[Mustang Fanboy]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

It takes more than matching the HP to be just as quick. Where is that extra hp and tq occurring at? If it is way up in the RPM band and you still have to rev the shit outta the car and it still has shitty axles, shitty tires, and a shitty torque converter then I doubt it'll be much faster than it is now.

With a similar 0-60 time and a similar HP to weight ration, why are you still arguing this?

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

This is what I see happening. Ford continues to fight backwards while Chevy fights forward. The 6th Gen Camaro blew away the 5th Gen Camaro, the S197 Mustang, and even the S550 Mustang. I mean, Chevy was aiming like 10 years into the future it seems. Now here is Ford, instead of jumping ahead, they simply trying to match a 2 MY old design from Chevy. The new Mustang will basically be a lesser performing car because they're just trying to keep up instead of make a pass.

Dude, this is a mid cycle refresh...not the next generation. I think it's pretty safe to say the S650 as well as 7th gen camaro are going to come out swinging.

[Mustang Fanboy]

Originally Posted by hotlap

If it was 3.94 or better, proper rounding would allow them to claim 3.9. Saying less than 4.0 means it must be between 3.95 and 3.99.

That's the facts.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calcu...ingnumbers.php

I don't think you're grasping my point. 0-60 times aren't measured or reported in 1/100ths of a second, therefore it's either a 4.0 or 3.9. Do you think when Ford publishes a 0-60 time that they are going to publish a number that no other manufacturer or publication uses?

[72MachOne99GT]

Where's that Anthrax coated popcorn I asked for?

There are people arguing over hundredths of a second in here... is this real life?

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

I don't think you're grasping my point. 0-60 times aren't measured or reported in 1/100ths of a second, therefore it's either a 4.0 or 3.9. Do you think when Ford publishes a 0-60 time that they are going to publish a number that no other manufacturer or publication uses?

Re-read.

3.94 or lower = 3.9
3.95 to 3.99 = less than 4.0

It's that simple. It is somewhere between 3.95 and 3.99 of they damn sure would have said 3.9.

Silly really but I can't believe you insist 3.9 when they deliberately avoided say that.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

I don't think you're grasping my point. 0-60 times aren't measured or reported in 1/100ths of a second, therefore it's either a 4.0 or 3.9. Do you think when Ford publishes a 0-60 time that they are going to publish a number that no other manufacturer or publication uses?

That just shows Ford wasn't close to 3.9, so they had to use the phrase, under 4.0. It's a simple concept, your just reading and hoping to much into it.

[ninetres]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Re-read.

3.94 or lower = 3.9
3.95 to 3.99 = less than 4.0

It's that simple. It is somewhere between 3.95 and 3.99 of they damn sure would have said 3.9.

Silly really but I can't believe you insist 3.9 when they deliberately avoided say that.

Says who?

Technically a 3.91 isn't a "3.9". Where did you learn about acceptable ranges that allow manufacturers to make claims?

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by ninetres

Says who?

Technically a 3.91 isn't a "3.9". Where did you learn about acceptable ranges that allow manufacturers to make claims?

I'm an engineer. There are global rounding standard. I gave him the link to a rounding calculator so you can see it for yourself easily.

3.9 is important to you so, between you and I, we'll ignore all that and go with 3.9.

[KyleL]

So what y'all reckon the ADM is gonna be on one of these? Lol

[ninetres]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I'm an engineer. There are global rounding standard. I gave him the link to a rounding calculator so you can see it for yourself easily.

3.9 is important to you so, between you and I, we'll ignore all that and go with 3.9.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand elementary rounding. I didn't need your calculator. But I was just wondering how YOU KNOW FOR A FACT, manufactures can claim a 3.94 as a 3.9, but not a 3.95. You seem to be applying a basic rounding standard. How do you know the can't legally measure/publish to the 1/10th? Therefor a 3.99 is a 3.9 when measured to the 1/10th.

Just calling it like I see it. Was wondering why you seemed to be arguing like you knew for a fact what manufactures were allowed to publish.

[Mustang Fanboy]

Edited for civility.

[Degausser]

Should be a close race between an A8 SS and a A10 GT. I would wager the SS is still a tad bit quicker but I wouldn't mind having either!

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by ninetres

You don't have to be an engineer to understand elementary rounding. I didn't need your calculator. But I was just wondering how YOU KNOW FOR A FACT, manufactures can claim a 3.94 as a 3.9, but not a 3.95. You seem to be applying a basic rounding standard. How do you know the can't legally measure/publish to the 1/10th? Therefor a 3.99 is a 3.9 when measured to the 1/10th.

Just calling it like I see it. Was wondering why you seemed to be arguing like you knew for a fact what manufactures were allowed to publish.

If they could claim 3.9, there is no way they are saying less than 4.0. I'm applying basic rounding standard and reading between the lines of what was said.

I didn't mean to get snippy with you. I originally thought I was replying to Fanboy and then changed a "you" to a "him" when I realized my error.

[Mustang Fanboy]

Originally Posted by ninetres

You don't have to be an engineer to understand elementary rounding. I didn't need your calculator. But I was just wondering how YOU KNOW FOR A FACT, manufactures can claim a 3.94 as a 3.9, but not a 3.95. You seem to be applying a basic rounding standard. How do you know the can't legally measure/publish to the 1/10th? Therefor a 3.99 is a 3.9 when measured to the 1/10th.

Just calling it like I see it. Was wondering why you seemed to be arguing like you knew for a fact what manufactures were allowed to publish.

He doesn't, nor do I. I find it extremely humorous that as soon as the mustang is claimed to have a sub 4 second 0-60 time....they are claiming it should round up to 4.0. Whatever it takes to keep the dream alive I guess.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

Hmm, you're an engineer but your're quoting a grade school rounding calculator instead of ASME-E29 that uses different rounding principles?

I take it you don't deal with tolerance stack ups or any cad software then.



Hmm, you're an engineer but your're quoting a grade school rounding calculator instead of ASME-E29 that uses different rounding principles?

I take it you don't deal with tolerance stack ups or any cad software then.

Trying to bring it down to your level since you missed completely what 13vertss/r's was saying. Avoiding reading. Good grief.