[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Nobody is arguing it. We just said it is funny that the GT was tested under different conditions and circumstances and in a different manner than the SS. And if anything you guys are the ones who brought up the one mile race in the dried up river bed which nobody here cares about. Besides after everything that Ford had to do to the GT to make it competitive, it should be faster. The entire car basically got rebuilt. The 18 might as well be the 7th Gen considering all the vast changes they had to make to it.

Well the only tests where the GT was tested under different circumstances was the cars.com test and the Evans run.

I don't recall Car & Driver or Motor Trend doing anything other than their standard tests.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Sure thing Ford failed with the 2015-2017 GT. Well the 2018 GT has been on the street since June/2017, and Chevy has had no answer for the A10 since then. Chevy did take an unusual step with adding the A10 to the refresh (maybe due to the A8 issues, or in an attempt to catch up with the GT), but that hasn't closed the gap. The clock has been ticking for nearly 2-years, when is the 7th Gen due to arrive because 3rd place is steering the 6th Gen right in the eye.

The 2015-2017 Ford got it's ass handed to it to the tune of 0.5 sec. They spent the intervening time to re-engineer the entire drive train and delivered a 0.1 sec advantage in the A10 only. The M6 suffers from the same ~0.4 to 0.5 sec gap.

I'm ok with that.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by hotlap

The 2015-2017 Ford got it's ass handed to it to the tune of 0.5 sec. They spent the intervening time to re-engineer the entire drive train and delivered a 0.1 sec advantage in the A10 only. The M6 suffers from the same ~0.4 to 0.5 sec gap.

I'm ok with that.

And the A8 and A10 SS has been getting its a!! handed to it since June/2017 your point?

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

And the A8 and A10 SS has been getting its a!! handed to it since June/2017 your point?

0.1 sec

...the result of a complete mid-generation redesign aiming specifically at the SS.

PP1 - laughed at
PP2 - a bizarre mix. Another non track car, track car

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by newmoon

And the A8 and A10 SS has been getting its a!! handed to it since June/2017 your point?

I don't know if I would say getting its ass handed to it... that to me is a bit of stretch if we are sticking by the big name magazine numbers

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I don't know if I would say getting its ass handed to it... that to me is a bit of stretch if we are sticking by the big name magazine numbers

We are talking about multiple reviews showing under 12-seconds for the GT many others in the very low 12s. The very best for the SS is 12:20 from any review. We have also seen an average of 2-mph faster speeds for the GT in the quarter. This for a car that weighs more and is giving up nearly 40-lbs of torque.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by newmoon

We are talking about multiple reviews showing under 12-seconds for the GT many others in the very low 12s. The very best for the SS is 12:20 from any review. We have also seen an average of 2-mph faster speeds for the GT in the quarter. This for a car that weighs more and is giving up nearly 40-lbs of torque.

We have beat this dead horse enough. Let's move back to the GT500.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by rocket403

What like making a car with a backseat you can put someone in or have a trunk that can be used, how about getting rid of the bunker feel.

Last I checked, you ain't really putting nobody in the back seat of any of these cars with exception to the Challenger. And even then it won't be 4 people all at my height and definitely not all comfortably. So let's just throw that argument out. If you're carting people along then none of these cars are for you. I have a SUV for those purposes. And even if people could fit I still wouldn't want someone back there bumbling around and putting shoe scuff marks all over the place and having to pull the front seat so they can squeeze back there. No way. Every once in a great while I can deal with. But that's it.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

We are talking about multiple reviews showing under 12-seconds for the GT many others in the very low 12s. The very best for the SS is 12:20 from any review. We have also seen an average of 2-mph faster speeds for the GT in the quarter. This for a car that weighs more and is giving up nearly 40-lbs of torque.

When were both cars tested same day same track where the GT did all this?

What about the fact that the PP was tested against the SLE and it wasn't even a close race? That was the ass kicking of a lifetime. Ford couldn't even afford the money to develop an answer and they had to have their engineers draw up some dumb shit off hours on their own time and not get paid for it...just for the "PP2" to end up not being able to run for more than one full lap around a track. So not only could they not afford to pay their engineers, they also couldn't afford to give the car proper cooling. And here now they can't afford to build the GT500 well enough to handle more than 180 MPH.

