[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

"close the gap" is a pretty broad and undefined term.

How do you figure that...there was a gap, now it's closed. You're welcome.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

"close the gap" is a pretty broad and undefined term. I did not see anyone other than a few Mustang Fanatics suggesting it would anywhere near 12.0's. Trust me im as shocked as anyone to see it click off the time LMR ran. I'm just tired of hearing about tire pressure and "great d/a" its B.S.

torque is alot less important than its made out to be in a drag race...low end torque even more so.

Here you are claiming it's a .8-.9 improvement over 15-17.. So, you're saying that some people will run 11.5-11.7 with stock 18.

That sure would be impressive, not that 12.0 isn't great.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

How do you figure that...there was a gap, now it's closed. You're welcome.

I'll try to do this from now on.

[SSfriendly]

Ford claims sub 4 second 0-60, the anti Ford crowd claims it runs a 3.999999

First claimed stock 1/4 mile comes in with damn impressive ET and MPH and "some" claim that the tire pressure could be altered...or that somehow running with less than a 100% full tank of fuel isn't stock.

And the rest of the world laughs.

It's easy to see there will be sub 12 second hero runs coming...and that the 10 speed will absolutely rival the camaro. I'm not sure why everyone in here can't see it?

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Ford claims sub 4 second 0-60, the anti Ford crowd claims it runs a 3.999999

First claimed stock 1/4 mile comes in with damn impressive ET and MPH and "some" claim that the tire pressure could be altered...or that somehow running with less than a 100% full tank of fuel isn't stock.

And the rest of the world laughs.

It's easy to see there will be sub 12 second hero runs coming...and that the 10 speed will absolutely rival the camaro. I'm not sure why everyone in here can't see it?

Most can. You blind ? As with anything opinions are never going to be the same. That’s life. Some of the ford crew thinks the 15-17 car is a dead heart with the Camaro. Even more foolish

Yes that’s an impressive first. But the first was a track rental shop car. In November at 500 da. Because a few question that as being faster than the norm is reasonable. I for one think it will get into the 11s no problem

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Horse hockey. Air pressure keeps being brought up to discredit the time as though the car cant run those times at 32psi and its therefore modded. And 500 d/a is far from super good...unless you live in the mountains. This wasn't a -2500' Cecil pass. They ran at their home track when they got the car which happens to be in decent air.

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Whatever...the car runs harder than anyone around here expected and now the excuses are coming out.

3860# though WTF Ford..thats just sad for a Mustang

What excuses? I said it seems obvious to me that the only way they could get those times were by lowering the air in the tires. So don't get cocky. For the record, I have always compared magazine times with both cars. The Camaro's 12.2-12.3 to the GT's 12.9-13.2. That is the only way to fairly compare both cars. Same day, same track, same driver, no changes, stock tire pressure, all done by an independent 3rd party. So I'm not discrediting the run, I'm just saying you can't compare it to the magazine SS runs because that makes no sense. There were Camaros running 11.9 bone stock. But I never used those times because it isn't a true and fair comparison. So don't tell us we're making excuses when it was a legitimate statement. Using times from biased companies and shops and adjusting tire pressure and all these tricks are when the tests get murky and unreliable.

And I stand by my statements that I think the GT in the magazine tests will do a mid 12. If LMR did an incredible run with the 18 GT without having to adjust the tire pressure or run it all day then they would have been bragging about it. So that tells you something right there. Regardless I still think that getting a 12 flat is impressive even if they did have to make adjustments. And I think a mid 12 will be just as impressive since it'll put the GT basically about 2 tenths in the SS's range which to me makes it a driver's race. And for consistency, I said that before when comparing the S197 GT to the 5th Gen Camaro. And I will applaud Ford for bringing the GT back to life. Now we just have to see how it handles on a track and see how it stacks up against the SS in a H2H and against the Shelby.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Most can. You blind ? As with anything opinions are never going to be the same. That’s life. Some of the ford crew thinks the 15-17 car is a dead heart with the Camaro. Even more foolish

Yes that’s an impressive first. But the first was a track rental shop car. In November at 500 da. Because a few question that as being faster than the norm is reasonable. I for one think it will get into the 11s no problem

I wouldn't say most. There are a few though.

As far as 500 da, I didn't see it. Did they post what the humidity was?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

What excuses? I said it seems obvious to me that the only way they could get those times were by lowering the air in the tires. So don't get cocky. For the record, I have always compared magazine times with both cars. The Camaro's 12.2-12.3 to the GT's 12.9-13.2. That is the only way to fairly compare both cars. Same day, same track, same driver, no changes, stock tire pressure, all done by an independent 3rd party. So I'm not discrediting the run, I'm just saying you can't compare it to the magazine SS runs because that makes no sense. There were Camaros running 11.9 bone stock. But I never used those times because it isn't a true and fair comparison. So don't tell us we're making excuses when it was a legitimate statement. Using times from biased companies and shops and adjusting tire pressure and all these tricks are when the tests get murky and unreliable.

