[oldman]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

It kind of makes you think, with all of the extra coolers and other items….is chevy really making any more money on a camary vs Ford?

Chevy says most of the Camaro profit come from the SS and up models.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

And you can blame Ford all you want, but 95% of people will never need those extra coolers or summer tires. Kudos to GM for including them in the base model, but it’s probably not the best business decision on their behalf.

"blame" is a harsh word, I'm just pointing out the Chevy has a 40 year track record of delivering universal performance vs Ford were performance comes at an ever-increasing price. We all agree it is a business decision, and I think we would agree that Ford's decision results in the VAST MAJORITY of Chevy as delivered, outperform the VAST MAJORITY of Fords in the Muscle car arena. I would also interject that in many instanced this has also resulted in a better performance platform to start from no matter the price point. Probably because of demand. How many more LS engines were built vs Cobra engines would be an example.

In regards to the Windsor, it had its flaws….but was wicked potent and damn near unstoppable in the foxbody mustang.

Put enough money in it. The best OEM production 5.0 could support less HP than a standard Chevy truck engine. That is sad. Sure if you talk about aftermarket heads, stroker cranks with iffy longevity, a block that liked to walk around leading to poor longevity, a weaker head bolt setup. Right. We both know a SB 350 from GM in just about anything was a FAR FAR FAR FAR better platform dollar per dollar mod per mod.
ATK crate engine ford 302: 300 HP https://www.summitracing.com/parts/h...view/make/ford that is a resonable OEM block, crank, head build with a health .500: 219 roller cam
LT1 5.7 based engine with a typical chevy ZZ cam wouuld do about 400 HP...

Do you honestly think a 5.0 late production, by far the best windsor made, came anywhere near a SB Chevy 350? Really? What was the best 5.0 OEM was it a GT40 Cobra?

Type: 90-degree, OHV Windsor V-8
Displacement: 5.0L / 302 CID
Horsepower: 235 hp @ 4600 rpm (240)
Torque: 280 lbs.-ft. @ 4000 rpm
Bore x Stroke: 4.0 in. x 3.0 in.
Compression: 9.0:1

vs the LT1 that came in EVERY Z/28 275 HP and FAR more torque. So Fords "special", best every engine was far weaker than the standard Chevy... like I said. Lets not forget the Firehark could be rolled with a 360 HP engine... ouch. I was being nice as I could mention the production LT4 was making 330 HP.

[Spartan268]

Originally Posted by newmoon

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

Listen you need to understand this from their point. Most in here claimed the GT would be a 12:70s car, and could never come close to the SS with its high revving torqueless 5.0. The 6th Gen would remain the king of the 1/4.

Unfortunately this didn't work out for them. Early verified testing has shown the GT to be much faster than expected. They know this so immediately jump to the but wait our fast list has x-amount of cars in the 11s, none of which we know for certain was not modified in some way. Now needing some way to save face they have to accuse the folks who tested the GTs and achieved great times (including: LMR, Lund, Steeda, MMFF, & HR) as cheating, tuning, remove parts, running DRs.

I think anyone who is reasonable here knows that the A8 SS and A10 GT are both capable of very low 12s and high 11s with the right driver and conditions. It is and will be a drivers race like it or not. The SS no longer has the advantage at least in automatic format. Now if you want to argue price point, packages, etc, etc have fun.

Originally Posted by oldman

You are usually somewhat balanced, but this is an outright false claim. I won't go through this entire thread, but I highly doubt that "Most" of us would think a GT (since there are at least 5 combos, A10, M6, either with PP1, well now the bullet) would be 12.7. I think most of us felt that especially the 10 speed auto with gears and tires of the PP1 would be faster and quicker than the comparable A8 LT1. That the other side of the spectrum would hold a M6 GT with NO PP1 would be in the mid 12s. So basically few to none here actually claim that the gaggle of GTs (5 combos) would be a 12.70 as an aggregate.

You might want to rethink your post, as it indefensible.

It is still a balanced reply. The thing is that a LOT of people were picking out the part that the mustang had less torque and the A10 is a gimmick which will make little to no difference. The replies were not in this thread but in other threads where camaro folks were still trying to downplay the mustang altogether due to the lack of torque. This thread altogether is actually more tame in these claims. I said it from from the start the HP will be either equal or slightly less to that of the Lexus V8 engine (Which should serve as a potential benchmark of engine capabilities in a DOHC V8) and the A10 will give it the advantage it needs. The time claims of 12.7 I can't remember but it's probably a confusion between the M6 GT which was tested at 13.0 somewhere whereas the old auto was high 12s depending on which site you go to.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Spartan268

It is still a balanced reply. The thing is that a LOT of people were picking out the part that the mustang had less torque and the A10 is a gimmick which will make little to no difference. The replies were not in this thread but in other threads where camaro folks were still trying to downplay the mustang altogether due to the lack of torque. This thread altogether is actually more tame in these claims. I said it from from the start the HP will be either equal or slightly less to that of the Lexus V8 engine (Which should serve as a potential benchmark of engine capabilities in a DOHC V8) and the A10 will give it the advantage it needs. The time claims of 12.7 I can't remember but it's probably a confusion between the M6 GT which was tested at 13.0 somewhere whereas the old auto was high 12s depending on which site you go to.

