[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

You don't actually believe anything you just said do you? That a GT feels slow because of 87 octane gas? No, it feels slow because it IS slow. The current 550 has no punch or power until 4k rpm. Only way to get any torque out of it down low is with FI.

Simple economics. Dealers can save money by putting cheap gas into cars. The car runs on 87, the computer recognizes it and pulls back timing. Car wasn't meant to be torquey, if you like torquey that's fine, the coyote is a quick and high revving motor.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Simple economics. Dealers can save money by putting cheap gas into cars. The car runs on 87, the computer recognizes it and pulls back timing. Car wasn't meant to be torquey, if you like torquey that's fine, the coyote is a quick and high revving motor.

The GT has shown to loose little hp going from 93 to 87.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Simple economics. Dealers can save money by putting cheap gas into cars. The car runs on 87, the computer recognizes it and pulls back timing. Car wasn't meant to be torquey, if you like torquey that's fine, the coyote is a quick and high revving motor.

Yes and Camaro with 87 and the SRT with 87 we all test drove were much faster. It isnt the fuel. Simple physics. A heavier car with less output is slower.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by 13vertss/r's

The GT has shown to loose little hp going from 93 to 87.

I don't recall the actual numbers though I read it once. I want to say it goes down to 415-420hp from 435 and down some torque.


On the subject of the new mustang, technically Ford doesn't have to outperform the SS in order to sell the car, car pretty much sells itself, the change the bumper and add a couple silly things and people jump on it. But I figure in the real world it will match the SS in straightline performance, impressive? Nah, that's why I'm not selling mine for it. Higher compression, dual injection, speed density, thinks that I really don't care much for, for what I bought the mustang for.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Yes and Camaro with 87 and the SRT with 87 we all test drove were much faster. It isnt the fuel. Simple physics. A heavier car with less output is slower.

Correct, it is slower stock. Not sure why you think I'm disputing that.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Correct, it is slower stock. Not sure why you think I'm disputing that.

Because you came in this thread talking about these magical stock cars running "deep in the 12s" that only you seem to have seen. You tell us we are all wrong and no the Mustang isn't slow it's the fuel or the tires or the driver or whatever other reasons you can dream up.

Also, no one cares what your modified car can do except you.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Because you came in this thread talking about these magical stock cars running "deep in the 12s" that only you seem to have seen. You tell us we are all wrong and no the Mustang isn't slow it's the fuel or the tires or the driver or whatever other reasons you can dream up.

Also, no one cares what your modified car can do except you.

You make a lot of assumptions. I only stated facts. I made a quick comment on my opinion of what the 2018 would do. There's a quickest list on the mustang forums that are backed by slip and plenty others who post on Facebook groups and not website. We'll see once the 2018s get to the owners, what they can do. Deep in to the 12s means someone can't just say, "oh you barely scratched 12s, in a worse day or worse luck it would've ran a 13." That's in reference to people who run 12.9x, they barely made it to 12s. By deep into the 12s I mean 12.7x or lower. They were deep enough into 12s that slightly worse DA won't bring them out of the 12 sec range. I don't care that you don't care what my car runs, or anyone, it isn't for anyone's display in here.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

You make a lot of assumptions. I only stated facts. I made a quick comment on my opinion of what the 2018 would do. There's a quickest list on the mustang forums that are backed by slip and plenty others who post on Facebook groups and not website. We'll see once the 2018s get to the owners, what they can do. Deep in to the 12s means someone can't just say, "oh you barely scratched 12s, in a worse day or worse luck it would've ran a 13." That's in reference to people who run 12.9x, they barely made it to 12s. By deep into the 12s I mean 12.7x or lower. They were deep enough into 12s that slightly worse DA won't bring them out of the 12 sec range. I don't care that you don't care what my car runs, or anyone, it isn't for anyone's display in here.

Seriously? 12.799 is "deep 12s"? Somehow I get the feeling you just looked at the lists (facts) for the first time just before this post.

Here is an observation I made earlier this years regarding the all stock SS and GT fast lists

Originally Posted by hotlap

The SS A8 fast list is really filling out nice. The top 15 are in the 12.1s. The top 10 are below 12.1s.

