[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I agree that I am speculating. But I am critical of the S550 Mustangs as I think they have been a failure and this is just the icing on the cake. The most anticipated Mustang in a long time is finally reappearing after a 6 year hiatus and it now has a 180 MPH cap on it? That is very disappointing. So yea I'm gonna pretty much think the worst.


Yes you have said that and I appreciate that you can admit it when others can't. Ford showed that they can build a fast car. But the problem is that their customers want fast Mustangs, which technically Ford gives them, but then want Camaro-fast Mustangs at Mustang prices which leaves Ford somewhat betwixt. Do you give people a "fast" Mustang at a low price even if it is slower than the Camaro? Do you make the Mustang as fast as the Camaro and subsequently have to charge a bit more for it? What do you do? None of this would even be a debate if Ford had built the 18 GT back in 2015. At that point we'd be arguing more about build quality, options, reliability, and stuff of that nature. But here we are...they got caught with their pants down. Their goal was to add IRS, additional options, and keep the GT in the same range as it was. It got slower but it was still in the same range. GM did it accept they made vast changes all for the sake of performance. What Ford should have done was focused on the Bullitt and GT500 and left the GT alone. But them trying to modify the GT is what led to everything else suffering.

Ford updating the GT in 2018 turned me from a Camaro/GM guy who would never in my life buy a Ford, to a dude that bought a Mustang GT. I used to waste GTs in my cammed and full bolt on '95 Trans Am in college back in the early 2000s. I lost track of how many Mustangs I beat on the streets in Texas back in the day. The only ones that could hang with me were the supercharged 03/04 Cobras but that never made me want a Mustang. Not until the A10 GT PP1. That did it for me.

So, improving the Mustang in '18 it seemed to do the trick for Ford.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Because you don't understand what it means to "average" something. You brought up averages and you did it incorrectly. I simply corrected you and your math. When you average something you take the worst or lowest, add it to the best or highest, then divide by two. That gives you an average. If you're not using the slowest times then you cannot possibly average something. You're the one who brought it up.

You can average anything you want. I.e.: Top 3. Top 10. 1st and last only, middle 5, bottom 5, bottom 7, whatever. I averaged the top times for both cars. And used a larger sample size for the GT, which actually hurts the time.

[rocket403]

You would need to ask smoking what he paid, in Canada they are listed for 55k the 392 here is 51k not sure about the US prices. The Camaro is 50k with similar options of the 392.

With the discounts I could get a 392 (1320) for 45k

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Ford updating the GT in 2018 turned me from a Camaro/GM guy who would never in my life buy a Ford, to a dude that bought a Mustang GT. I used to waste GTs in my cammed and full bolt on '95 Trans Am in college back in the early 2000s. I lost track of how many Mustangs I beat on the streets in Texas back in the day. The only ones that could hang with me were the supercharged 03/04 Cobras but that never made me want a Mustang. Not until the A10 GT PP1. That did it for me.

So, improving the Mustang in '18 it seemed to do the trick for Ford.

Funny because I drove one and wasn't all that impressed at all. Granted I was in my Hellcat. But still. I can see how if someone came from an older car or a 15-17 GT or a 5th Gen SS they might be impressed with the 18 and up GT. But it did nothing for me. For the record, you would have been just as impressed in the SS...except you would have bought one in 2016 instead of buying a GT in 2018. So again, you proved my point that Ford in 2018 just accomplished what GM did 2 years prior.

Also, the GT NEEDED improvement because it was far behind the competition to the point where it was a joke. You needed FBO in the 15-17 GT to keep up with a Stock SS. In fact the 370Z was closer to the GT than the GT was to the SS, lol!!

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

You can average anything you want. I.e.: Top 3. Top 10. 1st and last only, middle 5, bottom 5, bottom 7, whatever. I averaged the top times for both cars. And used a larger sample size for the GT, which actually hurts the time.