I think the A10 is a huge step up in performance, we all know one way to make up for less torque but MORE HP.. is to add some gearing. Also the more gears allows the 5.0 to stay more in its powerband as there is less drop between gears due to spacing.

[Spartan268]

Originally Posted by oldman

I think the A10 is a huge step up in performance, we all know one way to make up for less torque but MORE HP.. is to add some gearing. Also the more gears allows the 5.0 to stay more in its powerband as there is less drop between gears due to spacing.

I agree with you as well. At this point I think we're all basically in agreement here with the situation. Get your driver mods ready

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Spartan268

I agree with you as well. At this point I think we're all basically in agreement here with the situation. Get your driver mods ready

I got a supercharger... so no problems here.

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by oldman

vs the LT1 that came in EVERY Z/28 275 HP and FAR more torque. So Fords "special", best every engine was far weaker than the standard Chevy... like I said. Lets not forget the Firehark could be rolled with a 360 HP engine... ouch. I was being nice as I could mention the production LT4 was making 330 HP.

I wouldn't hold the LT1 up as a brilliant bit of engineering.

The Optispark was a terrible idea and location.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by oldman

I think the A10 is a huge step up in performance, we all know one way to make up for less torque but MORE HP.. is to add some gearing. Also the more gears allows the 5.0 to stay more in its powerband as there is less drop between gears due to spacing.

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

Gearing makes a huge difference. My Boss only has 380-lbs of torque but has 3:73s out back, it pulls real hard down low, dare I say harder than my past 392 which sported 470-lbs of torque and a more narrow power-band. Nothing wrong with either approach to acceleration.

[L99BEN]

Originally Posted by newmoon

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

Gearing makes a huge difference. My Boss only has 380-lbs of torque but has 3:73s out back, it pulls real hard down low, dare I say harder than my past 392 which sported 470-lbs of torque and a more narrow power-band. Nothing wrong with either approach to acceleration.

Never drove the boss or 392 but my aed tuned/cat-less 12’ gt manual had 3.73’s/400+ torque and didn’t pull that hard down low imo..

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by L99BEN

Never drove the boss or 392 but my aed tuned/cat-less 12’ gt manual had 3.73’s/390 torque and didn’t pull that hard down low imo..

The 12 GT runs high 12s, the Boss runs 12:30s, that is probably why

[oldman]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

I wouldn't hold the LT1 up as a brilliant bit of engineering.

The Optispark was a terrible idea and location.

Well said. OptiCr@p, but this is budget HP for all vs unique HP for large wallet yarn, cause no way the OptiCr@p was as bad as Ford spark plug blowing out of their heads for more than a decade.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Here is the deal, the A10 mustang will always be faster than the M6 period.

Except the A10 Mustang GT DID NOT beat the M6 Camaro SS.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Motortrend ran the M6 mustang VS M6 Camaro and the Camaro came out ahead by 0.1. You’re smoking crack if you think the A10 will only be 0.1 quicker than the M6.

Except I'm not talking about the M6 Mustang GT. I'm talking about what the A10 Mustang GT did against the M6 Camaro SS and how the A8 Camaro SS is even faster.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

As for Edmunds runs, they are what they are. It seems to me they were unable to tap the full potential of the mustang. The numerous ¼ mile runs thus far show it is far more capable. Once motortrend or C&D test it out, I think we will have a much better idea.

Oh so now the excuse is that they couldn't tap into the full potential of the car? WOW. So everytime the Mustang loses are you gonna default to that excuse? How do we know they did tap the full potential? Where are you getting that info? Are you implying that they tapped into the full potential of the SS?

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

The real question is, when the come out with much better times for the A10 that once again come close or match the A8 camaro will you concede that you were wrong? My bet is you won’t, and you will instead always refer to the Edmunds run to point out the A10’s mustangs shortcomings. Sound about right?

When have I once denied when any Mustang was faster than the comparable Camaro? Show me one time I did that. Because you keep implying that I somehow would have a problem admitting it if the GT was faster. So where did you get that impression? I stick to my guns that I think the A8 SS is going to beat the A10 GT. If the GT somehow beats the SS, then all that means is that Ford built a car that is good at only one thing, going in a straight line, which makes it a slower cheaper Hellcat. And it would mean that for the same price as the SS you would get a GT that can't handle or brake for shit and would barely beat the SS in a straight line. ANd that is IF it can beat the SS which so far isn't likely.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Of course it is. You don’t trust any non-magazine times EXCEPT those that fit your narrative.

