[13vertss]

Did you see the weight. 3878lbs curb.
Also braking from 70-0, 164’ and was a PP1 equipped. The SS did it in 147’. So considering the GT has better and wider tires, still can’t stop as good. They need to get rid of those single piston rears.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Spartan268

One thing I do want to point out. Were they testing with they yellow stang? Cause it has the Michelin PS4S.. I remember a lot of people were saying the Edmunds test was hampered by bad driver and tires. Here it looks like tires has been solved but it still got the same sprint of 12.6 seconds..

Edmunds was auto, this was 6 speed.

[hotlap]

It's interesting that C&D ran 12.3 sec in the 2016 SS manual at both the beginning and end of their long term tester. That kind of removes the "same day" argument. The SS is what it is. All of them. Repeatable.

And, with only one exception, it matched or bettered every major performance milestone it achieved in its initial test when we reevaluated it to wrap this story. At 40,597 miles, its zero-to-60 time (4.0 seconds) and quarter-mile time (12.3 seconds at 118 mph) remained identical to what we measured at 3949 miles, 13 months earlier. Plus, its roadholding improved from 0.98 g in its first test to 1.01 g’s at the end—using the same front tires it had in the earlier trial. Braking from 70 mph was identical at 149 feet. It also averaged 20 mpg during the course of its stay

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...rm-test-review

[BlaqWhole]

I go to sleep and this thread blows up...geez guys, lol!!

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Poppacapp

Lebanon actually now contracts with LPF to build cars for them, but I was speak of before this and not Lebanon. LPF is their own company. The 9second Mustang I spoke of wasn't a shop car... it was a customer car. There are alot of videos of their customer cars running at tracks, grudge racing, roll racing etc. They have a decent twin kit for the S550s that has been in circulation since 2015.

Ok I thought you were talking about the dealership. LOL! Still tho, a 9 sec Mustang GT on stock internals is not going to be a common thing. You need a lot of power to break 9s. It would certainly put the GT out of the realm of safe and reliable. And I really doubt these guys are DDing their cars. More than likely, if they are running 9s, then it is a really extreme tune and they're pushing more boost than the engine can handle in sustained runs. They probably trailer the cars there, throw the extreme tune on it, and then run whatever parts they need to hit those numbers. So all it is doing is idling up to the lights and then doing the run with race gas and who knows what else in it. It does the quarter mile and goes back in the trailer. And it is then either put back in it's street configuration afterwards or it just stays like so until the next track outing.

Originally Posted by oldman

I've seen so little actually working and drivable twin turbo anything in my life, and even less at the tracks or autoX. So the word "easy" probably should not come in the same sentence as twin turbo. The reality is greater than the friction. Sure I love turbo, love twin turbo even more. I'm just pointing out that for DD crowded it is more myth than reality. Sure I expect you and others to post about how turn key 100% reliable etc a TT setup is. Not in my experience or world, glad it maybe in yours. Point being as soon as you bring up TT in a STOCK NA debate.... your cause is lost.

Originally Posted by Spartan268

So true. Almost every car I know of around this area with twins (That was originally N/A) always end with the same something got blown story. Supercharger as well but to a lesser extent since everyone seems to ignore it. We'll see how my friends whipple build take him down the road on his 16' GT. It'll be interesting considering he beats his car during hooligan stuff.

I was just talking about this 12 hours ago. A few years ago I wanted to run a cheap boost setup on my 5th Gen SS. So I found a guy selling a TT setup. My buddy had a 370Z that he also wanted to throw a turbo on. So he sent his down to Fl and I bought mine from the guy. Well he was talking numbers in the 500s and he would be doing low 10s and I told him to expect more like high 300s to low 400s safely on low boost and a good low 12 to high 11 run...maybe even mid 11s. I told him his engine had way too much compression for the amount of boost it would need to do all that he wanted it to do. So the shop he went to hit him with a huge turbo pushing 9-11 psi and pushed his engine to high 400s/low 500s which I thought was way too much. He took it to the track and ran a mid 12 at like 130...couldn't get traction. a couple months later he blew his engine. When I saw that I boxed up the TT setup I had bought and sold it, lol!! The guy that bought it from me eventually installed it and his engine blew after some time. If you ask me, turbos are the most expensive most complicated most troublesome and most expensive of the power adders. They're cool to look at and awesome to hear. But on stock engines that are not forged you really have to keep the boost low (like 5-7 psi max) or skate with danger.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Actually that seems to be a really glowing review, and if you compare it with the oft-quoted performance times of 13.0/113MPH that people throw around here..that's a pretty considerable improvement.

