[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Pretty sure he just showed you there was little difference in the case of the F150. I expect there will be a much bigger difference in the case of the GT from 17-18. How much of that can be attributed to solely the transmission is unknown. I think the tires suspension PP (finally in an auto for the Stang) and the torque control in drag mode would have a much larger effect on the 1/4 mile combined than just the transmission.

Regardless no one but a GM or Ford engineer can verify how much of an advantage the new transmission will be for the Mustang. Around a track I can see it being huge but on the strip... maybe only a tenth

drive a stock auto GT and stock auto SS and pay close attention to how the trans shifts. Its night and day in quickness. 2017 F150 is at least 2 tenths and 2mph faster than 2016, both years numbers coming from C&D. 2017 f150s run into the 13s where the magazines has them at mid-low 14s.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

drive a stock auto GT and stock auto SS and pay close attention to how the trans shifts. Its night and day in quickness. 2017 F150 is at least 2 tenths and 2mph faster than 2016, both years numbers coming from C&D. 2017 f150s run into the 13s where the magazines has them at mid-low 14s.

Yeah the shifts are much faster. My wife has an auto SS. However you are only using 3 or 4 gears for the 1/4. Only way to really tell the difference is put the 10 speed into the current car. But that isn't going to happen.

I agree there will be an improvement with the 10 speed. I just think most of that improvement will be found around a track and at the pump.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

I agree there will be an improvement with the 10 speed. I just think most of that improvement will be found around a track and at the pump.

In the case of PP Auto (with it's 3.55 gearing), I'd not expect any increase in MPG. That's a lot of gear for 10 speeds, especially when you consider the 2.73 used in the 6th gens. Even the base GT auto is a 3.15, which with the addition of DI and an extra OD gear (vs the A6) will likely not jump much either. Even the F-150s going from A6-A10 only gained 2 MPG in city/1 MPG combined.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

drive a stock auto GT and stock auto SS and pay close attention to how the trans shifts. Its night and day in quickness. 2017 F150 is at least 2 tenths and 2mph faster than 2016, both years numbers coming from C&D. 2017 f150s run into the 13s where the magazines has them at mid-low 14s.

2017 F150 received a new engine/more power and the 10 speed. Below are test numbers.

C&D
14.4 @ 97 for 2017
14.6 @ 95 for 2016
14.4 @ 95 for 2015

MT
14.7 @ 95 for 2017
14.5 @ 94.4 for 2016
15.0 @ 92.5 for 2015

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Yeah the shifts are much faster. My wife has an auto SS. However you are only using 3 or 4 gears for the 1/4. Only way to really tell the difference is put the 10 speed into the current car. But that isn't going to happen.

I agree there will be an improvement with the 10 speed. I just think most of that improvement will be found around a track and at the pump.

Stall should be an improvement judging from 0-60 times in 2018 GT vs <2017. Theres like a 7 tenth improvement. I get to about 1500 and the damn thing wants to creep forward.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

You make a lot of assumptions. I only stated facts. I made a quick comment on my opinion of what the 2018 would do. There's a quickest list on the mustang forums that are backed by slip and plenty others who post on Facebook groups and not website. We'll see once the 2018s get to the owners, what they can do. Deep in to the 12s means someone can't just say, "oh you barely scratched 12s, in a worse day or worse luck it would've ran a 13." That's in reference to people who run 12.9x, they barely made it to 12s. By deep into the 12s I mean 12.7x or lower. They were deep enough into 12s that slightly worse DA won't bring them out of the 12 sec range. I don't care that you don't care what my car runs, or anyone, it isn't for anyone's display in here.

Yea and a lot of those people on the forum lists are FOS. All you have to do is post a sli say it was this or that car, say you had this or that or nothing done to it, and it is accepted as gospel. So meanwhile you have professional magazines and professional drivers who are held to higher standards saying a 15-17 GT is a 12.9 at best...but you have some forum guy who you never met claiming his "stock 15-17 GT" is doing better than that. Who would you believe? Sorry but I tend to take the magazine's word over some Joe-shmo. And faceit, we've all seen guys lie at the track about their car.

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Good observation. Stick to the original topic. I only made a quick statement about the 15-17 GT as a way to support what I thought the 2018 could run with the new 10spd auto, not to start a forum argument. When GM went to the 8spd that gave a huge advantage. Now Ford will have an equivalent auto that it didn't have with the 6r80.

The trans gave it a slight advantage but it isn't completely responsible for how fast the SS is. The 5th Gen was putting out around 370 to the wheels in the manual trans and about 340 to the wheels in the auto. Now the 6th Gen is putting out over 400 to the wheels and even some of the auto equipped ones are up there. That is a huge improvement in hp and tq. Plus it lost some weight. The GT would need a substantial increase or to seriously underrate the engine hp/tq specs if they want the A10 to do the same. If the GT gets weight reduction, a decent tire, good suspension components, good gearing in the trans, and if it turns out to be making around 410 to the wheels, then I think it'll be close. My argument is that none of these things will happen and it'll be in the 12.5-12.7 range at best.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Yea and a lot of those people on the forum lists are FOS. All you have to do is post a sli say it was this or that car, say you had this or that or nothing done to it, and it is accepted as gospel. So meanwhile you have professional magazines and professional drivers who are held to higher standards saying a 15-17 GT is a 12.9 at best...but you have some forum guy who you never met claiming his "stock 15-17 GT" is doing better than that. Who would you believe? Sorry but I tend to take the magazine's word over some Joe-shmo. And faceit, we've all seen guys lie at the track about their car.