You:
Evan Smiths 11.8…..He cheated! He removed the swaybar!
Lunds 12.0 run….It’s not a magazine time! It can’t be trusted!
LMR 12.0 run….It’s an aftermarket company! They cheated! Only magazine times count!
Several 12.0 or 12.1 Youtube runs….Youtube can’t be trusted! They cheated!

And then we come to Lethal’s runs who have consistently been slower than anyone else. They too are an aftermarket parts company…and they too post their videos on youtube.

You:
I trust this 100% This is exactly as I told everyone!

Man are you predictable. I’m just waiting for the next youtube video of some moron in a new MY18 that runs a 13.5 because he has no clue how to driver.

I said it many times before, even back before these two cars were tested. I said that the only accurate testing would be third party independent unbiased testing of both cars. So no, Evean's runs for MM&FF do not fit into that category. I said that and others here and on M6G and other social media had the same sentiments. That isn't me fitting something into my narrative. I made those statements long before the test even occurred and even before the GT was available.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by oldman

You are usually somewhat balanced, but this is an outright false claim. I won't go through this entire thread, but I highly doubt that "Most" of us would think a GT (since there are at least 5 combos, A10, M6, either with PP1, well now the bullet) would be 12.7. I think most of us felt that especially the 10 speed auto with gears and tires of the PP1 would be faster and quicker than the comparable A8 LT1. That the other side of the spectrum would hold a M6 GT with NO PP1 would be in the mid 12s. So basically few to none here actually claim that the gaggle of GTs (5 combos) would be a 12.70 as an aggregate.

You might want to rethink your post, as it indefensible.

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Actually I was one of the guys expecting 12.6-12.7s. I posted that opinion in this thread a few times. And thus far, 3 official tests and 3 12.6s.

Same here. But I said it would be between a 12.5 and 12.7 depending on certain variables. And so far I'm in range.

Originally Posted by 13vertss/r's

That’s a old video and done at Atco probably the fastest track out there. I’m looking for the many other ones.

There aren't any. As much shit as he talks if there were others he would have flooded the thread with them by now.

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

There aren’t many yet available (showing slow or fast times) period. With a late fall/winter introduction people are still breaking in new cars and waiting for tracks to open come spring. Some people post on youtube, and some on closed facebook pages. But regardless, right now it’s a waiting game.

So there aren't any is what you're saying right? Or they haven't yet tapped into the full potential...

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

thats an awful long response for something you claim to be ignoring, but I understand why you would pretend like you didn’t read it.

I didn't read it. Reply back with your responses where they are supposed to be so I can offer a counter-argument and I'll read it. But if it makes you feel better to think that I read it then go right ahead. I don't care.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Except the A10 Mustang GT DID NOT beat the M6 Camaro SS.


Except I'm not talking about the M6 Mustang GT. I'm talking about what the A10 Mustang GT did against the M6 Camaro SS and how the A8 Camaro SS is even faster.


Oh so now the excuse is that they couldn't tap into the full potential of the car? WOW. So everytime the Mustang loses are you gonna default to that excuse? How do we know they did tap the full potential? Where are you getting that info? Are you implying that they tapped into the full potential of the SS?

When have I once denied when any Mustang was faster than the comparable Camaro? Show me one time I did that. Because you keep implying that I somehow would have a problem admitting it if the GT was faster. So where did you get that impression? I stick to my guns that I think the A8 SS is going to beat the A10 GT. If the GT somehow beats the SS, then all that means is that Ford built a car that is good at only one thing, going in a straight line, which makes it a slower cheaper Hellcat. And it would mean that for the same price as the SS you would get a GT that can't handle or brake for shit and would barely beat the SS in a straight line. ANd that is IF it can beat the SS which so far isn't likely.

I said it many times before, even back before these two cars were tested. I said that the only accurate testing would be third party independent unbiased testing of both cars. So no, Evean's runs for MM&FF do not fit into that category. I said that and others here and on M6G and other social media had the same sentiments. That isn't me fitting something into my narrative. I made those statements long before the test even occurred and even before the GT was available.

Man, it's going to be EPIC when they test the A10 GT against the camaro. Look forward to it.

OH, by the way...why didn't you ever respond to this?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

What? 12.9? Post it bro.

How about a 12.8

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...gt-first-test/

Edit: another question for you. How much faster do you think the A10 mustang is than the M6?

[R.C. Collins]

A conference call would save you guys a lot of typing!