And I stand by my statements that I think the GT in the magazine tests will do a mid 12. If LMR did an incredible run with the 18 GT without having to adjust the tire pressure or run it all day then they would have been bragging about it. So that tells you something right there. Regardless I still think that getting a 12 flat is impressive even if they did have to make adjustments. And I think a mid 12 will be just as impressive since it'll put the GT basically about 2 tenths in the SS's range which to me makes it a driver's race. And for consistency, I said that before when comparing the S197 GT to the 5th Gen Camaro. And I will applaud Ford for bringing the GT back to life. Now we just have to see how it handles on a track and see how it stacks up against the SS in a H2H and against the Shelby.

My tires from the dealer were set at 45psi. Does that mean when I lowered them it was no longer stock?

Do you not see how silly you sound...and how everything you are saying seems like an attempt to make an excuse on how the 18 mustang won't be able to match the camaro? Their tire pressure was set at 30psi, well within the realm of coming off of the factory lot. Their 1.96 60' times certainly weren't stellar.

https://www.facebook.com/latemodelre...5782275549844/

And I wouldn't call running down the 1/4 mile 5 times an all day affair.

I will agree, as for 1/4 mile times...it most certainly looks at this point to be a drivers race.

[crysalis_01]

Yes, the "ran all day" comments seemed out of place when you looked at the IG/FB live videos, while not super accurately time coded, they do show in the upper corners how long ago the video was shot, and the time difference from the first one to the last one with the rain was only like 3 hrs.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Yes, the "ran all day" comments seemed out of place when you looked at the IG/FB live videos, while not super accurately time coded, they do show in the upper corners how long ago the video was shot, and the time difference from the first one to the last one with the rain was only like 3 hrs.

I said half day.. Either way, it's a great time and am looking to what others will run with it.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Ford claims sub 4 second 0-60, the anti Ford crowd claims it runs a 3.999999

The A8 SS has been running 3.9 0-60's since it came out as per Car and Drivers test. I mean heck, a harder to launch M6 SS runs an easy 4.0 too. And not just the SS 1LE, the regular SS has too...a tenth to 60 is a dead heat no matter how you look at it, either way, way too many variables.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

First claimed stock 1/4 mile comes in with damn impressive ET and MPH and "some" claim that the tire pressure could be altered...or that somehow running with less than a 100% full tank of fuel isn't stock.

You must be related to FastCarFanboy? We all know being it was a Mustang shop, with a rented track, how that went...doesn't matter what kind of car. We are just saying a real world, same day, same place, same driver, test from a reputable magazine is what we really need for a FAIR comparison. I don't see how anybody could dispute that.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

It's easy to see there will be sub 12 second hero runs coming...and that the 10 speed will absolutely rival the camaro. I'm not sure why everyone in here can't see it?

Who in here can't see that? We (and I) have said this should finally level the playing field, at least while comparing auto 1/4 mile passes.

I still say M6 vs M6 the Camaro will still have a gap.
Same for on track performance when comparing equals.

[FastCarFanBoy]

the magazines have already tested the SS numerous times , there would be no need to bring an SS along for comparison. If they dont does that render the Mustang test results useless?

[1LEMATT]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

The A8 SS has been running 3.9 0-60's since it came out as per Car and Drivers test. I mean heck, a harder to launch M6 SS runs an easy 4.0 too. And not just the SS 1LE, the regular SS has too...a tenth to 60 is a dead heat no matter how you look at it, either way, way too many variables.




You must be related to FastCarFanboy? We all know being it was a Mustang shop, with a rented track, how that went...doesn't matter what kind of car. We are just saying a real world, same day, same place, same driver, test from a reputable magazine is what we really need for a FAIR comparison. I don't see how anybody could dispute that.




Who in here can't see that? We (and I) have said this should finally level the playing field, at least while comparing auto 1/4 mile passes.

I still say M6 vs M6 the Camaro will still have a gap.
Same for on track performance when comparing equals.

I couldn't have said it better.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

The A8 SS has been running 3.9 0-60's since it came out as per Car and Drivers test. I mean heck, a harder to launch M6 SS runs an easy 4.0 too. And not just the SS 1LE, the regular SS has too...a tenth to 60 is a dead heat no matter how you look at it, either way, way too many variables.




You must be related to FastCarFanboy? We all know being it was a Mustang shop, with a rented track, how that went...doesn't matter what kind of car. We are just saying a real world, same day, same place, same driver, test from a reputable magazine is what we really need for a FAIR comparison. I don't see how anybody could dispute that.




Who in here can't see that? We (and I) have said this should finally level the playing field, at least while comparing auto 1/4 mile passes.

I still say M6 vs M6 the Camaro will still have a gap.
Same for on track performance when comparing equals.

Agree with everything you said.

I'm curious to see what the revised gearing and clutch in the mustang will do for it's 1/4 mile performance.

Let's just hope they don't pull the same bullshit where they match an auto vs a manual for either car.

[1LEMATT]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

the magazines have already tested the SS numerous times , there would be no need to bring an SS along for comparison. If they dont does that render the Mustang test results useless?

While that would "help" with a more average comparison, how would that be definitive being done in some cases a year apart, with different drivers, at different locations, with different weather, etc?