The trans gave it a slight advantage but it isn't completely responsible for how fast the SS is. The 5th Gen was putting out around 370 to the wheels in the manual trans and about 340 to the wheels in the auto. Now the 6th Gen is putting out over 400 to the wheels and even some of the auto equipped ones are up there. That is a huge improvement in hp and tq. Plus it lost some weight. The GT would need a substantial increase or to seriously underrate the engine hp/tq specs if they want the A10 to do the same. If the GT gets weight reduction, a decent tire, good suspension components, good gearing in the trans, and if it turns out to be making around 410 to the wheels, then I think it'll be close. My argument is that none of these things will happen and it'll be in the 12.5-12.7 range at best.

So the mustang is the first car to go faster in the real world vs magazines? Hasn't the Zl1 gone like 6 tenths faster by owners compared to mags?? So every time you see someone on the fastest list faster than what C&D and motortrend it should be disqualified and taken as a lie by the owner, got it. Btw, only car I recall from memory being strayed in an actual 1/4 mile track that is prepped is the Demon. Most others are done on an unprepped measured 1/4 mile strip of road/track.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

So the mustang is the first car to go faster in the real world vs magazines? Hasn't the Zl1 gone like 6 tenths faster by owners compared to mags?? So every time you see someone on the fastest list faster than what C&D and motortrend it should be disqualified and taken as a lie by the owner, got it. Btw, only car I recall from memory being strayed in an actual 1/4 mile track that is prepped is the Demon. Most others are done on an unprepped measured 1/4 mile strip of road/track.

I said most of these people saying they did this or that are liars. And I said I accept magazine times more than I would some random person. When someone on a forum posts a slip you are taking them solely on their word. And if you really believe that these guys out here are completely honest all the time then I got some shocking news for you. And I don't know of any vehicle ever going 6/10s faster than a magazine time. If anyone did I'd call BS on it unless I was there and saw it in person. I take a professional source any day over some random person's story.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I said most of these people saying they did this or that are liars. And I said I accept magazine times more than I would some random person. When someone on a forum posts a slip you are taking them solely on their word. And if you really believe that these guys out here are completely honest all the time then I got some shocking news for you. And I don't know of any vehicle ever going 6/10s faster than a magazine time. If anyone did I'd call BS on it unless I was there and saw it in person. I take a professional source any day over some random person's story.

So don't believe the forum guy but do believe magazines who take money from manufacturers to sway reviews one way or another makes sense. Got it, perfect sense. You own the very beast of a car motor trend said they couldn't do better than 11.5 at 125 with their pro driver but forum guys are likely to go 10.9 or maybe slightly better this fall. So you really don't know jack..

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

So don't believe the forum guy but do believe magazines who take money from manufacturers to sway reviews one way or another makes sense. Got it, perfect sense. You own the very beast of a car motor trend said they couldn't do better than 11.5 at 125 with their pro driver but forum guys are likely to go 10.9 or maybe slightly better this fall. So you really don't know jack..

I definitely trust a magazine more than someone I don't know who could be lying just to make himself look cool...which is exactly what you're doing with this nonsense about S550 GTs "deep" in the 12s. I know a hell of a lot more than you Jack. And you're completely nuts if you think those GTs are doing those times. Oh wait, but you believe it because someone on a forum said he did it right? Yea, gullible as hell if you believe that.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I definitely trust a magazine more than someone I don't know who could be lying just to make himself look cool...which is exactly what you're doing with this nonsense about S550 GTs "deep" in the 12s. I know a hell of a lot more than you Jack. And you're completely nuts if you think those GTs are doing those times. Oh wait, but you believe it because someone on a forum said he did it right? Yea, gullible as hell if you believe that.

Obviously you get all your info from magazines. Motortrend life subscription? lol. You run those two cars of yours at the strip to compare them to magazine times or you just do hard parking and car shows?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Obviously you get all your info from magazines. Motortrend life subscription? lol. You run those two cars of yours at the strip to compare them to magazine times or you just do hard parking and car shows?

And you obviously get your info from what people on a forum tell you. Funny thing is that the mags tell us the S550 GT is a 12.9 at best and all of us who go to the track have seen that. You're talking about what some forum poster says he did and not one of us ever seen a stock GT run deep in the 12s. And you haven't either for that matter. You're just repeating what you read. Mags say my ZL1 is an 11.4 and I ran an 11.8 the last time I went. And regardless, at least I go. What does your "Mustang GT" run?

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And you obviously get your info from what people on a forum tell you. Funny thing is that the mags tell us the S550 GT is a 12.9 at best and all of us who go to the track have seen that. You're talking about what some forum poster says he did and not one of us ever seen a stock GT run deep in the 12s. And you haven't either for that matter. You're just repeating what you read. Mags say my ZL1 is an 11.4 and I ran an 11.8 the last time I went. And regardless, at least I go. What does your "Mustang GT" run?

Ive seen them go 12.7s at local track, manual base and PP getting close to 2 tenths better 60ft times than my stock 60ft times. One was 2 days old (180ish miles) with paper tag. I dont go to the track as often as I want to but do go. This thread isnt about my car, but if you must know, it goes a bit quicker than your 11.8 last time it was out in summer, my mistakes were corrected and expect to drop another few tenths and go up a couple MPH.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And you obviously get your info from what people on a forum tell you. Funny thing is that the mags tell us the S550 GT is a 12.9 at best and all of us who go to the track have seen that. You're talking about what some forum poster says he did and not one of us ever seen a stock GT run deep in the 12s. And you haven't either for that matter. You're just repeating what you read. Mags say my ZL1 is an 11.4 and I ran an 11.8 the last time I went. And regardless, at least I go. What does your "Mustang GT" run?

As I said about a week ago:

'But when all you've got to go on is the word of a single guy making an implausible claim ... trust it about as much as you would the National Inquirer'