What about the fact that for the past 4 years, every time the Mustang and Camaro has been tested tier for tier, the Mustang has somehow always come up short and either needed an extra tier or a major re-design? What about the fact that in 6 years there still is no Mustang that is faster than the ZL1 in a straight line?

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

When were both cars tested same day same track where the GT did all this?

What about the fact that the PP was tested against the SLE and it wasn't even a close race? That was the ass kicking of a lifetime. Ford couldn't even afford the money to develop an answer and they had to have their engineers draw up some dumb shit off hours on their own time and not get paid for it...just for the "PP2" to end up not being able to run for more than one full lap around a track. So not only could they not afford to pay their engineers, they also couldn't afford to give the car proper cooling. And here now they can't afford to build the GT500 well enough to handle more than 180 MPH.

What about the fact that for the past 4 years, every time the Mustang and Camaro has been tested tier for tier, the Mustang has somehow always come up short and either needed an extra tier or a major re-design? What about the fact that in 6 years there still is no Mustang that is faster than the ZL1 in a straight line?

That is pure speculation on your part.

[BlaqWhole]

Anyway, let's not deflect. Why can't the GT500 do more than 180 MPH? Tires is a poor excuse. The wing and trunk is a poor excuse? They didn't set the limiter more than it was tested in sims and on the road so that is a damn lie straight from Ford...there is no way their liability department would allow that. It isn't because it will have such extreme handling that it can't go that fast because we see the ZLE doing it. So the question is why it can't do what every other car on this level is doing easily? Why can't a 700+ HP 6 years in the making $80K flagship GT500 do what a $63K ZL1 and $64K Hellcat has been doing since 2017?

Also, will it beat a standard ZL1 around a track? Will it beat the Redeye in the quarter mile? My answer based on what we've seen so far is "no". This car is going to be a major let down in performance and price.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That is pure speculation on your part.

Speculation does not men it isn't true. There is no evidence that points to the contrary. We're all car people here. We aren't idiots who buy these cars and know nothing about how they operate. Tires? BS. Too much force on the spoiler? BS. Extreme handling? BS. We all know BS when we hear it. The only logical reason why Ford would limit this car is because it is not stable enough at those speeds to consider it safe. In one test the GT350 went 0-171 MPH in 39 seconds. That was a 16 MY GT350. 4 MYs later and the GT500 can't do 200??

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Last I checked, you ain't really putting nobody in the back seat of any of these cars with exception to the Challenger. And even then it won't be 4 people all at my height and definitely not all comfortably. So let's just throw that argument out. If you're carting people along then none of these cars are for you.

I had traded my Daily to get the Challenger so I had 5 in the car many times in the time I have had it, my wife with the 3 kids on many trips and driving to hockey with the family with one of kids that played.
When I got the car the oldest was 16 and over 6' and the youngest was 8.

I have since picked up a Ram so now the Challenger is just a summer ride.

I have found that the trunk is only big enough for the hockey bag the goalie pads and the stick end up in the back seat, try that with the other 2

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Speculation does not men it isn't true. There is no evidence that points to the contrary. We're all car people here. We aren't idiots who buy these cars and know nothing about how they operate. Tires? BS. Too much force on the spoiler? BS. Extreme handling? BS. We all know BS when we hear it. The only logical reason why Ford would limit this car is because it is not stable enough at those speeds to consider it safe. In one test the GT350 went 0-171 MPH in 39 seconds. That was a 16 MY GT350. 4 MYs later and the GT500 can't do 200??

I agree, I am very curious to find out as well. I would think we would find out how stable it is once it's reviewed. And then we can go from there. But to just toss out that they can't afford it or they cut corners I don't think is fair because we have nothing to go by.

If you want to say not stable because the chassis isn't as good or whatever thats fine, I won't because I don't know enough about it to say so.

Like you I am very curious to find out the why.


And I will be right there with you saying it was a rush job/hack job if we find out the reason is something you are alluding too. Until the car is out and reviewed and people can form opinions after driving it I will try and err on the side of optimism.