Dude, you have no idea how averaging something works so please just drop it.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by rocket403

You would need to ask smoking what he paid, in Canada they are listed for 55k the 392 here is 51k not sure about the US prices. The Camaro is 50k with similar options of the 392.

With the discounts I could get a 392 (1320) for 45k

Standard SS is much cheaper. The Chally with the 1320 package added on and nothing else is $45K.

[rocket403]

Discounts in my area would make the Challenger equal to a base Camaro, as all dealers have employee numbers that they can use to reduce the cost.

Rechecked the price of the 1320 it is listed at 57k I was off by 2k

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Funny because I drove one and wasn't all that impressed at all. Granted I was in my Hellcat.


Dude, you have no idea how averaging something works so please just drop it.

The Hellcat will probably makes a lot of N/A cars feel pedestrian. And I could have bought one, but didn't want a boat on wheels. Like you've said in other posts, your BMW SUV might handle better than your hellcat.

And yes, regarding averages, I do know what I'm talking about. You can choose any range to average. All you have to do is qualify what you are averaging. I did that, by averaging the top times. What part of that can you not comprehend??

This is how I know it is impossible to argue logically with you, because you can't even admit or understand that there are more ways to average other than just taking the best and worst of something and dividing by 2, as you said. It's almost comical.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

The Hellcat will probably makes a lot of N/A cars feel pedestrian. And I could have bought one, but didn't want a boat on wheels. Like you've said in other posts, your BMW SUV might handle better than your hellcat.

And yes, regarding averages, I do know what I'm talking about. You can choose any range to average. All you have to do is qualify what you are averaging. I did that, by averaging the top times. What part of that can you not comprehend??

This is how I know it is impossible to argue logically with you, because you can't even admit or understand that there are more ways to average other than just taking the best and worst of something and dividing by 2, as you said. It's almost comical.

But your taking a time from Evans on a very we’ll prepped track and trying every option he could all day to get that time to times from unprepared mag times. What time do you think Evans would of got in the a10 SS doing the same thing?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

The Hellcat will probably makes a lot of N/A cars feel pedestrian. And I could have bought one, but didn't want a boat on wheels. Like you've said in other posts, your BMW SUV might handle better than your hellcat.

Yea it does handle like crap. Which is a good thing that I bought it for what it can do in a straight line with a good tire on it. The GT and GTPP didn't seem to handle much better than the Hellcat...just throwing that in there.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

And yes, regarding averages, I do know what I'm talking about. You can choose any range to average. All you have to do is qualify what you are averaging. I did that, by averaging the top times. What part of that can you not comprehend??

So your idea of averaging is to take the cherry pick the 2 best times, which the GT admittedly has, and compare that to the SS times which are slower, and then conclude that the GT has a faster average? Ok. Mustang math I guess. Funny how math always supports you when you use it to manipulate what you want. So yes, if you take the top 2 fastest GT times and average it in comparison to the top two fastest SS times then the GT is faster.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

This is how I know it is impossible to argue logically with you, because you can't even admit or understand that there are more ways to average other than just taking the best and worst of something and dividing by 2, as you said. It's almost comical.

Yea, logic. Ok so let's take the slowest times the SS did and average that vs the slowest times the GT did. Which car is slower and which is faster?

THAT is why when you average something it is better and fair to use the worst and the best instead of one or the other. Because using one or the other gives false information which is what you did.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Yea it does handle like crap. Which is a good thing that I bought it for what it can do in a straight line with a good tire on it. The GT and GTPP didn't seem to handle much better than the Hellcat...just throwing that in there.

So your idea of averaging is to take the cherry pick the 2 best times, which the GT admittedly has, and compare that to the SS times which are slower, and then conclude that the GT has a faster average? Ok. Mustang math I guess. Funny how math always supports you when you use it to manipulate what you want. So yes, if you take the top 2 fastest GT times and average it in comparison to the top two fastest SS times then the GT is faster.

Yea, logic. Ok so let's take the slowest times the SS did and average that vs the slowest times the GT did. Which car is slower and which is faster?

