[BlaqWhole]

The Mustang GT fell behind in performance for 16 years from 94-2010. Then they came back in 2011 with the Coyote engine and fell right back 4 years later in 2015. And now they are again trying to keep up and you want the whole world to be impressed? LOL. If anything I'm impressed they sold as well as they did given the lack of performance they had. But if you give shit away for dirt cheap I guess people will buy it.

[Speedofsound]

I'm wondering what kinda power it will make once revved to 7500.

[jmackisback]

Originally Posted by Speedofsound

I'm wondering what kinda power it will make once revved to 7500.

Probably bang boom power.

[Speedofsound]

Originally Posted by jmackisback

Probably bang boom power.

What makes you say that?

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/nissa...t-test-review/

MT, 370Z, tested 13.3-13.6.

And I didn't say the SS did a 12.2. I said it is in the 12.2 range. Which it is since Hotrod magazine pulled off a 12.21 and MT did a 12.3 while others did 12.4. Try paying attention and a little bit of reading comprehension.



And no, the 3000GT and 300ZXs did not beat the Z28 SS. They were neck and neck in the mid 13s. Guess which car wasn't even close to that. Right, the Mustang GT. And for the record, the 3000GT, Supras, and 300ZXs were the best that the imports had to offer and were up there in performance pushing 300 hp or more with TT V6s. The Z28 SS was keeping up with them with the 5.7 NA LS1 engine. What did the GT have? Ah, a 4.6 SOHC NPI engine making 225 hp and running a mid to high 14. Lame.

And the Supra NEVER "raped" a Vette. Bone stock the Supra was a low 13. Guess what the LT1 powered Corvette was running. Low 13s. Oh, and what about the mid 90s ZR1 Vette? That was running a 12.9 and the only car that could touch it in the same price range or cheaper was the Viper. So you really have no idea what you're talking about. Supras, 300ZXs, 3000GTs, and even the Skyline (with exception of the R32 or whatever it is called) were not beating GM. They were kicking Ford's ass all over the place but not GM.

trying to parse your nonsense is like having a conversation about nuclear medicine with someone who has tourettes.

lets try to at least compare cars from the same model yea.r

3000gt's and ZX's were around for years before the SS showed up.
early 90's MR2 turbo was an even match for a Camaro

LT-1 vettes were high 13.'s ...Supra was faster

your Motortrend link shows the S550 .5 and 5mph faster than the Nismo...is that a drivers race now?

the ZR1 was .5 faster than a Supra and cost $67,000 in 1993 LOL. Supra was $40k

...this is all irrelevant of course

[JamesNoBrakes]

Solid rocket engines would be faster in a straight line.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Hey cool, in other useless trivia... an '83 280zx would run with a '83 Z28 and in the 90's 300zx's, 3000gt's and Supras crushed Camaros and Mustangs. The Supra raped the Vette.

and Mr. Magazine times please dont dig up other sources when it suits your argument...the 370z Nismo has never been a low 13 car when tested by your criteria.

which mag went 12.2 in a 6th gen?

Not sure the mag but they did a drag test auto vs manual. Got 12.2

[vtirocz]

Hotrod got a 12.2 with a '16 auto 2SS.
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/drag-...o-ss-with-jeff

All the magazines got 12.2-12.3 for the auto and 12.3-12.5 for the manual.

[Speedofsound]

buddy sent me a graph where one of the shops did an overlay of their 2015 GT when they got it compared to the 2018 they just got and it was just shy of 50whp and like 45 or 46ft lbs of torque

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

trying to parse your nonsense is like having a conversation about nuclear medicine with someone who has tourettes.

lets try to at least compare cars from the same model yea.r

3000gt's and ZX's were around for years before the SS showed up.
early 90's MR2 turbo was an even match for a Camaro

LT-1 vettes were high 13.'s ...Supra was faster

your Motortrend link shows the S550 .5 and 5mph faster than the Nismo...is that a drivers race now?

the ZR1 was .5 faster than a Supra and cost $67,000 in 1993 LOL. Supra was $40k

...this is all irrelevant of course

You don't know anything about cars in general. And you know much less about cars in the era you're talking about. And every time you say something I wonder just how much more nonsense you can pack on and you seem to have an endless supply.

