[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

C'mon dude, no one takes the Edmunds review seriously, but damn....12.6? I mean, were they going in reverse? When you get beat by a manual SS, there's no excuse for dat..

Considering Evan was able to get a high 11's, I would think that 12.6 is an anomaly.

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

The only A10 that was tested has been done by....Edmunds. I'm sure when motortrend posts a 12.3 (If they ever test the A10), you will totally ignore it and revert to the Edmunds time as gospel.



Evan smith cracked 11's. There have been a few 12.0's (LMR) and some other high 11's on FB. The MPH shows this car is going to run right with the SS at the strip, but so few runs have been recorded so far it's difficult to tell what the average is going to be. I recall the exact same thing happening when the 2016 SS were released. Patience.

Well, it is HP weather so. We had a 2 or 3 SS's post up 11.7's, 11.8's about a month ago. I'd say these cars are pretty much about even. It's gonna be on the driver honestly so.

The point is, the SS is going on year 3 now and this is a refresh on the GT with a HP bump and at best, it's running dead even. So, it's a fail no matter how you slice it. IMO. They should of given the GT the Bullitt HP numbers and called it a day.

[Gunkk]

I think it's been pretty well established that Evan's 11.8 was a hero run at 0-500 DA and low-mid 12's will be the norm for the unwashed masses. And yes I'd put Edmunds in the latter group.

[Syphon23]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

I think it's been pretty well established that Evan's 11.8 was a hero run at 0-500 DA and low-mid 12's will be the norm for the unwashed masses. And yes I'd put Edmunds in the latter group.

Nope! Wrong! All 18 A10 GTs are 11.8 sec cars! Haha

I kid i kid..looks like M6G took away my posting rights for doing nothing lol.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

The only A10 that was tested has been done by....Edmunds. I'm sure when motortrend posts a 12.3 (If they ever test the A10), you will totally ignore it and revert to the Edmunds time as gospel.

When have I ever not given the Mustang credit where it was due? And I don't care who tested it. The fastest A10 18 GT ran a 12.6 which is more than a driver's race slower than the 12.3 that the A8 SS ran. If the GT does manage to match the SS then I will gladly give it props. But so far it has not. The SS is a tick short of the Shelby's 12.2 while the GT is almost half a second off.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Considering Evan was able to get a high 11's, I would think that 12.6 is an anomaly.

Not when it was backed up by another source (that is more reliable than Evans) that ran a 12.5

Not when 2 other companies needed DRs and could only manage a low 12.

I think there is more official and trusted evidence that contradicts your stories than there are that support you.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Syphon23

I kid i kid..looks like M6G took away my posting rights for doing nothing lol.

Because you let them get to you. Next time just keep posting facts since all the data seems to disagree with them. Don't engage them in anything personal. Just keep throwing that data at them. They LOVE that!!

[Syphon23]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Because you let them get to you. Next time just keep posting facts since all the data seems to disagree with them. Don't engage them in anything personal. Just keep throwing that data at them. They LOVE that!!

I never said anything personal over there about anyone. One of the guys over there posted links to things I said here. Thats 2nd grade behavior. So I made a post saying:

"Awwe you guys have to follow me to the Camaro Boards. How sweet. Love you too"

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Well, it is HP weather so. We had a 2 or 3 SS's post up 11.7's, 11.8's about a month ago. I'd say these cars are pretty much about even. It's gonna be on the driver honestly so.

The point is, the SS is going on year 3 now and this is a refresh on the GT with a HP bump and at best, it's running dead even. So, it's a fail no matter how you slice it. IMO. They should of given the GT the Bullitt HP numbers and called it a day.

Any way you cut it, it’s going to be a drivers race.

As for a fail, only camaro folks are calling it that. Mustang fans seem to be quite content with the newfound performance.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

When have I ever not given the Mustang credit where it was due? And I don't care who tested it. The fastest A10 18 GT ran a 12.6 which is more than a driver's race slower than the 12.3 that the A8 SS ran. If the GT does manage to match the SS then I will gladly give it props. But so far it has not. The SS is a tick short of the Shelby's 12.2 while the GT is almost half a second off.

You mean like when Evan Smith, a respected driver and writer for multiple well known magazines ran an 11.8 and you jumped on the (It’s modded! It’s gutted! It had no swaybar!) bandwagon?