THAT is why when you average something it is better and fair to use the worst and the best instead of one or the other. Because using one or the other gives false information which is what you did.

Good grief. I used the top 2 SS times vs the top 4 GT times. And again, you sound unbelievable comparing the slowest times. Noone does that. Fastest vs fastest is always how times are compared. Further proof that you can't argue logically. You have to make up comparisons between the two slowest times. Some funny stuff.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Good grief. I used the top 2 SS times vs the top 4 GT times. And again, you sound unbelievable comparing the slowest times. Noone does that. Fastest vs fastest is always how times are compared. Further proof that you can't argue logically. You have to make up comparisons between the two slowest times. Some funny stuff.

I was using it as an example in a futile attempt to show you why averaging numbers don't work that way. But it obviously was a waste of time because you still don't understand. So ok, we'll use your Mustang math. The GT's top two times are faster than the top SS times. And when you average them out, then (GASP), the GT's times are faster. WOW!! Holy smokes!! Nobody would have guessed that if 2 times are faster than 4 of the competitor's times, then they will average out to be faster too!! That is just genius right there. Thanks for explaining that to us because, I mean, I just never would have guessed that 2 times that are faster will still average out to be faster...

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I hate to have to do this in a GT500 vs ZL1 thread, but just because you say it enough times it doesn't make it true. So, here we go again with the published figures from independent testers:

You Mustang guys keep clinging to that stuff that you read on the internet. Go out and see what the actual cars being sold off the lots do, then you might have a better understanding of what I was talking about. I was talking real world observation, and the truth that I've been seeing is that the A10 Mustang is actually still a tick behind the Camaro in the 1/4 mile. Gives it a run now, but that is a much different thing than beating the Camaro handily like you guys keep claiming. BTW I do know of stock Camaros running 11.7 and 11.8, but I was not using them for my comparison, just as I'm not using the claim of 11.8 for the Mustang. To reiterate, I did not say that magazines or internet sites said xxxx time. I was comparing real cars that are being sold off the lots, that I've been seeing in the real world. That is truth that means something, and the magazines or internet stuff are really just for entertainment.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Huh? I didn't use the worst possible times for the SS. I found two auto runs (12.2 and 12.3) and averaged them (12.25). Not bad at all. Those are the two best published times that I saw. I didn't cherry pick. I also found 4 GT runs that average 11.98. It is what it is. It's your long comments like this that make us believe you can't accept it. On one post you say "yes the GT is faster", on another you say basically "use the slowest and the fastest times and the SS is barely slower than the GT" but alluding that you can't accept it. Nobody uses the slowest times for comparison. Ever. And the 11.9 sec GT is not some obscurely configured fairy dust car. It's an auto PP1. By the way, American Muscle ran 11.97 bone stock but I didn't even use that one in my top 4 above.

You averaged four A10 GT and compared it to the average of two auto with two manual SS. You omitted the 2019 manual time of 12.2

Try averaging two A10 GT with two manual GT and watch your average plummet.

Your averaging example is a joke.

Originally Posted by 13vertss

But your taking a time from Evans on a very we’ll prepped track and trying every option he could all day to get that time to times from unprepared mag times. What time do you think Evans would of got in the a10 SS doing the same thing?

Another example of the slant

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Ford updating the GT in 2018 turned me from a Camaro/GM guy who would never in my life buy a Ford, to a dude that bought a Mustang GT. I used to waste GTs in my cammed and full bolt on '95 Trans Am in college back in the early 2000s. I lost track of how many Mustangs I beat on the streets in Texas back in the day. The only ones that could hang with me were the supercharged 03/04 Cobras but that never made me want a Mustang. Not until the A10 GT PP1. That did it for me.

So, improving the Mustang in '18 it seemed to do the trick for Ford.

You’re are talking about cars from another era and not even the best stuff from that era. You don’t have the Chevy roots you claim.