Also interesting that the fastest Mustang GT wouldn't make the top 25 here and the third fastest wouldn't even make our list that is 30 long

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Seriously? 12.799 is "deep 12s"? Somehow I get the feeling you just looked at the lists (facts) for the first time just before this post.

Here is an observation I made earlier this years regarding the all stock SS and GT fast lists

Good observation. Stick to the original topic. I only made a quick statement about the 15-17 GT as a way to support what I thought the 2018 could run with the new 10spd auto, not to start a forum argument. When GM went to the 8spd that gave a huge advantage. Now Ford will have an equivalent auto that it didn't have with the 6r80.

[KMPrenger]

Guys...its time to let this go. Yeah I understand how this turned into a current GT versus current SS discussion, but it would be great to get back on topic and discuss the 2018 versions.

The current SS under normal circumstances is an average (more or less) half second quicker in the 1/4 mile than the GT.

As for the 2018, I still say the GT with performance pack and drag mode is going to be very close...within tenths, if not equal to the SS in the 1/4 mile...mostly b/c of that 10 speed. If the 2017 GT had something like the SS 8 speed and was still only running a 13 or high 12s I'd say other wise, but going from that 6 to a 10 speed with proper gearing is going to make for a large jump in straight line performance for the automatic. Nobody is going to convince me otherwise until we see the magazine tests.

Now concerning the manual versions, the SS still has it in the bag. Vastly better low end torque, and a bit less weight will keep the SS in front of the GT.

Handling...I still think the SS will edge out the GT. (crappy visibility, and all. lol </sarcasm>)

But in 2019 the SS will likely get the 10 speed also and it may pick up a tenth or two in the 1/4 mile and this wonderful dance will continue.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Guys...its time to let this go. Yeah I understand how this turned into a current GT versus current SS discussion, but it would be great to get back on topic and discuss the 2018 versions.

The current SS under normal circumstances is an average (more or less) half second quicker in the 1/4 mile than the GT.

As for the 2018, I still say the GT with performance pack and drag mode is going to be very close...within tenths, if not equal to the SS in the 1/4 mile...mostly b/c of that 10 speed. If the 2017 GT had something like the SS 8 speed and was still only running a 13 or high 12s I'd say other wise, but going from that 6 to a 10 speed with proper gearing is going to make for a large jump in straight line performance for the automatic. Nobody is going to convince me otherwise until we see the magazine tests.

Now concerning the manual versions, the SS still has it in the bag. Vastly better low end torque, and a bit less weight will keep the SS in front of the GT.

Handling...I still think the SS will edge out the GT. (crappy visibility, and all. lol </sarcasm>)

But in 2019 the SS will likely get the 10 speed also and it may pick up a tenth or two in the 1/4 mile and this wonderful dance will continue.

THANK YOU!

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Good observation. Stick to the original topic. I only made a quick statement about the 15-17 GT as a way to support what I thought the 2018 could run with the new 10spd auto, not to start a forum argument. When GM went to the 8spd that gave a huge advantage. Now Ford will have an equivalent auto that it didn't have with the 6r80.

You have absolutely NO data to back up the claim the 8 speed gave the Camaro a huge advantage. Have you seen a 6th gen SS with a 6 speed auto?

The auto may give the Mustang a tenth or two.. Same thing with increased power. I'd say it's probably possible for it to run 12.5 in magazine tests and better in some conditions in real world.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Sol4rfl4re

Good observation. Stick to the original topic. I only made a quick statement about the 15-17 GT as a way to support what I thought the 2018 could run with the new 10spd auto, not to start a forum argument. When GM went to the 8spd that gave a huge advantage. Now Ford will have an equivalent auto that it didn't have with the 6r80.

If 8 speed vs 6 speed is a huge advantage ... why are you claiming that 10 speed vs 8 is equivalent? Is Ford screwing something up on the new transmission that negates the advantage that closer ratios provide?

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If 8 speed vs 6 speed is a huge advantage ... why are you claiming that 10 speed vs 8 is equivalent? Is Ford screwing something up on the new transmission that negates the advantage that closer ratios provide?

10 speed is an advantage yes but perhaps not as big as people think it could be. The A8 SS runs on average 12.3-12.4 and the M6 12.4-12.5. I expect the A10 GT to run in the 12.5 to 12.6 range. Just my expectations.