Regardless of what misinformation you think you have, the 3000GT came out while the 3rd Gen TPI IROCs were still in production and were outgoing. So of course the 3000 GT would be faster. Plus the 3000GT was like $40K back then and was a V6 TT with AWD and was one of the best imports around at the time. So saying it was faster than a 5.7 TPI 3rd Gen Camaro Z28 just shows how idiotic your argument is. And using that argument to justify the Mustang GT getting beat by 350Zs and 370Zs shows even more idiocy. Once the 4th Gen Z28 came out the Camaro closed the gap. When the Z28 SS came out in 96 the Camaro was in the 13s and keeping up with the 3000GTs and Supras. Even the non-SS version of the Z28 was in the high 13s. What was the GT running at the time? High 14s to low 15s. In fact, the damn Honda Prelude was running at least the same time as the GT if not faster in the 90s. LOL!! And even worse than that, there were some Honda Accords that were faster than some of the New Edge Mustang GTs by a tenth of a second, lol!! So in the 90s the Mustang GT was keeping up with the Prelude and in the 2000s it was getting beat by the Accord. What kind of shit is that?? And you're comparing the Camaro to the Supra and 3000GT VR4?? How can you even defend or justify your BS??

The Supra ran low 13s in their time. 13.3-13.5. That was in the 94-97 years. The LT1 Vette in those same years was running the same times, low to mid 13s. They were always within 2 tenths of each other. So where you got your information is beyond me. Must be more of that made up Mustang BS you Mustang boys like to invent.

And learn to read...you said

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

the 370z Nismo has never been a low 13 car when tested by your criteria.

The link I posted clearly says "We’ve tested eight other 370Z models, including two convertibles and two NISMO models, since it arrived for the 2009 model year. In testing, past models reached 60 mph in 4.7–5.1 seconds and ran the quarter mile in 13.3–13.6 seconds at 102.9–107.2 mph." You can't even keep up with an argument.

[drew peacock]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I don't think you know what you're talking about kid.

A Mustang doing low 12s is not respectable when it is the last Muscle Car to finally get that fast. The SS has been doing it for 3 model years now. The CHallys have been doing it for quite some time. And now finally the GT gets there and we're supposed to be impressed? They're years late to the party bro. They spent the last few years just barely beating Evos, WRXs, and 5.7 Hemi Chally/Chargers and getting their asses kicked by everything else. And even still this testing has nothing to compare it to. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else can duplicate this run by LMR. And what, you want us to respect the Mustang dude? You're on the wrong forum pal. Why do you Mustang nuthumpers keep coming over here expecting us to have respect or to cheer for your crappy car? LOL!! You literally have tons of Mustang forums yet you come here of all places and get pissy when we tell you we don't respect the GT? I swear you guys have brain damage or something.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Speedofsound

buddy sent me a graph where one of the shops did an overlay of their 2015 GT when they got it compared to the 2018 they just got and it was just shy of 50whp and like 45 or 46ft lbs of torque

Was 40 more without the cool down/ unrealistic cold pull that added 10 hp.

Different day and different drivetrain. 15 more than expected is nothing

[ChefBorOzzy]

Shouldn't one expect the 2018 auto to put down more than 25hp more than a 2015-17 auto GT? Engine is rated 25hp more, but there is probably also less power loss to the wheels.

[FastCarFanBoy]

LT-1 Vettes were 13.9. Maybe your thinking of the LT4 , but who knows what your thinking?

LT-1 F-bodies were low 14's and beat by the VR4

Cool the Nismo went 13.3(Havent seen that instrumented test and no other Mag could duplicate) ...cooler is the fact that in several of those years where Nismo boi's were clowning Mustangs with their 13.3-13.6 cars the Mustang was faster than the Camaro.

who tested a 392 Challenger and got low 12's?

how much farther are we going to go of topic in pursuit of your ramblings?