And motortrend JUST DID A COMPARISON that you still continue to ignore where the GT tested 0.1 seconds slower than the SS. And yet there you are, claiming ¼ mile numbers from different days, drivers and even test paramaters (Does Edmunds even correct their numbers like motortrend or car and driver?). As for the A10, it has yet to be tested by a reputable magazine in a head to head with the A8 camaro. It has shown that it is well capable of similar times at the dragstrip (which you continue to dismiss)…because only camaro hero runs are allowed on this forum.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Not when it was backed up by another source (that is more reliable than Evans) that ran a 12.5

Not when 2 other companies needed DRs and could only manage a low 12.

I think there is more official and trusted evidence that contradicts your stories than there are that support you.

And yet, others have run 12.0X stock that you ignore. Hell, once spring hits and the fast lists starts filling up with 11.XX runs, you will still ignore it and claim that (like always) they can't be trusted.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

I think it's been pretty well established that Evan's 11.8 was a hero run at 0-500 DA and low-mid 12's will be the norm for the unwashed masses. And yes I'd put Edmunds in the latter group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has been established is the fastest independent pass for the 18 A10 GT is 11:80s, with several other 12:00s achieved in a 3-month period. The fastest independent pass for the SS is 12:20s, until somebody can show me otherwise. Again we are not talking about private owners making unverified supposed stock passes.

Folks can cry about driver/conditions all you want but the SS has had 2.5 years and endless reviews to get the same done.

[Fraxum]

As for me I am happy to see faster stock Coyotes, I am tired of embarrassing them at the track. I have one of the few M6 SSes that will be able to keep up with stock A10 GTs. I don't see very many bolton S550s as often as bolton S197s. Is IRS that much of a drag on ETs? (See what I did there?)

Most of my friends at the track are Mustang owners. Where are all the Camaros? I see a few 5th gens now and then and only 1 other regular CA6 SS.

The new '18 GT stock is a drivers race FOR SURE with a comparable transmission stock CA6 SS. We all have to get over it and loosen our panties.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Any way you cut it, it’s going to be a drivers race.

As for a fail, only camaro folks are calling it that. Mustang fans seem to be quite content with the newfound performance.

I agree, calling the Mustang GT('15-'17) a fail due to it being slower than the rest of the field is a bit much indeed when considering the affordable nature of the car. Calling the '18 a fail because it at best matches the SS, which is the fastest in its class is also a bit much.

One car does not have to be faster than the other car to justify its existence, because there are more factors than performance to consider. Appearance matters more to me than straight line performance does, and cornering ability and steering feel mean almost as much to me as appearance. Cars are more than the sum of their parts.

I seem to notice the only negative feedback of the GT is all from a performance perspective, I don't see much talk of "it's ugly, I can't change lanes without whimpering a little, and so on". I think this points to Ford doing quite a bit right with the Mustang, and maybe a slightly more grown up approach to conversations on this side.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

You mean like when Evan Smith, a respected driver and writer for multiple well known magazines ran an 11.8 and you jumped on the (It’s modded! It’s gutted! It had no swaybar!) bandwagon?

And motortrend JUST DID A COMPARISON that you still continue to ignore where the GT tested 0.1 seconds slower than the SS. And yet there you are, claiming ¼ mile numbers from different days, drivers and even test paramaters (Does Edmunds even correct their numbers like motortrend or car and driver?). As for the A10, it has yet to be tested by a reputable magazine in a head to head with the A8 camaro. It has shown that it is well capable of similar times at the dragstrip (which you continue to dismiss)…because only camaro hero runs are allowed on this forum.

There is not enough reliable evidence to start making the claims Mustang guys have been making. ANY of them, that is. On this forum or the others.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

I agree, calling the Mustang GT('15-'17) a fail due to it being slower than the rest of the field is a bit much indeed when considering the affordable nature of the car. Calling the '18 a fail because it at best matches the SS, which is the fastest in its class is also a bit much.

One car does not have to be faster than the other car to justify its existence, because there are more factors than performance to consider. Appearance matters more to me than straight line performance does, and cornering ability and steering feel mean almost as much to me as appearance. Cars are more than the sum of their parts.

I seem to notice the only negative feedback of the GT is all from a performance perspective, I don't see much talk of "it's ugly, I can't change lanes without whimpering a little, and so on". I think this points to Ford doing quite a bit right with the Mustang, and maybe a slightly more grown up approach to conversations on this side.




There is not enough reliable evidence to start making the claims Mustang guys have been making. ANY of them, that is. On this forum or the others.

you're talking crazy man...everyone on this forum takes the Tail of the Dragon to work every day and their driveways are a quarter mile. They are all car enthusiasts, but bone stock performance is all that matters.