIC on that video.