The 15-17 tested at 12.9-13.1 that I have seen. I'm not sure if I saw a 12.8 with the M6 or not. They got a bump of 25 hp and the A10 trans. So how people thought that would translate into a 1 sec difference in the quarter mile is beyond me. I do think that a 12.6 thru the M6 trans is good considering that is almost half a sec faster than the A6 runs. Maybe the A10 will squeak out a 12.4 in testing. I think it is a good jump and comparable to what the SS did when it got a handful of extra power and the A8 trans in 2016 (and weight reduction). It went from being a high 12/13 flat to being a low to mid 12. Those are reasonable gains to expect.

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Why would the Camaro get bump now when the Corvette never has, even in the GrandSport. It's more likely to maintain it's stock power levels through the end of this generation.

True. Again with the GT350(R) vs GT comparison...Chevy might give the SS the same power as the Vette unlike it has done in past history. But they are not going to make it outshine the Vette in any performance category. Just like Ford is not going to let the GT350 lag behind the GT anywhere. The SS doesn't need a bump really. They can save it for the next Gen. If they give the Vette a bump then I think they might do the same for the Camaro. But I doubt either of them will get one.

[kttxz06]

Smh.

Comments on the Car and Driver review.

This is how far whacked out Mustang fans are.........................................


When one considers what this car offers at this price range, the updated Mustang GT is nothing short of the best value-per-dollar-spent in the automotive universe. Period.
And, optioned with the all-new 10-speed automatic, the not-so-lowly Mustang will break the four-second naught to sixty barrier, leaving cars that cost more than twice as much in its rear view mirror (Porsche 911, I'm looking at you.)


Bwahahahahahahaha. WTF? The best value per dollar spent in the automotive universe? Hahahahahahahahaha. Wow. And now the Mustang crowd is saying the GT will slay a Porsche 911? ARE U FKN KIDDING ME? Wow.

Um, this car will barely eeeek out a victory over my old piece of shit Maserati GT.

Btw, saw a GTR on the way to take the kiddo for some dinner. Ugh. I want another GTR every time I see one.

[BlaqWhole]

Hey M6G..."Just know that if the argument spills into the streets, the Chevy is still quicker."!!! HAHAHAHAHA!! Tell all the trolls you sent over here that there is a support hotline being set up for them as well as low stimulation rooms, guidance sessions, counseling, and feeling-sharing events.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by jmackisback

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...al-test-review

l o l

"In testing, our six-speed manual (a 10-speed automatic is optional) matched the zero-to-60 time of the outgoing car at 4.3 seconds but opened 0.3-second and 3-mph gaps through the quarter-mile with a 12.6-second run at 115 mph. By 150 mph, the new GT was 2.4 seconds quicker. The extra power isn’t glaringly obvious, but it gives the GT barstool bragging rights over the 455-hp Camaro SS. Just know that if the argument spills into the streets, the Chevy is still quicker."

A tick off of what I expected from the M6 in the 1/4. Some will be butthurt.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by 13vertss/r's

Did you see the weight. 3878lbs curb.
Also braking from 70-0, 164’ and was a PP1 equipped. The SS did it in 147’. So considering the GT has better and wider tires, still can’t stop as good. They need to get rid of those single piston rears.

no it should keep the single pistons and drop 200lbs

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

no it should keep the single pistons and drop 200lbs

Agreed, but that's what I don't get with Ford. They can't seem to just get it right. Imagine this GT as is. Do 3 things a tad better and it hands down drop kicks the Camaro. More tire. Better brakes. Less weight. And it doesn't even have to spend a ton more to accomplish that and they can keep the price point where it's at now. It would be game over and it would shut up the Camaro camp.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

no it should keep the single pistons and drop 200lbs

Why? The Camaro can have the better combo all around and still weighs less...

And the 12.6 @ 115 for the 6spd GT through C&D means that the 6spd for the SS will almost certainly still be faster....

And when you match up the autos, I think the SS will still get the nod, but it will be closer than we expect...

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Agreed, but that's what I don't get with Ford. They can't seem to just get it right. Imagine this GT as is. Do 3 things a tad better and it hands down drop kicks the Camaro. More tire. Better brakes. Less weight. And it doesn't even have to spend a ton more to accomplish that and they can keep the price point where it's at now. It would be game over and it would shut up the Camaro camp.

I disagree. Adding slightly better tires and fixing the rear brakes won't overcome the Camaro's other advantages in suspension. Not to mention, the Mustang already exceeds the Camaro in average cost as it currently sits.

Less weight means reducing the cabin size, which is how GM went with the Camaro. That's the one "big" bragging point for every person who seems to like Mustangs..... I CAN SEE!!!!!

I do agree that Ford could make tweaks to make the Mustang much better rather easily. The biggest issue is that they don't have to, because people will buy it.... Ford 150's have been the best selling trucks for 40 yrs roughly, but they aren't the best trucks....

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

no it should keep the single pistons and drop 200lbs

There was only 118 lbs different between the two and the GT had better tires and wider in front where most brakeing happens. So weight and tires were not the issue. Only one thing left, better brakes in the back.